Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Cosmetic Guns


Would you use a stapler to saw through a 2x4?  Would you write the Great American Novel using an Excel spreadsheet?  Most rational people wouldn't.

But gunloons would have you believe they need an assault weapon for self-defense or hunting.  To justify this foolish desire, they claim many assault weapons are only classified as "assault weapons" because of "cosmetic features."

But the military understands what an assault weapon is.  In fact, they're the ones who created the specs for an assault weapon.  And they learned their lessons the hard way, through multiple failures and lessons learned in combat.   Early on, the armed services thought a rifle's effectiveness was solely based on the ability of marksman to accurately put a round into a relatively small target 500 yds away.  There were plenty of rifles that fit this bill.  But the military learned the hard way; such rifles were generally heavy, bulky, and were high maintenance.  Additionally, the military learned that very few combat situations, in the 20th century, involved opposing forces facing off at several football fields' distance and firing at each other. In reality, most infantry combat occurs at distances of between 15 and 50 yards.  Further, such combat generally occurs between combatants who are not marksmen and are fatigued, stressed, and afraid.

Compounding the situation--as if it could get worse--distances are rarely known and most targets aren't actually seen.  IOW, a combat infantryman is relying on vague visual cues such as perceived movement or muzzle flashes.  A combat situation is much like a bar fight in that the fighter who gets the first several shots in, usually prevails.

So, what's the takeaway?  We've learned that a combat weapon's effectiveness isn't necessarily about lethality or accuracy--it's about 3 factors:
1.  being able to quickly pour a lot of firepower toward an enemy to either kill or wound him;
2. being able to quickly pour a lot of firepower toward an enemy to keep his head down (suppression) which is valued nearly as much as factor (1); and
3. being able to continue (1) and (2) as long as possible.

Don't believe it? Well, I guarantee you'll spend about a thousand times longer spit-shining your boots (something you'll never need to do in combat) in basic training than you will on the range.  Think it's an accident?

In the next part, I dismantle the cosmetic features nonsense.


  1. Are you a general in the army or something. You really know this stuff! Keep sticking it to the gunloons!

  2. Fine. We'll use the military's definition of assault rifle. One that is capable of selective fire. No problem.

  3. Wow, Jade. That has to be one of the more factual pieces I have ever read from you. I think part III is where the feces is really going to start to fly though. That is where you try to say how a flash suppressor makes all the difference for it to not be owned by civilians… Or perhaps you will surprise us with a new “assault weapon” definition based on what you said in part two: Intermediate power, light weight carbines.

  4. I can't wait for him to "dismantle the cosmetic features." It ought to be a hoot.

  5. TS said this was "one of the more factual pieces I have ever read from you." I found it just like much of what you've written here and why I'm glad to have you aboard, that and when you stick it to Linoge.

  6. Ooh--I can't wait for the sage explanation of how this makes sense.

    Maybe we'll learn about the epidemic of bayonet violence, too!

    "Shoulder thing that goes up," anyone?

  7. I will have to agree, this was a very well-written piece, except for the second paragraph which is filled with bigoted flawed opinions.

    So going by what you've stated here, we should be banning all machine guns.

    Funny how none of the "Assault Weapons Bans" cover fully automatic firearms at all, do they?

    Or if you wanted to take it down a notch, ALL semi-automatic firearms, which are capable of rapid fire and "pouring a lot of firepower" towards the target.

    Except no, you want to ban only SOME of the semi-autos that LOOK LIKE military firearms. Why not all semi-autos? Oh yeah, because you can't get near enough public support for banning those. The closest you can come is the "evil black rifles" and even then I don't think you have enough support for a ban, because more people are getting wise to the gun banner's shenanigans.

    I can't wait for part III either, I want to know how non-dangerous features make a firearm more dangerous.


  8. I am still struggling with Jade’s choice of lead-in for this piece. He starts by giving two examples of tools that are inadequate for a job which leads to gunloons wanting a tool that is supposedly *overkill* for a job. Perhaps he should have said “you wouldn’t use a plasma torch to cut through a 2x4”.

  9. Kurt, Thanks for coming by lately. I like your enthusiam, if nothing else.

    "You are passionate, Mozart, but you do not persuade"

    No gun control person I know of ever claims all the laws on the books are good and sensible ones. I certainly don't feel that way. Yet, you and your friends never tire of pretending that's exactly what we do say.

    That's intellectual dishonesty, and a bit light on the "intellectual" part, I would say.