As I say in the title, I hate this. I hate giving voice and base to to the other side, but pro-gunners need to throw off the hickness. Shallow answers don't cut it (TDF 63).
When "assault weapons" features became prominent targets for anti-gunners, the most common pushback was that they were "cosmetic"--i.e., they did nothing, they just made the gun look cool.
But it eventually became undeniable that most of the features actually did effect the use of the weapon. Hence, "ergonomic" became the term in vogue. That is technically accurate. However, the use for which these features improve ergonomics are in fact TACTICAL, often going into situations where no civilian acting on his own private individual discretion will likely have justification for being. In other words, while hardly necessary for such undertakings, they are the factors that would seem to some to contribute to use in things like school mass shootings (see again TDF 53 and TDF 54). Add to that the fact that frankly, most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
Indeed, these features caught the eye of wannabe commandos and people in California just wanting to poke the ATF or their State analogs. The term, "tacti-COOL" came into use: Adding often useless features with "tactical" in their name, even though the person doing so has no training in using them. (True confession: I once added a red-dot scope of a particular model and color to a rifle because of something like that.)
All of this looks like obfuscation to the bulk of the general population--the "moderates" and "neutrals"--costing the pro-gun side credibility in both the technicals (on the one area where conservatives generally do have the facts better than the liberals--see later) and genuine concern about the issue itself (TDF 67).
ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER SUBJECT: Some years back after a major accident, there was talk of NASCAR requiring brake lights on competing vehicles. A retired driver-turned-commentator, complete with his southern-hick accent and limited use of words over two syllables, said (close paraphrasing), "Well, I don' know that there'd be room back there for lights, with all the advertising and what." I so wished I'd been there. I'd have dryly said, "Well, maybe those slots there where the street-legal models have them." The statement of the "commentator," who probably couldn't even spell that word, was nothing but bullshit from a hick.
Recently I heard a radio guest wondering why anti-gunners would oppose features contributing to more accurate fire. The problem here is:
1. The other effects of the feature; and
2. The second shot. Hunting rarely involves a quick followup shot. It's tactical situations that do. That's why Three-Gun competition arms have them. It's that second shot being more accurate in a situation like a mass school shooting that concerns them. The radio guest made a partial point, of course--increased accuracy reduces accidents--but he ignored the big giant rapid-fire factor in the room.
None of this cancels out the uncharacteristic lack of technical knowledge of anti-gunners, of course...
But facts are facts. Pro-gunners need to think and say rightly. The guest tried to hide the obvious additional fact, and it made him look dense at best.
Another example regards the recent Colorado shooting using a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" (TDF 47), a caller to a radio show wondered about the report--possible conspiracy theorizing without basis--because he thought it would be DISadvantageous in the close quarters of store aisles. In reality, of course, the short barrel dealt with that factor, so the shooter had the advantage of both compactness the stabilization of what was in truth a SHOULDER STOCK:
As--Election Steal 2020 notwithstanding--the American people turn more liberal, their willingness to put with the "tragedies" will drop compared to their concern about possible "genocides." (Indeed, the demographic most likely to face oppression or genocide in the move Left won't easily raise that factor due to its unique pathology of "guilt.") The upshot is that these features do bear on the tactical functionality of these arms, particularly in the tactical realm. Even the fuddiest of fudd rational 2A examination points to the tactical factor in the amendment. So it makes perfect sense for proper 2A-minded folks to want them. Yet those are, thus, the features most at play when major tragedies occur--acts seemingly more tactical than criminal.
And that same increasingly-liberal people can see this. It is counterproductive to fail to think before answering, or worse yet, be disingenuous or play dumb to them. Cases beyond a "Shall Not Be Infringed" incantation can be made against banning these features--though frankly, it must be said again: Most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
If you genuinely don't know the answer, don't give bullshit. Contact me instead. If you are in a discussion just for fun, please bow out now. The cause is more important than you getting your jollies.
I hated publishing this. But I had to do it.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
All of this looks like obfuscation to the bulk of the general population--the "moderates" and "neutrals"--costing the pro-gun side credibility in both the technicals (on the one area where conservatives generally do have the facts better than the liberals--see later) and genuine concern about the issue itself (TDF 67).
ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER SUBJECT: Some years back after a major accident, there was talk of NASCAR requiring brake lights on competing vehicles. A retired driver-turned-commentator, complete with his southern-hick accent and limited use of words over two syllables, said (close paraphrasing), "Well, I don' know that there'd be room back there for lights, with all the advertising and what." I so wished I'd been there. I'd have dryly said, "Well, maybe those slots there where the street-legal models have them." The statement of the "commentator," who probably couldn't even spell that word, was nothing but bullshit from a hick.
Too often, the same is true with defenders of gun features. As with conservatives in other areas, they tend to come up with single-point, single-layer responses that are readily knocked out by the slightest thinking. It's "kneejerk" as its academic worst.
Recently I heard a radio guest wondering why anti-gunners would oppose features contributing to more accurate fire. The problem here is:
1. The other effects of the feature; and
2. The second shot. Hunting rarely involves a quick followup shot. It's tactical situations that do. That's why Three-Gun competition arms have them. It's that second shot being more accurate in a situation like a mass school shooting that concerns them. The radio guest made a partial point, of course--increased accuracy reduces accidents--but he ignored the big giant rapid-fire factor in the room.
None of this cancels out the uncharacteristic lack of technical knowledge of anti-gunners, of course...
Another example regards the recent Colorado shooting using a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" (TDF 47), a caller to a radio show wondered about the report--possible conspiracy theorizing without basis--because he thought it would be DISadvantageous in the close quarters of store aisles. In reality, of course, the short barrel dealt with that factor, so the shooter had the advantage of both compactness the stabilization of what was in truth a SHOULDER STOCK:
I discussed the political liability of these things things, and how flaunting their flaunting of laws on Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs) led to problems in a pre-TDF article HERE.
People like that caller get away with their stupidity because they don't get called on it. They call sympathetic outlets--which is understandable--and they are faced with people who either are as low-thinking as they are, are soap-sellers not wanting to tick off their core audience, or who don't want to disillusion fellow pro-gunners/clue off the opposition to the fallacy. It is that latter point which limits how I publicly--and in some cases privately--reply to such. This article marks a departure based on a conclusion that alerting the good guys to their mistake does more good for the cause than alerting the bad guys does harm.
UPSHOT:
People like that caller get away with their stupidity because they don't get called on it. They call sympathetic outlets--which is understandable--and they are faced with people who either are as low-thinking as they are, are soap-sellers not wanting to tick off their core audience, or who don't want to disillusion fellow pro-gunners/clue off the opposition to the fallacy. It is that latter point which limits how I publicly--and in some cases privately--reply to such. This article marks a departure based on a conclusion that alerting the good guys to their mistake does more good for the cause than alerting the bad guys does harm.
UPSHOT:
As--Election Steal 2020 notwithstanding--the American people turn more liberal, their willingness to put with the "tragedies" will drop compared to their concern about possible "genocides." (Indeed, the demographic most likely to face oppression or genocide in the move Left won't easily raise that factor due to its unique pathology of "guilt.") The upshot is that these features do bear on the tactical functionality of these arms, particularly in the tactical realm. Even the fuddiest of fudd rational 2A examination points to the tactical factor in the amendment. So it makes perfect sense for proper 2A-minded folks to want them. Yet those are, thus, the features most at play when major tragedies occur--acts seemingly more tactical than criminal.
And that same increasingly-liberal people can see this. It is counterproductive to fail to think before answering, or worse yet, be disingenuous or play dumb to them. Cases beyond a "Shall Not Be Infringed" incantation can be made against banning these features--though frankly, it must be said again: Most are readily expendable on rifles in the likely employment of 2A civilian Militia (TDF 19).
If you genuinely don't know the answer, don't give bullshit. Contact me instead. If you are in a discussion just for fun, please bow out now. The cause is more important than you getting your jollies.
I hated publishing this. But I had to do it.
