Science News Forum - SciScoop
Home ¦ Join SciScoop ¦ Sections ¦ Categories ¦ Contact ¦ FAQ ¦ Links ¦ Sci-Art ¦ Coupons ¦ Search...

Now online: 15 Anonymous(s) and       SciScoop membership: 2998. Total stories since November 2002: 2718

Search SciScoop
 

Section Stories
The stories that didn't quite make it to the Front Page...

Lose Stomach Fat, Get Six Pack Abs
by sciencebase
Reviews::Medicine

Science Fair Projects E-Book Download
by sciencebase
Site News::Potpourri

Free Computer Information Resources
by sciencebase
News::Announcements

A simulator of catastrophe to improve the programming of autonomous robots of rescue
by engineering
Events::Robotics

Radioprotection by Plant Flavone
by cesarsed
News::Chemistry

G8+5: FEEL THE HEAT, ACT NOW! Quick! Quick! Quick!
by koantum
Events::Environment

ELN - Electronic Lab Notebooks - They're here now!
by midknightr
Reviews::Technology

The Toy That's Not For Christmas
By rickyjames, Section News
Posted on Fri Dec 26, 2003 at 09:42:22 AM PST

Technology There are a million reasons why war is a horrible, terrible evil, and every one of them is correct. However, there are three facts about war that are impossible to deny. One, no matter how advanced we have gotten since civilization has begun, war is unfortunately still with us and apparently will be for the foreseeable future. Two, if you're going to fight a war, fight it as hard as possible, get it over with as quickly as possible, and win. Three, war has historically been the most effective crucible to provoke improvement in science and technology. That was undeniably true in the 20th Century. As improved technology for violence meets an increased willingness to use it, this may well be true over the decades to come in the 21st Century as well. Thus guns are just as valid a topic as God for consideration on SciScoop - both are after all matters of life and death in our future.

Growing up in the rural American South as I have leads one inevitably to have at least a grudging acceptance if not an outright appreciation (which I confess to) for firearms. This is especially true in Tennessee, where I grew up and attended college. The Tennessee state nickname is all about the willingness to pick up a rifle. The lonely Davy-Crockett-style pioneer wearing a coonskin cap and carrying a flintlock rifle is a symbol of Tennessee's great past and an offical mascot at the University of Tennessee. (However, in recent years, the armed nature of the UT mascot has been de-emphasized, and in fact at the last UT football game I observed he was actually carrying a wooden stick and not a true flintlock rifle. Pity.) Davy Crockett himself died at the Alamo with rifle in hand; his favorite rifle "Betsy" is enshrined in Nashville. Alvin York is an eighth-grade history legendary hero to Tennessee school children as a World War I sniper who had a deep respect and appreciation for both guns and lives they could take. In recognition of and tribute to this, the thoughtful, introspective World War II sniper in Saving Private Ryan was portrayed as being from Tennessee, too.

Odd fare for the day after Christmas? Yep, but I'm in good company that's got me to thinking about it. Today's after-Christmas USA Today has an excellent article on the work of an American sniper in Iraq. Duscussing his craft, sniper Sgt. Randall Davis says,"I just thought it was a very smart way to fight a war -- very lethal, very precise. Every shot you take, you know exactly where the bullet is going." Hard to argue with such logic, especially when you look at statistics that show it took 50,000 bullets fired for every Viet Cong and NVA soldier killed in the Vietnam War - and the "shock and awe" American military mentality that has sprung from such profligrate usage of weaponry today and tomorrow.

Admit it; which would you rather see - $150 billion in deficit expenditures and the current war in Iraq, or Sgt. Randall Davis easing into position 500 yards from Osama bin Laden?

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.

The Toy That's Not For Christmas | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)

Gun Laws (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by jkauzlar on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:07:59 AM PST
Thanks for writing this excellent editorial. Only recently, after seeing Michael Moore's statistics in Bowling for Columbine, particularly those comparing US/Canada # of firearms vs. deaths by firearms, did I realize that a gun != death by firearm.

Of course, this is obvious, but for a person who grew up in the suburbs where firearms aren't often encountered, the reactionary media's 'guns==deaths by firearm' equation becomes more and more believable. It is more believable in inner cities where many guns are purchased simply to shoot- at/protect-yourself-from other people. It is this use of guns which politicians and worrisome-types jump to prohibit. Not being hunters themselves, they have little regard for the people who 'shoot Bambi' as a hobby and willingly allow the hunters/enthusiasts to fall as casualties of the proposed laws.

I think the best argument against gun control is simply that we should preserve our freedom of choice at all costs; even if this means that some people will choose violence. Unfortunately our media overwhelms us with instances of people choosing violence when the vast majority choose otherwise. Things will look much better when taking away rights is not looked at as a valid approach to solving a problem (now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have a cigarette :).



An interest in Long-Range Shooting (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anonymous on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 11:21:51 AM PST
Ask any shooter, especially those who started shooting with .22 rifles as a kid, what you do to make shooting more fun and challenging after you've learned to easily hit those cans from whatever distance. (The porch to the tree stump, for instance) The two answers I came up with were "Do it faster" and "Do it from farther away". After a while, you reach the practical limits of the gun and its sights.

So, you put a telescope on top of it and try to compensate for the arc of the bullet. That's fun for a while, but then you reach the actual limit of the guns range and have to get a bigger gun and a better telescope. Suddenly, things like the breeze, mirage effect, and whether the target is uphill or down begin to affect the results. At that point, you start figuring out how much wind (even light wind) affects the travel of the bullet and begin keeping careful records.

You go online to find out more and learn that temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure affect bullet travel and begin to take that into account. You download or buy ballistic calculator software that can perform some of the dizzying math which needs to be done to adjust for these factors. You become passionate about accurate calculation of ballistic coefficient.

At some point along this continuum, you realize that the ammunition made my most manufacturers differs too greatly from round to round to be reliable, so you invest in reloading equipment, calipers, extremely accurate scales and more in an effort to produce ammunition that shoots exactly the same way twice, thrice and ten times in a row.

Ultimately, you're attempting to apply scientific repeatability to an endeavor which relies on human sensory input (or a small weather station) to determine nearly all of the factors, none of which are necessarily constant from shot to shot. (or from muzzle to target, for that matter) This is to say nothing of the skill of the shooter, which has to improve alongside the equipment which can get the bullet to a target farther and farther away and where being half a millimeter off in aim will cause a miss at 400 meters, provided all your estimates about wind direction and speed were right in the first place.

In reviewing all this, it doesn't sound like a lot of fun. But, like the sound of a golf ball draining into the hole after travelling 20 feet on the green, there are few sounds that warm a long-range shooters heart more than the muted CLANK of a round hitting a steel target that's a long way off...

Dirk Koenig
Minneapolis, MN



interesting read (4.00 / 2) (#2)
by Anonymous on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 04:35:32 AM PST
no extreme is ever good.
having grown up in rural areas where hunting was second nature i'm confortable with firearms.
i also understand that those from more urban areas are not.  

i must admitt being less concerned with those people that were going to go out and blast bambi, than those who have no interest in hunting, but seem drawn to fire arms that have no practicle use in a civilian world.

perhaps this is why, when living out in the country, i think nothing of hearing a 30-06 or 30-30 off in the distance, but everyone(including myself) jump at the sound of a gun going off in the mall parking lot.

there is a place for everything.
be careful with that AR-50, i'd hate to have to read about it on someone elses site.



  • Suspicion by rickyjames, 12/28/2003 06:55:41 AM PST (4.00 / 1)
Belated response to your original posting (3.00 / 2) (#5)
by Anonymous on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 09:28:39 AM PST
Ricky,

I've been working desperately to catch up with all my commitments, including catching up with email, since coming back from my recent trip to Portland. Here however is a short bit of commentary on this thread that you started.

Cheers,
Russell Whitaker, who signs with his own name.



The Toy That's Not For Christmas | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)

Bookmark this story with del.icio.us Digg this story Furl this item Have you Reddit?

Login
Username:
Password:


Register Now Why join?

Add SciScoop to:

Subscribe to our partner Science Newsfeed for FREE Subscribe to our partner Science Newsfeed for FREE

Related Science Links
· Scoop
· war is unfortunately still with us and apparently will be for the foreseeable future
· war has historically been the most effective crucible to provoke improvement in science and technology
· this may well be true over the decades to come in the 21st Century as well
· Tennessee state nickname
· lonely Davy-Crockett-style pioneer wearing a coonskin cap and carrying a flintlock rifle
· died at the Alamo
· Alvin York
· thoughtful , introspective World War II sniper in Saving Private Ryan
· the work of an American sniper in Iraq
· shock and awe
· Survival Arts
· deep curiosity about science and technology with SciScoop
· the spirit that lies behind science facts and figures
· a review he wrote of Firefly
· Russell is the proud owner of a Toy That's Not For Christmas
· Armalite AR-50
· sniper rifle
· facinating applied physics laboratory
· a hornet's nest of interpretations
· other countries in the world have shown
· Are guns themselves really so bad
· more guns = less violence as the quack idea with very high support in a recent SciSCoop poll
· Bowling for Columbine
· More on Technology
· Also by rickyjames

All trademarks etc are owned by their respective companies
Comments are copyright individual "Poster" and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of individual members of the SciScoop Community. Site ©2002-2008 SciScoop.