Initial reports from Dallas described multiple snipers with AR-15s #weaponsofwar. The ongoing propaganda theme among the tabloids is that the AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for terrorists and mass shooters. CBS news reported that the terrorist in Dallas used an antique, the SKS. It now appears that the shooter used a modified Saiga IZ-240 5.45mm rifle.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter. A murder weapon does not cause murder. I does not make any difference which weapon was used, it is a heinous crime. The U.S. federal government as well as many states and cities continue to prohibit certain types of murder weapons. There are groups which want to focus on specific types of murder victims. None of this has reduced the number of murder victims in the United States.
A photo from the scene shows that the rifle was a modified Saiga IZ-240 rifle with a Primary Arms five power scope. Gun guys always want to know the details, but the reality is these shots were close and did not require a sophisticated rifle or any particular “sniper” skill. We should remember that President Kennedy was killed with an very inexpensive bolt action carbine and started the modern gun control movement.
This photo should be credited to thearmsguide.com
The SKS rifle originally reported is very similar to the unmodified Saiga IZ-240. The SKS was designed in the World War Two Russia. It is such a basic rifle that it is legal in California with no modification. With its fixed ten round magazine, the SKS is everything that the gun haters in California say a rifle must be. It has wood, no pistol grip, no flash hider or folding stock. It is used as a cheap hunting gun across the US. I am sure that at this moment, some law maker in California is writing new legislation to close the mad man with an antique rifle loophole.
SKS fixed magazine. Photo courtesy of controversialtimes.com
There have been several recent shootings and some not so recent shootings using “Assault Style Weapons”. Tabloid journalism loves writing about “Assault Style Weapons” and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. This term truthfully reveals the problem, these guns don’t function like assault weapons, but they have a style similar to military weapons. They look much more dangerous than large caliber hunting rifles which are actually more powerful.
The term “assault rifle” was a propaganda term coined by Hitler himself to describe the Nazi’s then new machine gun which fired a small low recoil round allowing soldiers to control full auto fire. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership in the United States since 1934. There is a common misconception that an “assault style rifle” can spray bullets in full auto mode.
In recent terror attacks in France, the murderers used the AK-47, a real assault rifle fashioned after Hitler’s original model. Since fire arms ownership is highly restricted in Europe, the terrorists illegally bought machine guns on the world market and smuggled them into France. The AK-47 is the most widely spread weapon in the world, with 100 million Kalashnikov rifles currently in use. According to Oxford University economist Phillip Killicoat, the average global price of the assault rifle was estimated at $534 in 2005.
Below is a picture of the Saiga IZ-240 rifle as originally imported. It is legal in all 50 states and cost about $650
Photo courtesy of cheaperthandirt.com
The state of California has over a dozen overlapping ‘assault weapons’ laws creating a situation where the only people who know the laws are the poor citizens trying to obey them. Calguns.org has made a flow chart to help the law abiding keep track. The San Bernardino killers used AR type rifles purchased in California, the state with the most ridiculous restrictions in the United States. The killers illegally modified their guns in violation of California gun laws, then killed people which also violates California law. The California legislature has drafted a dozen new ineffective laws which will make most rifles in the state illegal. These new laws will be no more effective than the current laws broken by the San Bernardino killers. The Dallas killer could have purchased the Siaga IZ-240 in California with a ten day wait.
If banning rifles would stop terror attacks, I would be the first in line to give mine up. The truth is that no amount of regulation or law will stop the lawless. Terrorist cells operate internationally and have no difficulty bringing weapons across borders. The insane who wish to murder other humans use swords or any other weapon at hand if rifles are not available.
In another significant mass killing, between April and July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in Rwanda murdered 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority, using machetes. If the Tutsi’s had had a few SKS rifles things would have been different. The Hutu were not slowed by legal restrictions of firearms ownership or murder.
I grow weary of the predictable distortions and lies which come after each murder that fits the narrative. Black lives in Chicago are lost in much higher numbers than all mass shootings nation wide, but they don’t rate tabloid ink because they don’t fit the assault rifle narrative. Let’s deal with reality and human behavior. Attempts to restrict technology have never worked. New 3D printing technology is on the verge of making all gun control obsolete because anyone with internet access and a 3D printer can become a gun manufacturer.
Let’s do something different and have an honest discussion about mass killers, the insane and the terrorist. Assault is a verb describing behavior. There are effective things we can do to stop this behavior. Unilateral disarmament of the law abiding is not one of them.
Featured Photo should be credited to thearmsguide.com
99.9999 Percent of Americans do not own an Assault Rifle:
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of “”””selective fire””””
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine[5]
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being called such.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community.[1] In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle.[52]
Blah blah blah. I already showed several unimpeachable examples of written literature by gun writers and editors far more experienced than you or I, in which they refer to SA weapons as assault rifles. Glad you checked Wikipedia; but I own that copy of International Combat Arms. COMBAT. In fact I own several such firearms (Vector Mini Uzi, Colt Match Target M4, Mini-14). I hate it when sheeple don’t call it like it is in an attempt to sanitize. Just call them for what they are, weapons clearly designed for combat.
I don’t understand why that is important.
Mark, I may write an article. I am media, print, since 2002. Mostly automotive, (started in motorcycles/quads). Fair amount of outdoors stuff too (bug out, survival, prepping). Never done digital, but we in print all know it’s the future–why else am I here? As mentioned, I own that copy of International Combat Arms (and others after it) as well as various firearms. As a journalist, it bothers me to see sanitization of language for PR purposes. The Dallas shooter used a freaking AK-74 derivative to assault the police of Dallas. It was beautifully designed for combat and, frankly, served the operator well in that task.
You’ve never used an assault rifle and you’ve never been in combat, you don’t know WTF you are talking about.
Then you might as well blur the line between combat weapons and most civilian-intended weapons. Chief Petty Officer Kyle, armed with an M-40 bolt action rifle — essentially a Remington Model 700 hunting rifle modified as a rifle for snipers and designated marksmen, decimated dozens of assault rifle armed al-Qaeda insurgents in western Iraq. Likewise, during the Soviet-Afghan War, many Mujahedeen fighters successfully fought off Soviet forces with decades-old .303 Briitish Enfields and 7.62×54 Russian Mosin-Nagants, and they did so without optics and modifications.
Newer isn’t always better, and gun prohibitionists care little of the terminology, except when it suits their long-range goal of disarmement. Words used properly, or improperly have power, good and bad. As a writer, you certainly know that.
I had to laugh at that 99.9% shlock, Gary. A few years back, the editors of International Combat Arms, an offshoot of Guns & Ammo magazine, wrote this in the intro to their “Assault Rifle Roundup” major feature: “There are as many reasons to own an assault rifle as there are shooters who own them. Within the past half decade, these military lookalike rifles have endeared themselves to survivalists, military arms collectors, hunters and everyday shooters.” So, the Guns & Ammo editors were all wrong, eh? Bwahahahaha! Sure.
Yes, or your quoting is wrong. An “assault rifle” is defined as a select-fire weapon capable of semi-auto, full auto and/or burst modes of operation.
They have effectively been banned since 1986, and those that are legal to own cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to buy legally.
You’re confusing them with the term “assault weapon” a phrase invented bt Diane Feinstein and the media to make ordinary semi-auto firearms sound like their full auto capable cousins.
Caitlyn Jenner might have tits, but i ain’t fucking her….
Just because an AR-15 LOOKS like and M-16, doesn’t mean it is ANYTHING like one.
The AR-15 IS NOT, and NEVER WAS a “military weapon” it just looks like one.
So yes, if “Guns and Ammo” printed that, they are wrong.
So yes, if “Guns and Ammo” printed that, they are wrong.” HAHAHA! Thanks for the belly laugh this morning. I know these weapons very well. Own them, shoot them, go to FA shoots down in Oregon, was part of a media-only LWRCI FA shoot, etc etc. But John, you’re missing the essential point. The weapons were called assault rifles for decades, by the very gun media paid to write about them. Only recently have the NRA and other orgs tried to change the lexicon. BTW, what exactly did the Dallas shooter do? “Sporter” the cops, or assault the cops? Yeah.
I can call my Saturn Vue a Ferrari, doesn’t make it true.
The FACT is, semi-auto rifles ARE NOT and WILL NEVER BE “assault rifles”
Because ASSAULT RIFLES, by definition are select fire.
I don’t give a fuck what anyone else calls them, the term was defined and it has been co-opted by anti-gun politicians and media to fool the ignorant.
Really? So the thousands of soldiers/marines who stormed Omaha/Iwo Jima with semi-auto Garands and M-1 carbines…they didn’t assault the beaches? Their SA rifles weren’t made for war? I see. But then, those are semantics (look it up).
And actually, as shown, it’s the opposite, bro. They were ORIGINALLY termed assault rifles in gun magazines and used as such by the media for decades. The NRA tried to make the guns less “scary,” or whatever, and began a movement to change the public name to “sporting rifles” or whatever it is they decided on. You don’t have to give a F about facts, Johnson, but you can’t ignore them. And by the way, it says a lot about who you are as a person via your use of profanity in a public forum.
Incidentally, the Germans most likely coined the term. It was a name for a gun, nothing more. They didn’t list a set of functions that were required to go along with the name, any more than Panzerfaust means all anti-tank weapons have fists in them. I’ll not help you with which weapon it was or the era; if you don’t know instantly, you’re just another loudmouth poser.
They had the Browning Automatic Rifle.
BAR is a GREAT rifle….. great weight to soak up the recoil, and the firing options are “fast” and “faster”
Got the chance to shoot one owned by a friend with an FFL that was a “dealer sample”
Not “zee Germans”
Hitler himself coined the term.
You are wrong, terminolgy does matter, The german STG44 had full automatoc mode. The AR15 was never used by the U.S. Military as a combat weapon it was sold to civilians by Colt as a semi automatc version of the M16 used by the U.S. Military. The M16 had full automatc and semi- automatic fire modes and is an assault rifle. Garands were never referred to as assault rifles. The M14 (308 Win, post WW2) was the first
American assault rifle and short lived because of recoil causing lack of control in full auto mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-within-purview-national-firearms-act
You aren’t fit to suck the dirt on the graves of those Vets.
Here ya go, sparky.
http://031d26d.namesecurehost.com/gunfax/fstcp67.jpg
Here YOU go….
Short
Compact
SELECTIVE FIRE
Hey MORON, when you want to give up your guns, go fucking do so, otherwise STFU.
YOUR DESIRE to ban ANY weapons goes HAND IN HAND with the scumbag WHO SHOT THOSE COPS.
Hand in hand with BLM
Hand in hand with marxist scum.
YOU ARE THE ENEMY HERE.
for the disarmanuts–facts are irrelevant
What, exactly, is meant by ‘an air traffic controller’ killed the president????
Oswald was an air traffic controller in the Marines
So why didn’t he say ‘a Marine killed the President’????
When Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Marines, when he got up in the morning and put on his uniform and went to work as an air traffic controller. That was his job.
Oswald was not an ATC. His USMC mos was 6741, in that era an aviation electronics operator – in essence a radar operator. ATC mos’s were 6721, 6722, and 6724 depending on achievement level.
If you have some direct knowledge about this, I would love to hear more. I have seen Oswald described in several sources as an Air Traffic Controller like this in the LA Times:
John F. Kennedy took his campaign to Disneyland in November, 1959, only two months after an unknown Marine was mustered out of the corps in Tustin where he served as an air traffic controller. . . . That Marine was Lee Harvey Oswald.
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/lee-harvey-oswald
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/time.htm
see 06-25-1957.
Doesn’t make any difference — the whole Warren commission was a cover up and Oswald was a patsy! You guys must be under 50?
The rifle is not a 74 (5.45) but a 47 (7.62) type. Magpul magazine. Magpul has developed one for 5.45, but it hasn’t been released yet.
The rifle is a Saiga IZ-240 in 5.45 mm with a Tapco magazine
Here is the new Magpul 5.45
https://www.magpul.com/products/pmag-30-ak74-moe
Yeah, sorry I totally screwed up on the mag, then I couldn’t edit my comment because it was under review for spam. I goofed! Thx for the correction.
“Assault” is a NOUN or a VERB. Not an ADJECTIVE.
www merriam-webster com/dictionary/assault
There is no such thing as an “assault rifle”.
It is a made-up thing of the Leftist anti-gunners because they thought AR meant Automatic or Assault Rifle, when it actually stood for ARmalite or Armalite Rifle.
The only real “assault rifle” was the Sturmgewehr 44. Which literally translates as “Storm Rifle”
en wikipedia org/wiki/StG_44
At any rate, they MUST be FULL AUTO, not Semi-Auto.
“If banning rifles would stop terror attacks, I would be the first in line to give mine up.”
So if banning speech that was occasionally used by terrorists stopped terrorist attacks you would be the first in line to give up free speech?
What other basic God endowed rights should we consider foregoing for a little safety?
This is Putin’s agent! ))