…until the first time I tried it.
Turned out, Beretta 12S is an ergonomic nightmare, with badly designed sights and safety. The back-pressure from the sound suppressor also threw gunk into the user’s face from the ejection port. Had submachine guns been in wide civilian use, they would have improved a lot quicker than in our reality…there’s no substitute for a large non-institutional user base when it comes to refining a product.
The risk to the boy’s vision, above, is pretty obvious. The cock of the gunlock blocks some of the debris from reaching the right eye, but the left eye is unprotected. While blinking offers some protection to the eyeballs, our reflexes aren’t always rapid enough…and getting fragments of burning priming powder, frizzen sparks or flint chips on the eyelids isn’t much fun, either. The danger is reduced but not eliminated with percussion and cartridge firearms, though the danger there is more from ricochets, gas leakage and splashing of lubricants.
Shooting without eye protection may be more authentic, but it’s a considerable risk. he same is true of shooting without hearing protection: blank shots aren’t very loud, but live rounds can damage hearing. Flesh-colored molded plugs won’t stand out, and neither would period-correct glasses. Fortunately, this young lady used glasses during actual live fire events.
Ukrainian translation of my poster about self-defense.
With proper ammunition, even an over an under shotgun can be a formidable weapon in a pinch, but the issue with the UK is that what weapons are owned may not be carried. That reminds me unpleasantly of New York and similar enlightened places. No wonder that places like that stay vulnerable to attacks, while Switzerland and the better armed American metro areas have had few successful terrorist events. Perpetrators usually lasted just long enough for the locals to figure out that their actions weren not accidents.
About Alleged and Observable Goals of Gun Control. Controllo delle armi: scopi dichiarati e scopi reali a confronto
The rifle, fed with stripper clips, is actually California-legal for now. The Glock as well, with 10-round magazines. Actual defense against rioters…not so sure. Urban cops might take the side of the looters.
On the plus side, it seems that large-scale riots are less likely, now that the chief instigator is out of office. A good time to get ready for various future eventualities. Or, if rooftops seem like a chancy place, to move out of California, New Jersey and similar leftist Trashcanistans to America.
The state, be it the USSR, the Third Reich, The Peoples Republic of Trashcanistan, or the United State of America, can generally defeat a lone dissenter. The only difference between the dissenter being armed or not is the amount of effort and the resources required. That logistical load doesn’t scale well past a certain point. The British Empire found that out in Ireland around 1920 — they could have held onto the island by force, but at greater cost than the place was worth to them.
A single dissident can be escorted to jail under a mere threat of force. One with a rifle might fall to a SWAT team or surrender. It’s possible to scale up the force and use self-propelled cannon and an infantry section to take down a dozen dissenters, but that tends to spread the misery too widely for the rest of the population to support. And a few hundred thousand people who have the same goal, perhaps something as unambitious as being left unmolested, and are willing and able to resist…they might be left alone in favor of an easier target.
And the answers vary from “criminal intentions” to “treason”. Or well-meaning stupidity of such magnitude as to preclude a successful election campaign…so very unlikely.
Martial skills aren’t very good without the underlying ethics. Teach the “why” along with the “how”. Project Appleseed does a good job, but the bulk of the task falls to the parents.
This way, every potential abuser would have this nagging thought in the back of its mind…what if the kid doesn’t get intimidated and turns me into dead meat, either on the spot or later? The same applies to adults.
Collective punishment is what occupying armies of totalitarian states do to subjugated populations. And now we know how Florida legislators view their neighbors.
Emancipated enough to volunteer for the military and be accepted. Not emancipated enough for the Florida legislators!
Very much adding confusion to a legal injury, the Florida legislators claim that people who were perfectly capable of legal actions must be stripped of that ability on the basis of their age…which is now insufficient. And yet, the same 18-21 year olds are exempted from the regulation is acting as cops or soldiers to protect the scheming legislators, so they are obviously not incompetent. Should the legislators be similarly stripped of their positions, with their own actions as evidence of obvious old-age mental incapacity?
The 18 to 21 age group is already the most vulnerable to criminal victimization. Florida legislators obviously want them even worse off.
Most gun owners don’t know exactly how many guns they own. That should not be surprise: most mechanics couldn’t tell you how many wrenches they have, either. Guns are tools, and sometimes objects of collection, sometimes heirlooms, sometimes wall decorations. So a person might say: “We have around thirty guns” and be pretty close to right. Two-three carry pistols per family member, rimfire rifles and pistols for plinking, shotguns for defense and sport and hunting, rifles for varmints and for deer, and another for unbidden 3am guests. Oh, and that heirloom gallery rifle, and great-grandma’s purse revolver that’s so old it has no serial number. And great-grandpa’s WW2 bringbacks. “I think that’s it.” So all thirty guns get turned in to the government, right?
If that family has only an approximate idea of how many guns they have, government officials are unlikely to know the true number with any greater accuracy. If the officials are convinced that more guns are on hand than the people actually have, how are the victims to cough up the balance or prove the unprovable? During WW2, occupying armies would check local gun registries and shoot those who couldn’t produce everything listed. A gun being lost or destroyed years prior was no excuse.
Or the government record might indicate thirty and the reality is thirty six. Now the officials have to worry about a trained group of people who have a legitimate gripe and some weapons still on hand. Even if they get all guns currently owned, more may be manufactured, bought, traded or stolen from official users. As a result, they forever have to worry about competent and motivated insurgents. Historically, such problem was solved with executions or imprisonment of the newly disarmed.
With those two options, gunowners cannot afford to give up anything at all — to do otherwise would be to condemn themselves and their whole families to immediate and dire peril. Both sides know it, and government bullies dare not deal a small injury to their constituents…some hold out for the opportunity to strike big, others try to encroach by degrees. In the 1930s Europe, encroachment by degrees took several years, culminating in mass murder.
The date went well, though they disagreed on a few things: he carried, she thought all guns should be banned. They decided to meet again.
“I’ll make dinner Friday night. Come over around 6pm,” he said “And be sure to arrive unarmed.”
She looked at him and said: “That’s a really creepy thing to say!”
“Why, aren’t you already against weapons? Why is me asking you to be unarmed for an evening creepy, while you wanting me to be unarmed for a lifetime isn’t?”
“Hmmmm….”
That got her to thinking. Several years, a wedding and two kids later, she carries daily.
