Ignorant Writers Issue Dire Pistol Prediction

Army Gear
Army Gear
NRA-ILA
NRA – ILA

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- The Army is talking about adopting a new pistol and, according to Maureen Mackey of the Fiscal Times, “when that happens, America’s emergency rooms better be prepared for the carnage that’s likely to follow.”

Previously, freelance anti-gun writer Matt Valentine made a similar prediction in The Atlantic.

Along with their apparent predisposition against guns, Mackey and Valentine base their predictions on 1992 claim from Daniel Webster, whose advocacy of gun control masquerades as public health research.  Webster argued that as semi-automatic pistols became more popular than revolvers in the 1980s, the number of wounds per gunshot victim increased.

Mackey and Valentine did not mention newer research, which found that “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols were less likely to produce a death than were those involving revolvers” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”

Mackey and Valentine seem to believe that when the Army says it wants a pistol with greater “knockdown power,” it’s looking for something akin to the Phasers that were carried by the fictional crew of the Starship Enterprise on Star Trek.”

But what the Army has actually indicated is that it’s considering replacing its inventory of Beretta M9 and SIG M11 9mm pistols with another fixed-metallic cartridge semi-automatic pistol, possibly in .45, .40 or .357 SIG caliber. Of course, .45 caliber semi-automatic pistols are hardly a new idea, having been around since 1911. Ammunition in .357 SIG caliber is nearly the same as the +P+ variety of 9mm Luger, which has been around since 1902. And .40 caliber S&W ammunition, introduced in 1990, essentially splits the difference between .45 and 9mm +P+ in terms of bullet diameter, weight and velocity.

The title of Valentine’s article, “How Military Guns Make the Civilian Market,” may appeal to gun control supporters who believe that civilians and military personnel should not have the same kinds of guns. But if the Army adopts a new pistol, it could easily be one that is already popular among civilian gun owners.

Gun control supporters, many of whom don’t know the first thing about firearms design, technology or operation, like to pretend that they can isolate features of guns that make them especially dangerous or especially likely to be used in crime. Yet as another equally breathless but completely ignorant report on the supposed lethality of different firearm shows, no gun will ever be “just right” to those believe people shouldn’t own guns at all.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 5 thoughts on “Ignorant Writers Issue Dire Pistol Prediction

    1. According to real-world ballistics, the .40 S&W Auto is almost identical in performance to the

      … drum roll…..

      .38 – 40 Winchester , also known as .38 WCF, a round first brought to market in 1874.

      What’s old is new again.

    2. Yeah, these people make the most idiotic statements about firearms and they want to tell me what to do. Remember Feinstein and the “imploding” bullets?

    3. First, let me say that I’m new to firearms, so I may get a few things wrong. Constructive criticism welcome; scathing claims of ignorance, not so much.

      My idea is that if the military chooses a system that’s popular with citizens, that’s been on the market for years, and been perfected on the open market, would be a better choice than a new, untested system.

      I remember reading stories about when the M-16 was introduced in Viet Nam. At the time, it was said the weapon was so superior, it didn’t even need cleaning — resulting in disasterous jams at the most inopportune moments of a firefight.

      Say Colt introduced the 1911 back when on the open market, not as a military sidearm. Say it became a s huge a hit with the public as it has, with several other manufacturers marketing their version; all the bugs would have been worked out literally DECADES ago. The military today sees this, and decides to adopt the 1911. They can then pick and choose which version has proven to be the most rugged, best manufacture, best price, etc — and they will have a working sidearm without the teething problems.

      I know, of course, that this isn’t the general direction of technology. Generally, the military is on the cutting edge of technology, adopting it before normal civilians even realize there’s a need for such technology. (Jet propulsion, back in WWII, for example.)

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>