Atlantic article was yesterday, and I was of a mind to resist the topic. I’m multi-faceted, I don’t want to be a gun blog. But now with the Yahoo piece, ya figure there’s a coordinated message that these journalists are responding to. My expert interest is piqued!
Yahoo piece: There’s a new semi-automatic handgun on the horizon for the Army that U.S. consumers may have access to almost immediately. When that happens, America’s emergency rooms better be prepared for the carnage that’s likely to follow.
Zingy: The premise is ostensibly that with the army’s new gun, civilians will have access to greater firepower, the manifestation of that showing up as more carnage in ERs. But the reality is they’re replacing a 15 round semi-automatic handgun with a 13, 15 or 17 round semi-automatic handgun
So no, the new gun isn’t an upward departure from the status quo, and doesn’t introduce new concepts of military small arms firepower into the civilian market. The premise and whatever alarm these articles are supposed to engender is rejectable by virtue of the math. No new carnage. Science and empiricism is not on the side of the abolitionists claim there.
Given the curious timing of the contemporaneous articles ya figure this is probably the work of a single mind, that being a policy fellow at one of the abolitionist think tanks. In one of these campaigns he/she comes up with a message and tries to feed it through multiple journalists for maximum effect.
If it’s not actually as obtuse as it seems, then I’m not actually sure what that message is. Expressing dismay that military functionality ends up built into civilian small arms is to be surprised that the sun comes up in the east. It’s always been thus. You know when Colt’s 1860 Army sidearm became available to the public? 1860. Colt’s 1873? 1873. Colt’s 1911? Now you guess. It’s as easy as it seems.
All arms and then no arms are explicitly ‘military’. If extra utility, ergonomics, and ease of manufacturing come out of a military spec process then those features will get adopted on the consumer side. The opposite is true also actually. Big thing is, this isn’t so much a rebuttal that’s tied pedantically to gun facts. I’m trying to not be that guy. It’s an argument tied pedantically to principles of design, innovation, and adoption.