Whenever the mainstream media uses the term “arsenal” I’m always left baffled. Take the recent “arsenal” uncovered Connecticut shooter’s home:
The young man who killed 27 people in a massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, owned an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, court papers show.
More than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet, several swords and knives were among the items found in a search of Adam Lanza’s home.
1,000 rounds of ammunition? I keep more than that around for most of the popular calibers I shoot. A bayonet? I own several. Swords and knives? I do have knives but I must sadly report that I currently own no swords. Still, these stories seems to be written primarily to scare non-gun owners. If somebody doesn’t own any guns and doesn’t shoot competitively I’m sure 1,000 rounds of ammunition sounds like a lot. For those of us that own guns and shoot competitively 1,000 rounds won’t even get us through a season. Honestly, this news item is really not news, the guy owned ammunition, most of which he didn’t use in the shooting (while you can own 10,000 rounds of ammunition you can’t carry it all on your person). Yet mainstream media sources always try to focus their stories on making situation look more dangerous than they really are. The amount of weaponry housed at the home of the Connecticut shooter is irrelevant because he didn’t use any of those weapons to commit his heinous crime. My only explanation is that the media focuses on these things in an underhanded move to demonize gun owners in the eyes of non-gun owners. The implication appears to be that anybody who owns 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet, swords, and knives is a potential violent murderer and should be turned over to the Stasi immediately.