BTW – part of the reason for the technical thread jack is that we really dispensed with McArdle idea pretty quickly – 5th graders taking on gunmen, bad idea – check. Armed guards in every school in the country, inneffective – check!

What I find more interesting in some ways is the whole discussion of the elementary school as a “feminized” environment. The whole notion of society becomining “feminized” is also widespread on the right and seems as interesting as the whole notion of “Rimbaud” conservatism, and ties right into the “Man Card” advertising. Real men use guns, play football, take down guys with guns with their bare hands, and teach their kids to be real men. Women (despite the fact that the NRA goes on and on about women gun owners) are unable to defend themselves and teach children to be passive. The production of gender identity on the right is just as central to this as disregard for life in the future.

The big issue in the Buckley quote is not that he only had a 15-year timeframe for survival. In fact, I suspect that what he had in mind was not that 15-years was all you could ask for – his assumption was that in 15 years time, we would still be on the edge of nuclear war, and I would wager that 15 years after that, and 15 years after that, an on and on. He wasn’t writing off future generations, he was assuming the cold war would last indefinitely – an Endless War (not realizing that the Endless War against the Evil Empire would be replaced by the Endless War against Islamic terrorism).

The musket had a loose fitting bullet; this meant many more shots before stopping to clean the barrel (std was 1 shot every 15 seconds for 4 min). However, because the barrel was loose, the bullet did not get any spin – it was a “knuckleball” and had very low accuracy.
The rifle had a tighter fitting bullet; this meant the bullet got some spin and was much more accurate for longer ranges; however, it meant the barrel had to be cleaned of residue more often.

The other big factor was smoke; a few hundred guy discharging weapons meant that the battlefield was obscure; apparently, opponents couldn’t see each other – which meant they had to be really close, so the low accuracy of the musket was not a defect.

iirc, the gun used by the US in Nam was designed so that the bullet would “richochet” inside the body; this made medical care more difficult, and thus slowed down the enemy.

A .223 (5.56 mm) round used in the AR-15 et al is not considered adequate for deer because one of the principle goals of a deer-hunter is to drop the deer in its tracks, or within a fairly short distance. A mortally wounded deer that runs off a few hundred yards into the underbrush and dies hours or days later is wasted – the chance that the hunter will find it is almost nil. So someone hunting deer wants a round with a larger bullet and more immediate stopping capacity.

But a mortally wounded enemy soldier who crawls off to die of a sucking chest wound is just fine in combat. Immediate stopping power is less important than rate of fire, and a smaller round with a high rate of fire gives better odds that the soldier will be able to get a sufficient number of rounds into their targets. Because the 5.56 mm round has been selected for its effectiveness in killing people, not deer. That is why it is the primary military round for every country in Europe. To claim that it is not a high-power round because it is ineffective against deer or elephants or whatever misses the point.

@VE “The farmer’s rifle used during the Revolution was the technological assault rifle of its day. In fact American civilian farmers were better armed than British troops equipped only with muskets, as the rifled barrel was a distinct technological advantage allowing greater accuracy over greater distances.. “

Actually, no. The low rate of fire of a rifle made them distinctly disadvantagous in actual combat. Made for great sniping if all you wanted to do was hide in the bushes, but not so good when trying to hold a fortification against a line of charging Hessians with mounted bayonetts. More then once Washington complained about having too many rifles and how desperately he needed men with proper muskets.

Bravo, this really is the stupidest place on the Internet.

As for Megan McCurdle (that’s what seems to happen to her sauces if she doesn’t have a thousand kitchen devices, and even then…), please do attend to TBogg, e.g.,:

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2012/12/17/mcmegan-mcardles-mcsuicide-mcsquad/

I am no gun expert, so I guess I cannot speak on the subject of guns at all (even to try to stop their killing my children or grandchildren, and others’), but I did learn from the comments at that post that Megan should have secured her hold and grip before putting her finger around the trigger.

It is not correct, and a slur to say that gun owners are emasculated antisocial jerks looking to fulfill their masculine fantasies.

It is entirely correct and honest to acknowledge that an alarmingly high percentage of the gun owners I personally met and intereacted with at the gun range were in fact, emasculated antisocial jerks looking to fulfill their masculine fantasies.

Seriously- in my times at the gun range, about 50% of the guys there fit this description. I have actually been in the home of one of them- an Airstream trailer without electricty or heat, piled high with Soldier of Fortune magazines, and assorted paramilitary paraphenalia, where he eagerly showed me his AK-47.

The NRA has done more to spread this image of gun owners being Travis Bickels than any liberal ever could.
Until the NRA can honestly confront and expell the gun nuts, they will end up being marginalized and ostracized. And they should.

It matters because essentially ALL guns are semi automatic

What is with this bizarre meme I keep seeing? Most handguns are semi-auto–but by no means (not even “essentially”) all of them–referring to revolvers as semi-auto is abusing the term. I don’t see why restricting handguns to revolvers or other manually operated guns would necessarily contradict Heller.

Is there some data out there on what percentage of long guns are semi-auto? Any time I’ve gone hunting or target practicing, I see mostly bolt and lever action rifles and pump action shotguns.

Before banning semi-auto I’d restrict detachable magazines (both their size and the mechanisms for switching them). Shootings have been stopped after a shooter had emptied a magazine, so this could make a real difference. Even the “cosmetic” stuff matters–a gun that gives the user a greater emotional thrill of power may very well give a potential shooter the last bump of courage he needs to carry out his plan.

But, although it would annoy a lot of my friends, banning semi-auto is a workable policy. The main obstacles are political. Yes, plenty of semi-automatics would still be out there, but the goal is not to make spree shootings impossible, but more difficult, and restricting the manufacture of an item, even one that is already widely owned, would accomplish that goal.

The NRA member is the new Jew of liberal fascism. Somebody alert Jonah.