![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tegyriusAfter my last post, one commenter expressed the opinion that no one should have a "military-grade assault rifle" and went on to opine that anyone who believes otherwise is insane.
Okay. I'll lay out my insanity.
My insanity is in believing that emergency services' response times suck in some circumstances (usually beyond their control), that case law supports the principle that the police do not have a duty to assist individual citizens, and that bad shit happens for no good reason. Therefore, over the last decade, my point of view on all aspects of emergency response has evolved to be this: I am my own first responder. This is true in fires, which is why I have extinguishers in my house and car and an escape ladder in my second-story bedroom, and why I try to maintain situational awareness of secondary exits when I'm in public buildings. This is true in medical emergencies, which is why I keep trauma kits in my car and backpack and maintain a decent standard of training. And it's true in violent crime, which is why I own and bear firearms.
Now, I could break down my medical preps in detail, but that's not the political issue at hand right now - no one's (currently) claiming that I'm insane for buying, training with, and carrying the exact same hemorrhage control materials that are currently in military use. That's probably a good future post, though. Rather, the issue at hand right now is "military-grade assault rifles."
First, let's define the term and the mission.
The mission is self-defense - not against any black helicopters laden with jackbooted thugs (I work for those guys anyway), but against ordinary criminals. The term is a little trickier. For the sake of argument, I'll take it to mean a longarm with the following core characteristics:
• firing a common military caliber
• using a semi-automatic action (full auto not being a practical option at most shooter's income levels)
• feeding from a detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
There are some other characteristics that are intrinsic to certain designs, but we're looking at the class of weapon as a whole here.
First, caliber. I didn't come around on this until I started really looking at terminal ballistics. In a defensive shooting, the ideal projectile is one that (1) has a good chance of incapacitating the aggressor to the point that he stops aggressing and (2) will not go through the aggressor or the wall while retaining enough energy to endanger bystanders downrange. Pistol-caliber rounds suck at #1 because they don't deliver enough energy to reliably cause immediate incapacitation. Shotguns suck at #2 because any shotgun load capable of providing incapacitating effects at more than 10 feet will retain lethal energy through multiple layers of drywall, if not a house's exterior wall. Many heavier hunting-caliber rifles have the same problem as shotguns. Therefore, the optimum projectile for such applications is what's sometimes termed an "intermediate-caliber" rifle round - which is what most modern assault rifles use.
Next, the semi-automatic action. For those who aren't familiar with how this stuff works, "semi-automatic" means that each time you pull the trigger, the weapon fires one round, ejects the empty casing, and prepares the next round to fire. This is distinct from the true military-grade "fully automatic" action, in which pulling the trigger causes this cycle to repeat until you release the trigger or you run out of ammo ("dakkadakkadakka"). Now, contrary to what most entertainment media depicts, a bullet isn't a magic spell. The human body is remarkably capable of maintaining short-term function in the face of massive trauma, as well as some pretty cool damage control measures. Absent a direct and catastrophic hit on the central nervous system, which also is harder than it looks on film, incapacitation comes from (1) structural damage to the point that the aggressor can't use his limbs to move or attack and (2) loss of blood volume sufficient to cause loss of consciousness. The best way to cause these effects is to deliver multiple hits as quickly as possible. That speed is ensured by a semi-automatic action over one which requires the shooter to break his grip and manually cycle each new round of ammunition.
Finally, magazine capacity. I addressed this in part in a previous post, but it bears repeating. The same issues I cited in the previous paragraph about needing multiple hits to ensure incapacitation apply not only to rate of fire but to ammunition availability. This is particularly true in the face of multiple aggressors, who are more likely to appear in the specific defensive scenarios I'm examining. Multiple aggressors times multiple bullets per aggressor equals lots of bullets (or a flamethrower, but I'd like to avoid burning down the place I'm trying to defend).
To sum up: my choice of primary defensive arm is driven by it being the most effective available option for the mission. Having made that selection, I'm not in favor of anyone proposing to restrict my defensive capabilities - which, ultimately, are part of my ability to ensure self-determination - because of a crime I didn't commit and will not commit.
Also, if you start the discussion by saying I'm insane or a potential mass murderer, that pretty much closes down any hope I might have of a reasonable discussion with you. After all, you've already written me off. Why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?
Okay. I'll lay out my insanity.
My insanity is in believing that emergency services' response times suck in some circumstances (usually beyond their control), that case law supports the principle that the police do not have a duty to assist individual citizens, and that bad shit happens for no good reason. Therefore, over the last decade, my point of view on all aspects of emergency response has evolved to be this: I am my own first responder. This is true in fires, which is why I have extinguishers in my house and car and an escape ladder in my second-story bedroom, and why I try to maintain situational awareness of secondary exits when I'm in public buildings. This is true in medical emergencies, which is why I keep trauma kits in my car and backpack and maintain a decent standard of training. And it's true in violent crime, which is why I own and bear firearms.
Now, I could break down my medical preps in detail, but that's not the political issue at hand right now - no one's (currently) claiming that I'm insane for buying, training with, and carrying the exact same hemorrhage control materials that are currently in military use. That's probably a good future post, though. Rather, the issue at hand right now is "military-grade assault rifles."
First, let's define the term and the mission.
The mission is self-defense - not against any black helicopters laden with jackbooted thugs (I work for those guys anyway), but against ordinary criminals. The term is a little trickier. For the sake of argument, I'll take it to mean a longarm with the following core characteristics:
• firing a common military caliber
• using a semi-automatic action (full auto not being a practical option at most shooter's income levels)
• feeding from a detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds
There are some other characteristics that are intrinsic to certain designs, but we're looking at the class of weapon as a whole here.
First, caliber. I didn't come around on this until I started really looking at terminal ballistics. In a defensive shooting, the ideal projectile is one that (1) has a good chance of incapacitating the aggressor to the point that he stops aggressing and (2) will not go through the aggressor or the wall while retaining enough energy to endanger bystanders downrange. Pistol-caliber rounds suck at #1 because they don't deliver enough energy to reliably cause immediate incapacitation. Shotguns suck at #2 because any shotgun load capable of providing incapacitating effects at more than 10 feet will retain lethal energy through multiple layers of drywall, if not a house's exterior wall. Many heavier hunting-caliber rifles have the same problem as shotguns. Therefore, the optimum projectile for such applications is what's sometimes termed an "intermediate-caliber" rifle round - which is what most modern assault rifles use.
Next, the semi-automatic action. For those who aren't familiar with how this stuff works, "semi-automatic" means that each time you pull the trigger, the weapon fires one round, ejects the empty casing, and prepares the next round to fire. This is distinct from the true military-grade "fully automatic" action, in which pulling the trigger causes this cycle to repeat until you release the trigger or you run out of ammo ("dakkadakkadakka"). Now, contrary to what most entertainment media depicts, a bullet isn't a magic spell. The human body is remarkably capable of maintaining short-term function in the face of massive trauma, as well as some pretty cool damage control measures. Absent a direct and catastrophic hit on the central nervous system, which also is harder than it looks on film, incapacitation comes from (1) structural damage to the point that the aggressor can't use his limbs to move or attack and (2) loss of blood volume sufficient to cause loss of consciousness. The best way to cause these effects is to deliver multiple hits as quickly as possible. That speed is ensured by a semi-automatic action over one which requires the shooter to break his grip and manually cycle each new round of ammunition.
Finally, magazine capacity. I addressed this in part in a previous post, but it bears repeating. The same issues I cited in the previous paragraph about needing multiple hits to ensure incapacitation apply not only to rate of fire but to ammunition availability. This is particularly true in the face of multiple aggressors, who are more likely to appear in the specific defensive scenarios I'm examining. Multiple aggressors times multiple bullets per aggressor equals lots of bullets (or a flamethrower, but I'd like to avoid burning down the place I'm trying to defend).
To sum up: my choice of primary defensive arm is driven by it being the most effective available option for the mission. Having made that selection, I'm not in favor of anyone proposing to restrict my defensive capabilities - which, ultimately, are part of my ability to ensure self-determination - because of a crime I didn't commit and will not commit.
Also, if you start the discussion by saying I'm insane or a potential mass murderer, that pretty much closes down any hope I might have of a reasonable discussion with you. After all, you've already written me off. Why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-01-24 08:09 pm (UTC)I really appreciate the explanations about the choices of firearms for various tasks and the need for certain amounts of ammunition. This type of information is rarely available in the press. Your explanations are sensible and expose flaws in policy arguments.
What I am a little concerned about is your use of mild vulgarity. There is a shrillness in your writing in places, which is unlike you. And it doesn’t further your argument. It smells of fear. And it seems to me that quite a bit of what is preventing dialogue on both sides of this issue is fear. People who either enjoy firearm sports (hunting, shooting) or people who live in places where carrying a firearm is prudent are afraid of losing either an enjoyable activity or a means of ensuring personal safety. On the other side are people who are afraid of being shot or of having someone they love lost to gun violence. When both sides argue from the raw emotion, understanding does not happen.
While not owning a firearm may appear imprudent, I think much of this has to do with threat assessment. Which do I fear is more probable: a random act of pre-meditated violence or an idiot? I encounter more people who appear to be idiots each day than I encounter people who appear to be psychopaths. Where I live, the need for a firearm does not seem to outweigh the responsibilities in having one. If I have one, I need to keep it in good working order, use it safely (including practicing my marksmanship), understand the legal circumstances in which I may or may not use it, and secure it from others. And if I am using it for personal protection, I need to have it where it would be useful if a threat to my safety arose and I need enough training to be able to evaluate while being threatened whether or not deadly force is permissible and essential. For many people in the United States, the trade-off in effort does not match the perceived likelihood of need. I do understand that regions vary, and in some parts of our country, the threat assessment is different.
I do agree that at least some Democrats were looking for opportunities to introduce gun legislation. On the other hand, may we please notice the lack of action in the past? A sitting US Representative was nearly assassinated (others with her were killed), but we had no new legislation. Dozens of people were killed and injured (some permanently) at a movie theater, and we had no new legislation. It has only been when young children have died en mass less than a fortnight before Christmas that there is action. Movement towards curbing gun rights in this country over the last four years has been slow not fast. In fact, the lone new federal law expanded gun rights to allow people to carry firearms in national parks. I am nearly certain our President would not have bothered with the issue at all had the shootings in Newtown not occurred. It has simply not been a priority for him.
I do have a question for gun owners. What do you fear? I understand the anti-gun people — they fear crazy people randomly shooting. Do gun owners also fear the crazies, but have confidence a firearm will make a difference? (In that case, the clash is between two radically different viewpoints of how to solve a specific problem.) Do gun owners fear a post-apocalyptic government over-reach? (I’m not sure how that would happen, what that would look like, or what is the likelihood.) Or is some of this about comfort level with the uncontrollable? Are some of the emotional arguments coming from a sense of a firearm granting the perception of having control? Is there a fear of not having control of your circumstances, your life, your world rather than a fear of not being able to put a hole in something at a distance?