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 Cu

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.