The Baltimore Sun....please respond to this!


PDA






Norton
July 5, 2004, 08:30 AM
In today's Baltimore Sun. Questions from me (ammo for a letter to editor): Does the rifle really fire at 2300 FPS? Anyone know where the BATFE says that this firearm is used in police killings "often"?

I also find it interesting that they say the manufacturers of the SKS skirted the AWB by making modifications.......especially since most of those SKSs are 40 years old.

"hi-cap" magazines for the most part don't work well, the SKS is far from able to spray ammunition since it is a fixed magazine and must be top loaded.

I said this several weeks ago....they went on about AK type guns years ago. Last year it was .223 Bushmasters, this year it's the SKS. Demonize them, one by one.

MD people....you MUST flood the Baltimore Sun with response to this editorial. I'm putting mine together today. The email address is: letters@baltsun.com






Originally published July 5, 2004
THEY BURIED Carlos Owen, Harley Chisholm III, and Charles Bennett last month. The three Birmingham, Ala., police officers were serving an arrest warrant in one of the city's blighted neighborhoods when they were shot and killed. And the incident has left people in that conservative, gun-owning part of the country wondering whether maybe some weapons shouldn't be so widely available.

The gun that killed the officers was an SKS, a rifle similar to the notorious Russian AK-47. It's a military-style assault weapon and, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a rifle often used against law enforcement officers. It fires a 7.62 mm round at 2,300 feet per second, a velocity that's capable of penetrating police body armor. Earlier this year, two other Alabama police officers were killed in the line of duty. An SKS was used in both shootings.

Why is this cop-killing gun allowed in circulation in this country? It's not outlawed by the 10-year-old federal assault weapons ban. The AK-47 was, but the makers of the SKS found a way around the ban by making some minor modifications. Yet their gun still has some of the most troubling qualities of an assault weapon - an ability to accept a high-capacity magazine and, even as a semiautomatic, spray a large number of large bullets powerfully and accurately.

That, and the fact that it's cheap and lethal-looking, has made the SKS a popular gun among criminals. An SKS can be purchased for as little as $200. A used magazine capable of holding 40 rounds might cost an extra $5. It's not a particularly useful gun for hunting. It's not even that popular with the general law-abiding public. All models of assault weapons represent less than 5 percent of the guns in circulation.

Yet here we are just a few months shy of the day the federal assault weapons ban is set to expire and there's little hope it will be renewed. It should be renewed - and expanded to cover guns such as the SKS. President Bush said four years ago that he supported an extension of the assault weapons ban. A majority of the Senate supports it, too. Right-wing House Republicans don't. President Bush could probably overcome that opposition, but he won't even talk about the issue. Clearly, he'd rather the whole thing went away quietly.

Of course it won't go away for the families of those murdered Birmingham police officers. While a renewal wouldn't take the existing SKS rifles off the street, letting the ban expire in September would opens the door to even deadlier models. What message would that decision send to future cop-killers? A lot of Americans, gun owners and police officers included, have been left to ponder: What compelling reason is there to allow bad guys to own assault weapons? And how can the president of the United States continue to claim to support a ban but not lift a finger for the cause?
_

If you enjoyed reading about "The Baltimore Sun....please respond to this!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ssr
July 5, 2004, 08:55 AM
letting the ban expire in September would opens the door to even deadlier models

More deadly than deadly? :confused: Oh, I see, they just want to ban the "dangerous" guns. Then let us keep all the "non-deadly, nondangerous" guns. :rolleyes:

Baba Louie
July 5, 2004, 09:57 AM
It's not even that popular with the general law-abiding public. There are probably a few hundred thousand owners in the US, such as moi, who would disagree with that comment. How many has AIM, Empire, Century et al sold in the past 10 years? How many have been used illegally?

Very tragic that a criminal took the lives of three officers serving a warrant or two others. Criminals are like that. Had the SKS been banned, we can speculate on the criminals using a "Sniper" type high power bolt action rifle, a lever action .30-30 assault carbine or a .72 caliber smoothbore pump action/semi automatic assault shotgun.

5 officers down only takes what? 5 single shots?

Because criminals are like that.
Or is it the gun they use?

Bill St. Clair
July 5, 2004, 10:36 AM
Remington lists (http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/centerfire/results.asp?cal=36) the muzzle velocity of their UMC and Remington Express 7.62x39 ammo at 2365 fps from a 24" barrel. Wolf documents (http://wolfammo.com/Rifle.htm) the muzzle velocity of their 7.62x39 FMJ & HP ammo as 2396 fps.

It is well known that lightweight body armor does not stop rifle rounds. Once the idea has been inculcated in the public mind that 7.62x39 is a horrible deadly cop-killer bullet, it will be easy to attack our .270 and .30/06 hunting rounds, which are much more potent.

Old Fuff
July 5, 2004, 11:01 AM
Yes indeed.

And John Karry and his buddy, Ted both propose that any rifle cartridge that can penetrate police soft body armor should be banned because they are "cop-killer bullets".

They even specifically named the 30-30, the criminal's all-time favorite.

cpileri
July 5, 2004, 11:08 AM
"The gun that killed the officers..."

Dagnabbit. I knew that spontaneous animation and imbueing them with free will would cause problems. How am I supposed to dispel that bit of hocus pocus?? This is the dilemma that plagues me.

C-

Ironbarr
July 5, 2004, 02:26 PM
What compelling reason is there to allow bad guys to own assault weapons?IIRC "bad guys" are not "allowed" to own "assault" rifles.

Sorry about all the quotes, but I'm really tired of hearing/reading these words. Another - as I've stated before in life - is "illegal". Aside from besmirching a poor sick bird, I believe "illegal guns" is a misnomer. How can a gun be "illegal"? It, by itself, hasn't done anything wrong. On the other hand, illegal possession and use of a gun IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

Semantics!

As for the rest, what did you (we) expect from the source, a change of stripes? One of their victories, one to which they'd tied further activity, is about to deep-six - of course they'll spew the necessary drivel to re-focus their expectations. And if they can see a way of breathing life into it they will very loudly continue the drivel.

What can we do? Educate the people that would support "them" and continue to provide our representatives in the House and Senate with our input.

One other thing - we must ensure that no effort of renewal passage slides by without our knowing it. As my sig indicates "Situational awareness applies to politics too!!".

My 2ยข.

-Andy

Black Snowman
July 5, 2004, 03:44 PM
What compelling reason is there to allow bad guys to own assault weapons?

More important: What compelling reason is there to not allow good guys to own assault weapons? Particularly when the bad guys will keep getting them illegally?

As point it out, the bad guys are bad guys because they're breaking the law. What's one more law? There were already several laws in violation what positive differance would another one make?

To steal someone elses great idea (sorry I can't remember the members name).

Would banning certain cars reduce the dangers of drunk drivers?
Then why would banning certain guns reduce how dangerous criminials are?

Would the cost of banning all cars be worth the elmination of drunk driving?
Would relieving the good guys of the means to defend themselves from somene with ill intent be worth the elimination of gun crime? Oh! But wait it wouldn't, because criminals will always have access to things that are illegal, including guns. See England and Australia.

Crime will always be with us, it's our responsability to protect ourselves and those we care about from people who would do us harm. By taking away our rights these people are doing us harm and are, constitutionally and in my mind, criminals themselves.

Standing Wolf
July 5, 2004, 04:01 PM
...you MUST flood the Baltimore Sun with response to this editorial.

Attempting to reason with leftist extremists is something like teaching pigs to dance: they don't learn to dance, and we just get all muddy.

Norton
July 5, 2004, 07:13 PM
Standing Wolf is right...we wont change the leftists minds. However, since this is Baltimore's only daily newspaper, we have to put the truth out there, less the anti's voice be the only ones that are being heard.

boofus
July 5, 2004, 07:16 PM
Instead of trying to teach pigs to dance why don't we just slaughter them and eat porkchops and bacon? :p

pinblaster
July 5, 2004, 07:47 PM
Where else but here in MD. can you have a republican elected governor and at the same time, send the same bunch of democrats back into office that have been screwing things up for the past 30 years? :banghead: Oh well, at least we sent KKT back to wherever it was she came from. IMO the Baltimore Sun makes a good disposeable table cover for gun cleaning and eating crabs, etc. The Sun seems to go farther left every time I look at it. :barf:

Spot77
July 5, 2004, 10:01 PM
Pinblaster - welcome aboard. I live a stone's throw outside of South Baltimore.

Anyway, here's my spontaneous reply, with a little bit of embellishment on my part. Some of my facts might be technically inaccurate as to dates, but I think I'm on the money for the most part:

Factual errors are becoming so rampant in The Sun that it's a wonder anybody reads the paper for more than a comical relief from reality.

The recent article regarding the police officers killed with an SKS rifle jumps to mind. Whoever did the research for this article must have quickly perused an anti-gun website, because the inaccuracies and blatant lies are plagiarized almost verbatim.

The sks has been manufactured for well over 40 years. It was in service to communist countries way before the buzzwords "assault weapons" were ever coined.

The SKS has only one thing in common with an AK style rifle - the 7.62x39 caliber. This caliber has also been in service for more than half a century. Surely it wasn't invented to pierce police body armor decades before body armor was invented.

An SKS rifle can be had for about $100, not $200.

The SKS rifle comes with a fixed 10 round magazine. Some manufacturers claim that their high capacity magazines will work on an SKS. I never could get one to work with mine.

Any magazine over 20 rounds is already illegal in Maryland, and will remain illegal even after the sunset of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban".
Come up with something more interesting if you're looking to be provocative.

The SKS rifle is an EXCELLENT hunting rifle. Although it's caliber and power is sometimes called "anemic" compared to bolt action hunting rifles, many people choose to hunt with these rifles for their reliability, and inexpensive ammunition.

The SKS is VERY popular with the general law-abiding public. In fact it is the most sought after rifle as a first time rifle purchase because of it's medium power, low price, inexpensive ammunition, and ease of maintenance. Only .22 caliber rifles outsell the SKS as a first time rifle purchase.

The story did get one thing correct - there is no compelling reason for a criminal to own an SKS rifle or any other firearm. I however, having no criminal background, and having passed the FBI background check, have every reason in the world to own one, although the most important reason is that as a free man in a free country, I should have the right to choose the firearm that I am most comfortable with for target shooting, hunting, and upholding the duty and responsibilities of the Second Amendment.

RobG
July 5, 2004, 11:20 PM
This story also shows poor recon on the part of the PD. SWAT is supposed to handle high risk warrants - that being anytime a suspect is armed.

Articles like this, and those stating that the SKS is "concealable" make me chuckle.

Unfortunately, there may be a half truth hidden in this bile. Of late, it may be that SKSes have been used more frequently against Officers. Though I strongly repeat MAY.

40 rnd mag for $5? Sounds like an AK conversion to me.

SKS mods: yes, I'd like to hear more on that. More to the point: when did the last importable SKS roll of an assembly line?

In the endless diatribes against the AWB sunset, we shall see articles only get more shrill and odiferous...

K-Romulus
July 6, 2004, 11:01 AM
I read with interest your July 5 editorial against the SKS rifle.

I was amused to see that you have dropped all pretense of only seeking to ban pistol-grip equipped firearms (so-called "assault weapons"), and are now publicly going full-bore against any rifle that your ed board deems "dangerous" (which seems to be *all* centerfire rifles).

The SKS that you are trying to demonize is no different in function or appearance than the American-made Remington 7400, Ruger Mini-14, and Ruger Mini-30, all of which fire cartridges that are capable of defeating most police body armor. The Remington 7400 and ruger Mini-30 both fire 7.62mm cartridges that can exceed 2700 fps. None of these rifles has a pistol grip.

Incidentally, all of these semiautomatic, magazine-fed firearms that I named are used for hunting and target shooting. I guess these are the next firearms that your ed board will call for banning.

(edited to correct "7.72" mistake. I don't thin the Sun ed board would know any better, anyway.:banghead: )

Spot77
July 6, 2004, 01:46 PM
Keep em' going....we're an articulate bunch - exactly who The Sun needs to hear from.

pinblaster
July 6, 2004, 08:29 PM
Norton, where was the article in the Sun and who wrote it? Since I normally don't waste my money on their lefty rag, I don't have the paper to find out this information for myself. Having this info will help me to give the article a proper response. BTW I also own an SKS, a Chinese Norinco with all matching serial numbers that had never been fired ('till I got it) . I had to pay $250 for mine but I love it ! :D

Norton
July 6, 2004, 10:05 PM
pinblaster,

It was in Monday's op/ed section.

i don't pay for it either.....just read it online.

pinblaster
July 7, 2004, 06:46 PM
Thanks, Norton.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Baltimore Sun....please respond to this!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!