It’s been well documented that basic knowledge of guns among reporters is sorely lacking. MSNBC has obviously heard about this problem and thus charged Stephanie Ruhle with the job of explaining them to the viewing public. The result, in a word, hilarious; in another word, embarrassing.
In the aftermath of the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the conversation has turned to the idea of arming teachers to turn these gun-free zone soft targets into places that shoot back. We learned the terrifying news that the armed resource officer, Scott Peterson, who was assigned to the school cowered outside for at least four minutes while the shooter was annihilating teenagers inside the building. While most Americans are in disbelief that a trained officer refused to engage the shooter, many on the Left have come to the man’s defense, saying his handgun was no match for the shooter’s AR-15. When lives are at stake, being outgunned is no reason to give up, especially for a law enforcement officer sworn to protect the public.
In steps MSNBC to describe “what teachers would really be up against if armed with a handgun and confronted with an AR-15,” thus attempting to lessen Peterson’s incompetency and make the case that arming teachers is a terrible idea.
Ruhle begins with the basics, defining semi-automatic — which historically in newspeak has meant a machine gun spraying bullets — as firing one round for each trigger pull without the need to manually cock the weapon in between. She correctly states that handguns can also be semi-automatic unless it’s a revolver. In that case, Ruhle said, “It can take a lot longer to fire multiple rounds.”
Next, “the speed of bullets.” Ruhle gets serious:
“An AR-15 can fire bullets at about 2,800-3,000 feet per second. A 9mm handgun between 700-1,100 feet per second.”
When dodging bullets, nanoseconds make all the difference in the world!
Ruhle stated that AR-15 rifles can hold more ammunition than handguns but explained that extended magazines — amazingly not described as clips this time — can be purchased for both.
Then, the reporter quoted a doctor who was on the scene at the Florida hospital receiving the victims and how she described the wounds. The suggestion here is that “routine handgun injuries” leave bullet-sized entry and exit wounds, while large caliber ammunition in rifles leave organs looking like “an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding.”
Scared yet? Of course, just ask any dead person on the ground and they’ll tell you which gunshot wound they’d prefer if given the chance.
Ruhle then brings on an “expert,” though we’re left wondering why an actual gun expert wasn’t called in the first place to deliver actual facts on guns, not more fear-mongering.
Malcolm Nance, MSNBC terrorism analyst and retired Navy, was prompted by Ruhle in the most curious of ways. She built him up by telling viewers how well-trained in firing weapons he has been during his career and admitted that she has never shot a firearm. One might think she would ask Nance, the so-called expert, to tell her what it’s like and perhaps allay some of her fears, but she didn’t even give him the chance. Instead, Ruhle asked him to describe the damage a bullet does to a body.
After that, Nance quickly rattled off that teachers could never prepare for the loud noise guns make much less engage in a firefight and win. Nance laughed off the idea that President Trump thinks armed teachers could stop a shooting. Ruhle nodded in condescending approval and mocked Ivanka Trump’s “expertise” in agreeing with her father.
So, in MSNBC’s assessment an AR-15 wins in a gunfight every time, no exceptions. The bullets are just too fast and make bigger holes. Nice try, Ruhle, but you did a terrible job explaining this. Watch below: