Over at Townhall, my friend and fellow Gunsite graduate Katie Pavlich takes aim at a dishonest narrative the media is attempting to fabricate, that a person who is unarmed isn’t a threat.

Here’s a taste.

The way the media uses the term “unarmed” implies there was no altercation that resulted in a fatal shooting. What the media fails to explain or recognize is that “unarmed” people, in these cases two men who weren’t carrying firearms, don’t have to be “armed” in order to cause serious damage to a person’s life or harm to those around them.

According to the FBI, more than 600 murders per year are committed with clubs or hammers. Around 900 murders each year are committed with “personal weapons” like hands, fists, and feet. The numbers for severe injury after aggravated assault carried out by a person only armed with their hands and feet are significantly higher, and actually beat out aggravated assaults committed with knives and firearms.

“Of the aggravated assault offenses in 2012 for which law enforcement provided expanded data, 26.8 percent were committed with personal weapons, such as hands, fists, or feet. Firearms were used in 21.8 percent of aggravated as- saults, and knives or cutting instruments were used in 18.8 percent,” FBI crime statistics show.

“The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed.”

When the cases of Martin and Brown hit the wires, pundits and celebrities complained about Zimmerman or Wilson committing “murder” because they didn’t want to get “a little roughed up.” When an attack occurs, the victim doesn’t have the luxury of “waiting to see” if an assailant will stop short of killing them.

The “unarmed” media narrative creates a false moral equivalence between a victim and an attacker. The media definition of armed seems to be someone carrying a firearm or a knife, when in fact people are most often armed with their own hands and feet for aggravated assault, and in other cases, murder.

I suggest that you read the whole thing.

“Armed vs unarmed” is a false argument.

“Unarmed” was a false argument when illegal gun-dealing street fighter and drug abuser named Trayvon Martin ambushed and nearly beat a doughy and weak George Zimmerman nearly to death.

“Unarmed” was a false argument when an strong-armed robber the size of an NFL lineman named Michael Brown attacked a Ferguson, Missouri police officer in his vehicle and attempted to take his weapon, only stopping after he was shot.

“Unarmed” has never meant safe, weak, or defenseless.

It is past time to call the mainstream media on that lie.