Ex DC Cop From Jan 6th Says You Shouldn't Own An AR-15
In a world where misinformation often fuels divisive debates, it's essential to dissect opinions and claims that could potentially influence public perception. Today, we dive into the recent opinion piece by Michael Fanone, a former Washington, D.C. police officer turned CNN analyst. Fanone's article, "Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR 15. And it's simply ludicrous," has sparked quite a bit of controversy and deserves a closer examination.
Fanone's Background:
Fanone begins his piece by highlighting his background as cop, a firearms instructor, and an NRA member and a hunter. While these credentials suggest a deep understanding of firearms, they do not necessarily make his perspective on gun ownership gospel. It's important to remember that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and this includes semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.
Fact vs. Fiction:
Fanone's arguments against AR-15 ownership are based on several inaccuracies. Let's address these one by one:
The North Hollywood Bank Robbery: Fanone refers to this event as an example of why AR-15s should not be owned by civilians. However, he inaccurately portrays the suspects as using semi-automatic rifles when they were, in fact, wielding fully automatic weapons with dozens of high-capacity drum magazines. The officers who responded did not purchase weapons but were armed with handguns, and they did manage to stop one of the suspects with a nine-millimeter handgun.
Overpenetration Myth: Fanone suggests that AR-15 rounds easily penetrate multiple walls, posing a danger to bystanders. In reality, handguns like the nine-millimeter often penetrate deeper than AR-15 rounds. Many law enforcement agencies have transitioned to AR-15-style rifles for home defense due to their lower risk of overpenetration.
Police Response in Uvalde: Fanone implies that the lack of AR-15s in the hands of police during a school shooting in Uvalde was a significant issue. However, the police did have rifles on the scene, and the delay in their response was the primary problem. The choice of firearm was not the critical factor in the incident's outcome.
Fanone's Solutions:
Fanone suggests two solutions: an outright ban on AR-15s or reclassifying them as class three firearms (NFA items). Both proposals have their flaws:
Outright Ban: This would turn millions of law-abiding Americans into felons overnight and infringe upon their Second Amendment rights. A blanket ban on AR-15s is a highly contentious and polarizing approach.
Reclassification: Fanone suggest requiring ALL owners of semi-automatic rifles be required to register their firearms as NFA items, and claims that requires they submit to annual checks and secure storage regulations. However, that is absolutely untrue.
Conclusion:
Michael Fanone's opinion piece contains factual inaccuracies that undermine his argument against civilian AR-15 ownership. It's crucial to base discussions about gun rights and gun control on accurate information and to consider the historical context of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is a fundamental part of American society, and any attempts to curtail it should be made with a deep understanding of firearms and their responsible use.
And please, always remember your ABCs: Always Be Carrying.
He is a real embarrassment to his former profession. Fanone should learn how to use logic to justify infringing on the rights of all Americans, gun owners and those who choose to not exercise their right at this time. Many times, friends who would never have considered purchasing a firearm have explored the idea or even purchased guns due to a change in circumstances or perspective. This is every citizen's right and there is no safety argument that justifies depriving the right to all Americans.