I grow weary of reading articles in the news written by people who have no clue what they are talking about.
Case in point, today’s Chicago Tribune article “Want to make America safe again? Ban assault rifles” written by Contact Reporter Dahleen Glanton.
Ms. Glanton, while probably a very nice person – and seriously, she sounds to me like she wants what we all want – a fair, and just, and equitable society where we can all live out our dreams in peace and safety – has absolutely not the first clue about guns.
That is very troubling because her Chicago Tribune bio indicates that she specializes in covering Illinois gun issues.
Let’s take a look at some of the issues with her coverage – issues that indicate she has no business covering gun issues in Illinois, or any other state until she actually gains some knowledge of the subject matter.
In one place she states:
Weapons that can fire rounds powerful enough to tear through protective vests and even penetrate a squad car clearly endanger our police officers.
Yet later she says,
No Americans need to be able to walk around with rifles equipped with telescoping stocks, barrel shrouds and detachable magazines.
Which is it, Ms. Glanton? Ammunition? Or weapon?
I’m sure that were Ms. Glanton to read this, she would completely miss my point. The fact is that she, like so many other reporters on this issue, confuses cartridge size with weapon description and/or capability.
The AR-15 that so many editorials look to demonize is generally chambered in 5.56 NATO, a round that is technically intermediate, not “high powered” as so many reporters opine.
Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way stating that this round can’t do damage – it can kill and maim in the hands of a madman. But so can larger cartridges.
So if Ms. Glanton suggests that “Weapons that can fire rounds powerful enough to tear through protective vests and even penetrate a squad car clearly endanger our police officers” and she is referring to the AR-15, where does that leave us?
Should we also ban cartridges that are larger, because that would encompass nearly every gun that is currently utilized for legitimate hunting – something that the anti-gun crowd generally claims not to be against.
Here is the problem with that thinking. So many of the “lets ban assault weapons” crowd suggest that “no one is coming to take your guns” and they don’t want to infringe on legitimate hunting, yet they fail to realize that 5.56 NATO and its companion .223 Remington are considered in many states to be too small of a cartridge for anything other than small game (Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia require larger cartridges to to hunt game).
Therefore, if a larger caliber is required for hunting, and if .223 Remington is considered too dangerous for the public, where does that put your claim that no one is trying to outlaw hunting?
Presently, the media only preaches to the choir and the uninformed. If they want to bring people over to their way of thinking, they need to convert the thinking of the gun owner. And the average American gun owner recognizes the inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies of these types of statements. In fact, like a deer, they can smell you a mile away.
We’ve looked at Ms. Glanton’s inconsistencies in her statements regarding these weapons. Now let’s take a look at another big problem with her argument.
She is calling for a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” After building her case, she goes for the jugular to make her final point:
Mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., the Columbine High School massacre and the Orlando, Fla., nightclub shooting weren’t enough to push Congress to action.
Like so many other editorials who want to use a latest deadly shooting to ban so-called “assault weapons,” she left out mass shootings that didn’t involve an AR-15, such as Virginia Tech where the shooter killed more than 30 people armed only with 2 hand guns, and also shootings that occurred during the ban.
I guess she forgot that Columbine occurred DURING the assault weapons ban, and that the weapons used at Columbine were 2 9mm hand guns and 2 12 gauge shotguns – both of which were legal under the previous ban and would be under the current bans being proposed.
Dahleen Glanton doesn’t understand the difference between gun features and cartridge size, nor does she seem to be familiar with the details of what weapons were actually used in mass shootings. Based on other inconsistencies in her article, I’m certain she can’t define what an “assault weapon” actually is or intelligently discuss what feature should or should not be legal.