Tweet
Given the recent shootings in Oakland, and the media's insistence that the rifle used was an AK-47 and not an SKS - I was thinking, is it really in our interest to highlight the difference?
With the media claiming that the gun used was an AK - we can claim that:
If we shift the attention to the SKS - we open a can of worms.
Even though the SKS doesn't qualify as an AW under California's AW ban nor under the defunct Fed ban - there have been movements to include it.
The SKS is inexpensive, it has a military heritage, it's a semi-auto, it's an East Bloc caliber...
All these things make it a target of a more comprehensive AW ban.
Media attention that focuses on a rifle that "shoots through walls" and "killed SWAT officers wearing bulletproof vests" can't be good for us. Further "revelations" that "these weapons of war" are available in just about every California gun shop for under $200 have the potential to create a media frenzy and an "outraged" call to ban the SKS in California.
It also plays into the hands of demogogues like Carolyn McCarthy who wanted to not only reinstate the Fed AW, but radically expand it, because it didn't cover rifles like the SKS.
Do we want that kind of attention?
I think that we should let the media prattle on about the AK. I think that it won't have any traction. It's clear that this wasn't some misunderstood emo kid who was mad at the world for picking on him. The gun is just a straw man - and the public realizes it.
Thoughts?
Please note that I'm aware of rifle ballistics as they relate to gypsum and kevlar. Also, note that I know about OLLs. I don't think that the media needs an education regarding them - Josh Sugarmann had their ignorance pegged.
With the media claiming that the gun used was an AK - we can claim that:
- AKs have been banned in California for 20 years because California has an assault weapons ban.
- There isn't a legal way to purchase an AK in California.
- Refocus the debate where it belongs, on the scumbag.
If we shift the attention to the SKS - we open a can of worms.
Even though the SKS doesn't qualify as an AW under California's AW ban nor under the defunct Fed ban - there have been movements to include it.
The SKS is inexpensive, it has a military heritage, it's a semi-auto, it's an East Bloc caliber...
All these things make it a target of a more comprehensive AW ban.
Media attention that focuses on a rifle that "shoots through walls" and "killed SWAT officers wearing bulletproof vests" can't be good for us. Further "revelations" that "these weapons of war" are available in just about every California gun shop for under $200 have the potential to create a media frenzy and an "outraged" call to ban the SKS in California.
It also plays into the hands of demogogues like Carolyn McCarthy who wanted to not only reinstate the Fed AW, but radically expand it, because it didn't cover rifles like the SKS.
Do we want that kind of attention?
I think that we should let the media prattle on about the AK. I think that it won't have any traction. It's clear that this wasn't some misunderstood emo kid who was mad at the world for picking on him. The gun is just a straw man - and the public realizes it.
Thoughts?
Please note that I'm aware of rifle ballistics as they relate to gypsum and kevlar. Also, note that I know about OLLs. I don't think that the media needs an education regarding them - Josh Sugarmann had their ignorance pegged.
Comment