Justification and Logic
I read a lot about people saying 'I believe in the second amendment, but... how do you justify
?' These people are missing the whole point. Their premise is that the guns aren't useful for anything and the implication is that any gun that has no clear niche, no need displayed by someone for it, is unnecessary. I'm not saying there is no niche for such weapons, but clearly these people think that's the case.
It's not about need, folks. Do I really need a cell phone with a color screen with more pixels than my monitor that folds to the size of a quarter and takes pictures? No, I don't (I also don't have one, but that's not the point). Do I need a four wheel drive, five hundred horsepower, supercharged truck? Nope. Is anybody saying that I should justify owning one if I do? With the exception of enviro-wackos for the truck, no, nobody is saying anything of the sort. I can say with confidence that I don't NEED 90% of the stuff I own. As soon as someone mentions the word 'need' in a free society, they should be horsewhipped.
Likewise, the second amendment is not about need, at least not when applied to which firearms we can own. I think it states the need for a check by the people on the government.. That's the only place 'need' enters the equation.
On Madogre.com this morning I read a question sent to him by a reader, which prompted me to write this entry. I think it's somewhat telling of the inexperience and lack of knowledge of firearms of just about anyone that comes out with a statement of 'How can you justify private ownership of a Tec-9 and similar assault weapons?'
I'm not sure what the real argument against the Tec-9 is, by the way, since it's an inaccurate piece of shit that shoots an inadequate cartridge and happens to have a high capacity magazine. No matter that my Ruger P95 is more accurate, can shoot more powerful 9mm ammunition, is easily concealed, and can take 30 round magazines. Despite all that, it's 100% accepted by all but the most rabid gun controllers. Similar 'assault weapons' to the Tec-9, for those of you that care, I suppose would be the Mac 10, Goncz GA-9, and other shitty guns I'd never want to own. They really fall in the class of poor man's semi-auto 'submachinegun.' Semi-auto submachinegun is an oxymoron but I can't really call them pistols because they're too big.
The stance these people take on weapons is completely illogical. What, exactly, is it that has the gun fearing ninnies so afraid of 'assault weapons?' The cosmetics, mostly, it would seem. The Tec-9 is scaaawwwyy but my deer rifle isn't? As a rational person, I'd be a lot more scared if someone took aim at me with a scoped 308 bolt action rifle than if some gang banger tried shooting me with his Tec-9. In the first case, assuming the person manages to miss on the first shot and I even know I'm being shot at, I'm vulnerable to being shot through most of the cover I might be able to find in an urban situation--including cars, telephone poles, and dumpsters. If the person has a decent rifle, a scope, and can shoot accurately, I'm vulnerable out to several hundred yards in a more open area. I'd give myself a much higher chance of survival in situation number two, unless said gang banger walks up and shoots me from behind with no warning. At least there I can draw my own pistol and shoot back, and given the probable lack of skill on his part, I'd win.
For you people who are willing to pay attention to physics, let me toss a few numbers at you. A 308 Winchester cartridge loaded with 168 grain bullets at standard velocities produces about 2,700 ft-lb of kinetic energy at the muzzle. A 9mm Parabellum cartridge loaded with 124 grain bullets at standard velocities produces about 350 ft-lb of kinetic energy at the muzzle. The 308 produces almost 8 times more kinetic energy. True assault weapons, such as the M-16 and the AK-47, produce anywhere from 1000-1500 ft-lb of energy at the muzzle. Weapons like the M-14 and FAL are considered battle rifles, not assault weapons.
There's a lot more to the killing power of a cartridge than the muzzle energy (though it's a good measure in general), and the biggest one is shot placement. There's a saying: "You're not outgunned if you don't miss." The rest is a balance between bullet design and how much of the energy relies on velocity and how much from mass at given ranges... et cetera. Psychology comes in here too, but since you can't choose whether your opponent is going to be a quivering pussy that drops at the slightest flesh wound or a berserker straight out of Norse legend, that's not worth talking about. Shoot 'til they stop.
Update: Dammit. I just read the rest of that entry by Ogre and he said 90% of what I just wrote. I'm keeping it anyway cause I just spent the time writing it and I believe everything I said. So no, I didn't poach his work, we just think alike.
