Another reason I wanted to bring this topic up was to highlight a VERY interesting new weblog I’ve discovered by Russell Whitaker called Survival Arts which, although it has an emphasis on guns and survival weaponry, also shares a deep curiosity about science and technology with SciScoop as well as the spirit that lies behind science facts and figures. Plus, Russell was nice enough to recommend SciScoop to his varied readers, and I thought I’d return the compliment – so check Survival Arts out! I came across his blog because of a review he wrote of Firefly, which he instantly recognized as a story that portrays “libertarian bias toward freedom and all it entails” – including guns, of course, and so much more.

Russell is the proud owner of a Toy That’s Not For Christmas that I have always had a strange, personal facination with – the Armalite AR-50 extremely-long range sniper rifle. Hunting deer is a major sporting pastime in the South. Many of my relatives and in fact even some of my office mates, after a long hard day of rocket science plotting out missile trajectories over the Pacific, will pull on the camouflage and go out to blast Bambi. I myself could care less about deer hunting and never go. I’d rather just go for a nature walk and observe wildlife, including deer, which I do frequently on the nearby undeveloped sewer-line right-of-ways around the perimeter of off-limits Redstone Arsenal.

Despite my disdain for firing a .30-06 deer rifle (which I have, at targets), however, I’d jump at the chance to shoot a .50 caliber rifle like the Armalite AR-50 at maximum distance on a qualified firing range. I see no need to kill deer (well, OK, they’re growing out of control and need herd management). But as a pragmatist who acknowledges the ultimate need for war, I do unfortunately see the need to kill humans upon occasion – preferably a selected few key enemies instead of massive indiscriminate “shock and awe.” An Armalite AR-50 is the best tool out there as far as I’m concerned for accomplishing this grisly task, and if this fearsome rifle is going to exist, I want to be in the group of people who have access to this technology instead of belonging to the group that doesn’t.

To a science buff, sniper guns are facinating applied physics laboratory. To a human being, they are an intoxicatingly empowering tool that puts the ultimate power of life and death in your hand, which strikes some very deep, primal psychological urge that we deny the existence of only at our peril. These weapons exist to kill not deer but people, and the armored vehicles they ride in, at distances where you as a shooter are relatively safe. There is extreme pressure for these types of guns to be outlawed in the United States precisely for their potential as an assassination weapon of choice.

I would hate to see that happen. The American Constitution’s Second Amendment, which is interpreted to allow American citizens to own guns, is a hornet’s nest of interpretations. For example, automatic weapons in the hands of American citizens is definitely ruled out by law – though other countries in the world have shown this is not necessarily a thing to fear. If America goes further and establishes the precedent of banning a gun just because it is Big even if it is semi-automatic, then we’re on a slippery slope: how Big is Too Big? .44? .38? .22? BBs? Paintballs? Let me say again, I want to be in the group of people who have access to guns instead of belonging to the group that doesn’t – and as an American I do, even if I don’t personally own one today.

I’m running out of things to say and I find I don’t have a nice, neat point to sum things up and end on. This is just a messy subject that I’ve come across provocative and facinating references to over the past few days.

To summarize my babblings here, wars are unfortunately going to be a hi-tech part of our SciScoop tomorrows, and as such I think we need to explore the subject of war, at least thinking about it personally and talk about it amongst ourselves at best. I’m not at all convinced that “shock and awe” represents the desirable future of warfare, and certainly alternative “surgical, sniper-type special operations” seem to be all the vogue today as a desirable alternative. Are they really? Are guns themselves really so bad? Am I even able to judge, as a gun-besotted Southern American male who is basically fairly rational and intelligent and thoughtful but has the courage to admit to a fantasy of wanting to stroke the trigger of an Armalite AR-50 anyway? Drog as a Canadian will obviously have a few interesting things to say on THAT, particularly after expressing his surprise that more guns = less violence as the quack idea with very high support in a recent SciSCoop poll. Somebody who is Swiss with a government-issued militia machine gun in his closet will certainly have a viewpoint that is neither American or Canadian – let’s hear it! And Russell, here’s YOUR chance to cut and paste the essence of what your site is about to a few thousand new readers. Just what IS at the root of our anthropological and psychological fascination with violence in general and firearms in particular? Does our current progress in science and technology offer a way to divest ourselves of this in the 21st Century? In a way that is Good? Should we want to?

On this topic, gotta end with a link on Bowling for Columbine, of course. Bye, bye, Christmas. Back to reality.