Assault Weapons in Chicago

Disclaimer! I will be simplifying a lot, but this blog wasn't really intended for the really heavy gunny crowd. I know that I really simplified calibers down, but it works as an illustration for non gunnies

Another example of yellow-bellied journalism!

Chicago is being flooded with assault weapons

Note: I will focus on the video in a later post. For now, it's just the bloody article

I know I've talked about assault weapons and what they really are on this blog before, but the search function is broken and I can't find that actual post.

So here: Assault weapon is a term for a non-existent object that is used to label rifles appear militaristic. It's a term that is used to obtain a knee-jerk reaction in people; it's all about appearances. The weapons that they say are assault weapons are not machine guns and they are not more powerful than other rifles freely available to hunters and most anyone over 18 years of age.

Assault weapons are classified as any semi-automatic rifle with two or more of these features:

• A detachable magazine
• A barrel shroud: keeps your supporting hand from getting burnt
• A pistol grip: allows for a more comfortable grip
• Stock: many rifles have this. It allows the shouldering of the gun so that recoil can be soaked into the body rather than just the arms.
• Flash suppressor: keeps you from going blind from the muzzle flash

Note that none of these features that make for an assault weapon affect the power of the rifle or its deadliness in combat. These are all cosmetic alterations to a rifle.

Now that I've gotten definitions out of the way, let's take a look at the actual article.

Chicago numbers show the number of assault weapons are up 17 percent this year on city streets, and the ages of criminals using guns is getting much younger with a growing number of weapons being used at the hands teenagers.

I would personally like to see that hard data on this. Percents are really soft values that do not necessarily convey actual data. A small town with a 50% jump in murder rate isn't exactly that statistically significant. Likewise, I am willing to bet that the number of 'assault weapon' attacks were low to begin with (I personally cannot find ATF data. I personally don't get how the press gets the numbers). This 17% number is quite misleading too. 17% is the increase in number of actual rifles gathered off the street; not the number used in crimes. I cannot get the big picture at all other than what they are trying to spin it as. The article should have given more information than this or at least a link to the source of the numbers. In other words, there is no accountability in this article. They get to do whatever with the data that they want.

Also, I'll point to national trends, violent and firearm related crime have gone down across the nation (2009-2010).

Between 2000 and 2009, the rate of firearm violence declined from 2.4 incidents per 1,000 persons age 12 or older to 1.4 per 1,000 persons. Offenders used firearms in 8 percent of all violent crimes in 2009.

So there is something special about Chicago that makes it more crime ridden than the rest of the country. No surprise there. It's not the assault weapons because much of the country outside of the California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Chicago allow for assault weapon purchases. If the assault weapons were the issue, then one would expect the states that didn't ban them out of existence would have similar or worse problems than Chicago. Clearly that isn't the case. Chicago is an outlier.

Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They're so powerful, body armor can't withstand a hit, and they're so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.

I actually find this entire paragraph concerning. Andrew Traver is the man that Obama chose to head the ATF (the Government body that regulates firearms as well as other things). And what he spewed out in this section demonstrates that he is completely IGNORANT when it comes to firearms. Putting Traver as the head of the ATF is like making Paris Hilton the president of the USA. Obama is putting someone in charge that has no understanding of the issues and is already corrupted with preconceived notions about firearms that are baseless and far from the truth. I have friends that hunt and a shoot "assault weapons" that can tell you how far Traver is away from the truth. Here, let me deconstruct each and every one of his arguments.

Assault weapons:

• Are heavy caliber and powerful: AK-47 and the AR-15 are essentially the rifles that they label with the term "assault weapon" because they look militaristic or are based on designs used in the military. However, the power of a rifle is not derived from its appearance or design, but rather the ammunition it fires. A standard AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm cartridge while the AR-15 fires a 5.56x25mm cartridge. Take a good look at those numbers. The first part of the number is the width of the cartridge and the second number is its length. Usually, a bigger width indicates a larger bullet and a longer length indicates higher velocity (more velocity more power).

  In comparison, many hunters use rifles chambered in .30-06 caliber. Caliber is a different unit from mm, but it converts to 7.62x63mm. It's a simple inequality equation now. 5.56x25mm < 7.62x39mm < 7.62x63mm. The hunting cartridge is at the top with a bigger bullet and more velocity and all the others. So am I implying that hunting ammo is actually heavier (or more deadly) than what both these assault weapons fire? Why yes I am! Hunting ammunition is designed to incapacitate 250 lbs of living buck in one shot; it's going to have more penetration and be all around more damaging. Also, you can get rifles that fire these SUPER POWERFUL, HIGH CALIBER hunting rounds without having to buy an assault weapon. You can just get yourself one of these.

  

  It's not an assault weapon at all, but fires a nastier cartridge than either the AR-15 or AK-47.

• can penetrate police vests: Hunting ammo, such as the .30-06 round and penetrate police vests too. Also, there are several different classes of police vest based on the amount of protection the offer. You can take a look here. I believe police are usually issued Class III-A or lower. These essentially only protect against pistol calibers such as 9mm and .40 S&W. You can shoot at them with an "assault weapon" or an old wooden hunting rifle and the shots will go right through the vest. Only Class III bullet proof vests with ceramic can stop rifle calibers up to the .30-06. So yes, those evil assault weapons can penetrate police vests that aren't classed to stop that type of round. But so can every other rifle. Traver is making a leaving out very important details either out of ignorance or maliciousness.

• are difficult to control: Actually, the AR-15 is quite easy to control. The recoil travels back into the body so there is hardly any muzzle climb. If you think about it, they keep saying these are military weapons. Why would the military design a weapon that was hard to control or easy to miss with? It's nonsensical. The press keeps saying that these guns are designed for military use. Well every time I think military weapons, I think of efficiency, accuracy and reliability. That's what you would want in a weapon that soldiers would trust their lives with within a war zone. But then the press says that they are uncontrollable, random and inaccurate? TIP FOR ALL YOU REPORTERS: Please, pick one side of the argument and stick with it. You cannot play both sides like this; either these assault weapons are death dealing machines for the military or they're inaccurate-hit-innocents-on-the-street-corner random. You cannot have your argument both ways.

  I am on the side that the rifles themselves are quite easy to control. That's why the Chicago police have a stock room full of "assault weapons." They are controllable, accurate, and trustworthy type of rifles. But why aren't the Police killing loads of civilians every time they take these military/SWAT styled rifles out? Well it's because they hold themselves accountable for each bullet fired. Criminals have no intention of using them responsibly because they have already broken the rule of law to obtain them. There is no honor among thieves. It's the people that are involved that make the difference. A law abiding civilian, police or not, will most likely wield a rifle more responsibly than a criminal

• Bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes: Show me any gun that can't do this. This doesn't specifically apply to assault weapons. It's like pointing to drowning incidents and saying they're all caused by swimming pools. Well guess what, children drown in other bodies of water too! Once again, Traver is leaving out the details.

  Also....Sprayed? I think he's talking about machine guns. The ATF has pretty much defined those as a separate entity. Assault weapons are NOT machine guns (note that in the entire ATF definition, automatic weapons were NEVER mentioned). Once again, Traver has displayed his ignorance on firearms and the laws made by the agency he is supposed to be in charge of.

Now that I have beaten Traver to a pulp, I would like to wonder why Obama would ever consider putting him as the head of the ATF when he clearly loves to leave out important details and is ignorant about firearms. Obama couldn't have picked a worse person for the job. And people wonder why I think Obama is anti-gun. The ATF shouldn't be headed by an anti-gunner or someone biased against firearms, but I digress...

Anyways, back to the article…

Starkesia's murderer, Carail Weeks, purchased the weapon from an Indiana gun dealer with a falsified ID. He was recently sentenced to 150 years behind bars.

"I don't know if people realize how powerful this weapon is," Reed said. "These types of guns, there are too many. There are way too many, and they're in the wrong hands."

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Would banning assault weapons stop any of this bloodshed? Simple answer is "no". There are a lot of guns out there that can do the exact same thing. "Assault weapons" are just an easy target to latch onto and blame. The government tried to blame and ban them before, but that made no impact on crime whatsoever. The ban expired and there was no real up-tick in crime nationally (the ban was a national ban. Even though it expired, several states have held onto the ban and applied it to the state level).

But if you take a deeper look into the article, you see that it's not the assault weapon that did the crime, but rather gang violence. Carail Weeks, the murderer was trying to kill two men for whatever reason; probably for insulting his madre. It would also explain why the rest of the country's crime rate went down while isolated areas like Chicago are doing worse. I blame the thriving gang culture there on the crime; it's a culture that wants to use guns to kill rivals and obtain power. The mother of the dead innocent is right; there are too many guns in the wrong hands. Now let's take those guns away from the wrong hands, and also give the law abiding citizen a chance to obtain them.

So what do I suggest? I largely see this as a failure of the legal/criminal system. There a convicted people still walking around on Chicago streets. Most crimes are caused by people who already have a rap sheet. I say lock up the criminals and keep them in prison. Also, go find ways to stop the gangs from growing larger and obtaining more power/turf. Lastly, get the legislatures wasting time trying to blame a tool and focus on overall crime.

The current situation is like this: There is a child (gangs) running around a classroom stabbing the other children with whatever tool he can get his hands on (knives, handguns, fists, assault weapons, etc...). The teacher (press) notices this and calls the mother of the child (local government). The mother, not wanting to look like she's doing nothing about the situation tells the classroom to remove all the scissors (assault weapons/ban) because they're the scary looking things in the room and no one really needs them because the kids can just tear paper with their hands (no one really needs that anyways!). Everything goes according to plan and the classroom is scissor-less. But for some reason, the stabbings are still happening.

The child is suffering from a behavioral issue. The mom should get the child some psychiatric help and the stabbings will likely lessen. Gangs will kill each other without any regard for innocent life or the tools used to commit those acts. Chicago is still stuck in the mindset of the analogy I presented above. Everyone is still going "My son was stabbed by scissors! Why are there scissors in this classroom!?" I don't see any of the crime lessening unless they stop focusing on the tools and more on the people that are involved in these crimes. Make gang culture undesirable; starve them of recruits and I'm willing to bet the crime rate will go down without ever having to ban a type of firearm.