A Chicago man was sentenced to 150 years in prison Wednesday for fatally shooting an honor student in her Englewood home in 2006 while firing at two rivals outside.
Carail Weeks, 28, was convicted last month of the murder of Starkesia Reed and the attempted murder of two other men. Reed, 14, an honor student at Harper High School, was killed when Weeks fired an AK-47-style rifle at the men and missed. One of the bullets crashed through the window of Reed's family's home and struck her in the head as she peered outside.
Weeks maintains he is innocent of the teen's murder.
Would this be one of those cases that cries out for the Assault Weapons Ban? Isn't it possible to describe the AK-47 in such a way that it cannot be confused with other weapons, ones used for hunting for example? Is the failure to come up with a proper definition of an "assault weapon" the whole problem? Or is the problem that pro-gun folks don't want any bans on weapons and therefore won't accept any definition?
What do you think about the sentence? Is it a little harsh? After all the shooter did not intend to kill the girl, in fact he proclaims his innocence. I imagine the investigators ensured the bullet that struck the girl came from the gun in question and not from another wild shot in the neighborhood. But still, it was not intentional. Even if you start with a maximum sentence of death, which I do not, and work your way down, how can you justify a sentence of 150 years for attempted murder and an accidental death?
I admit, I'm soft on criminals and hard on lawful gun owners.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Even if there were an assault weapons ban, it would have had no effect on this crime. The criminal would just use another weapon.
ReplyDelete"Is it a little harsh?"
Not harsh enough if you ask me. Not only did his idiocy cost an innocent person their life, he's also a threat to the rights of millions of people who lawfully use guns.
This wasn't an accidental shooting. He pulled the trigger with the intent of committing murder and that's exactly what happened. He committed murder.
If it were up to me, he'd be caned on a weekly basis for the rest of his life just on general principle.
Incompetence shouldn't reduce his sentence--he was shooting at someone, he killed someone innocent. If he had been legitimately defending himself it might be different.
ReplyDeleteIn your opinion, what makes the civilian semi-auto version of the AK-47 particularly bad when compared to a Remington Woodsmaster or other semiauto "hunting" rifle?
The reason civilian AK variants are popular among the wrong people is style and price.
"Isn't it possible to describe the AK-47 in such a way that it cannot be confused with other weapons, ones used for hunting for example?"
ReplyDeleteNo it's not. Mass still has an AWB and I can buy Kalashnikov style rifles ALL DAY LONG.
Also note that it's not like hunting has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, nor any reason why I own guns.
Aztec Red, do you leave your house unlocked so that burglars can rob you?
ReplyDeleteIsn't saying they can use another weapon pretty much saying "why bother with trying to prevent this?"
BTW, did you catch that Massachusetts foiled a terrorist from trying to mount a mass shooting in a shopping mall?
By removing access to weapons, you reduce the amount of weapons that criminals can access.
As for caning, that is unconstitutional.
Persoanlly, I prefer chopping people's heads off and sticking the heads on poles.
I'm not exactly sure what an AK-47 "style" weapon is; with the media reporting it could be just about anything. Assuming that it is a true AK or even a semi-auto only variant, it is already banned by law in Chicago. How could banning it again make a difference? Criminals break laws, that is the definition of criminals.
ReplyDeleteFWM beat me to it...
ReplyDelete"I'm not exactly sure what an AK-47 "style" weapon is; with the media reporting it could be just about anything."
This is another clever tactic used by antis. Loaded language is all they have.
By calling it an AK-47 "style" weapon, they envoke an emotional response because those who know absolutely nothing about firearms know what an AK-47 is.
If the true weapon was a mini-30, which fires the exact same round, and the news report stated that, the antis wouldn't have a clue what a mini-30 is.
Calling it an AK-47 "style" weapon is a calculated effort to link this shooting to the expiration of the 1994 AWB.
The Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center use similar tactics when they describe the SKS as "firing AK-47 ammunition."
Everyone knows what an AK-47 is so the antis use every trick in the book to link all semi autos to that particular weapon.
Words matter.
Ban or no ban, criminals rarely use semi-auto AK's, AR's or other "assault weapons."
ReplyDeleteYou should know this by now MikeB.
Laci, let's assume that gun laws meant he couldn't get his hands on an AK-47 clone, would the guy be any less dead if he'd been shot with a .40 caliber Glock?
And frankly Laci, you're in no position to say whether something is unconstitutional or not, given what we've seen on your blog.
BTW I love when Laci talks about the law (and she's a "Lawyer" you know!)
ReplyDeleteAll while having NO idea about the law.
Thems are some BRAINS!
Keep showing your "expertise" hon!
Mikeb of Laci,
ReplyDeleteIf there was a AWB, please tell us specifically why you think that this incident would have turned out differently.
I think that's a reasonable question in view of your contentions.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteIf every shooting involving an "assault weapon" is an argument for banning "assault weapons," then every shooting involving a handgun is an argument for banning handguns, and every shooting shooting involving any gun is an argument for banning that type of gun or all guns.
Oops -- I am trying to show the flaw in your argument, but perhaps you actually believe what I wrote above.
Laci, how about we just make breaking into houses illegal, then by your reasoning, Aztec's house would be safe! And your reasoning is so disjointed...the Mass. terrorist prevention had nothing to do with weapons laws, rather an FBI investigation and a bunch of rather incompetent wannabe jihadists. What was your point?
ReplyDeleteAs for the original topic:
"Isn't it possible to describe the AK-47 in such a way that it cannot be confused with other weapons..."
Of course it is, but it's not as sensational. The term has no real meaning, similar to describing an Acura coupe as a Ferrari-style car since they both have engines, 4 wheels, 2 doors, and run on gas. But everyone's been trained to KNOW what an AK-47 is (to the point where even police investigators frequently mis-identify various other rifles as AK-47s), so it's much more dangerous and impressive sounding to use that term.
And once again, this is a person I don't really want back on the street. They have complete disregard for anyone's safey and make dangerous decisions as a result. Intent or not, a person is responsible for every bullet that leaves their gun, particularly in the commission of a crime. If a police officer shoots at a gunman in a crowd and hits 5 other people as well, should he be getting a medal?
Hell FWM, with how bad the media is when reporting gun stuff an "AK47 style weapon" could be an AR-15.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've actually seen the MSM make that mistake.
"Aztec Red, do you leave your house unlocked so that burglars can rob you?
ReplyDeleteIsn't saying they can use another weapon pretty much saying "why bother with trying to prevent this?""
No. This is more like saying, "Instead of barricading the street and inconveniencing everyone, i'll just lock my door and inconvenience those who have no business in my house."
When a solution to a problem causes more problems than it solves, that's when you know it's a bad solution.
Banning guns is a crappy solution. You end up doing nothing but depriving millions of people just to stop what? A few hundred crimes per year at the most?
"By removing access to weapons, you reduce the amount of weapons that criminals can access."
The access wasn't removed though. The weapons are still out there. It was only a matter of driving to another state and using that horrible gun show loophole that allows terrorists to buy weapons. Right?
"As for caning, that is unconstitutional."
The constitution hasn't stopped Chicago from violating the 2nd amendment. Why should it stop them from violating the 8th?
Would this be one of those cases that cries out for the Assault Weapons Ban? Isn't it possible to describe the AK-47 in such a way that it cannot be confused with other weapons, ones used for hunting for example?
ReplyDeleteExcept you can use a semi-auto Kalashnikov for hunting, and people do. It's not powerful enough for big game, but the 7.62x39 is enough to take down medium sized game like a deer.
But the thing is, Mike, there's no distinction you can make in function or performance that can distinguish between a semi-automatic rifle like this, and a Kalashnikov. In fact, the BAR rifle showing in the link is considerably more powerful and more accurate than the Kalashnikov. And before you start arguing magazine capacity, the BAR rifle can be fitted with high capacity magazines too.
You can argue that these cosmetic features make a difference all you want, but the reality is the gun control movement went to ban these as a first step, because they could get it politically. Even Josh Sugarmann admits the ban in and of itself is useless, he wanted it to be a gateway toward a ban on all semi-automatics. You can agree with that goal, and then you're at least talking a ban based on function and capability, but a majority of American gun owners own semi-automatic firearms, and we won't agree with banning them because a very small percentage of them get misused by the criminal and deranged.
AztecRed says, "When a solution to a problem causes more problems than it solves, that's when you know it's a bad solution."
ReplyDeleteI agree. That's the very point we see differently. You guys say more guns is better, I say more is worse.
About the definition of an assault weapon, I'm beginning to see the futility in trying to degine it, which leads me to think perhaps Sebastian and you others have been right about the real reason behind all this.
Yet, I wonder if those calculating gun control folks might not be in a small minority. Some of the others, even the very visible ones, are just not doing their homework and embarrassing themselves with some of the stuff they come out with. But their intentions are just what they say, to diminish the gun violence without doing away with the 2nd Amendment.
Isn't saying they can use another weapon pretty much saying "why bother with trying to prevent this?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. Would it have made a difference if the guy had used a shotgun to fire two slugs? There ought to be a harsh prejudice against making something contraband by government. When they do it, they ought to have a very good reason for doing it, and they ought to be able to show that making something contraband is actually going to fix the problem. If one can show a strong probability of substitution, that can make the case against it.
Would it be wrong if someone committed murder drunk on whiskey, and the suggestion solution was banning whiskey, to point out that drunks will just drink gin instead?
Keep in mind also, that when you make a product that is in demand contraband, you're also going to create a violent black market in that product. The people involved in this murder were involved in the drug trade, itself a product of the state's misguided effort to attempt to outlaw a product that's in demand.
Can you explain to me how you're going to prevent people who are already trafficking in an illegal substance from trafficking in illegal guns, even if you were to make them all illegal? Those guns aren't just going to disappear from society because they've been outlawed, and there are plenty of smugglers who'd be happy to make money bringing them in from other parts of the world that either don't have restrictions, or have corruption enough that guns are easily obtainable by the unsavory.
Yet, I wonder if those calculating gun control folks might not be in a small minority. Some of the others, even the very visible ones, are just not doing their homework and embarrassing themselves with some of the stuff they come out with.
ReplyDeleteThey are. Many of the people in the gun control movement are people that have suffered loss through gun violence. They don't know much about guns, other than they were used to kill a loved one. I think they are misguided, but I understand why they feel compelled to do something they think is positive in an attempt to make their loss be something other than a tragedy. That vast majority of people who believe in gun control are not bad, or evil people. Even the activists who know better are not necessarily bad or evil people, though some of them I think are assholes (our side has them too, so relax).
Mikeb: "But their intentions are just what they say, to diminish the gun violence without doing away with the 2nd Amendment."
ReplyDeleteYes -- there ARE many "followers" like that (who don't know much about guns or the intracacies of the issue).
The "leaders" know that their goals are more extreme than they say, and try to conceal those goals because an incremental approach is their best chance.
The "leaders" know that deceit about guns and the gun issue also gives them their best chance, and they have willingly chosen that path.
But their intentions are just what they say, to diminish the gun violence without doing away with the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThen why don't they take the time to actually educate themselves on the issue so that they don't embarrass themselves?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the penalties should be for people who buy the firearms illegally?
"I agree. That's the very point we see differently. You guys say more guns is better, I say more is worse."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what i'm saying at all.
What i'm saying is that banning "assault weapons" (by any definition) simply won't have any effect on crimes committed with them. The criminal who shot the little girl could easily find another equally deadly weapon to commit his crime with. You ban "assault weapons", he'll go out and steal one, buy it on the black market, or use a lever action rifle.
Solutions are most productive when aimed at the criminal, not the tool. I'm willing to bet that given his habits, the shooter has been in jail before. He should have been kept there.
About the definition of an assault weapon, I'm beginning to see the futility in trying to degine it, which leads me to think perhaps Sebastian and you others have been right about the real reason behind all this.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that it's futile. You can make the definition. At least six state legislatures have made the definition, and the feds had one for ten years. You can make any definition you want and call it an assault weapon. After all, California's definition of assault weapon is different than the federal definition. New Jersey's term is actually not assault weapon, but instead "assault firearm" the definition of which is close to the federal definition in the now expired ban.
But what's disingenuous is to try to argue there's a functional or performance difference between firearms that fall under this arbitrary definition and those that don't. All are semi-automatic firearms. One could, if one wanted, get a law passed in some state that olive green colored firearms are "assault weapons" and are thus banned, restricted or what have you. But it would be hard to argue that if manufactures simply chose to use black paint instead that this was some kind of "loophole" or other such exploiting of the law.
To be honest, gun control folks do better to stick with topics that at least have some plausible relation to criminal access. I have issues with many of these proposals, but they force me to make real, thoughtful arguments against them.
The entire assault weapons issue is really one big steaming pile of bullshit, and it's obviously so to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of guns. The reason we've been successful on this issue is because it's so easy to educate people on, and once people find out they've been bullshitted, they are usually pretty pissed off.
The reason gun controllers won in 1994 with the AWB is because a lot of gun owners thought we were talking about machine guns, and when they found out they were lied to, get very angry.
Maybe you guys are right about the leaders of gun control using an incremental approach. Is that so wrong? Does that merit accusations of dishonesty? Couldn't that be a smart political strategy aimed at accomplishing what they think is best for the country? Try to not take it so personally for a minute and ask yourselves if it's not an acceptable approach.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you guys are right about the leaders of gun control using an incremental approach. Is that so wrong?
ReplyDeleteNot one bit. Lots of things are accomplished by an incremental approach. Civil rights for one.
Does that merit accusations of dishonesty?
By itself, no it doesn't. What is dishonest is saying that what you are currently proposing is all that you want, and after it is passed coming back for more. If you are for banning and confiscation of guns admit it. Then work through your incrementalism to try and do it. Don't say you are not for banning guns (especially when you have said just that in other settings) if you are. Me. I am all for abolishing Social Security and Medicare. If I was an elected official, would I propose doing it all at once. No, it would never pass. I would have to take an incremental approach. But I would be honest about my intentions.
Couldn't that be a smart political strategy aimed at accomplishing what they think is best for the country?
Doing things incrementally, yes. Lying about it, no.
Reputo really said it all, so I will just concur.
ReplyDeleteIt's OK to propse a moderate law, and intend to later propse an extreme law. But how is it not dishonesty to say, as you push for the moderate law, that you don't intend an extreme law?
A gun owner advocate once told me this: If a gun control advocate says "We only want ABC, not XYZ," then you can bet the farm that XYZ is coming. Examples abound.
Maybe you guys are right about the leaders of gun control using an incremental approach. Is that so wrong?
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not wrong. That's not the part that's wrong. Both sides do that. What's wrong is trying to mislead and confuse the public that they are banning machine guns, which is what the gun control folks consistently do with bullshit like "spray fire" and arguing that these weapons "belong on the battlefield." That's something we don't do.
A reverse would be that if I saw the opportunity, I would try to loosen the restrictions on machine guns. Much like if an anti-gun person saw the opportunity, they'd probably try for a ban on semi-automatics. Both are politically infeasible, so neither side concerns themselves with the topic much. But it would be like we tried to argue for loosening the machine gun restrictions by trying to convince people they were really just semi-automatics, and were no different than the types of common weapons people hunt with.
Fishy Jay says "examples abound" of gun control people actually denying the fact that they have bigger and better plans for the future. I'm not going to challenge that, but again it doesn't seem all that bad in a heated negotiation.
ReplyDelete