M.A.D. and the small arms race

 

Mutually Assured Destruction

Those who are in my generation will remember the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The fallout shelters. The duck and cover drills. At the time a phrase was used called Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. What this ment was each side had the equal ability to completely destroy the other. While the leaders on both sides were willing to sacrifice millions of their citizens in a war they knew there wouldn’t be anything left to govern if a war broke out. So we had a stale mate. And an Arms Race. Each side built bigger and better nuclear bombs trying to get an edge. Either to win a war or to bully the other side. Remember this for now we are going to talk about…..

The Small Arms Race

　

My readers know I like history. So lets have a history lesson. Europeans started coming to North America in 1492. With them came their weapons. Metal armor, steel swords, steel spears and oh yeah firearms. The first firearms they brought were matchlocks. They used the coal on the end of a glowing rope to ignite the powder in the barrel. These were crude, prone to misfires, slow to load and affected by bad weather. But they could fire a .75 caliber lead ball further that any Indian could shoot an arrow. The Europeans conquered much of North and South America.

Fast forward to the 1700’s. Flintlocks were now being used. You know; Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Still muzzle loaders were slow to load. Armies would train to load and fire 3 un-aimed shots per minute. That was using a smooth bore musket. A rifle was slower. Maybe one shot per minute or a minute and a half. The difference? The musket had no rifling and used a loose ball in the barrel making it easer to load. This also made it inaccurate. The rifle had spiral groves cut inside the barrel. This would impart spin on the ball which was loaded with a cloth patch to make the ball fit tighter so the rifling would work. This was much more accurate. Which was better? Depended what you needed the firearm for. The military used muskets because they loaded fast. Their tactics was to stand in ranks shoulder to shoulder and fire as fast as they could at the other army standing shoulder to shoulder firing as fast as they could. The distance between the two armies was usually about 50 yards. On the other hand a good rifleman could hit a man sized target at 300 yards. But the rifle was slow to load. It could not take a bayonet. And was expensive to make compared to a musket.

The small arms race had already begun even then. During the Revolutionary War a British officer named Ferguson invented a breach loading rifle that could be loaded and fired 3 times per minute. Moreover these were aimed shots and this rifle was effective to 300 yards. The British Army did not choose to arm more than one unit with this gun which was later disbanded after Ferguson was wounded. Lucky for us. An interesting side story. Ferguson had General George Washington in his sights with one of his rifles but choose not to shoot. Gentlemen did not target officers after all. Ferguson died some months later in battle.

Firearms advanced a lot in the next hundred years. The Indians were out gunned when they went up against rifles with their bow and arrows. So they acquired rifles. The battle of Little Big Horn in 1876 now enters our discussion. General Custer and his men were armed with single shot rifles and 1873 Colt revolvers. The Indians had repeating rifles. They were using Henrys and the Winchester 1866 both of which held 10 or more rounds. While Custer’s rifles had a more powerful cartage and could shoot much further the Indians had superior numbers shooting repeating rifles. We know how that ended.

So now we jump ahead to the 1970’s. Mary and I are staying in a motel on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. We were a minority. But there was a police presence at the motel so I didn‘t feel too unsafe. Something didn’t look right about the police. They were all carrying two pistols! Actually each officer had his issued revolver PLUS a 9mm semi-auto handgun. Why? I asked one of the officers. He told me they needed the fire power. More bullets between reloads with faster reloads. A six shot revolver just wasn’t cutting it for the cops. They were out gunned by the criminals. This was the beginning of a trend across the country of police departments switching from revolvers to semi-auto pistols. Criminals had more firepower than the cops! There was a small arms race between the cops and the robbers. Civilians started on the semi-auto trend too. Now we have millions of semi-auto hand guns in this country. The genii was out of the bottle.

Then came 1994 and the Assault Weapons Ban. Among other things it limited new guns sold from having a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity. It didn’t really matter because of all the higher capacity magazines that were “grandfathered” in. Those were the ones manufactured before 1994. The law of unintended consequences became involved during this time. The Colt 1911 style semi-auto pistol in .45 ACP was fading away before 1994. It was a bigger, heaver pistol and usually only held 7 rounds. Everyone wanted the newest and best 9mm higher capacity pistol. But after 1994 you were only allowed 10 rounds. So shooters were weighing their options. Ten rounds of 9mm or 7 of .45 ACP? The great 9mm vs. .45 debate raged. Which is better you ask? There is good and bad points that can be argued for each. The end result though was the Colt 1911 style has made a come back to the point it is not going to fade away anytime soon. Though the debate rages on and the Assault Weapons Ban ended 2004.

Now it’s 2013 and there is a new push for anti-gun laws. New York State has just passed an anti-gun law that restricts magazine capacity to 7 rounds. Most semi-auto pistols use a magazine which carry twice that. In fact there are NO 7 round magazines made for most of the pistols in this country. The exceptions are the 1911 style mentioned above and some of the new small semi’s used in conceal carry. The law of unintended consequences has reared it’s ugly head again. New York forgot to put in an exemption for police as to the 7 round restriction. When pointed out one New York legislator stated they would amend the bill. After all “we couldn’t have the criminals having more bullets than the police”. I know, I know, you have already leapt past saying “that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” to “but it’s alright if the criminals have more bullets than me!”

Remember way back at the beginning of this article? Remember what I said about Mutually Assured Destruction? We live in a dangerous world. Always has been always will be. We are safe only through luck, divine protection or preparedness. One way to prepare is to make you and your family strong enough that criminals don’t want to take you on. To be equal to the bad guy kicking in your front door.

Remember:

Rifles replaced muskets because they could shoot further and more accurate.

Indians gave up their bow and arrows for rifles so they could hunt better and defend themselves from the white man.

The Indians wiped out Custer partly because they had superior firepower over Custer’s single shot rifles.

The police in the 70’s started switching to semi-auto pistols from their 6 shot revolvers because the criminals had superior firepower over them.

The anti-gun bill in New York will be amended so cops can have more than 7 round magazines so the criminals won’t have superior firepower.

The civilians in New York are assured to have inferior firepower to the criminals.

One legislator in New England said no one need a gun that held more than one bullet. Tell that to Custer.

Tell that to the mother who defended herself and her two children in Georgia. She emptied her revolver (6 shots) hitting the criminal 5 times. He managed to get out of the house into his car and drive a block or two before collapsing. If he had a gun. If he had accomplices. If she only had one shot this would be a different story.

There’s a reason dogs have fangs and lions have claws. There’s a reason deer have antlers too. There is a natural right to self protection. Our Constitution recognizes this right in the 2^nd Amendment. If given the choice, when investigating that bump in the night, do you want to be armed like Custer or a policeman.