One in a row....

Me & my AK-47

This lovely piece of useless journalism from Josie Roberts of the Pittsburgh Tribune chronicles her quest to do something that is perfectly legal, yet present it in such a fashion that the readers will be convinced that it should NOT be legal.

Ms. Roberts begins her "story" with this introduction:

A 20-something female walks into a gun shop, wearing a pink sweater and pearls, and asks to buy an AK-47. Half-dozen men, several in flannel, look up from the rows of gun displays.

They had holsters. She had heels.

An interesting "us vs. them" introduction. Yes, Virginia, people who like guns wear flannel shirts. Sometimes they even wear shoes. They also wear 3 piece suits. I'm sure that if a broad enough search was performed, a gun shop could be located where the men wear pearls and sweaters and the women wear flannel. Perhaps this is the gun banners next enforcement tool: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Fashion Enforcement Team.

I knew I looked out of place at a gun store, but I wanted to see how difficult it would be to buy an assault weapon in Pittsburgh, just days after Keith “Spud” Watts Jr. was murdered with an AK-47 knock-off outside Carrick High School.

How difficult it would be to buy a rifle after a murder? Why should it be difficult? Are car sales suspended after a drunk driver hits a kid on a bicycle? Are sales of pool supplies suspended after a toddler drowns in an unfenced pool? To her credit, she did mention "an AK-47 knock off" instead of falling into the usual MSM trap of calling every rifle that superficially resembles Mikhail Kalashnikov's creation an AK-47. I'll have more info about "Spud" later.

I went alone to Firearms Unlimited in Bridgeville two days after the shooting.

What a brave girl. She went alone. Did she really think she would need backup? Is flannel really that dangerous? Nevermind....I know women who can't go to the bathroom alone, much less to a gun store.

I parked in back of the wooden-paneled shop, built into the side of a hill off Route 50 and rang the doorbell to gain entrance. Inside, it was packed. A hundred rifles lined the walls where glass cases of handguns didn’t.

Manager Randy Canella looked up from a sale and asked if I needed any help. “I’m looking for a long gun,” I said. “I want an AK-47.”

Canella took a drag of his cigarette.

I'm not sure how the cigarette plays into the story, except to possibly paint the manager as one of "those people" who go around giving everyone else cancer because they do not value human life.

“I have some in back,” he said. “I’ll be with you in a minute.” He brought out three models and set them on the counter. I stood with crossed arms while he explained the guns’ features, rotating them on their sides and pointing out the magazine. I tried not to flinch.

Crossed arms? An excellent indicator of a person who is not willing to accept anything that is told to them. Tried not to flinch? Is she afraid that the rifle would jump off the counter and begin "spray firing?" Fear of inanimate objects is considered to be a "phobia", a psychological disorder - specifically an anxiety disorder. More information about phobias in general can be found here. Francis Porretto has an excellent discussion of the fear of inanimate objects as it applies to firearms here.

Canella finally asked, “Why do you want this gun?”

I answered, “Why not?”

A good question from the manager, and a perfectly acceptable answer on her part. Somehow I don't think that she truly thinks it's an acceptable answer.

and I asked how to load the bullets.

Bullets? Is she going to reload for her new rifle? Perhaps she means "ammunition." Forgive her.....she doesn't even know that flannel is the only acceptable fabric to wear in a gun store.

The Romanian Century Arms, WASR-10, 7.62-x-39 mm rifle was the cheapest at $389.95, or $422.25 after tax. It was a clone, like most AK-47s in America. The first President Bush made it illegal to import the Russian and Chinese military models.

The knock-offs look like AK-47s, fire like AK-47s and are very accurate at short distances. I said I’d take it.

Well.....accurate up to a point. A little bit of fact checking would have helped her here. The "knock offs" as she calls them do not fire like a true AK-47. True AK's are capable of fully automatic fire, meaning that when the trigger is pressed and held back the firearm will continue to fire until either the trigger is released, it runs out of ammunition, or it jams. The "knock offs" that are available for sale in the U.S. are semi-automatic, meaning that it will only fire one shot each time the trigger is pressed. If the trigger is pressed and held back, a mechanical device called a disconnector prevents the rifle from firing again until the trigger is released and then pressed once more. I also take issue with her "very accurate" statement, but she does say "short range" and does not define accuracy so I won't argue the point........yet.

Canella stopped me.

“I don’t mean to be nosy, but if you want a gun for self-protection, a shotgun would be better,” he said, assuming that’s the only reason for this blonde in a twin sweater set to need an AK-47. “It’s easier to load for people who aren’t familiar with firing a gun, and it does a lot of damage.”

How does she know that is what he was assuming? Does she have a crystal ball? Is she psychic? Could it be that he was simply trying to qualify the purchaser and recommend a product which might better suit her needs based on his past experience? Naw.....let's just jump right to the conclusion that he's a male chauvinist pig.

“My dad recommended this model,” I said, searching for an excuse.

Excuse? Why would she need an excuse? Nevermind....the concept of "rights" and the application thereof obviously excapes her.

Except for a possible stray bullet in the chamber, I shouldn’t have been worried.

Another issue with inanimate objects. Ammunition does not "stray" as in the case of a "stray dog." The only way it would get into the chamber is if a person were to put it there.

In America, it’s legal to buy guns.

Yes it is, at least for the moment. That really bothers you, doesn't it?

Even this one, a semiautomatic rifle developed for Soviets tank crews to kill from a mile away.

Wow. This is where the venom really starts to drip from her fangs. First of all, let's keep things straight: the WASR-10 was not developed for Soviet tank crews. It is a semi-automatic copy of the AK-47 assault carbine designed by Mikhail Kalashnakov for the Soviet military as a whole....not just tank crews.

Killing from a mile away? Perhaps if the rifle were dropped from orbit and hit some poor schmuck on the head. Accurate, effective, aimed fire at a distance of 1,760 yards (that's one mile for you flannel wearing folks who have to take your shoes off to count) from a rifle with crude open sights, a trigger pull that can best be described as dragging a brick through wet cement, and firing a 123 grain, .311" diameter bullet at less than 2500 feet per second? My ballistics tables don't go that low, but I do have a listing for a 130 grain .308 bullet fired at 2500 fps. It shows that with a 100 yard zero, the bullet will have lost over half its' initial velocity (down to 1155 fps) and dropped 154.2" at a range of only 600 yards. (Hornady Reloading Manual, Third Edition, page 489) That's over 12 feet of drop for the flannel wearing, toe counting group. Effective fire at a mile? Puh-lease.

Joe Dominick, Allegheny County’s chief deputy coroner, said shots from an AK-47 inflict trauma all over the body.

Really? So that means if I were to shoot someone in the foot with an AK-47 it would give them a hang nail on their pinky finger? This sounds like a variation of the ever popular "shockwave trauma" myth that is usually associated with the .50 BMG. Since this guy claims to be a chief deputy coroner (why do I have the image of Roscoe P. Coltrain in my head when I think of "chief deputy?"), I assume that he is familiar with the scientific method and the rules of evidence. I'd like to see some factual, scientific evidence to support his position. I'll be holding my breath.

The bullet can blow through several body parts, cutting through a hand to the torso through the other hand.

I think that she is trying to describe a "through and through" wound and just doesn't do a very good job. Perhaps she really does think that the bullet will enter one hand, move up the arm, across the torso, down the opposite arm, and then exit in the opposite hand. Images of the Kennedy "magic bullet" come to mind.

And rarely is an AK-47 fired just once. At least eight shots were fired at Watts’ Geo Tracker.

A general assumption based on anecdotal evidence.......prefaced by a sentence which begins with a conjunction. Poor logic and poor grammer combined. At least she's not wearing flannel.

Under Pennsylvania law, gun shops can sell a rifle to anybody 18 or older from any state with no criminal record. An AK-47 is a rifle, and I could purchase it on the spot. I didn’t need a reason or even a gun permit.

Ok, back to Civics 101. This is called a "right." As in "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

But there was a catch. As a new resident in Pennsylvania, I did not have a driver’s license from the state. I thought my U.S. passport would be sufficient to buy a rifle, but Canella disagreed. He wanted a government-issued photo ID with my present address and sent me across the street to the Driver’s License Center.

Wow....imagine that. A law abiding FFL holder. Who would have imagined such a thing.

I waited four days for New York State to fax a transcript of my driving record to PennDOT. With my new driver’s license in hand, I went back to Firearms Unlimited last Tuesday. Cop cars blocked several stalls when I pulled into the parking lot. Three people were being questioned. A woman had her hands behind her back. A violent crime impact team from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was investigating a possible straw purchase, when a person with a clean record buys firearms for convicted criminals.

What's this? Could it be existing laws being enforced, resulting in criminal prosecution of the people who violated the law? Goodness gracious, we can't have that. It would be much better to repress everyone equally. We wouldn't want the criminals to feel like they are being singled out.

I left the engine running for a second and hesitated to unlock the doors. I was the only one not armed.

You've gone through your entire life that way, why worry about it now? Could it be that she is beginning to realize that the .gov is not always going to be there to protect her? I doubt it.

But I was here to pick up my AK-47. I sidestepped the commotion and climbed the rickety stairs to the entrance.

“I don’t have to sell anybody a gun I don’t want to, and I don’t have to have a reason,” Canella said when I got inside. “It’s more gut than anything else. It’s a major concern for us, and it’s a duty.”

He recognized me, “the AK-47 girl,” and tried to steer me toward the shotgun again. “If you were my wife, daughter or sister, I would tell you to get a shotgun, but if your mind’s made up, your mind’s made up,” he said. “It’s my job to advise, but you make the decision.”

Watch out, you might actually portray the manager as a human being who actually gives a shit about his customers. Sarcasm aside, I have to give her credit for showing that the store manager takes his job seriously and isn't just another flannel wearing slackjaw.

I had to fill out a federal form with my basic information and answer 13 easy questions about whether or not I was a fugitive, had mental illnesses or was an illegal alien. The store called Instacheck, a state program that surveys police records, and assigned me an approval number within five minutes. Instacheck replaced the former, mandatory five-day waiting period and the state police have found approximately 60 percent of individuals trying to buy a gun can be approved instantly. Firearms Unlimited owner Robert Carola guessed that number is closer to 95 percent.

Really? People who buy firearms tend to be upstanding citizens? Again, credit to the author for including something favorable.

Police do not know how the gun used to kill Watts was obtained.

Here we are back to our friend Keith "Spud" Watts Jr. There have been quite a few articles about "Spud" in the Pittsburgh newspapers lately, but I've only been able to find one that mentions the fact that this choirboy was a convicted felon who had released only one month earlier. He had just finished a 2 year incarceration for driving a stolen vehicle and carrying heroin. He was 15 at the time of his arrest. Most of the articles portray "Spud" as a victim of society, orphaned when his drug dealing father was shot to death in 1999 and his drug using mother was shot in 2003. Mom had also spent time in jail for theft.

Most of the articles also do not mention that the gang war in this particular Pittsburgh neighborhood has been going on for generations.

Derwin Milligan, 17, of Climax Street in Beltzhoover has been charged with criminal homicide in the death, and is not old enough to purchase a firearm legally. The murder weapon has not been found yet, police said.

Ok....if the alleged shooter was not able to purchase a firearm legally, what exactly was the point of the article? Wouldn't it have been better to find a juvenile felon and send him to buy a gun?

I did not buy any bullets. I did not want to have any rounds lying around when I didn’t even know how to load a gun; I told Canella I wanted to wait until after I took the gun safety course he recommended. He was proud. A poster on the entranceway advertises National Rifle Association training courses. I ripped off one of the slips of paper with the Web site address, www.safe-tee.net. Carola said he takes pride in selling guns to “upstanding citizens” for sport or self protection.

A glimmer of hope for the author. She at least realizes that she doesn't know what she is doing and makes the safe choice. The question now is, will she actually take the training course and learn to shoot her new rifle? If so, will she report it in a fair, unbiased manner? We'll be watching.

Firearms Unlimited followed all of the laws.

Hello? A lot of people do. Some of us are actually proud of it.

Canella even cajoled me into a four-day wait period while I applied for the Pennsylvania driver’s license.

Cajoled? No he didn't. He did what was required of him by law, and incidently forced the author to do what was required of her by law. How is this a bad thing?

I had entered the store at 1:22 p.m. Store clerk Brandon Moore loaded the gun into my trunk at 2:22 p.m. The actual purchase took an hour because of cash register technicalities.

Six days after Watts was murdered, four days after I applied for a driver’s license, one hour after entering the store and five minutes after a criminal record check, I legally owned a semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.

Good for you. That's the way it works in a free society. The conclusion leaves something to be desired though. She doesn't come right out and say it, but the implication is made that what she did should not be possible in light of the past events. Let's change the wording to put it into a different context and see if it still makes sense:

Six days after Samantha drowned, four days after I finished the YMCA swimming class, one hour after entering the pool supply store, and five minutes after my check was verified, I legally owned a bucket of chlorine tablets.

Or how about this one:

Six days after John was killed by a drunk driver, four days after getting my driver's license, one hour after buying a car, and 5 minutes after pulling into a gas station, I was driving a motor vehicle.

To her credit, the author tries several times to appear unbiased, but the overall tone of the "report" just doesn't come across that way. My impression of the piece is that it is just another "This shouldn't be legal" smear article. Not quite the vitriolic screeds that have been appearing in the San Francisco papers, but it still ends up on the anti-gun side of things.

Why exactly is it that whenever an individual violates the law an attempt is made to restrict the rights of the people who didn't commit the crime?

The author of this lovely article can be reached at jroberts@tribweb.com. Let her know what you think.

_

*******NOTE: Earlier today, Jed at Freedom Sight posted a fisking of this same article here. I wrote mine on a notepad while I was waiting at the federal courthouse today. I almost didn't post my own fisk after I read the other one (I think his is better than mine), but I decided to go ahead anyway. Any similarity between the two is simply a result of commonality of thought.
__

// posted by Len @ 1:52 AM