WOWT.com (the NBC affiliate) offered an interesting take on the Russian designed SKS:

Sgt. Eric Nordby said they are making an impact. “What I’m most excited about is we did receive a SKS, which is an assault rifle, shoots a 762 by 39-caliber round or mm round. It can be a very dangerous round. It goes through houses, goes through walls and in a community it’s used out here on the streets, both that make of gun and that caliber.”  

Well, actually the SKS is actually chambered for 7.62×39mm. We think this was a slip by Officer Nordby, rather than him not knowing the difference between caliber and millimeter of a round. At least we hope so. And while we know that calibers of guns are not traditionally listed in the AP style guide we question why the web producers who posted this story didn’t take the time to correct identify this as 7.62×39mm – we assume that most news organizations would do this fact checking for electronics, technical specifications and model numbers of planes and cars, so why wasn’t this checked? Lazy journalism to us.

As for the point of the round going through walls, there are plenty of other bullets that could do more damage. The SKS is also not exactly a small rifle so we don’t see it as the primary choice of gangbangers and criminals.

It wasn’t much better at KETV 7 ABC, which also interviewed Norby:

“He showed off one that he said was a variant of an AK-47 and said he was thrilled to get it off the streets.”

He was quoted as saying:

“It’s a high-powered rifle, (fires) multiple shots and it’s commonly used in crimes around Omaha, in shootings and drive-bys and stuff.”

We can’t confirm this was the SKS, but there was no mention of any other AK-47 variant. Given the lack of information we’ll go out on a limb and conclude that this is the same gun. The problem if this is the case is that the SKS is not a variant of the AK-47. The SKS was introduced in 1944 and was designed by Sergei Gavrilovich Sionov, while the AK-47 came later being designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov. Again, where is the fact checking? We know these were quickly posted stories written for TV and later posted to the websites, but would this level of fact checking be so sloppy were it about cars? In this case it is akin to saying that the Ford Model A was a variant of the Model T. So it isn’t just nitpicking.

As for high-powered rifle, that’s also debatable. The fact is that the 7.62×39mm round is extremely common as well. That fact isn’t stated, but if you read this story you’d think it was some ultra super bullet from the quotes.

The CBS affiliate wasn’t left out of the action either, as Action3news.com offered another spin:

“Gun Amnesty Day was a big success according to police. In four hours, 38 revolvers, pistols, rifles, even shotguns, some of them considered illegal were dropped off to police. It all happened in an effort to fight the war on crime.”

We’re not sure how these events are judged on success? We’ve actually never seen a news story that says “this buyback or amnesty was a total bust,” but trust us, we’ll be quick to report on it when it happens. The question still is whether this is really a “fight on the war on crime.” We also question the point “some of them considered illegal.”

Only Fox 42 KPTM.com actually noted the illegal guns:

“Two illegal short–shotguns were also dropped off, however, no one that drops off a firearm faces any possession type charges.”

While that clears up the question, we still think (unfortunately) that the media too often would like all guns to be illegal. It does show in their reporting.

Police are even noting “people who turn in guns will not have to give their names or personal information and will be granted amnesty from any criminal charges that might apply from having the gun in their possession.”

Couldn’t this make it difficult to solve past crimes if the guns are handed in? Wouldn’t the efforts be better spent at trying to solve the crimes than attempting to get people to turn in a few guns? However, the paper even quotes TPD spokesman Officer Brent Blankley on the issue:

“This event is a ‘no question asked’ event. The goal of the event is to get guns off the street, not to arrest the person turning in the gun.”

What we see is that this is a pass for those who may have committed past crimes. It would be very hard to convict an individual if the police offered an amnesty for having the gun. And on top of it money will be paid to potential criminals. However, we still also question whether any criminal will hand in a handgun for $50, or an assault rifle for $100. We just don’t see it happening.

However, Louis believes that churches can help solve the problem, in part by offering gun buybacks:

“New York has seen churches play a key role in anti-violence initiatives. An NYPD/district attorney gun buyback program at four Bronx churches this year netted 1,200 weapons in a single weekend, and a group of Brooklyn churches this month will serve as sanctuaries for people with outstanding arrest warrants who want to surrender peacefully.”

While we don’t see any problems with church groups providing moral and even spiritual support to these communities, the idea that gun buybacks will do anything is nonsense. There is little proof that any of those 1,200 weapons netted in New York City were ever on the streets. This part of the argument is just wrong, and it is a shame because many of Louis’s other arguments were really that far off base.

But now we have another reason to hate these events. Federal money could be used to pay for the guns that will eventually be destroyed. The Providence Journal noted this fact:

“The (Providence Police) department is paying for the program with a $5,000 grant from the Rhode Island Foundation. If more money is needed, the department can use up to $10,000 in federal aid, Lt. George Stamatakos, who organized the buyback, said last week.”

So this means that federal tax dollars could be going for these events. Something to think about.

Worse still is how The Providence Journal covered the announcement of the event. Not only did it only feature one sided reported, with such choice quotes as “One gun is one gun too many,” which was uttered by ACI chaplain Rev. Joyce Penfield, but it included statistics on gun crime. Nowhere in this “news feature” was any counter point. So much for unbiased reporting in Rhode Island.

“Similar actions in Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Philadelphia have been successful in removing and destroying thousands of guns from the streets.”

OK, two things are clear. First the author of this story uses the word “successful” in the wrong context. What determines the success? Would the event have been a failure if only hundreds and not thousands were removed? The problem again is that to the anti-gun zealots removing even one gun is a success, regardless of whether that gun was under a bed and doing no harm to anyone. The sentence structure also has some problems, but we’ll leave the grammar policing to someone else – but we will note that there again, no proof is ever given but only suggested, that the guns were ever on the streets.

Fortunately the piece does try to offer some level reporting:

“Critics of the gun buyback programs are wary of how successful these programs truly are in terms of reducing crime. They say the people who turn in their guns are generally not involved in gun crimes, and the guns turned in are easily replaceable.”

Good points, but too often this type of reporting and commentary is only offered at the end of the story.

“Event organizers said the guns they collect often are either inherited or unusable.”

If the guns are unusable why are taxpayer dollars going towards handing out money for useless items? On the flip side of the issue, what about valuable or collectible firearms? And finally, what is the actual purpose of the event, if not just to create a populace without firearms?

About the only silver lining in the story is that it could be said this could be a way for stolen guns to be returned to their owners, as the piece noted the following:

“Serial numbers of all the guns collected would be checked to see if any were stolen. Stolen weapons will be returned to their owners, if they can be located, and the rest will be melted down and destroyed.”

Clearly, even with a silver lining there is some gray clouds it seems. “Melted down and destroyed.”

“This is not about trying to diminish someone’s Second Amendment right, and it’s not about us telling people they shouldn’t own a gun. This program is for people who are too old to operate a gun or for people who no longer wish to have a gun in their home.”

Well, this is upsetting, because the paper added that most guns would end up being destroyed. We must question whether valuable items will be practically given away for a $100 gift card, and we further ponder how much history could also be destroyed – especially in Texas, where guns helped tame the once savage land.

“Since January 2009, Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers has offered a reward for information on illegal weapons. It hopes to rid the community – especially Fort Myers – of guns that aid criminals in committing robberies, thefts and murders.”

We think this is a far better to combat crime and illegal guns, instead of just throwing good cash after bad to “buyback” weapons that were probably never “on the streets.”

“…there are a number of dangerous weapons that are off the streets.

“It looked like a yard sale for violent criminals with more than 2,500 fired arms [sic] on display for L.A.’s gun buyback program.”

We can only wonder how KABC would describe a gun show? There is also some questionable logic in this story. It ends with this statement:

“…there are 300 million guns throughout the United States, overshadowing the 2,500 weapons retrieved through this program. However, every weapon counts because statistics show that the crime rate in Los Angeles is down.”

If crime is already down, then why would these weapons count at all? If crime were up previously, but fell after the buyback than it could be seen that the buyback was a success but if crime is already down, then does this matter at all? Doesn’t this just prove that guns aren’t the problem?