Jay Caruso Takes CNN's Chris Cillizza To The Woodshed Over Gun Debate Terminology

Leftists, especially if they work for CNN, don’t know what they’re talking about. This was amply illustrated previously here at Bearing Arms. However, there’s a lot of derp flying over the airwaves from CNN, and it all warrants being slapped down early and often.


CNN personality Chris Cillizza opined on the gun control debate recently, and what he said was…well, it was awful in its inaccuracies, but luckily, Jay Caruso was up to the challenge for smacking Cillizza down.

When reporters use terms such as “automatic rounds” and “semi-automatic machine guns,” the public is less informed on public policy. There is no such thing as an “automatic round” or “semi-automatic machine guns,” but the terms sound intimidating and mislead the public into thinking they exist.

Chris Cillizza wrote an article at CNN that is loaded with errors and shouldn’t have made it past an editor with any knowledge of firearms and firearm laws. Cillizza writes:

On its face, Congress’ resistance to passing any sort of gun control measures makes no sense.
Things like closing the so-called gun show loophole or restricting the mentally ill from buying guns are supported by huge majorities of Republicans and Democrats.

As often as repeated, it still doesn’t sink in. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole and using “so-called” is not good enough. It doesn’t exist, because it implies legality. Tax loopholes are a legal way to avoid paying taxes, which is not the same as illegally evading taxes. If someone who is ineligible to purchase a firearm does so at a gun show, garage sale, estate sale, pawn shop or anywhere else guns get sold privately, it’s still a crime.


Cillizza also gets into internet sales that don’t actually happen, but the overall point Caruso makes is one that deserves to be repeated.

Critics say that such criticisms are not part of the “big picture,” and that’s “technical” or an argument based on “semantics” but that’s a lousy excuse, particularly for the media. They have a responsibility to get it right, especially when it comes to constitutional rights.

Dismissing media errors as “semantics” does a disservice to the people who rely on them for information and also to public policy, which is often shaped by media reporting.


Whether we want this debate right now or not, we’ve got it. The media has a responsibility to report accurately and professionally. It’s a responsibility they shirk on a nearly daily basis because they opt to take the lazy way out and parrot talking points rather than strive to understand literally anything to do with the topic at hand.

Over and over, they continue to try and frame the debate on gun control by presenting a grossly inaccurate portrait of an industry with little to no regulation, often because they simply don’t know any different. How many people on social media are claiming it’s easier to get a gun than to vote, or to buy cough medicine, or any number of other things? Those almost none of those people have ever have purchased a firearm. If they did, they’d know how wrong they were.


Caruso is right. The media should be held accountable for using inaccurate terminology. If we don’t, how many more people will have their heads filled with false information?


Join the conversation as a VIP Member