Christian Schneider

Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel

We've all heard former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's admonition that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Yet the public debate about guns in America takes Moynihan's warning to the next level: Each side not only has its own facts, it has its own language.

For instance, take the rush after the recent Orlando shootings to ban "assault" or "military-style" weapons like the AR-15 rifle. Gun control advocates immediately jumped to regulate sales of "automatic weapons" and "assault rifles" like the AR-15, which they deem too deadly for one individual to need. Scary stories about the AR-15, which Hillary Clinton called "weapons of war" that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, began circulating, further clouding the story.

For starters, an AR-15 wasn't used in the Orlando shooting. Instead, the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm handgun. Perhaps this is a distinction without much difference — the Sig Sauer is similar to an AR-15 — but it does demonstrate the rush to vilify the AR-15 by those seeking to regulate its sale.

But more important, neither the Sig Sauer nor the AR-15 is an "assault rifle" under any applicable definition. They are both semi-automatic weapons, meaning every time the user pulls the trigger, the gun fires one bullet — just like any handgun or hunting rifle. Sure, the AR-15 looks more like something out of the "Die Hard" movies, but it doesn't shoot any faster than many smaller guns. Actual "assault rifles" — widely defined as automatic machine-gun style weapons, are essentially banned in America. (There are also roughly 8 million AR-15-style rifles in circulation in America right now, so best of luck confiscating those.)

Hillary Clinton has called for reinstatement of an "assault weapons" ban signed by her husband — but it's almost certain that ban would not have barred the Orlando shooter from owning his weapon. Under the assault weapons ban signed by Bill Clinton in 1994 and which lasted through 2004, AR-15s were only prohibited if they featured multiple military-style upgrades, such as folding stocks and pistol grips, which made them easier to conceal and control. But if the gun wasn't tricked out, it was completely legal to own.

Kirsten Powers: Omar Mateen's multiple motives

Further, a 2004 Department of Justice report found that the assault weapons ban caused no discernible change in gun deaths in America, and didn't keep people from getting access to guns that were just as powerful as the AR-15. As Sean Davis at The Federalist has pointed out, between 2003 — the last full year of the assault weapons ban — and 2014, the number of murders committed with rifles dropped by nearly one-third.

"Aha," say gun control advocates — but what about the "terror gap" loophole that allows people on terror watch lists to purchase guns?

Well, the Orlando shooter wasn't on any such list, even though he had been investigated and his cases dropped due to lack of evidence. In fact, such a "loophole" actually is due process as protected by the U.S. Constitution. Law enforcement shouldn't be able to take away one's constitutional rights simply because one is placed on a list — imagine President Donald Trump unilaterally fabricating a list of American citizens he would simply deport. Or creating a list of journalists who were no longer granted freedom of speech because they didn't support him. Constitutional rights aren't "loopholes."

Of course, pro-gun advocates want to keep firearms out of the hands of terrorists; they simply want the government to ask a judge first. This is why the ACLU has opposed the opportunistic plan congressional Democrats fashioned to politically cash in on the tragedy.

'Brexit' faction hasn't made its case: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

The panic after a terrorist shooting is typically the worst time to adjudicate U.S. gun laws; misinformation and demagoguery almost always drown out reason. Following a vote earlier this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted that Senate Republicans had "decided to sell weapons to ISIS." This is particularly rich, given that Warren's cohorts on the left spent much of the last decade accusing George W. Bush of "stealing" Americans' rights. Now that Warren wants to be vice president, she's willing to hand over her due process rights in a gift bag.

The inability of both sides of the gun debate to even come to agreement on what certain words mean makes meaningful discussion impossible. It's as if a French tourist is arguing with a Korean traffic cop using an interpreter who only understands German. And until anti-gun forces learn to speak firearm, they'll only strengthen the resolve of those who are fluent.

This article was originally published in The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Christian Schneider is a Journal Sentinel columnist and blogger. Follow Christian Schneider on Twitter: @Schneider_CM This article was originally published in The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. ​

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns, go to the Opinion front page, follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion and sign up for our daily Opinion newsletter.