In the last post we discussed how the radical progressives are abusing recent crimes to pray on the ignorance of Americans to try and pass their unprecedented semi-automatic firearm ban. I showed how they tag the Armorlite Rifle 15 as an assault weapon, because it looks scary. The radicals like President Obama and Dianne Feinstein fully expect you to be dumb enough to believe that a stuffed grizzly bear is just as dangerous a live one, because they look the same. Sound logic if you are a five year old child, but then again that is what the amount of contempt that the progressives have for you, commoners. The radical progressives have a unique advantage over those with common sense, as they control the network news media. Basically ABC, CBS, and NBC, defiantly NBC like to pray on your ignorance, rather than inform you on of facts surrounding an issue, they choose to just regurgitate the progressive agenda, and hope no one ever questions them. Well I am not a member of the propaganda machine. I like to live in a world of facts, and logic. So along those lines I would like to further discuss the continued attempts by radicals such as the President and Senator Feinstein, to try and steal your rights based on political smoke and mirrors.
We have discussed the concept on gun control, the failures not only in its logic, but also in its historical success (by which I mean lack there of). We have discussed how they are using a scary rifle, that looks like a military firearm, to convince you into letting them take away your rights. Now I would like to discuss a concept, once again dealing with the Armorlite Rifle 15. We have already covered the fact that the AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle, its not military grade, its not an assault weapon as the progressive liars would have you believe (they hate facts, because they perpetually operate in conflict with the truth). In the previous post I discussed how the AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that looks like a military firearm, I showed you how a non-scary semi-automatic rifle could be easily changed into a scary rifle, without changing its mechanics. I know the progressives think you are dumb enough to believe that changing the cosmetics of a firearm could somehow change how the mechanics work, but I know that you are smart enough to see through these fables, once they are revealed for what they are, attacks on your intelligence. I mentioned briefly that the M1 Carbine is more of a military assault weapon than the progressives favorite punching bag the AR-15. It is this rifle, the M1 Carbine, that I would like to discuss today.
So the M1 Carbine, it is a military grade firearm. It fires a 30 caliber round, and it is completely legal for you to buy the one that was issued to a soldier in World War Two or Korea, or you can buy a brand new one. So why is it that this, military weapon, a firearm that actually saw military service, is brushed over when the semi-automatic ban comes up. I think that they are missing a terrifying weapon that is far more dangerous than the AR-15 could dream to be. The AR-15 is a large rifle, it has pistol grips and a massive carrying handle directly above the upper assembly. That makes the rifle very good for shooting, but they do make the rifle quite awkward to walk around with. I use an AR-15 for varmint hunting, and I love it for its accuracy, and its light weight design. However, it is really awkward to walk through the woods with this thing slung over your shoulder. I also use an M1 Carbine to varmint hunt. While it is a little heavier than the AR, and it lacks the range and power of an AR, its compact design makes it a lot easier to live with in the woods.
That got me thinking, and naturally, you’ll never guess where my thought process took me, if you guessed history your right, if you guess ranting about radical progressives meh… you were close, if you guessed just about anything else its probably your first time here. Naturally I turned to history. In the violent days spawned out of governments never ceasing thirst for power, prohibition, gangsters were known for using two weapons, the first was a favorite of Bonnie and Clyde the mighty Browning Automatic Rifle, the second was the Chicago Type Writer the Thomson Sub Machine Gun. The BAR was a more reliable firearm, it has a more powerful round, more accurate, but for some reason the little Thomson was more popular with the criminals. The Thomson fired a .45 ACP round, the same round fired from the Colt 1911 pistol, and it had a much shorter barrel than the BAR, both of which meant a sacrifice in accuracy. So where the BAR was Accurate up to 1400 yards, the Thompson was only accurate up to 160 feet. So why was it that the Thompson was so much more popular, not only with criminals, but with law as well. The reason behind this was that the Thompson while underpowered, was far easier to wield, had a far higher rate of fire, and most importantly of all was far easier to conceal. A very important thing to when you are going to hold up a bank. Getting in undetected helps a lot, when you are committing a crime.
So the AR-15, it is a large firearm, it is awkward to carry, it has been turned into the weapon of the devil by a power hungry radical progressive left all of these things have made it almost impossible for an AR-15 to sneak under the radar, thus eliminating it as a practical choice for a weapon to use in a crime. I realized that an M1 Carbine, much like a Thompson, would be a much better choice to commit a crime than an AR. It would be easier to conceal, its lack of power and long range accuracy would not be an issue in the close ranges that most criminals operate in. Plus, having an M1 carbine in the trunk of your car, or in your gun rack, would not cause a mass panic. You never hear about a M1 Carbine being used in a mass shooting, it is always the evil AR-15. So that got me to thinking, is the AR-15 really hypnotizing the majority of criminals into becoming criminals, or is it just the victim of a vast radical progressive conspiracy. Is the AR-15 really the weapon of choice for a criminals? If not the devil spawn AR, are other semi-automatic rifles the weapon of choice for criminals?
So I began researching, looking for information to answer my question. In my quest I found some interesting numbers. From a Mr. Gary Kleck in his book Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Controls, I found that in 47 studies only 2% of guns used in violent crimes were actually so called assault weapons. Further more, according to the Department of Justice, in 2008 8% of the 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed by a person using a gun. So of the 5,340,000 violent crimes committed in the United States only 8544 were committed with so called assault rifles. So clearly when a criminal goes to get a gun, he doesn’t jump at the high powered, high capacity, semi-automatic rifle. Criminals haven’t changed much sense the last major era of violence brought on us by a nanny state government. Criminals during prohibition used the smaller Thomson, it was easier to conceal, modern day criminals don’t opt for blocky rifles just because they are more powerful. The opt for something they can conceal. If this were not the case, they would be using the evil AR-15 in more crimes than .16% of violent crimes.
So what about mass murder, surely in the case of a mad man wanting to kill huge numbers of people the gun man would obviously turn to a high capacity semi-automatic rifle. Well in the 29 events sense, and including Columbine the numbers seem to paint the image that an assault weapons ban would be less effective than a claw hammer ban. To explain let me give you some numbers. The following numbers deal with the same time frame discussed above. In these 29 mass shootings the weapons involved were as follows. It is important to note that in many mass shootings more than one type of weapon is used (hence why if you add up the percentages they add up to more than 100%).
Semi-Auto Pistol — 75.8%
Shotgun — 31%
Semi-Auto or Bolt Hunting Rifle — 13.7%
Assault Rifle — 13.7%
Bomb Making — 6.8%
Claw Hammer — 3.4%
Now at first glance the numbers seem to disprove my claim that a ban on so called assault weapons would be less effective than a ban on claw hammers. After all the numbers clearly show that assault rifles were used in 10.3% of mass murders, where as claw hammers only where used in 3.4%. That is the real danger of statistics really. Just numbers alone can fail to tell the whole story. Yes these numbers show that, assault rifles are far less likely to be used in a mass killing than a Semi-auto pistol, but they don’t tell the full story, they don’t highlight the true folly of an assault weapons ban. You see, upon further reading I found that things get far more interesting. In the same article that I found the statistics I found some more really good information. Now the study deals with the 29 most recent mass shooting events. So that 13.7% statistic means that 4 of these mass murders used an assault rifle. Further reading revealed that of these 4 mass murders, three of them were committed by stolen firearms. That means that only one of them was committed by someone who went out and bought an “assault rifle” legally. So three fourths of mass shootings committed with an “assault rifle” would be unaffected by the government illegal preventing law abiding citizens from buying “assault rifles”. What this also means is that a ban on buying “assault rifles” would only prevent 1 mass murder, or about 3.4% of those committed in the years sense Columbine. That is the same as a ban on claw hammers.
Now I know that there are those out there who will not think that my logic holds water. Just because two of the three assault weapons used were stolen does not mean that preventing law abiding citizens from owning assault weapons would not have prevented these mass murders. I can see that logic, if the law abiding citizen didn’t have the gun to steal, it would be much harder to commit the mass murder, or would it. More mass murders have been committed in the years sense Columbine by hunting rifles than have been by so called “assault rifles”. The same number of mass murders have been committed with Revolvers. Let us just stop and think about this. A mass murder is just as likely to be committed by a man with a revolver as it is to be with a “assault rifle”. A far more effective ban would, in theory, would be to ban pistols. They of course tried that in Chicago, of course that resulted in the percentage of murders being committed with handguns to sky rocket.
so all in all, banning so called “assault weapons” would only affect less than 1% of violent crime. It would be equally as ineffective when combating mass shootings as well seeing as only 13.7 percent of mass murders are committed with “assault rifles”, only 3.4% would be prevented by banning the sale of “assault weapons” to law abiding citizens. So why then do the progressive propagandist continue to try to sell us on this narrative that banning assault rifles would somehow magically prevent mass shootings. Probably because they are pushing agenda. The progressives are heartless creatures willing to exploit anything they can to achieve their political goals. This isn’t about saving lives, this is about gaining power. They don’t like the fact that the American People have the ability to defend themselves. That the American People have one final, and ultimate check on out of control and tyrannical powers. When the progressives came to power in Germany they disarmed the people, when the progressives came to power in Russia, they disarmed the people, and in both cases when their true radical intents became known the people have no way to fight back. Am I saying that I think that Dianne Feinstein wants to usher in a new dark age of progressive violence, no. I think that she is just following the party line. She is doing as the progressives expect her too. I could see President Obama pushing for a new progressive nightmare, he has shown a complete disregard for the laws of this nation. He has spat on the checks and balance system in our nation, and continually threatens to use non-existent executive power to create laws without congress. That sounds less like a president and more like a tyrant. The point is that there is no evidence that banning assault weapons would prevent the crimes that radical progressives exploit in order to push their illegal agenda.