I casually noticed an report outlining a ‘tweet’ and a blog authored by David W. Guth; who titles himself ‘The Snapping Turtle’. Sadly, he lacks the focus of his namesake.
For those interested, pray consult the blog directly in which Mr. Guth introduces himself and produces his opinions on the world.
I include this in the spirit of not claiming anything without some level of support. If one reads his words, one will understand I am not making anything up.
His posting of September 16, 2013 expresses his desire for ‘gun control’. And of course, presents the National Rifle Association as the villain. Why not? He’s a ‘journalism’ instructor – I think. The title listed on his website is “Associate Professor of Journalism”; I will take the website at face value. I presume that means he teaches ‘journalism’ in some form at the college level.
So, in reading the blog – which is just a bit difficult, he writes in a modified ‘stream of consciousness’ mode and doesn’t grasp the concept of paragraphs – he expresses his outrage at the workplace violence that occurred at the Washington Navy Yard. His conclusion is the entire reason this event happened was the presence of a firearm. This presence was solely the result of the National Rifle Association.
The logic chain in this is similar to blaming the National Free Speech Association for confidence men and swindling. After all, if they couldn’t speak freely, they couldn’t lie, right?
Notice in the blog commentary the entire essay is devoted to emotional response. No thought involved, just raw emotion. “…blood spilled today…”, “…armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh…”, “…these murderous munitions…” and so on. Where is any factual information or rational thought? (It isn’t there.)
He also makes some glaring factual errors.
Armor-plated bullets? Gentle readers, I have actively shooting for fifty years now. I have reloading my own ammunition for forty-three years. I keep up with developments in ammunition as part of my hobby. There are NO small arms ammunition that is ‘armor-plated’. Really. There are at least three reasons for this absence: One, the cost of manufacture would be pricey at best; Two, such ammunition would rapidly wear out any firearm in which it was used; Three, there is no point in such ammunition.
He may be referring to ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition. There are forms of small arms ammunition that is designed to penetrate ‘light’ armor, such as barricades, automobile bodies and yes, even ‘bullet proof’ vests. (The term ‘bullet proof vest’ is a popular term rather than a scientific one; personal body armor is only suited for defending against certain levels of projectiles. For instance, the common body armor used by police (to include all law enforcement agencies) is suitable for preventing penetration of small amounts of low velocity [handgun] projectiles and will not prevent penetration of high velocity [rifle] projectiles. They will not typically defend against arrows or even knives.) However, ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition is highly regulated under Federal Law [1994 Crime Bill (9/14/94)] in these United States, and I know at least some states have state laws regulating the sale and possession of such ammunition. Mr. Guth may be ignorant of such statutes. It should also be noted that ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition has been always designed for use by police against automobiles; such design and manufacture began in the days of Prohibition as automobiles were being built more solidly than prior.
Assault Weapons? The U. S. Armed Forces uses ‘assault rifles’, which are fully automatic (machine guns, in common speech). Like ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition, fully automatic firearms are heavily regulated under both Federal and State laws. In fact, since 1986, the manufacture of fully automatic weapons for regular citizen use has been prohibited. The term ‘assault weapon’ is a rather nebulous term – rather like the term ‘undesirables’ – and is used as a pejorative; as in this instance. In common conversation the term ‘assault weapon’ means ‘any firearm the anti-freedom faction feels a commoner shouldn’t own.’
So, already, both ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition (or projectiles) and fully automatic (assault) weapons are highly regulated. Also note, the reports of the Washington Navy Yard or the Newtown, Connecticut crimes do not indicate either sort of devices were involved in the crimes.
Hollow point bullets? That’s an old and discredited claim as well. Every law enforcement agency for which I have been employed issue hollow point handgun ammunition for officers and agents. Every law enforcement agency with which I have had contact issues hollow point ammunition. As it happens, hollow point handgun ammunition is less likely to ricochet (if the intended target is missed) and less likely to fully penetrate the intended target. For this reason, hollow point ammunition is actually safer in general use than either solid or round nosed ammunition. It also occurs to me that hollow point ammunition is the polar opposite of ‘armor-plated ammunition’.
Of note to the casual reader is hollow point bullets made for rifles are not intended to expand as handgun ammunition. Hollow point rifle bullets are target type bullets with the base fully enclosed and the jacket closed – more or less – at the tip. They are made that way in order to provide a uniform projectile in flight, to provide a truer flight path for accuracy.
Once again, the facts of the case do not support Mr. Guth’s emotional rampage. The Washington Navy Yard shooting involved a shotgun. Early reports mentioned an AR-15, another rifle and a Glock handgun, but the current information says the shooter used a shotgun and a 9mm pistol. For the record, Aaron Alexis, the presumed attacker, took the pistol from one of the security people at the site of the attack.
Mr. Guth also promotes the idea that armed citizens capable of resisting an illegal attack should be disarmed prior to such attacks. I suppose if they are to be victims, they don’t need to defend themselves.
According to the Washington Post: Mr. Alexis entered the ‘secure area’ with his pass. The shooting started at around 0820. The first 911 call is reported at 0823. SIX MINUTES LATER, the ‘active shooter response team’ was deployed ‘inside the complex’. (I’m not sure if ‘deployed’ in this context means ‘sent’ or ‘arrived’). At 0830, the response team – armed with those evil AR-15 rifles – entered the building. This event was assisted by the standing order – since the days of the Clinton administration – that no one except specific, authorized ‘security’ personnel can be armed aboard a military installation.
So, Alexis ran free shooting unarmed people inside one building for seven minutes. Seven minutes is a long time to entertain an attacker intending to kill anyone and everyone. But Mr. Guth wants us to believe that one of the intended victims shooting back at Mr. Alexis poses more threat than Mr. Alexis unhindered.
Truthfully, that is the thinking of one who lives in a dream world where police protects everyone at all times. Sorry, Mr. Guth, that does not happen in reality.
Mr. Guth gives lip service to the U. S. Constitution.
“Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says. But…there are limits.” In other words, a citizen can have an ‘approved’ (not an ‘assault weapon’ – only one of which Mr. Guth approves) at home, but cannot be capable of self-defense.
Mr. Guth seems to ignore the blaring fact that all the mass shootings of recent years have occurred in ‘gun free’ zones. As a nation, we have tried that approach and it simply does not work.
The National Rifle Association is responsible for this shooting? How extraordinary. I spent roughly twenty-eight years of my life as a federal lawman. The National Rifle Association is largely responsible for my ability to shoot properly in that function. All firearms training, handgun and rifle, of all law enforcement departments and agencies in the United States is based on NRA knowledge and training programs. The NRA has a position of being against innocent (at least in context) people being shot at a guilty (in context) person’s convenience.
How about Mr. Guth? He seems to think regular citizens are merely victims.
Here’s another embarrassing tidbit about Mr. Guth. In his blog, he ends by saying he will contact Lynn Jenkins, his congressional representative and threaten to support a rival candidate if she doesn’t vote for gun control. What is embarrassing in this is his prior posting on his blog. In the prior post, Mr. Guth criticizes President Obama as being incompetent. (Okay, he got that part right.) However, any candidate or official who supports gun control is going to be a Leftist and a supporter of President Obama. It seems Mr. Guth really doesn’t know who or what he supports after all. Except for what bothers his altered view of reality right now.
According to Merriam-Webster,
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
Writer or editor for a news medium? Does that definition not imply the responsibility for accuracy in reporting? When one reads, hears, sees the ‘news’, should not one be able to have some confidence in the validity of what is reported?
From another account of Mr. Guth, he is currently suspended from his job resulting from this blog and a ‘tweet’ he issued condemning the NRA and expressing a hope our kids get killed. Frankly, I hope he loses his job. Not for his point of view, but for his marked inability to find facts and report them fairly – and teaching students to do the same.
Fear the Turtle? Why? The only way to harmed by a turtle is to stick one’s hand in its mouth. Otherwise, one can outmaneuver and outrun a turtle every time.