Two Thoughts On Guns
Aug. 9th, 2012 09:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribBoth of these are retreads from various comment threads, presented here because, hey, liberals recycle! ;-)
Instant Knowledge
One of my pet peeves in movies is "instant knowledge" - hand somebody a gun and they immediately know how to shoot it.
For example, one of my uncles is not a gun person. (This makes him somewhat of a minority in my family.) He's an intelligent person, with a CPA, but not a shooter. Anyway, one day-after-Thanksgiving, we took him pistol shooting while the ladies went shopping.
When we handed him a semi-auto pistol, he got the idea to pull the slide back to load a round, but didn't understand that you needed to let the spring pull the slide forward. Instead he tried to ease the slide back, which meant the gun didn't strip a bullet from the clip. We set the safety for him, but I'm sure that would have been another problem.
Operating a gun is a skill. Here are some additional gun myths debunked.
The Cult of the Minuteman
Hang around shooters and pro-gun types long enough, and they'll tell you that the reason we citizens should own guns is that owning guns prevents a dictatorship. This started after the American Revolution, and I refer to it as the "cult of the minuteman." Americans told themselves and anybody that would listen that they grabbed the gun from over the fireplace, dashed out and won their freedom.
Now, first off, these weren't "dudes with guns" - these were members of a militia with elected officers and regular drills. But more importantly, the unreliability of the American militia (well, unless "will run like hell after the first shot" counts as "reliable") was so well known even during the Revolution that at Cowpens, this tendency was used as a trap!
Lest anybody think that was a fluke, as I've discussed before (here and here), we Americans tried to rely on militia in the War of 1812. This resulted in us getting beaten like a rented mule.
Don't get me wrong - I like guns. I also question any country that doesn't trust its citizenship enough to allow them to own guns. But the idea that a bunch of dudes with AK-47s could stand up to a regular army is laughable.
Instant Knowledge
One of my pet peeves in movies is "instant knowledge" - hand somebody a gun and they immediately know how to shoot it.
For example, one of my uncles is not a gun person. (This makes him somewhat of a minority in my family.) He's an intelligent person, with a CPA, but not a shooter. Anyway, one day-after-Thanksgiving, we took him pistol shooting while the ladies went shopping.
When we handed him a semi-auto pistol, he got the idea to pull the slide back to load a round, but didn't understand that you needed to let the spring pull the slide forward. Instead he tried to ease the slide back, which meant the gun didn't strip a bullet from the clip. We set the safety for him, but I'm sure that would have been another problem.
Operating a gun is a skill. Here are some additional gun myths debunked.
The Cult of the Minuteman
Hang around shooters and pro-gun types long enough, and they'll tell you that the reason we citizens should own guns is that owning guns prevents a dictatorship. This started after the American Revolution, and I refer to it as the "cult of the minuteman." Americans told themselves and anybody that would listen that they grabbed the gun from over the fireplace, dashed out and won their freedom.
Now, first off, these weren't "dudes with guns" - these were members of a militia with elected officers and regular drills. But more importantly, the unreliability of the American militia (well, unless "will run like hell after the first shot" counts as "reliable") was so well known even during the Revolution that at Cowpens, this tendency was used as a trap!
Lest anybody think that was a fluke, as I've discussed before (here and here), we Americans tried to rely on militia in the War of 1812. This resulted in us getting beaten like a rented mule.
Don't get me wrong - I like guns. I also question any country that doesn't trust its citizenship enough to allow them to own guns. But the idea that a bunch of dudes with AK-47s could stand up to a regular army is laughable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-09 03:17 pm (UTC)But there's no question that for the purpose the ban was brought in for, it worked just fine.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 01:45 am (UTC)“Don't these people ever give up?… F---ing savages.” Col Wm Kilgore, Apocalypse Now
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:01 am (UTC)South Vietnam fell to mechanized divisions invading from the North.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 01:45 am (UTC)I'll take up the argument - not sure I believe it but what the hey.
A stand up fight against the US Army is a sucker bet. They're real good at fighting smart and rolling over conventional armies.
A prudent militia commander would do the guerrilla thing. Fight a broad spectrum war: economic, political, public opinion.
Guys with guns are only a part of the overall force structure, co-equal with the guys fighting on the PR, economic, political fronts. They win their battle by not loosing.
See Mao, and 'The Sling and the Stone' by Thomas Hammes.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:51 am (UTC)You win by defeating the brigades in back on the block, in D.C. and on Wall Street.
Guys with AKs will still be needed - at first to run around and blow stuff up (phase 1 and 2). The survivors cadre regular formations as they form up and train to take on the now weakened brigades. Maybe provide political officers if the rebels subvert a brigade or five.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-10 03:53 am (UTC)The thing is, if we're just looking at the USA. THAT IS NOT GOING TO FRIGGIN' HAPPEN.
The US military is too professional, and far, far, FAR too well equipped to happen.
The Fourth Protocol by Frederick Forsythe says pretty much the same thing about the UK and why a revolution just wouldn't happen there.