Welcome!
As I type this 2012 is barely a week old and I have no followers whatsoever, hopefully that will change and I'll look back fondly on this day but quite possibly it never will. In either case that will not change what I do with this blog and what its purpose is:
With The truth about firearms I intend to help debunk the many myths that I have encountered (and ultimately probably some I have not yet encountered) about firearms, ballistics and the use of deadly force in self defence. My primary focus, for now, will be on myths having to do with ballistics and bullet performance, especially as it relates to handguns (that's pistols to the less US savvy, although it does have a stricter technical meaning within the firearms industry). Many of these myths were started by popular gun magazines, which are typically reliant for their articles on enthusiastic shooters who are prepared to write an article rather than experts in ballistics, firearm manufacture and so on. These same magazines then perpetuated those myths, treating them as facts and often the authors of the original articles about such a myth have vociferously defended their views even in the face of scientific enquiry that contradicts them or indeed well-known facts (that could have saved them the trouble of speculating in the first place, had they researched the topic properly).
I should point out that I am relatively immune to these myths because I have never lived in the USA until a little over three months ago and actually spent much of my life to this point in the UK where such magazines have effectively no traction (probably no subscribers, even, for all but the very largest and even then small numbers). This is because of the much-fabled "no guns in the UK" culture (although that too is a myth, actually) and the fact that even in the 1980s when ownership of handguns and hunting rifles or even fully automatic 'battle rifles' was relatively easy (though nowhere near as easy as for most US residents) ownership was still uncommon and there was no corresponding cultural acceptance.
My point in mentioning the above is that my knowledge has come from research and my education in 'hard science' rather than from 'enthusiast' magazines with articles written by well-meaning but often woefully incorrect authors. It is not meant to be an attack on the integrity of any of those authors, either; I tend to believe they were sincere but ignorant and specifically that they lacked the grounding in science, particularly the scientific method, that would have helped them better research and write their articles.
As I type this 2012 is barely a week old and I have no followers whatsoever, hopefully that will change and I'll look back fondly on this day but quite possibly it never will. In either case that will not change what I do with this blog and what its purpose is:
With The truth about firearms I intend to help debunk the many myths that I have encountered (and ultimately probably some I have not yet encountered) about firearms, ballistics and the use of deadly force in self defence. My primary focus, for now, will be on myths having to do with ballistics and bullet performance, especially as it relates to handguns (that's pistols to the less US savvy, although it does have a stricter technical meaning within the firearms industry). Many of these myths were started by popular gun magazines, which are typically reliant for their articles on enthusiastic shooters who are prepared to write an article rather than experts in ballistics, firearm manufacture and so on. These same magazines then perpetuated those myths, treating them as facts and often the authors of the original articles about such a myth have vociferously defended their views even in the face of scientific enquiry that contradicts them or indeed well-known facts (that could have saved them the trouble of speculating in the first place, had they researched the topic properly).
I should point out that I am relatively immune to these myths because I have never lived in the USA until a little over three months ago and actually spent much of my life to this point in the UK where such magazines have effectively no traction (probably no subscribers, even, for all but the very largest and even then small numbers). This is because of the much-fabled "no guns in the UK" culture (although that too is a myth, actually) and the fact that even in the 1980s when ownership of handguns and hunting rifles or even fully automatic 'battle rifles' was relatively easy (though nowhere near as easy as for most US residents) ownership was still uncommon and there was no corresponding cultural acceptance.
My point in mentioning the above is that my knowledge has come from research and my education in 'hard science' rather than from 'enthusiast' magazines with articles written by well-meaning but often woefully incorrect authors. It is not meant to be an attack on the integrity of any of those authors, either; I tend to believe they were sincere but ignorant and specifically that they lacked the grounding in science, particularly the scientific method, that would have helped them better research and write their articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment