Predictable coverage of Ohio mass shooting by Akron newspaper

It really shouldn't surprise us anymore, but the Akron Beacon Journal has done its duty for their friends in the gun ban lobby once again.

A story by BJ reporter Stephen Dyer, entitled Portage killings spark debate, gives the Brady bunch/ Million Mom crowd a platform to assert that the expiration of the Clinton Gun Ban is somehow to blame for a tragedy involving a convicted felon with an extremely violent history who murdered three people in northeast Ohio over the weekend.

While the story contains several other problems, the most egregious error occurs in the following statement:

"...The AR-15 used in the weekend shootings -- the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- was specifically banned by federal legislation that became effective in 1994."

An informative email exchange between Dyer and OFCC's Chad Baus is available by clicking the "Read More..." link below.

An attempt to shed light into the dark recesses of the Beacon Journal newsroom:

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: Errors in your guns article

Mr. Dyer -

AR-15s were NOT banned in 1994, and re-legalized in 2004, as your article states. Only certain cosmetic features on rifles like this were banned, such as:

- bayonet lugs (an attachment where the thing that looks like a knife can be mounted),

- muzzle flash supressors (a feature on the end of barrel that reduces the fire that comes out, so the user is not temporarily blinded when firing in low-light condition)

- pistol grips (a feature that extends from the bottom of the rifle behind the trigger that would helps a shooter better stabilize the firearm when firing)

- high-capacity magazines (containers that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition (more than ten bullets), which make so the user doesn't have to reload as often, something that can really make going to the gun range more enjoyable)

These things were all determined by the Clinton administration to "look scary", and were thus banned in 1994. Manufacturers immediately began producing versions of the AR-15 without these "scary" features. In addition, pre-ban versions of these rifles remained in circulation throughout the entire ten years.

Are you certain Trimble's rifle sported three or more of these features? That is the ONLY way for your statement that "the AR-15 used in the weekend shootings...was specifically banned by federal legislation that became effective in 1994" can be accurrate.

Like Mr. Joseph and Rep. Ryan, I didn't think about a problem that could be solved by gun control when I read the account of Trimble. Instead, I saw it as yet another failure of gun control and our criminal justice system to prevent crime.

As you noted, it was illegal for Trimble to own or possess a gun, because he is a felon. That gun control law didn't stop him. He was still on parole, as you noted, but the gun control law which makes gun ownership illegal because of his status as a parolee didn't stop him.

Nor did the criminal justice system (which allowed him out of prison after less than a year) stop him, despite his having pointed a gun at his then-wife's head and fired it near two firefighters in 2001.

Peter Hamm's comments about guns of "higher firepower" being available as a result of the Clinton gun ban being lifted are false. The AR-15 fires a smaller, slower round than does my antique WWII infantry rifle, which was completely uneffected by the Clinton gun ban. The D-minus grade Ohio earned this year from the Brady bunch because we passed a concealed carry law should be worn by Ohioans as a badge of pride. Brady does not rate states based upon their relative safety - the average violent crime rate comparison shows that non-CCW states are 20% more violent than states that have laws like Ohio now does.

The way to prevent what Trimble did in 2005 would have been to keep him in prison for what he did in 2001. Nice and neat, and no civil liberties are violated for the rest of us innocent, law-abiding Americans.

Chad D. Baus

In his reply, Dyer inadvertantly reinforced the obvious: his main source for this story was the Brady Campaign:

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:47:23 -0500
From: Stephen Dyer [email protected]
Subject: Re: Errors in your guns article

All I know is the AR-15 was specifically named in the assault weapons ban as
a banned weapon. However people got around the weapons ban is another issue.
The AR-15 was named in the law as being banned. That's what I reported.

Steve

One more try at helping him do his job:

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:52:14 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Errors in your guns article
To: Stephen Dyer [email protected]

Mr. Dyer -

I realize that is what the Brady Campaign states on its website, but it is just
not the case. You should have double-checked with a non-biased entity.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban banned "features", and two of those features were found on the AR-15's in that era. Basically, it said that if a rifle had more
than two "scary" features it was banned. Naturally, as a means of continuing
their livelihoods, manufacturers removed some of the banned features
(collapsible stocks (which help shooters with shorter arms be more
comfortable), pistol grips, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors which we talk
about before) and were able to sell their rifles again because the only two
"scary" features on pre-ban AR-15s were the pistol grip and detachable magazine.

Even IF you argue that AR-15s were banned for the short time before the cosmetic
changes were made, your statement in the story was that Trimble's rifle had been
banned in 1994 (i.e. that it is what, until recently, has been referred to as a
"pre-ban" version). You have not yet convinced me that you have any evidence
of that.

Chad

Dyer hasn't seen fit to reply.

Related Story:
The Beacon Journal scores a double hit for its gun control buddies via today's editorial, which concludes: Blame the "easy access" to guns