Why AK-47?

Two weeks ago, I got a note from Canada:

I live in Canada where owning a firearm is not just problematic, but akin to signing a good part of your citizenship and rights away.

The majority of people up here are anxious about guns and firearm ownership. I think around 2/3 support strict gun control. It’s tough enough making the argument for firearm ownership here but almost impossible when it comes to assault weapons. People are really scared of assault weapons eg AK-47s. They seem to think almost magically about them as though AKs and similar rifles will go off on a rampage all on their own without human action.

Can you give me a couple of the most popular arguments U.S. gun rights folks use for AKs and/or links to those arguments?

Let’s talk about the reasons why some people want AK47 banned.

Is it the name? Doubtful, as the same people would like to ban AK74, AR15, Uzi and pretty much any other modern gun they can name.

Is it the caliber? Probably not, as the haters of AK and SKS don’t notice Savage or CS bolt actions in 7.62×39.

Is it the looks, the pistol grip? No, as the same people object to AK47 in bullpup or thumbhole stocks.

The long stroke gas piston and rotating bolt? Don’t make me laugh. They don’t get that deep in the technical details.

They hate AK47 for the same reason they hate FN FNC, Steyr AUG, Keltec KSG, American 180 and every other gun that is either effective for self-defense or looks effective. At the end of the day, it comes down to the unwillingness to allow others effective tools for defense from man, beast or mob.

The discussion shouldn’t be about AK47 or AK74 or Sharp Stick Mk1 Mod0. It should be about the right of the smallest minority, the individual, to self-determination and self-protection. The right of that one person should not be abrogated on the account of any number of scoundrels misusing similar tools. That would be like disarming the 1941 American Army because Japanese and German armies used their weapons for evil and therefore nobody should have dangerous weapons. Just because Joe Thug or G-Man Jack use an AK47 or any other weapon is no reason to deprive Smiley Suzy and Friendly Fred of theirs…in fact, the misuse of force by criminals and governments is the most compelling reason, far more compelling than sport or hunting, for lawful civilians to stay well armed and trained. Whether they choose AK47 or any other weapon.

This entry was posted in civil rights, rifle, rkba, self-defense, training, Uncategorized, weapon and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why AK-47?

  1. Ken Thomas says:

    I disagree with your opinion on this one.

    I think people who want to strengthen gun control know perfectly well that assault rifles are, in most self-defense situations, less effective than what we might call a hunting rifle. They are generally less accurate (without expensive modifications), fire a less lethal round, and cost much more to buy.

    So why do gun control advocates constantly talk about assault rifles and not hunting rifles? Because it’s an effective method to exploit public ignorance. By focusing on appearance, the fact that they are used by the military, and other irrelevant nonsense, they see banning assault weapons as an attainable first step.

    After that, they will have an easy case to make. “This hunting rifle actually fires a larger round, and fires it more accurately than an asssault rifle – and those are against the law. Shouldn’t this gun be against the law as well?”

    • Oleg Volk says:

      Intermediate caliber rifles lack accuracy and range when compared to scoped hunting rifles. For self-defense, that matters very little, as a 5MOA AK74 would be greatly more useful than a 1MOA Remington 700 in 30-06 despite inferior power and accuracy. Shorter length, lower recoil and muzzle flash, larger magazine capacity combine to make it a better self-defense tool.
      But, granting your premise for the sake of an argument, let’s say that assault rifle look-alikes are targeted for their looks. Wouldn’t a P90 or an FS2000, both completely dissimilar to the AK in looks, be off the ban lists? Gun banners say “AK47” but they mean “all modern and effective old weapons”. A Maxim machine gun of 1884 or a Madsen LMG of 1904 are hardly modern looking weapons, yet they are banned from new production and the antique samples are extremely restricted.

  2. BLT says:

    Ken: Maybe shot-per-shot, they’re less effective than a hunting rifle…but let’s face it, having a large capacity, instantly swappable magazine makes the aggregate more effective.

    No, I think most gun-haters who loathe “assault weapons” do so because they actually believe having them legally available will lead to “blood in the streets.”

    Simply put, such people have no faith in their fellow human beings. We’re all murderers just waiting for a trigger…and if we’re well armed, well, we’ll be more lethal murderers once we finally snap!

    These same people seem to ignore the fact that someone with a really fast car can make a mighty effective murderer, too. So can a drunk farmer with some knowledge of fertilizer and diesel fuel. So can some @holes with boxcutters, fake bombs, and a grim determination..but of course, those screaming about “assault weapons” want nothing to do with banning fast cars, alcohol, fertilizer, fuel, box cutters, or Islam. Nor should they. They just have a mental block that can’t extend to weapons, because they’ve been highly effectively trained against it by a toxic sub-section of our society.

    • Flint says:

      Well, they know that, if guns where more available, /they/ would probably murder someone… so they just assume that the same applies to everyone else.

      The same applies to most any prohibitionistic thinking you can name. “If ____ weren’t illegal…” But you cannot tell them that, just because they would abuse it, others would not; the megalomania necessary to set oneself up as the arbiter of what others may and may not do with their own lives, also requires a belief in one’s own moral righteousness. So, if everyone else is less righteous, and they would do these heinous things, then you can only imagine what depravity they imagine others would engage in…

  3. Z says:

    Funny thing about the AK-47 ban in Canada, the CZ 858, a semi-auto version of the VZ-58, isn’t banned. As a result it’s fairly popular within the gun community there.

  4. MD Willington says:

    Anti-gunners in Canada are focusing on hunting rifles now, just as Oleg predicted in a poster regarding hunting rifles = sniper rifles.

    2/3 against guns seems steep, maybe that’s the prevailing number in Ontario, I’m from out west and plenty of folks, especially those in rural areas have no problems with firearms.

    I was on Vancouver Island a few weeks back and even “talked shop” with an RCMP (Police) officer, he cited that many people from the cities were moving to rural areas and phoning in “gun shot” complaints anytime they heard a “pop” or “bang”… in this case, it was the go-karts we were driving that were back firing that were making those noises.

    Totally different mindset up there, urban VS rural.

  5. Lyle says:

    Ken; A traditional bolt action hunting rifle would have an advantage beyond about 350 yards, but that would rarely qualify as a defensive application. Besides, if the high power bolt action were superior to the AK, AR, et al as a fighting weapon, it’d still be used as primary issue to military and police.

    You might still see an M-14 here and there, but again those are usually intended for longer distance, and sometimes for penetration against materiel and barriers. Each has its purposes, and some of my friends own .50 BMGs as defensive weapons. It’s just that the very things that make the more powerful rifles good for distance or penetration of hard targets (weight and recoil) make them less good for up-close-and-personal defense against common criminals.

  6. Jim Roberts says:

    I’m on Vancouver Island and Gun rights don’t seem to be much of an issue here. There’s a small gun community here. A few gun and hunting clubs, shooting organizations plus a few ranges. Pretty quiet lot. You don’t hear a lot from them politically afaik. Either that or the media aren’t paying much attention to them.

    As far as the 2/3 number, I would agree from my unscientific perspective with that number at least in the urban areas. Guns are much more popular in the rural areas. A lot of city folks don’t think you should own a gun at all never mind ‘strict gun control’ which I assume means some limited firearms ownership. The majority of people here just don’t like guns. It’s like the guy/woman who write in to Oleg says, people are inordinately of guns almost afraid they’ll go off by themselves.

    You can reason with them though. It’s getting easier as more and more people are waking up to the fact that the cops can’t and don’t protect you. Basic arguments centering around freedom, the (history of the) balance of power between citizens and the state, self-defence, safety- particularly for women, are effective in getting people to think again about gun ownership.

  7. Josh says:

    CZ 858 FTW!
    With the new Mag well adapters we can now use 10 rnd pistol mags in our Cz 858 and Vz 58’s here in Canada. As much as an icon the AK 47 is, I can live without it.

Comments are closed.