Pistol Specializations, I can't seem to figure this out Options

[Wounded Ronin]

The shooting part would be optional beyond simple discharge, possibly with blanks for the skittish/objectors. I suppose you could always do the "opt-out" with parental consent but ... that takes a lot out of it if it's not universal knowledge. The handling part WOULD be mandatory as a safety issue, like a form of driver's ed. Only way out is to prove competency, so a parent could teach them personally and test out. I guess I can see how martial arts, even the very basics would be seen as "combat training", but given where I have seem parts of our society go, I'm not so sure that would be a BAD thing. I have taken people to the range and seen them find new confidence from the experience of having successfully handled and utilized a firearm time and again.

Besides, I personally find shooting to be theraputic and relaxing.

I remember a lot of the student protestors from back when I was an undergrad who would have all kinds of fun going on about the "militarization of society". How they would gnash their teeth in fury. It would be so entertaining to watch, and they would be so easy to troll.

But, I think that if hypothetically everyone in the US had experience operating firearm, the gun control movment in its current form (i.e., ZOMG MAGIC OMNIPOTENT ASSAULT WEAPONS R SCARRRY!!!!) would completely evaporate since it seems to be based mostly around not knowing how firearms work. Not to say you wouldn't have people who wanted to control weapons more or less strictly by law, but I think that the debate would become more substantive and not revolving around the mythical and fabled "assault weapon". So basically we'd all be better off if for no other reason than knowledge would replace the rampant ignorance that normally characterizes this political wedge issue.

One of my favorite quotes, which sadly may be misquoted, is

“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.�

[crash2029]

I remember a lot of the student protestors from back when I was an undergrad who would have all kinds of fun going on about the "militarization of society". How they would gnash their teeth in fury. It would be so entertaining to watch, and they would be so easy to troll.

But, I think that if hypothetically everyone in the US had experience operating firearm, the gun control movment in its current form (i.e., ZOMG MAGIC OMNIPOTENT ASSAULT WEAPONS R SCARRRY!!!!) would completely evaporate since it seems to be based mostly around not knowing how firearms work. Not to say you wouldn't have people who wanted to control weapons more or less strictly by law, but I think that the debate would become more substantive and not revolving around the mythical and fabled "assault weapon". So basically we'd all be better off if for no other reason than knowledge would replace the rampant ignorance that normally characterizes this political wedge issue.

Yesterday I had to explain to my grandparents the difference between semi-automatic, automatic, and assault weapons. I also explained that firearms, arguably, are no more dangerous than cars in careless hands. I assert that it is easier for the average American to kill more people easily with a car than a gun.

[Wounded Ronin]

Yesterday I had to explain to my grandparents the difference between semi-automatic, automatic, and assault weapons. I also explained that firearms, arguably, are no more dangerous than cars in careless hands. I assert that it is easier for the average American to kill more people easily with a car than a gun.

Yes, but the classic response to that is "cars have utility in day to day life whereas firearms have none," because people who fantasize about firearms but who never use them basically think they're 1st edition D&D wands of magic missile. I think you're only going to move the debate in a more mature direction once people actually know from personal experience and skill what they're actually talking about.

[Jhaiisiin]

In a word: yes. I think basic firearm safety should be a part of kindergarten and primary school, with proper handling, servicing and loading/unloading being conducted for both sidearms and longarms. In middle school, I would like to see mandatory firing line familiarization, and optional full service training with both types. Basic martial arts, if taught correctly, encourage good general fitness of body and mind, and I would encourage them fully.

I humbly disagree with trying to teach or even show off firearms in school. Especially when sometimes even those giving the gun safety lectures shoot themselves.

I do however agree with the general tone of your post. Out country desperately needs to properly educate our youth. Between failed education programs, poor pay, and horrible government ideas, we're really on a downward slope.

I'm just awed that people still think the US is the center of the universe and innovation and education and technology. So many people have no clue just how far behind we are in so many fields. *shakes head* It doesn't help that many of our really successful citizens aren't reproducing because they're too busy focusing on their career, whereas the slum-locked trash families are producing kids by the handful. It's a hell of a spiral and it's not a good future we're heading towards.

Wow I tangented. I'll shaddap now.

[Wounded Ronin]

I humbly disagree with trying to teach or even show off firearms in school. Especially when sometimes even those giving the gun safety lectures shoot themselves.

I read in a magazine about that incident. Apparently the man who shot himself was an undercover cop who would show up to public schools projecting his thug persona in order to appeal to the students while at the same time being able to guide them away from joining gangs. That wasn't a firearms safety presentation, as I understand it, so much as displaying the firearm to fit in with the badass persona, from which the anti gang spiel would proceed. Supposedly that cop had been involved in a number of operations and was quite seasoned, but his career has been ruined since that video hit the internet because now everyone knows that he is a cop.

My counter-argument about the firearms safety class was that the cop obviously was carrying his firearm concealed and ready to shoot with a round in the chamber. I believe that the firearm in question was a Glock .40 which also relies on grip safeties which are always active, as opposed to a manual safety where you'd flick a switch and be unable to fire. So basically I think that Glocks would be a bit more prone to accidental discharge than, say, a 1911 with the safety on, or any pistol where you'd walk around without a round in the chamber. According to Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol)

The Glock features a triple safety system that secures the firearm against accidental discharge and consists of three independent safety mechanisms: an external trigger safety[8] and two automatic internal safeties – a firing pin safety[9] and a drop safety.[10] The external safety is a small inner lever contained in the trigger. Pressing the lever activates the trigger bar and sheet metal connector. One of the internal safeties is a solid hardened steel pin that, in the secured state, blocks the firing pin channel (disabling the firing pin in its longitudinal axis). The firing pin safety is only pushed upward to release the firing pin for firing when the trigger is actuated and the safety is pushed up through the backward movement of the trigger bar, the second, drop safety guides the trigger bar in a precision safety ramp that is only released when a shot is triggered by pulling the trigger right back. The safeties are systematically disengaged one after another when the trigger is squeezed and then automatically re-activated when the trigger is released. Passive safeties allow the pistol to be carried with a cartridge in the chamber thus reducing the time required to deploy the pistol. This allows the user to concentrate on tactical considerations, rather than manipulation of levers, hammers or external safeties found in other, conventional handguns.[5]

So basically if you had a presentation on firearms safety rather than thug persona badassery don't-join-a-gang, that sort of accidental discharge shouldn't happen because you could carry your firearm totally unloaded and in a case, which is safer than carrying a firearm concealed in a manner where you could draw it and fire if you needed to. There's always a certain low but present risk of accident when you carry around a concealed firearm all the time.

Believe it or not, this is actually related to Shadowrun in my mind. Remember the 3rd edition Canon Companion, where they had a firearm modification "remove safety"? I always thought that was one heck of a silly modification. In the first place, if you really wanted to remove manual safties, you could just carry a Glock, where you'd have passive safties and it would still be a hell lot safer than running around with a round ready to go off in your pocket. Secondly, the risk of blowing your leg off when you used the crapper would so totally outweigh whatever advantages not having a safety would have, especially seeing as it's so simple and easy to simply train the muscle memory to turn off your safety before you fire.

I have seen a video on TV once where a jewelry shot proprietor gets shot because he and a robber draw on each other at the stame time, and the shop owner fails to disengage the safety. So basically in order for the no-safety thing to have helped you'd need to be some shop owner in New York City who never practices with the damn firearm because of the constraints of living in New York City. But IMO it would be pretty laughable for a professional shadowrunner to get any sort of benefit from not having a safety on his or her firearm. I thought it was a pretty contrived modification.

Wasn't there a quote attributed to some renaissance fencing instructor? "A man who carries a sword around with him without knowing how to use it is full as ridiculous as a man who carries books around with him without knowing how to read."

[crash2029]

Yes, but the classic response to that is "cars have utility in day to day life whereas firearms have none," because people who fantasize about firearms but who never use them basically think they're 1st edition D&D wands of magic missile. I think you're only going to move the debate in a more mature direction once people actually know from personal experience and skill what they're actually talking about.

Are you implying that I don't know what I'm talking about? If so then I would take offense. The fact that cars have day-to-day utility is kind of the point. My position that cars are more effective for the average American to kill with partly relies on the ubiquity of vehicles. It is far easier to get ahold of a vehicle quickly than a firearm. Additionally, if you hit someone with a car they are usually squished. To kill someone with a gun you need a gun, bullets, and either alot of luck or a modicum of skill. Many people who are shot with a single pistol-calibre round survive. Many people who are hit by a car don't.

[Wounded Ronin]

Are you implying that I don't know what I'm talking about?

No, the internets are serious business so I try not to haphazardly imply stuff like that when I post.



Today I had an experience which makes me think that operating machine guns should perhaps be a different skill than the one that goes for rifles, while at the same time I believe that logically if you wanted to be more correct you could roll rifles, shotguns, and carbines all into one.

Today I broke down and basically got ripped off to fire 50 linked rounds through a M1919 Browning machinegun ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun ) at an indoor range. It was funny because when I told the range staff I wanted to do that they stood around for a minute or two talking among themselves about how the hell they were going to move that thing into position and how they'd need two people and so on.

They laid out a little mattress on the floor so I could comfortably fire prone. I was amazed that even thoug the thing was on its little tripod, and was really heavy, it actually would move to the right every time I squeezed off a 3 round burst, and they had to re-adjust it. On the paper I was shooting at I could see the rounds clearly walking from left to right and upwards, just with these very conservative 3 round bursts I was squeezing off.

The experience was totally different than using a rifle, handgun, shotgun, or automatic rifle. The ergonomics of using that machine gun were totally different. There was no buttstock or trigger guard. The trigger was just sticking off the back all by itself. Just some teeny tiny crappy sights up top and since it was all set up with a tripod I didn't have to use my body to counter the recoil or anything like that. In spite of this I felt like it really bounced around and the smell of gunpowder was really thick in the air. It was physically easy to fire but comically imprecise and kind of having a mind of its own, from my brief experience with it.

[crash2029]

I apologize for being oversensitive.

If memory serves me machine guns are operated by the heavy weapon skill. To avoid the jumping around they used to use sandbags on the legs of the tripod.

[Wounded Ronin]

But seriously, though. You'd honestly need really big sandbags. That aren't squishy. I was like holy crap.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

But seriously, though. You'd honestly need really big sandbags. That aren't squishy. I was like holy crap.

Yes, Machine guns are extremely fun, and DO require a bit of skill to utilize to their full extent... that is something that the untrained generally are not capable of doing in my experience... even in the Marine Corps, it takes some time for the Machine Gunners to gain proficiency with their weapons...

[crash2029]

Out of curiosity, do you know if it was the 1919A4?

[Jhaiisiin]

I read in a magazine about that incident. Apparently the man who shot himself was an undercover cop who would show up to public schools projecting his thug persona in order to appeal to the students while at the same time being able to guide them away from joining gangs. That wasn't a firearms safety presentation, as I understand it, so much as displaying the firearm to fit in with the badass persona, from which the anti gang spiel would proceed. Supposedly that cop had been involved in a number of operations and was quite seasoned, but his career has been ruined since that video hit the internet because now everyone knows that he is a cop.

You didn't watch that video at all, did you? He's quite clearly wearing a kevlar vest that says POLICE on it. Hard to be undercover when you wear a vest that says POLICE and are giving a demonstration to a class, a number of whom could have gang ties.

[Wounded Ronin]

Out of curiosity, do you know if it was the 1919A4?

No, I couldn't say. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it was probably one of the ones that was converted to 7.62 NATO for the Vietnam War, just because that is the most likely to have survived in fireable condition and made it into a gun store inventory today, as opposed to an actual World War I piece.

[Wounded Ronin]

You didn't watch that video at all, did you? He's quite clearly wearing a kevlar vest that says POLICE on it. Hard to be undercover when you wear a vest that says POLICE and are giving a demonstration to a class, a number of whom could have gang ties.

If you really want to score e-points on me I'll let you pretend that I clearly didn't watch the video. Have a nice day.

[Critias]

I humbly disagree with trying to teach or even show off firearms in school. Especially when sometimes even those giving the gun safety lectures shoot themselves.

Luckily, not a single driver's education teacher in the history of the world has ever been in a car accident!