Survival Arts

A long overdue pointer to a SciScoop thread about this blog

A little over a week ago I was sitting in a hotel room in Portland, Oregon, checking my email, when I discovered that Ricky Roberson (whom I'd misattributed earlier as "Ricky James") of SciScoop had written a rather lengthy post on his site entitled "The Toy That's Not For Christmas" expressing his fascination with my ownership of an Armalite AR-50 single-shot .50BMG. I'd mentioned my discovery of his blog a few days before, and he was apparently returning the favor, in spades.

Ricky expresses his apparently sincere and heartfelt belief that if guns are going to exist, then he'd rather be in the group who has access to guns:

...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.

While I essentially agree with this sentiment, I should point out a few things. First, I don't think the AR-50 is the best tool for that "grisly task". There are better tools for sniper and countersniper work nowadays, e.g. the 300 Winchester Magnum, or the 300 Lapua. Both these and related types are in increasingly common use nowadays by people whose paid jobs require their use as tools. A 700 grain .50 caliber bullet, for long range antipersonnel work, is fast becoming an outmoded approach. The guns are heavy, the ammo bulky, and the ballistics, while impressive, aren't nearly as optimal as the new breed of .30 caliber wonderguns (two of which I just mentioned).

I should also point out that I never got into my main reason for owning such a piece in the first place: it's fun. Period. Besides, I have no need to justify the ownership of any legally acquired property to anyone for any reason. That having been said, I do find this blog followup comment posted by "Anonymous Hero" (funny, the slashdot convention for someone who won't sign his name is the more accurate "Anonymous Coward") a bit annoying:

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 (sic) use in a civilian world...

...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.

I'm not sure if this guy is engaging in a classic bit of psychological projection, but:

• I do go out on occasion and "blast bambi"; I love hunting. I use calibers appropriate to the game I'm chasing.
  
• I do not need to justify my ownership of any weapon, regardless of his standard, tired canard about "practical use in the civilian world."
  
• No crime has ever been committed on American soil with a weapon chambered in .50BMG. Period.
  
• Your snide implication that I would aggress against another human is beyond contempt.
  

Ricky generously offers me space on his forum:

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?

I really do wish I had the time to talk on these things at great length, but I don't: I'm studying to be a nanotechnologist, and school just re-started for me yesterday. I am, however, sincerely grateful for the offer, and recognize that SciScoop would be a wonderful venue for such discussion, particularly given my personal interests in ethology, anthropology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology.

Ricky ends his article thus:

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

Ricky, you seem like a really nice guy, but if you believe anything Michael Moore says in that "documentary", which has been repeatedly demonstrated to contain lies - lies that Moore has been called on - then I strongly recommend you open your mind and check out MOOREWATCH.com: Watching Michael Moore's Every Move. You're a demonstrably intelligent and benevolent guy, so I'd be surprised if after some research you don't see what I see in him: a black-hearted charlatan.

Posted by Russell Whitaker at January 6, 2004 12:35 PM | TrackBack