Correcting the Denver Post’s Errors About Guns

On the whole, the Denver Post—along with the Colorado media in general—has done a valiant job covering the difficult and horrifying story of the Aurora murders. Honestly, I’d have a very hard time reporting a story like that on location due to the emotional trauma of it all.

Yet, while most of the Denver Post‘s reporting on the Aurora murders has been good, its writers have made a couple factual errors related to guns and offered some imprecise commentary. Here my aim is to correct those problems.

Please note that this article is quite limited in scope; for my general discussion of gun policy, see my article published by The Objective Standard.

The “High-Capacity” Magazine “Ban”

A July 23 Denver Post editorial states:

We also know the high-capacity magazine [the murderer] is accused of using would have been covered under the federal assault weapons ban. Had the ban remained in place, that magazine would not legally be available. . . . A handful of states have laws placing limits on the number of rounds that magazines can hold. Under the assault weapons ban, such magazines were limited to 10 rounds.

The Denver Post‘s statement is factually misleading. The ban pertained to the manufacture and sale of new “high-capacity” magazines (excepting police), and to the possession of illegally manufactured magazines. Pre-ban magazines remained available, though granted, they were less available and more expensive.

The ATF explains:

The LCAFD [Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device] ban was enacted along with the SAW [semiautomatic assault weapon] ban on September 13, 1994. The ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess LCAFDs. The law generally defined a LCAFD as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. (emphasis added)

To state the point differently, two identical magazines, one manufactured on September 12, 1994, and the other on September 14, 1994, were treated totally differently under the law; it was perfectly legal to sell, buy, or possess the former, but not the latter.

Apparently federal politicians did not savor the idea of attempting to confiscate factory-standard magazines from millions of Americans. The Post, on the other hand, thinks “federal lawmakers ought to outlaw . . . high-capacity magazines,” apparently completely. How the Post envisions the enforcement of such a law—door-to-door sweeps of the homes of the hundreds of thousands of Coloradans who possess such magazines?—the paper does not mention.

The Post editorial also neglects to mention that the murderer first opened fire with a pump-action shotgun. If a future criminal uses only pump-action shotguns, will the Post then call for their abolition as well?

The Type of Semiautomatic Rifle

The Post‘s David Olinger, along with the paper’s editorialists and many other reporters, refers to the semiautomatic rifle in question as an “AR-15.”

Actually, the rifle is a Smith & Wesson M&P15, as the Post‘s Danielle Kess points out. The AR-15 is manufactured by Colt. This is a minor confusion; they are different brands of comparable guns.

Update: James Dao writes for the New York Times that the Smith & Wesson “belongs to a class of weapons broadly known as AR-15s, after the original civilian version of the rifle.” Wikipedia, on the other hand, claims, “The name ‘AR-15’ is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle.” So this seems to be a case of applying a particular brand to a general category of item. As I noted, it’s a minor issue.

The Theater’s Gun Policies

Olinger writes:

On its website, Gun Owners of America, a group opposed to stricter gun laws, blamed Holmes’ ability to shoot so many people on the absence of guns in the audience.

“The gunman used a movie gunfight to cover his actions and further surprise the innocent patrons. Worse, the theater in Aurora reportedly has a ‘no guns’ policy,” the group stated. “Despite gun control’s obvious failure, the calls for more restrictions have already begun.”

According to various reports, theaters in the same chain as the one in Aurora prohibit people from carrying concealed handguns on their premises. But I have as yet seen no definitive evidence regarding the Aurora theater’s policies.

Perhaps somebody at the Post (or someone else) can track down the answer definitively.

The “Gun Lobby”

Twice the Post editorial refers to “the gun lobby” as that which “Congress [needs] to beat back” in order to pass more gun restrictions. Obviously, that’s not an error, but it is a cheap shot intended to demean rather than illuminate. A more accurate term is “gun-rights advocates” or “civil arms advocates.”

By referring to a “lobby,” the Post hopes to draw readers’ attention away from the fact that that “lobby” is quite simply the millions of Americans who support the right of gun ownership. It is also the millions of Americans who would have to live under the gun laws that editorial writers and disarmament advocates wish to arbitrarily concoct.

Those who wish to restrict the gun ownership of peaceable Americans often refer to “the gun lobby” in order to bring to mind some money-driven conspiracy (about which those on the left tend to obsess). No doubt gun manufacturers and sellers enjoy their profits, as they should. But “the gun lobby” in the sense of those who defend the right to own guns is, overwhelmingly, the mass of Americans who own guns or support that right.

But I will happily don the term “gun lobbyist” if the Denver Post editorial board will concede to being part of “the gun-restriction lobby”—or to state it more negatively, “the victim disarmament lobby.”

With such an overwhelming amount of detail to sort out quickly, it is understandable that a reporter might miss a detail or two. The editorial is just sloppy; my TOS article addresses the matter of “high capacity” magazines in more detail.

I want to end on a positive note and offer my sincere gratitude to the law enforcement officers who responded to the call, the medical teams who treated the wounded, and the reporters who keep the community informed about this horrible crime and its victims.

2 thoughts on “Correcting the Denver Post’s Errors About Guns”

  1. I have read that these 100 round magazines are notorious for jamming. If I am facing a heavily armed shooter that is exact magazine I would want him to use. As if it jammed it might give me that few seconds to get out of the area or subdue him if he didn’t have another weapon to use. I think the shooter miscalculated and he thought he’d had all of the 100 rounds to use up. He didn’t. As a result it forced him to have to go back to his car to get more ammo. That afforded time for the police to arrive and stop him. However, if there had been a conceal carry citizen, there is that chance that the level of carnage would have been reduced.

  2. Ever notice how the people who champion these bans are manifestly ignorant about what they pontificate on? It’s cowardly to push a ban on someone else’s civil right because .001% of lawful owners abuse the right and you choose to not exercise it. I bet they’d be enraged if someone proposed a government censor clear each edition before publication because some other paper irresponsibly betrayed national security and got our assets killed.

    Do these hoplophobes at the Post realize that the worst mass shooting in the US (at VA Tech) was perpetrated without any “assault weapons”? Do they realize that the Walther P22 pistol that Cho used is only available domestically with a 10 round magazine? It would pass muster under Clinton’s expired ban Schumer’s recently proposed ban exempts .22 magazines. Do they know that Cho patiently waited one month between his pistol purchases as VA law then required? Surely they knew there was a blanket ban on gun possession by VA Tech faculty and students – including vetted and trained concealed weapons permitholders. I’m sure they’re aware of VA’s institutional failure to report Cho’s prior judicial mental health commitment to the FBI thereby enabling him to purchase his weapons. Every one of these stupid gun control schemes the left concocts failed at VA Tech. In the case of Holmes planned attack, a mag ban and “assault weapon” ban would just cause him to bring more handguns and magazines and practice fast reloads..

    Speaking of failed schemes, the Post has been curiously silent on the grenades and explosives Holmes used. Perhaps because it proves how ineffective a near total ban on such materiel can be for a determined criminal..

    The Post’s righteous indignation and affinity for heavy handed bans is nothing new. They’ve been armchair social engineers since Prohibition. That scheme exacted a heavy toll on law enforcement officers. It fueled an ascendancy of organized crime and brought about political corruption on a grand scale It failed miserably to make us a better society. The Post was wrong then and they’re just as wrong now..

Comments are closed.