A body of knowledge and course of instruction surrounding the warrior arts; characterized by modern analysis and scientific thinking; designed for the independent warrior; guided by practicality and conscience, not the dictates of a political master.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Response to an anti-gunner
across a curious rant recently as a comment to a blog post. For
those interested in the full details, the source is Here.
I found this rant to be somewhat coherent, albeit lacking in
knowledge, I thought it would be good to address some of the points.
I edited this slightly for readability, as the original writer was
addressing specific people on a specific TV show.
number one: the suppressor.[*] It's there to make the direction of fire
less obvious... Its relevance when facing a sniper attempting to
massacre civilians is one I will not repeat here because I know damn
well you're aware of it.
overwhelmingly most important use for a suppressor is to enable the
use of carbines for home defense (HD)*. As I've detailed before, the
modern semi-automatic carbine is considered the best HD gun by the
great majority of men who train extensively in this area (many choose
handguns for their primary, but often have a carbine close by). The
muzzle blast of a carbine (AR15 or AK47), especially a short-barreled
one, is no trivial matter and is often the greatest hurdle to
effectively using a carbine indoors. (Electronic hearing protection
is another option.)
their other uses for sound suppressors that aren't relevant to most
people today? Sure. The problem is that some people like to only
point out “bad” uses. What would be your reaction if I said that
the only use of a minivan was so that you could get drunk and run
over a lot of pedestrians at high speed? Hopefully you would think I
was stupid, crazy, or was trying to push some anti-minivan agenda.
People knowledgeable about guns (and suppressors) feel the same way.
*Note - upon further investigation it appears that the commenter was referring to a flash suppressor and not a sound suppressor. The analysis is much the same, however a flash suppressor is designed to reduce the flash of the muzzle blast and not the sound. As many HD scenarios occur in low light conditions, it should be obvious what utility these have. Also, in jurisdictions that restrict flash suppressors, they are usually replaced with muzzle breaks. I f@#&ing hate muzzle breaks on carbines, and anyone who has taken a class with people who have these, hate them too. (Their utility is on much more powerful weapons, or on fully-automatic weapons. They serve no useful purpose on semi-auto carbines.)
number two: the barrel shroud. It's there to stop you from burning
yourself. Why would you? because you're engaged in extremely
sustained fire. The interest in making things harder for massacre
shooters should again not need to be spelled out here, but, yeah: you
don't need a barrel shroud for target shooting, hunting, or self
defense, this is not a 'cosmetic' issue and the dishonesty in
pretending gun manufacturers have been slapping this thing on the
barrel for giggles is a bit much.
seems to be this sense that all you have to do is go to a range, fire
five or six rounds, and then you are sufficiently prepared to defend
yourself. This is silly. If you went to a martial arts studio and
hit the heavy-bag six times, would you expect to be awarded a
black-belt? It's not uncommon to fire 500+ rounds a day in a class.
Guns get hot. They get hot quickly. To anyone with firsthand
knowledge, this is obvious. I can't remember the number times I've
burned myself during a class. (Ever wonder why guys often wear
gloves in high-intensity classes?)
number three: people get in sustained firefights in a self defense
scenario virtually never... The points ... regarding wanting more
bullets are relevant only in a military scenario, or if you are a
lone shooter facing lots of 'bad guys' (cops). In the Giffords
murders, the shooter was tackled while reloading. And in many other
shootings... Making massacre shooters (who often
obtain legally or illegally, their weapons from other non black
market sources - friends, family, etc and hence must select their
arsenals from what is LEGALLY AVAILABLE) reload more often is a good
thing, and extended magazines are of no use or relevance in hunting
or target shooting, and very limited to no use in almost all self
are a few separate points in there... First of all, capacity is a
good thing as any competent instructor will tell you. I've known of
many “firefights” that might not have seemed that unusual where
entire magazines were spent. I remember many years ago there was a
saying that most gunfights followed the rule of three – 3 shots, in
3 seconds, at less than 3 yards. I'm not sure exactly where this
data came from (I think it was old FBI data), but it's pretty clear
this harkens back to the days when most officers carried revolvers.
Saying that “more bullets are relevant only in a military scenario”
is something that only an untrained person could claim.
point about mass shooters being tackled when they reload, and
therefore the size of magazines should be limited is also something
only an untrained person could say. Have you ever loaded a 33 round
Glock magazine under pressure? It is very much more difficult for an
untrained person to do this (and just about all mass shooters have
been untrained) than to load a standard capacity magazine. It's
ironic, but knowing the details of the Giffords shooting makes me
seriously consider that it was the fact that he used such ungainly
magazines that enabled him to be stopped as soon as he was. Again –
something that someone who has never trained wouldn't appreciate or
the fact that most mass shooters obtain their weapons legally, this
hits at the core issue. Let's make all the scary guns illegal, so
that no one will be able to get them legally. Ummmm – it's hard to
know how to respond to that. Most cars that are involved in
drunk-driving fatalities were obtained legally – so would making
them illegal make sense? The comeback that's often heard, but makes
no sense, is that “cars have a use, but these weapons have no
legitimate use”. This is just absurd. The guns that are most
often mentioned for banning constitute the best defensive guns
commonly available in America today.
number four: if pistol grips made 'no difference whatsoever' then why
are they ubiquitous in all military assault rifles designed since the
last century? And why does anyone have any objection at all to
removing something that 'causes no difference whatsoever' to the
function of the firearm? Oh, wait: because it does. Not in any way
that would affect recreational or hunting use terribly (hence the
fact that they haven't been part of those designs), but for combat
use the maneuverability a pistol grip affords is of undeniable
grips are a fairly minor issue. They do make some long guns easier
to maneuver, but the effect is not huge. The extreme emotional
reaction that this “feature” seems to elicit is wildly out of
proportion to its actual utility. Why do knowledgeable, trained
people object to having our tools modified to appease the emotional
reactions of people wholly lacking in knowledge and perspective?
Yeah, that's pretty much how we see it.
give em the adjustable stock. But I won't give them a pass on the
insulting everyone's intelligence for the previous six and some
“insulting everyone's intelligence” thing goes both ways. When I
see all the claims that anti-gun people make, and I know from
firsthand experience that they are false... and I further see that
the people making all these claims almost universally have no direct
experience or knowledge about what they're talking about... Yeah,
said it before, and I'll say it again and again - in
more than thirty years of being involved in various aspects of guns,
shooting, and martial arts, including the last five years as a
firearms and tactics instructor - that the people who favor gun
control know almost nothing about guns or the dynamics of violent
encounters. Conversely, those who are very knowledgeable in these
areas very strongly oppose gun control - almost without exception.
when the government is talking about banning AR15s (misrepresented as
assault weapons) and normal capacity magazines, they are not talking
about banning some esoteric gun with no useful purpose. They are
talking about banning the best defensive weapons available to most