5 ms·

Just out of curiosity, and not because I want to single you out as a representative of your species, but, a lot of firearms enthusiasts share some common traits

Just out of curiosity, and not because I want to single you out as a representative of your species, but, a lot of firearms enthusiasts share some common traits, and one of the more problematic ones is the obvious fallacy that there are "good guys" and then there are "bad guys", and that only the "good guys" are well-informed about proper weapons handling procedures, and that's because they're focused on "saving lives". Another frequently displayed characteristic is to become pedantic about the technical aspects of gun specifications, and the precise language and acronyms surrounding tactics for close-quarter battles, or indirect fire trajectories or... whatever. Do you guys realize the absurd cognitive dissonance of propping yourselves up with the obvious fallacy of the "good guys versus bad guys" routine, especially when you stand it up next to an appeal to authority through opaque vocabulary? It may feel like you're winning the argument, but some of us are quick to see through this repetitive display that so many of you cling to, when arguing your point in favor of things like helping people bleed out faster, because we're trying to "save lives" here.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wbl 12y ago
The life they are trying to save isn't the life of the person being aimed at: it's the person behind the wall behind the target. Every bullet is going to land somewhere, the question is how far away that where is, and what it will do when it gets there.
- hga 12y ago
  Ah, the curiously named "atavistic" did bring out one thing I may have not made clear: when talking about "arguing your point in favor of things like helping people bleed out faster, because we're trying to "save lives" here", one idea is that the target is indeed a "bad guy", and the sooner that bad guy is stopped, the fewer (additional) people he will wound or kill. This is often critical for a "good guy" in close combat with one or more "bad guys", and generally particularly critical in the politically motivated hostage situations which prompted the discussion, where killing the hostages is a frequently desired eventual outcome of the "bad guys". Which in my opinion definitively makes them "bad guys", to the point of my not being in the least upset at those higher ups who give sub rosa orders that they'd prefer none of the hostage takers survive. The point you make is also strong, very frequently so in hostage taking situations, which is one reason good police snipers train obsessively. Important enough that I brought it up in my first paragraph of exposition in this discussion, as well as in, say, a recent one on the quality of the firearms leadership of NYC police, who for a long while saddled their men with FMJ bullets, to the determent of everyone but the self-satisfied and grossly ignorant anointed.
Dylan16807 12y ago
None of that post talks about good and bad guys. None of that post gets picky about terminology or tactics. It's just a description of how different types of bullet hurt people in different ways. You're, uh, a little bit too quick to jump on whatever you think you're jumping on.
- hga 12y ago
  Indeed; the curiously named "atavistic" seems to be lumping me into a "species" (?) of humans I've never even heard of. Which I grant is possible, I'm a Gun Culture 1.0 type by upbringing (e.g. hunting and bulls-eye target shooting, even lettered in that in high school to my amazement) who since ... high school or thereabouts became an early Gun Culture 2.0 type (e.g. self-defense and sports based on that like IDPA and 3 Gun competitions (which I might consider competing in if not for a bad knee)), but there are so many gun subcultures in the US I might not have heard of the one he's referring to. Or know anything about, like the perennially persecuted Pennsylvania pigeon shooters. (But feel free to ask me how good moose minute steaks are. :-) As far as good and bad guys, we might take it as axiomatic that a shooter considers himself to be a good guy and his targets as bad guys (even if only because he fears they could identify him after the crime), and therefore is at least somewhat interested in "terminal ballistics". I tried to keep it value neutral precisely because I wanted to focus on "how different types of bullet hurt people in different ways." Needless to say, don't get me talking on "opaque vocabulary" unless you have a desire to learn about all this and can use a glossary of jargon like "permanent crush cavity", "hydro-static shock", etc. before diving into the literature. But I hope I avoided that when talking to the general HN audience.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wbl 12y ago

The life they are trying to save isn't the life of the person being aimed at: it's the person behind the wall behind the target. Every bullet is going to land somewhere, the question is how far away that where is, and what it will do when it gets there.

hga 12y ago
Ah, the curiously named "atavistic" did bring out one thing I may have not made clear: when talking about "arguing your point in favor of things like helping people bleed out faster, because we're trying to "save lives" here", one idea is that the target is indeed a "bad guy", and the sooner that bad guy is stopped, the fewer (additional) people he will wound or kill. This is often critical for a "good guy" in close combat with one or more "bad guys", and generally particularly critical in the politically motivated hostage situations which prompted the discussion, where killing the hostages is a frequently desired eventual outcome of the "bad guys". Which in my opinion definitively makes them "bad guys", to the point of my not being in the least upset at those higher ups who give sub rosa orders that they'd prefer none of the hostage takers survive. The point you make is also strong, very frequently so in hostage taking situations, which is one reason good police snipers train obsessively. Important enough that I brought it up in my first paragraph of exposition in this discussion, as well as in, say, a recent one on the quality of the firearms leadership of NYC police, who for a long while saddled their men with FMJ bullets, to the determent of everyone but the self-satisfied and grossly ignorant anointed.

Dylan16807 12y ago

None of that post talks about good and bad guys. None of that post gets picky about terminology or tactics. It's just a description of how different types of bullet hurt people in different ways. You're, uh, a little bit too quick to jump on whatever you think you're jumping on.

hga 12y ago
Indeed; the curiously named "atavistic" seems to be lumping me into a "species" (?) of humans I've never even heard of. Which I grant is possible, I'm a Gun Culture 1.0 type by upbringing (e.g. hunting and bulls-eye target shooting, even lettered in that in high school to my amazement) who since ... high school or thereabouts became an early Gun Culture 2.0 type (e.g. self-defense and sports based on that like IDPA and 3 Gun competitions (which I might consider competing in if not for a bad knee)), but there are so many gun subcultures in the US I might not have heard of the one he's referring to. Or know anything about, like the perennially persecuted Pennsylvania pigeon shooters. (But feel free to ask me how good moose minute steaks are. :-) As far as good and bad guys, we might take it as axiomatic that a shooter considers himself to be a good guy and his targets as bad guys (even if only because he fears they could identify him after the crime), and therefore is at least somewhat interested in "terminal ballistics". I tried to keep it value neutral precisely because I wanted to focus on "how different types of bullet hurt people in different ways." Needless to say, don't get me talking on "opaque vocabulary" unless you have a desire to learn about all this and can use a glossary of jargon like "permanent crush cavity", "hydro-static shock", etc. before diving into the literature. But I hope I avoided that when talking to the general HN audience.