No Guns At All
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 1 month ago
Indeed, Mr. Gelman, by all means, re-brand the position of forcible citizen disarmament advocates as a demand for “no guns.” Boldly acknowledge what the gun ban groups no longer dare admit.
Kurt deals with a writer who advocates the complete ban on guns. The Washington Times carried something similar (one wonders if these kooks plan their attacks or if this is just happenstance).
Why don’t we just take guns out of the picture entirely?
Why don’t we just halt the possession, manufacture and importation of firearms altogether? But not just for civilians, for everyone.
The writer goes on to advocate the absence of firearms for the police, armed forces and all hunters. The police won’t need firearms if the public doesn’t have any. The armed forces won’t have to repel invasions – we haven’t had to do that for hundreds of years. Hunters will learn to use bows.
Forget the Pollyanna universe in which this pitiful soul lives, the one in which he can remove all sin by removing machines from our lives. We would need to ban assault hammers too.
One paragraph sticks out and bears debunking for readers.
Using the term “high powered” rifle is also ineffective and incorrect. The “high powered assault rifles” are mainly 5.56×45 chambered weapons, which is a round designed by NATO to allow for low recoil, making soldiering easier for smaller framed individuals in NATO allied militaries to wield the rifles. These weapons were designed to wound so that other enemy soldiers would be forced to tend to their fallen comrades, effectively taking them out of the fighting.
There are so many problems with this paragraph I don’t know where to begin. First of all, I don’t own an assault rifle because mine doesn’t have selective fire. Second, we are led to believe that we use the 5.56 mm because of the “little people.” This is so absurd as to be laughable.
The point of the cartridge is moderate recoil which makes it easier to obtain proper sight picture for the next round, especially with selective fire weapons. Finally, as we have discussed before, the 5.56 mm round yaws in flight, shattering upon impact to leave multiple wound tracks. To say that the intent was to wound rather than kill is patently false and silly.
When gun grabbers attempt to discuss guns they look silly and sophomoric because they don’t know what they’re talking about. But it’s nice to have some honesty. As we’ve also seen, an outright gun ban and confiscation is what the folks at Daily Kos want as well.
UPDATE: Kurt points out that the Washington Times piece was parody. Very good parody.
|
|
On October 3, 2013 at 12:05 am, Matt said:
Well, the AR15 in .223 is an excellent choice for 12 year old girls to shoot. Adjustable length stock and low enough recoil that they can easily handle it.
On October 3, 2013 at 6:19 am, Roger J said:
Like you, I took the Wash Times opinion piece seriously at first, though the title does hint at the 18th century Swift satire. When I read the paragraphs advocating disarmament of LEOs, military and even Presidential bodyguards, I was sure it was satire. Like other ‘monopoly of force’ advocates, the collectivist hive insects advocating civilian disarmament always exclude the ‘Only Ones’ and the military. After all, lethal force in the hands of government agencies is the engine of power. Without it they’d have difficulty driving the citizenry into their bright and shining future and, like the collectivists of the past, eliminating those who do not wish to go. When the writer suggested disarming government agencies, he tipped his hand as a satirist.
On October 3, 2013 at 10:23 am, Mark Matis said:
Well maybe you’re right, Roger J. Or maybe that is the ONLY part which is satire…