Monday, February 21, 2011

Cosmetics, Guns, Pathologies

Zombie Assault Weapon
Continued from here and here.

As I've sagely noted, an assault weapon is great for combat.  It fulfills many, if not all, of the requirements for a combat environment where a soldier is trying to quickly bring a lot of firepower to bear on a target on which he really hasn't a good visual.  The goal is to kill, incapacitate, or suppress the return fire of other armed combatants for as long as possible.

IOW, an assault weapon is really an indiscriminate weapon.

To a large extent, this is why military planners and leaders hate the idea of "police actions."  The military simply isn't designed, trained or equipped to perform missions where civilians are interspersed with combatants.  In short, the military is a hammer, not a scalpel.


Assault weapons aren't useful for hunting; as seen, their accuracy is almost an after-thought.  Frankly, no real hunter would consider an assault weapon for hunting.  They generally consider those who do with the same disdain as those who "shine" deer or engage in "canned" hunts.

Similarly, an assault weapon isn't any good for self-defense.  After all, gunloons, you can't have it both ways--you can't ask people to believe you believe in gun safety--yet you want a gun whose design is to dump a large amount of rounds, indiscriminantly, at uncertain targets.  An assault weapon simply isn't a defensive weapon.

Now, many gunloons will claim the threat of home invasions require assault weapons.  But unless your home is being attacked by zombies, this is just a fantasy.  Almost all home invasions don't involve shots being fired.  IOW, you're not going to be engaged in a prolonged firefight with a bunch of home invaders.  Shots being fired tend to alert neighbors and cause 911 calls and police visits--all of which are anathema to home invaders.

Per a recent CBS/NYTimes Poll, support for banning assault weapons has gone up in recent years.  Among gunowners, an assault weapons ban is supported by nearly two-thirds.  Even among NRA members, about half favor such a ban.

Yet, gunloons think an assault weapon is a "must."

Why?

Several reasons, none of which have to do with hunting or self-defense.  It's helpful to remember most gunloons suffer from deep-seated lack of self-esteem.  Guns are their identity; they may be failures in their personal and professional lives but they have guns!  And the more militaristic the gun, the more 'respect' these insecure folks think they have.

Second, many believe they're going to join the Wolverines!! from Red Dawn

13 comments:

  1. BTW, which definition of an Assault Weapon are you using today? The military definition or the Brady definition?

    I assume then you are for the police giving up their assault weapons since they are not needed for defense and that is the role of police is it not?

    So when are you going to do your big expos'e on "cosmetics"? We've been waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The suspense is killing me… So now we have to wait until Part IV for you to say something substantial and actually define a civilian “assault weapon”, and why those features are not “cosmetic” (or as Orygunner rightfully says- it is not that they are cosmetic, it is that their function has zilch to do with lethality). So Jade, what are the features that define “assault weapons” and how exactly do they turn a discriminate weapon into an indiscriminate weapon? And what are you doing to get indiscriminate patrol rifles out of our law enforcement’s hands.

    So far based on your three part series, I’ve pulled these talking points on “assault weapons” as they could pertain to civilians (leaving select-fire aside):

    -not very powerful
    -not very long
    -not very heavy
    -not high maintenance
    -not very accurate

    Are we to believe that you are going to come up with a new “assault weapon” definition based on these five things? No AWB has every made an attempt to regulate guns based on these five things, so we are venturing into a new territory of gun control here. Exciting stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TS: The definition is what it is.

    Now, whenever something is made illegal or restricted, you'll have no shortage of people(manufacturers) trying to skirt the law or circumvent it. It happened when catalytic converters were made law.

    Gunloons like to play this game all the time. For instance, the brain-damaged Kurt Hoffman showed a picture of a flash suppressor along with some muzzle brakes to pretend there's some great confusion. There isn't.

    We've seen someone claim they need a flash suppressor so they aren't blinded. This, too, borders on the retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re lethality.

    When you have a firearm which is ill-suited for hunting, sport shooting or self-defense--what's the use?

    When said weapon is designed for combat where targets aren't identified so much as perceived and accuracy isn't a big deal so much as being able to lay down a sustained field of fire--what's the use?

    Can't have it both ways, kiddo. You can't claim to be a 'responsible' gun owner but demand to own a weapon that is essentially designed to be a fire hose of bullets.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jade: “The definition is what it is.”

    You mean the Brady definition? You still haven’t even touched on how any of these features that they use to define “assault weapons” has a lick to do with what you said in your three part series. Say you swap your AR-15 barrel for a heavy match grade barrel, would it cease to be an “assault weapon”, being that it is now heavy, long, and extremely accurate? Not according to the Brady’s. Are all shotguns “assault weapons”? If you could call any particular type of gun “indiscriminate”- it would be a shotgun.

    Jade: “…the brain-damaged Kurt Hoffman showed a picture of a flash suppressor along with some muzzle brakes to pretend there's some great confusion. There isn't.”

    There certainly is in the middle ground- being that flash suppressors act as muzzle brakes and muzzle brakes also act as flash suppressors (the difference being which one is its primary function).

    Jade: “We've seen someone claim they need a flash suppressor so they aren't blinded. This, too, borders on the retarded.”

    And it is well beyond retarded to say that criminals can shoot unseen because of flash *suppressors* (note they are not called “flash eliminators”). Again, never in the history of civilian criminal use has this been a factor. What is very real is civilian target shooters (particularly while using a scope) and shooting in low light conditions will be “blinded” by an afterimage for maybe a minute or so. Why don’t you at least play the sniper card here- it would be far more credible. Of course I don’t know what your beef with flash suppressors actually is- as you are still yet to address or try and refute the “cosmetics” debate.

    Jade: “You can't claim to be a 'responsible' gun owner but demand to own a weapon that is essentially designed to be a fire hose of bullets.”

    Fire hose? Are we taking shooting faster? All I got from your discussion so far is rifles that are lower powered, lighter, more compact, easier to maintain, and less accurate than hunting rifles. All that seems VERY relevant to self-defense, IF you choose (or have to use) a rifle for defense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is all fine and dandy, Jade but the reality is I like guns, all kinds of guns, and I will not concede to banning any of them. And if they do get banned, I will just find another way to get them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jade.

    Start blogging about coffee. It might be the only thing you have any knowledge about.

    "it is what it is". That line didn't work for William Jefferson Clinton and it clearly isn't going to work for you


    An American pundit who knew a great deal about truth I'n advertising once said " it's impossible to have a battle of wits with someone who is so clearly unarmed". I have to say such a phrase never fit anyone as well as it fit you.

    Your knowledge on the subject is infinitesimal and your willingness to gleefully show the world the limits of your reasoning and logical powers is stunning.

    Factually. You were wrong on every single detail you provided.

    ReplyDelete
  8. " TS: The definition is what it is."

    No it's not. There are at least five very different definitions. There is the military definition, the AWB definition, the California definition, the New York definition, and the Brady campaign definition.

    "As I've sagely noted, an assault weapon is great for combat. "

    I'm a former infantry Marine and I disagree. Assault weapons are underpowered and the full auto or burst wastes ammo and degrades accuracy.

    "where a soldier is trying to quickly bring a lot of firepower"

    Um, no. Assault weapons are NOT a "lot of firepower". At the very least you need multiple crew served weapons to constitute a "lot of firepower" and really it takes air support or mortars or a tank to get to a "lot of firepower".

    "IOW, an assault weapon is really an indiscriminate weapon."

    Correct to some very small degree. By that definition you must be referring to what is legally a "machinegun" and those assault weapons are not sold to the general public.

    "Assault weapons aren't useful for hunting; as seen, their accuracy is almost an after-thought. "

    Um, no. The citizen assault weapons are useful for hunting varmints (not powerful enough for people). They are very accurate, to 600 yards for AR type weapons. D

    "They generally consider those who do with the same disdain as those who "shine" deer or engage in "canned" hunts."

    Um, no. The rifles that use the 7.62x39mm round are just about exactly as powerful but more accurate than the classic .30-30 deer cartridge.

    "Similarly, an assault weapon isn't any good for self-defense. "

    Um, no. You are wrong again. All "assault weapons" are good for self defense. Some, such as AR-15s and M-16s only at close range, but they will kill any rapist dead, so they are good for self defense.

    "yet you want a gun whose design is to dump a large amount of rounds, indiscriminantly, at uncertain targets. "

    Um, no I don't. There is no such weapon designed yet on the planet to my knowledge, except for the B-52 of course.

    "IOW, you're not going to be engaged in a prolonged firefight with a bunch of home invaders. "

    Methinks your psychic powers aren't as powerful as you think they are. MS-13 and other gangs have moved into small town America - and their drug addicted customers are here too.

    "Guns are their identity; they may be failures in their personal and professional lives but they have guns! "

    People who are failures in their professional lives don't spend thousands on a single gun let alone millions on a collection.

    "Second, many believe they're going to join the Wolverines!! from Red Dawn."

    Since most of the families of the Wolverines and most of the Wolverines suffered and died - not on my list of things to do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AztecRed is on to something here. He just likes guns. Finally someone is dropping the pretense of 2nd Amendment protection of a natural god-given human right and the other pretense of really really needing guns for protection, and telling the simple truth. "I like guns."

    ReplyDelete
  10. P: “Your [Jade] knowledge on the subject is infinitesimal and your willingness to gleefully show the world the limits of your reasoning and logical powers is stunning.”

    I wouldn’t say that. He had some accurate things to say on why the military migrated to the weapons they have today. This is no secret, and it could even be parroted from how gun owners refute claims of “high-powered” weapons (kudos for listening, Jade). What he hasn’t done is even attempt to make the leap to why civilian arms that look like these military ones should be banned based on the features that AWBs use to define them. Not even an attempt. So far it has only been “it is because I say so”.

    MikeB: “Finally someone is dropping the pretense of 2nd Amendment protection of a natural god-given human right and the other pretense of really really needing guns for protection, and telling the simple truth. "I like guns."

    I like guns too. AND it carries second amendment protection.

    ReplyDelete
  11. TS, Thanks for telling P what an asshole he is and that he ought to just shut the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, I didn't say *that*.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm still waiting for the explanation that functional features like folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and barrel shrouds make a firearm more dangerous or deadly.

    Meanwhile, the real functional features that make an "assault weapon" dangerous and deadly, the fact that they are a semi-automatic firearm, are ignored, because banning all semi-autos isn't possible - the only remote chance is banning the "scary" "military-looking" ones.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete