Via Media Matters: What Right-Wing Media Won't Tell You About Assault Weapons

[Raine1967]

First and foremost, I want to make this clear that I am loathe to post a *gun* thread, but I honestly believe that this is a very important bit of research from Media Matters.

If it has already been posted, I will gladly remove this OP -- I may have missed it being posted earlier. It includes a very informative timeline to how we got *here* wrt to what we call assault weapons. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/what-right-wing-media-wont-tell-you-about-assau/192553

In some instances, even traditional media has adopted the NRA terminology. A January 30 New York Times article about a Senate Judiciary Hearing on gun violence used the term "so-called assault weapons" to describe efforts to ban military-style semi-automatic rifles. The same "so-called" modifier is often seen in NRA press releases and op-eds written by chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox.

The truth is that military-style semi-automatic rifles were called assault weapons because that is what gun manufacturers and gun enthusiasts called them. The term has played a key role in the ongoing effort of the gun industry to rebrand and market military-style weaponry to civilians. Now, as legislation supported by a majority of Americans has been proposed to ban these weapons, the NRA and its gun industry and media allies are using semantics and terminology arguments to downplay the dangers of a class of weapons often associated with horrific mass shootings and law enforcement killings.

ASSAULT WEAPONS HISTORY

: The timeline begins in 1944 and goes right to January 2013. It is an amazing read.

[el_bryanto]

1. As near as I can tell, and I'm no gun expert, both sides are adept at using semantics

on this issue. I think the high-capacity magazines are a bigger deal.

[Raine1967]

2. That is addressed:

August 2001: Gun World magazine highlights how gun manufacturers have been able to skirt the 1994 assault weapons ban, writing, "In spite of assault rifle bans, bans on high capacity magazines, the rantings [sic] of the anti-gun media and the rifle's innate political incorrectness, the Kalashnikov [AK-47], in various forms and guises, has flourished. Today there are probably more models, accessories and parts to choose from than ever before."

Bold face mine.

I don't believe this is about using semantics. It's about how propaganda got us to a point where we can't even discuss this issue on a democratic leaning message forum.

[el_bryanto]

3. It depends on what you mean by propoganda

It kind of sounds like you are saying if everybody knew what was really going on they'd all agree with me - but that can't be right.

Bryant

[Raine1967]

4. You are correct, It can't be right.

I didn't say that, not even in a "kind of sounds" way.

I take it you disagree with what Media Matters researched. That's fine. I personally believe what I said: It's about how propaganda got us to a point where we can't even discuss this issue on a democratic leaning message forum. The article is about propaganda and how we got here. It's not me, it is what MM posted. It appears at first blush, and I truly hope I am wrong, that you are furthering my statement.

It's an article -- with facts. It is an article showing how propaganda got us to the point that we can't have a rational discussion about guns wrt to the Assault weapons and how the waters have been muddied for decades.

That said, el_bryanto -- you have to know that Media Matters is a place that tries to keep RW media in check. They are supposed to be on our side, as it were.

Peace.
Raine

[el_bryanto]

6. I guess - I would like to see a more substantial response to the argument

that Assault Weapons are fundamentally the same as other types of rifles. I think the expanded magazine issue sets them apart - something that is designed to fire hundreds of bullets before reloading is different that something that fires 10. But I don't know enough about guns to know what other features make getting shot by a hunting rifle different than being shot by an assault rifle.

I have even seen people on our side of the fence claim that this distinction isn't that clear.

So while I get that the Right Wing has been making this argument (and making it very strong right now, as this appears to be the part of the Gun Control argument they can win), I'm not sure why its a bad argument.

Bryant

[Raine1967]

7. Honesty, When you wrote this:

I have even seen people on our side of the fence claim that this distinction isn't that clear.

I agree with you about magazines, that is not what the post is talking about, even tho it does address the issue, in historic terms.

It makes me wonder if you read the entire post. If you can find something more substantial, please enlighten me. I;m not trying to be sarcastic or derogatory. Speaking myself, this is the most substantial thing I have read about this assault rifle or not debate I have read.

Also, can you please clarify this?

So while I get that the Right Wing has been making this argument (and making it very strong right now, as this appears to be the part of the Gun Control argument they can win), I'm not sure why its a bad argument.

What argument are you speaking of? Assault rifles? If so, I defer you to the link.

[el_bryanto]

8. I read the link

It mostly traces the history of the argument, with particular focus on where we are right now; with the right wing claiming that Assault weapons are not substantially different from other types of rifles. That's valuable, but it is appropriately what Media Matters does - trace the history of Right Wing Arguments. But in this case it seems like one side is saying "Assault weapons are substantially different than other types of rifles, and so need to be banned." The other side is saying "Assault weapons are not substantially different than other types of rifles, and should be left alone."

I lack the skill set to evaluate those two arguments - seemingly knowledgeable people are arguing both sides of it. And the article seems to take it as read that Assault Weapons are substantially different.

I think it's telling that this is the part of the bill that might get left out - that stricter background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines is likely, but the Assault Weapons ban is less likely.

Bryant

[jmg257]

9. Assault Weapons were a pretty specific sub-class of weapons back in the 80s when they

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

became popular. As mentioned there were books and magazines about them, and most were semi-auto versions of select-fire military assault rifles. Others that have similiar capabilities, capacities and functionality also became included.

Yes, functionally they are very similiar to any other 'traditional' semi-auto that takes detachable magazines. The problem is trying to legislate against them in such a way as to leave the more traditional hunting guns legal, but still control the hi-capacity aspects of the targeted weapons. All this tap dancing is to due the manufacturers, the NRA and their dupes trying (successfully) to circumvent the intent of the original laws, while looking for ANY reason to shoot them down as being too intrusive, a slippery slope, do nothing, useless, and all that other nonsense.

Ideally, to be most effective, such a ban would include all semi-auto (or even repeating) weapons of more then a certain capacity - 10 rounds seems the going rate - but those looking to improve control know that such a ban at this time would be virtually impossible to pass. So they will be left to get what they can however they can... in most cases with a hopefully more gunner-acceptable law.

[Paladin]

5. Valuable Substantiation. Thanks For Posting. (nt)

[X_Digger]

10. Umm.. "Assault Weapon" != "Assault Rifle"

The term "assault weapon" didn't arrive until the late 80's / early 90's. The first I remember hearing it was in discussions of California's "assault weapons" ban in 85? 86?.

The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "Armalite Rifle".

"Burst fire" is still considered automatic, since it's not 'one trigger pull, one round'.

.. meh, too many more to list.

Overall, MM admixes both terms interchangably, when they are actually separate.

I'd give it a 6/10 in truthiness and a 10/10 for propaganda.

[Raine1967]

11. MM goes under the bus?

And here we are.