A Double Fisking of "How Easy Is It to Get an AK-47"

One of the things that frustrate gun owners so much is reading the blatant lies, misinformation and distortion that anti-gun forces put out. Most of us are familiar with the Brady Campaign, Ceasefire, Violence Policy Center and so on. At least these organizations are upfront with their stated goals and don't hide behind a misleading facade.

The same cannot be said of my target of today's post: The Gun Guys and Freedom States Alliance.

At first glance, these two names seem like our friends. Nothing is further from the truth. The Freedom States Alliance is a cover organization for The Gun Guys and is funded by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Their purpose is no different than the Brady Campaign and others like them. Armed and Safe has the goods on them with regard to where they get their money.

Although a couple of days old, this "article" on the Gun Guys has me seeing red (apologies for the link). They are crying shrilly over that old canard of how easy it is to get an AK-47 with the help of a puff piece by NBC Pensacola Channel 15.

Since "assault weapons" are one of my favorite topics, I am off on a double fisking. And as a public service announcement so others out there don't get drawn in by this garbage.

Let's start with the source material, the fear-mongering NBC article.

An AK-47 is anything but your average hunting rifle. Just how easy is it to get your hands on an one?

As far as the law is considered, it is. For those of you not in the know, the AK-47 sold to civilians in this country is a look-alike. It looks like the AK-47 so loved by terrorists and insurgents (as well as uniformed armies) throughout the world. It fires the same cartridge and accepts the same accessories but it does not function the same way. Civilian AK-47 look-alike rifles are not automatic weapons like those found in battle. They are semi-automatic firing one round per pull of the trigger.

As a result, this menacing looking weapon is exactly that, menacing looking. It operates just the same as that average hunting rifle. As a result, they are treated as such.

Family members describe 34-year old Emanuel Mose as "lucky to be alive." Emanuel is a security guard who was gunned down during a robbery at commonwealth national bank in Prichard Thursday.

Video surveillance shows two Hispanic males walking into the bank with their weapons drawn, AK-47's to be exact. Police say the men started firing shots immediately. One of the bullets struck Emanuel Mose in the leg.

Family members say he fell against a door, and knocked it open. He then barricaded himself inside the room until help arrived. It is unknown whether the weapons used to commit the robbery are registered or stolen.

Ok, we have a pair of criminals walking into a bank and opening fire on those within. Do you think the fact they were carrying AK-47s was the determining factor in them deciding to commit the criminal acts of robbing the bank, assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder?

Do you think this pair was sitting around their gritty kitchen table saying:

Criminal Scumbag 1: "Hey, I think we should rob a bank, man. Let's do it.".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "No way, man, those tellers and security guards could do anything."
Criminal Scumbag 1: "Why not? It's a ton of money. I can get us a couple of handguns from Rojas the Crack Dealer. It'll be cake!".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "Yeah, it's a ton of money. But you know, those tellers, guards and people inside won't respect our handguns and just ignore us. Too dangerous, man. Anything could happen.".
Criminal Scumbag 1: "So we go in shooting and demand the money. They'll respect us then!".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "Nah. They won't. People aren't afraid of handguns.".
Criminal Scumbag 1: "Let's get us some AK-47s then. People are afraid of them and we can go in like Rambo!".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "Great idea! Let's do it!".

Give me a break.

What the article does not mention is whether these were illegal fully automatic machineguns (which are illegal to possess if made after 1986 and the owner has not gone through the extensive background check and paid the tax to do so) or whether these were otherwise legal semi-automatics that could be owned without much hassle by civilians.

At least they do, at the end of this sensationalizing, make mention of the fact it was unknown whether these guns were registered or illegally obtained. Registered? Does Florida have an "assault weapon" registry? If not, then the guns wouldn't be any more registered than a more traditional looking hunting rifle.

And do any of you want to lay odds that this pair of criminal masterminds had perfectly clean records leading up to their master heist, walked into a gun shop, paid $400 a piece (plus ammunition) for their AK-47s, did the Federal background paperwork and then walked next door to the bank for their shining moment of glory? Because if they did, that will be a newsworthy event in and of itself.

And they were bad shots too. They fired multiple times and only hit one person. I am glad the guard is ok. If they nicked his femoral artery, then he is very lucky to be alive. He was fortunate in more ways than one.

A local gun shop tells NBC 15 that it doesn't take much to get your hands on powerful assault rifles such as the AK-47.
"Simply get them to fill out a background check as this one is here. It's a simple one page form."

Apparently NBC didn't look too closely at that "one page form". That one page form asks a lot of pointed questions and you aren't allowed to lie on any of them.

You don't "fill out" a background check. You are providing information for it. They use the information on that form to look into your criminal history quite deeply. There is nothing really simple about it.

As to the "powerful assault rifle", ah, thank you for the distortion. The civilian variants of the AK-47 are not "assault rifles". Those are military weapons with the capability for fully-automatic fire. These versions cannot do that.

And what, exactly, makes them powerful? The cartridge fired by the AK-47 is no more powerful than the .30-30 deer cartridge. For that reason, people really do use these rifles for hunting. As far as the law is concerned, they are hunting rifles. The rest is just cosmetics. I wish the media would actually try to learn something once in a while rather than project their own inaccurate beliefs about an object they apparently know nothing about.

If everything checks out, he says you're out the door with an assault rifle in no more than 10-minutes. There are some exceptions, especially if your record contains felony offenses.

The gun shop owner tells NBC 15, "Now if you have a traffic ticket or something that's not going to really hinder it."

Some exceptions? SOME EXCEPTIONS? How about if you have any felony conviction, a juvenile offense that would be a felony conviction as an adult, any drug offense, a documented history of mental illness, convicted of or under a restraining order for domestic violence (also called "prior restraint"), are a habitual drunkard, are an illegal alien or any other person prohibited from possessing a firearm under any other statue or law not covered in this list.

Some exceptions. That is creative understatement to say the least. Honesty in journalism right there.

And that check will come back in 10 minutes only on a good day with NICS and you have minimal information to crosscheck in the state and Federal databases. If there is any kind of criminal information for anything on you in the system, that check will take much longer.

And a traffic ticket can certainly hinder you if it was for DUI. That's a felony too.

Unbelievable. As one of the commenters on my blog pointed out, "What exactly is it that future reporters are taught during four years of journalism school?". I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't basic research and fact-checking skills. You'd figure reading would be part of the curriculum where writing is one of the required skills.

And using this small little mound of excrement, the Gun Guys go forth and turn it into an elephant sized pile. From that, into this...

Just days after that shocking story of the toddler who legally handled an AK-47 inside a gun store, we hear another story, this time from Alabama, of just how easy it is for almost anyone to obtain one of these deadly and unnecessary assault weapons.

Yes, children can legally handle a rifle under adult supervision. It isn't shocking. Why is engaging in a legal act shocking?

Deadly and unnecessary? What defines "deadly" and "unnecessary"?

Any object can be deadly. Its actual lethality is determined by several factors, the most important of which is the person in control of the object. A person so inclined could kill you using a plastic drinking cup. Or a stick found lying in a field. Or with a butter knife. Or a baseball bat. Or a gun. Otherwise, these are merely objects that can do nothing on their own without someone to wield and guide them into their deadly usage.

As to "unnecessary", who decide necessity? What is one person's necessity is another person's luxury. In almost all things, individuals get to decide the necessity of objects they choose to own. A private security guard, for example, may decide spending several hundred dollars on a bullet-resistant vest is a necessity because of the nature of their job.

For someone like me living in a relatively safe suburb, it may be a luxury (or paranoia) but not a necessity. But what if my neighborhood suddenly suffered a rash of hot burglaries by armed criminals? Maybe it wouldn't be a luxury anymore but a necessity.

The State is the last entity that should be deciding necessity. Necessity is a matter of individual choice and as long as the product involved is legal to own, whether it be a gun, bat or nerf launcher, I will decide the appropriate necessity of my purchases, not you.

That’s it. Ten minutes. Ten minutes is the difference between an argument and a homicide. It’s the difference between a firing and a massacre. Ten minutes is the difference between a man angry and yelling on the street, and a man shooting down a dozen citizens in a mall.

Ok, I am about let loose a string of profanity here. Cover your eyes. Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Are these morons seriously proposing that this type of behavior is commonplace? Do they want rational people to honestly believe that a person will stay violently angry long enough to leave from where they got enraged, drive furiously to the nearest gun shop who is stocking an AK-47 look-alike, tempestuously pay for it, fill out the forms in a frothing rage without looking suspicious to the dealer, pace about in blood-curdling agitation while the background check is run, stomp out of the gun store with their purchase, slam the rounds bitterly into the magazine in their car, get out and storm into the same location that pissed them off so much and calmly go on a killing spree?

What. Are. You. On?

Yes, it could happen. In a population of 300 million (of which, perhaps 240 million can maybe own firearms and at least 80 odd million who do by conservative estimates), it is possible that one perfectly law-abiding citizen will snap and decide that mass murder is the route they will take to avenge themsevles. It could happen.

But it doesn't. Usually the unhinged individual already owns or has access to the weapons of their rampage prior to their act. The stop in the gun store doesn't factor into the scenario.

Please cite the report that illustrates this predominant method by which killing sprees occur. Otherwise, to me, they are the acts of upset individuals, whom for reasons often only known to them, decide to engage in such deplorable carnage. They cannot be predicted, really understood or stopped until the moment actually comes (and then pray there is a citizen carrying concealed or an off-duty cop around to do so). Because people are going to be wounded or killed in the time it is going to take for armed police to arrive.

Waiting periods on handguns and so-called "assault weapons" never seem to stop these things from happening.

It’s no wonder that we have almost constant gun violence in America today– these weapons are deadly, devastating, and clearly far too easy to obtain. What’s our only line of defense against keeping these firearms out of criminal hands? The NRA claims that we can trust “law-abiding citizens.” They want us to think that we have nothing to fear from “law-abiding citizens,” and that we can trust them to have the ability to get a deadly weapon in ten minutes because they would never, ever do anything wrong with it.

Far too easy to obtain? See above on the NBC article. Easy only if you're a law-abiding citizen with a clean record and willing to pay the money to do so.

Guess what, there is no line of defense from keeping these or any other firearm out of criminal hands. Not to mention the fact that criminals don't hardly ever use these types of guns at all in crimes. The bank robbers above were an exception. Anyone care to wager that their act was a "crackhead see, crackhead do" scenario using the North Hollywood Shootout as inspiration?

Criminals will always be able to obtain guns as long as their desire to commit violence with them exists. Look at Britain. An island nation where private firearms ownership is virtually banned and yet, criminals seem to have no trouble getting guns with which to threaten unarmed victims with.

You do have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens owning these types of "scary looking" rifles. I owned a Romanian AK-47 look-alike. I didn't like it. Didn't like it to the point that I sold it.

It isn't the NRA that claims we can be trusted. The State and Federal government, in most places, says that we can. That should be enough for you.

However, if I do do something wrong with any firearm I own, punish me then. Not before. Preventing someone from owning a product because of what they might do with it is a form of prior restraint and is not one of the principles our society functions on. Remember "Innocent until Proven Guilty"?

Carried to its logical conclusion, knives (for stabbing), plastic bags (for suffocating children) and cars (for drunk driving) should all be banned too because I might do something wrong with them as well.

And if we do, we aren't living in the United States anymore but Communist Russia.

But time and time again, we’ve seen that that’s just not true– even “law-abiding citizens” can become different people in a short space of time. And while the NRA wants us to trust them, they’ve betrayed our trust again and again, because criminals are obtaining these weapons and using them all the time.

All the time? Really? Where?

• The Columbine Massacre was committed by two minor children who weren't legally allowed to possess any of the firearms they used.
• The DC Beltway Snipers used an illegally obtained AR-15 rifle and both were prohibited from possessing it under State and Federal law (they were illegal aliens).
• The Trolley Square Mall Shoothing was committed with a non-"assault weapon" shotgun that was legally possessed. But he also had a handgun in his backpack and since the shooter was under 21, he was prohibited from possessing it.

The key word in all of this is "criminals". They became criminals by obtaining their tools in defiance of the law or by their acts with them. Not until.

I am a potential criminal. But until I do something and until you can demonstrate that a very large percentage of people like me do engage in such illegal acts specifically using these types of firearms, that is not a reason to deny ownership of them.

Remember, they are no different except in appearance from hunting rifles. If you are concerned about how something looks and the danger those looks place people in, then you should seek professional help.

There should be no debate about whether it’s safe to allow these weapons to find their way onto the street within ten minutes, or to allow them to find their way to the street at all. The answer is no. These firearms don’t belong in our country in anyone’s hands. We’ve already gotten rid of them once (and then the NRA pushed Congress to allow the assault weapons ban to lapse away, leaving the door open for even more violence like this).

I didn't know guns walked themselves out the door of a gun shop and fell onto the street waiting for someone to pick them up. Or someone would buy one, walk out the door and toss it onto a sidewalk in a free-for-all giveway.

If these types of guns don't belong in our country then none of them do. But, that is your agenda, isn't it?

The sunset on the AWB was a compromise that was made to even give it the chance to pass. Otherwise, there was enough opposition to it that it would not have become law at all. And that compromise was a good thing because it demonstrated the utter uselessness of the law after it expired. It had no effect at all on violent gun crime. None. Not during the ban and not since it has elapsed. Criminals don't use these guns in crime. One incident does not make a trend.

It’s time to fight to rid our country of these weapons again, and this time for good. We can’t simply put our trust in “law-abiding citizens” any longer, because it’s just not working. Ten minutes is much too short a time to allow anyone who might be murderously angry to obtain a firearm, especially one so obviously dangerous and unnecessary.

You can't trust law-abiding citizens any longer? When did I wake up in North Korea? I don't give a crap if you don't trust me. My friends trust me, my family trusts and the government trusts me. Unless you are planning to rule over me as judge, jury and executioner, you don't get to make the decision on whether I am to be trusted.

And how do you propose to rid the country of these weapons? The first assault weapon ban didn't get rid of them either! Don't you know that?!?

The AWB banned features, not functions! And the law allowed those who owned those weapons with the banned features to keep them. And such weapons continued to be sold while the AWB was in place. The features that were banned were simply removed. The guns themselves, pre and post ban, went nowhere.

Unless you are proposing that such property should be seized by the Governement? If so, you haven't seen anything close to murderously angry. You want to see an armed insurrection in this country? A blanket ban on most civilian firearms ownership nationwide might be a way to have it happen.

You see, a large percentage (you could almost call it a majority) of Americans believe, rightfully so, that they have the right to own guns by virtue of the Constitution. To deprive them of that Right across the board would be seen as the act of a tyrannical government. And many would act as the Constitution allows for and under which this country was founded by removing such tyrannical goverment. If soap box, ballet box and jury box fails, all that is left is the ammo box.

Even if half-a-million out of the 80 odd million gun owners (a small percentage) acted to resist such efforts in this manner, it would be a national crisis of unimaginable proportions. Not even all the law-enforcement officers in this country would be able to deal with such resistance. And in this country, the Army isn't allowed to and if they tried to do so, I would wager that that half-a-million would be much, much larger before too long.

And even if you succeeded and there were still firearms left for civilian ownership (such as hunting rifles and shotguns), what is to stop someone from getting those in ten minutes and head out on a killing spree? The outcome would be no different.

Do you see the obviousness and danger in your line of reasoning now?

Of course not. Because you're being paid to lie.

Gun Guys and Freedom States, my ass.