“They aren’t shooters. They are poseurs.”


Marjorie Taylor Greene has been posturing again. And she has been caught.

I wouldn’t have noticed that. I know next to nothing about guns, and am not at all interested in learning more. There is a great deal of detailed gun knowledge out there, and serious people who can instantly see the deeper problems with that photo. The fellow who noticed that error went on at length about the foolishness of firing a .50 BMG. Here’s the conclusion; if you don’t do Facebook (you are brilliant), I’ve included Joohn Choe’s full comment below the fold.

Trashy weapon, threatening posture, and always, a thin veneer of Instagram “gun-bunny” posturing overlaying stark ignorance and rank mediocrity: that is Taylor-Greene’s other gun pic, that’s Boebert’s “guns to books ratio” pic from earlier this year, that’s Cawthorn, that’s Gaetz, that’s pretty much the entire Q caucus if you look back at them.
Read “threat” and “scary” into this behavior and you are, to some degree, falling into the trap they want you to; and it’s not even an accurate reading, because the truth of this behavior is even less flattering than being a threat.
It’s just crass, unoriginal posturing; it’s all show and no go.

Let’s get Taylor-Green and Boebert and Cawthorn and Gaetz out of congress, OK?

Let me explain what is going on here.
That is a Barrett M82A1. Given it’s Taylor-Greene, it’s probably in .50 BMG.
That’s $9.5k or so; it looks like she (or whoever’s gun she’s borrowing) went with a cheapo Leupold (a VX-6? So, comparatively cheap) in a backwards scope mount, which is a bad idea.
You see, more commonly, with people who can afford $10,000 guns, that they’ll at least spend $3,000 on a scope (Schmidt & Bender PM II, Nightforce ATACR 7-35 or even Leupold Mark Vs are common choices) and another $500 on a heavy-duty scope mount (Spuhr, Aadland, Badger Ordnance).
What she’s got on there is probably going to break at some point – right at the cantilever point, most likely – and ruin that scope and injure someone. .50 BMG guns are legendary for breaking scopes.
In terms of ammo, at a minimum, that’s $2.50 per round; if you shoot commercial ammo, closer to $4.00, even more for specialized rounds like armor-piercing .50 BMG – which, of course you can buy as a civilian, it’s America, duh.
So, one, .50 BMG is stupidly expensive to own and to shoot. This is a bougie gun, if such a thing could be said to exist, but it looks like it was put together by some kind of nimrod who didn’t know how to set up a rifle.
Two, there’s nowhere to shoot it. It’s extremely impractical to own.
There are four commonly accepted rules of firearms; if there’s any one rule that everyone forgets, it’s #4. Those rules go:
1. Every firearm is always loaded
2. Never point the firearm at anything you do not wish to shoot
3. Finger straight and off the trigger until the sights are on target and you are ready to shoot
4. Always be aware of what is behind your target
The thing about Rule #4 and .50 BMG projectiles is that each one is around 700 grains, or 1.6 ounces, and they move very, very fast, 2,800 to 3,000 fps.
By comparison, for a commonly used civilian cartridge like the venerable .308 Winchester, you’re loading 150-175 grain projectiles (if you’re making ammunition to load from a magazine with a limited box length), maybe specialized 175-220 grain very-low-drag projectiles (if you’re a competitive shooter in, say, F-class, who loads individually into a single-shot rifle and you’re not worried about magazine length). And those bullets are poking along at 2,300 to 2,700 fps.
Even with .308 Winchester, you get problems with shooting through things. With .50 BMG, that’s a given.
As a result, there is literally nowhere safe to shoot this thing.
If you let this off in your backyard, you are going to put a 700 grain projectile through the target, through your fence, and into your neighbor’s house at about 2,900 fps.
Some shooting ranges won’t even let you shoot it. The concussion and blast that comes out of the ports on the muzzle brake – that thing on the very tip of the muzzle, where you can see open ports – is extremely severe, and it’s angled to the sides and back somewhat, right at the people next to you on a firing line.
I’ve been next to a police sniper team (at a public range for some reason) a few years back with a .416 Barrett. Every time they shot that thing, they’d say “FIRING FIRING FIRING”, and you’d wonder why (“wow dude that’s really hardcore is that necessary?”) and when it went off, everyone’s spotting scopes and some rifles would get knocked over from the concussion from the muzzle brake on just that… up to two lanes over. And then you’d realize why they made such a big deal about it.
A weapon like that, much more so than guns period, is actually where, if you’re holding it, 99% of the universe at any given moment is something you don’t want to point that at.
Shoot it upwards and there is a good risk that you will shoot the next county over, or, entertainingly, potentially yourself, like some kind of idiot artillery piece or lawn dart. Shoot it downwards and you will not only make a giant crater and feel like an idiot, you will run a very real risk of severe bodily injury from massive, high-speed fragments of shrapnel.
There is only a limited area of targets that you even want to point this thing at, limited to things you either *really don’t like* or don’t care about (or are not legally liable for), keeping Rules #2 and #4 in mind, and that makes it absurd to own.
It’s a statement piece, at best, that no one cares about. It’s not even a status symbol so much as it is a red flag for dating. Really, if you look at the history of the development on the M82 “light fifty” and the kind of businessman that Ronnie Barrett was – “iconoclastic” is putting it charitably – and it’s a statement more than a proper weapon all the way back to its inception; it’s just fortuitous that it ended up actually being moderately useful for trained personnel shooting vehicles.
Three, it’s not even an accurate rifle; the M82 was designed to serve as a human-portable (somewhat, it’s a 30 lb. weapon) anti-materiel weapon that a human being could fire. The spring-loaded recoil-absorbing mechanism in it actually makes it less accurate because the “lock-up” when the weapon goes into battery is minutely different each time; it is arguably intrinsically inaccurate.
Early versions of the M82 platform – some of them still in service today – are 2 minute-of-angle (MOA) guns, optimistically.
That means, if you shoot them, let’s say, 100 times, in a controlled condition, with the shot breaking the same way every time, pointed at exactly the same place, you’re going to get 100 little bullet holes making a spray area roughly 2 MOA, or about 2 inches (2.070″, for what it’s worth) at 100 yards, in diameter. In practice, you’re looking at 3-4 MOA with imperfect people operating it and varying weather conditions.
Again, as a comparison, if someone is making or shooting common .308 Winchester rounds – they’re used a lot in hunting – and they’re getting 3-4 MOA, something is wrong. With my friend’s Sig 716 Patrol – just an unimpressive weapon, really, I was not wowed by it in any way – and a 5-20 scope, I can routinely keep it under 1 MOA, 3/4th MOA with quality handloads or match rounds, and that’s not even a precision weapon. If you’re shooting a bolt-action rifle, 1 MOA is a starting point; you’re aiming for half a minute of angle, less.
As Townsend Whelen said, “only accurate rifles are interesting”.
This… impractical machine that Taylor-Greene is operating, useful for literally nothing else but shooting, like, old appliances in the desert at $5 a round, is not even an interesting rifle.
This is a pattern.
Trashy weapon, threatening posture, and always, a thin veneer of Instagram “gun-bunny” posturing overlaying stark ignorance and rank mediocrity: that is Taylor-Greene’s other gun pic, that’s Boebert’s “guns to books ratio” pic from earlier this year, that’s Cawthorn, that’s Gaetz, that’s pretty much the entire Q caucus if you look back at them.
Read “threat” and “scary” into this behavior and you are, to some degree, falling into the trap they want you to; and it’s not even an accurate reading, because the truth of this behavior is even less flattering than being a threat.
It’s just crass, unoriginal posturing; it’s all show and no go.
That’s why you don’t see Taylor-Greene shooting a Precision Rifle Series stage, or a United States Practical Shooting Association match, or even an International Defensive Pistol Association match.
That’s why Boebert wears a Comp-tac competition holster inside her own restaurant with no retention or any provision for having her gun snatched from her, or even falling out of the holster… yet you never see her shooting any competitive matches.
That’s why you never see any of them training, or running drills, or practicing with dry-fire, or, like, doing twenty pushups then trying to operate a carbine. That’s why Madison Cawthorn punches trees (lol) and takes pictures of himself with a revolver in a chest holster, but never talks about practicing or actually training how to use the damn thing.
They aren’t shooters. They are poseurs.
It’s easier to see than it is to explain.

Comments

  1. says

    I would also add that she’s plinkin’ with a gun that costs $12 per round. May as well be starting a camp fire with $20 bills. At least then you can cook some smores.

  2. JoeBuddha says

    Yeah, grew up with guns. Never wanted to own them. However, I knew 3 of the rules; would understand the 4th but didn’t have it drilled into me like the first three.

  3. Akira MacKenzie says

    A lot of “dust” in this pic. Must have been kicked up by the tremendous recoil of this weapon that only a true cross-fit-trained, Gawd-fearin’, patriot like her can handle. Oh, she must be fantastic in be… I mean, In the kitchen. Yes…

    Also, as larpar pointed out, she is either REALLY flexible, or it’s just image of her shooting at a normal bench, photoshopped onto stock image of a Hummer pick-up.

  4. says

    There isn’t enough truck-bed in that picture to fit her legs and feet. It’s a composite.

    Also, her grip on the rifle is totally wrong; that’s not how it’s done when you’re shooting with a bipod. Your arms are crossed any your left hand supports the butt of the stock so it can act as a raise/lower lever. She has both hands on the pistol-grip, lol. She would have trouble hitting a barn if she was inside it.

    I second the idea of getting her out of congress. But in terms of her being a lying, pompous jackass, it seems like she fits right in.

    Akira McKenzie:
    A lot of “dust” in this pic. Must have been kicked up by the tremendous recoil of this weapon

    A Barret rips grass right out of the ground in front of the barrel and throws it all over everyone. That blast deflector does a good job of directing it right toward anyone who’s standing beside and behind the muzzle.

  5. nomuse says

    Possibly all that “dust” is because they aren’t any more good at PhotoShop than they are at the rest of it. It’s there to hide a bad comp.

  6. robro says

    I know nothing about guns but based on what some of you have said, I wouldn’t want to take this picture. The photographer is basically standing in front of her. Seems like a dangerous place to be, if she’s actually firing the gun. Of course, she’s very much into posing and given some of the other anomalies the shot is probably staged and photoshopped.

  7. Bruce Fuentes says

    When I was much younger. In my 20’s. I guess I was a bit of an ammosexual. It was only for a handful of years. I ran a gun shop, had an FFL, and shot a lot of different guns. I only shot a .50 cal once. That was enough and it was one of the things that started to pull me out of that world. It has been many years since I have shot that rifle, but the whole image of her in the back of that hummer just reinforces that she and her ilk are all posers and grifters.

  8. stuffin says

    Hard to tell from the picture, but her finger seems to be wrapped around the trigger, instead of resting on it.

  9. blf says

    I’d be curious to see the metadata associated with that image. (The image poopyhead posted in the OP is a screenshot, so “useless”…)

    Also, is there any significance with what appears to be the registration plate (license plate) having been seemingly blacked out? (I can understand that for privacy reasons, but as the image is faked, it does nonetheless raise an eyebrow.)

    And for the Shooty McShootface experts: Whilst it’s hard to tell, it sort-of looks like the tripod isn’t secured (to the presumably wobbly tailgate). As that Shooty McShootface presumably has one helluva recoil, isn’t that rather dangerous?

    (As an aside, I tried a few image searches of selected areas, but found nothing per se…)

  10. StonedRanger says

    As to rule #4, she is aiming at the ground maybe thirty feet in front of her. Its just going to make a hole in the ground.

  11. says

    Some my longtime disdain for civilian firearms training programs is that even that set of four rules summarized above is egregiously incomplete. Rules 0.2 (“Ensure you are properly equipped to use the weapon, including all safety gear, before you address the weapon” — where are Ms GunBunny’s eye protection, sleeves, hair retainer, and reserve ammo in that picture?), 0.4 (“Ensure that your firing point does not endanger you” — what’s going to happen to Ms GunBunny with recoil given her stance and location? anything flammable in the path of the exhaust?), and 0.6 (“Do not address the weapon until you have inspected it for proper assembly and are sure you understand both its proper operation and the safety precautions necessary for ordinary failure modes of that weapon” — in addition to the problems with the scope pointed out above, consider where spent rounds will go in that photo).

    The irony that the target-shooting approach to weapons safety and use is consistent only with shooting when nobody can shoot back, but has been adopted for Resistance/Revolution Against Oppressors, has entirely escaped the target-shooting community. It’s the equivalent of determining golf championships on the driving range… without any other clubs, or any gophers so beloved of Bill Murray, and without remembering that the “real game” won’t be played on a manicured course with no other distractions (let alone anyone else trying to do to you what you’re trying to do to them). Were I an actual golfer, I don’t think I’d be impressed or threatened by someone with a $1000 driver showing up at the driving range wearing a fur coat and high heels.

  12. garnetstar says

    A gun that can’t be fired safely anywhere, not even at a shooting range, and has no use whatsoever except to police and military personnel, should not be available to civilians, no matter how rich and bougie.

    You are welcome to show off all you like by parading around with $950 toilet paper and $300 ice cubes (both of which are available for poseurs to acquire). Not with such a dangerous weapon.

  13. christoph says

    @ remyporter, #7: I think the current term is “Tacti-cool.” Wearing/carrying military-looking gear that you haven’t trained with and have no idea how to use so you can look cool.

  14. Richard Smith says

    Maybe the recoil absorption on this particular weapon was, well, shot, and her legs are now in the cab of the Hummer.

  15. stuffin says

    In the Marine Corps rule number 2 went like this; Only point you weapon at what you need to kill.

  16. birgerjohansson says

    If you want to learn gun stuff by serious, safety-aware people at Youtube, I would recommend Forgotten Weapons by Ian McCollum and InRange by his friend Carl Kasarda.

    None of the superficial rubbish you find elsewhere.
    .
    PS Battle rifles (semi-automatic) rarely have an accuracy better than 3 minutes of arc, it is a compromise between the cost of rifle itself and the cost of peripheral equipment (red dot sights, night-vision optics and an arbitrarily long list of other things).
    Specialist bolt-action rifles with the necessary expensive high-quality manufacturing can approach one minute of arc, but that is no tool for your average grunt.
    I have heard of the Swedish defence modifying its old delayed-blowback Heckler & Koch rifles (local designation Ak4) with red dot optics, creating semi-automatic rifles with very good accuracy but it is hard to get good accuracy from old FN-FAL (gas-operated) rifles.
    .
    I know little of Armalite 15/M 16 variants but I assume you have to invest a lot of money to get exceptional accuracy from them.

  17. birgerjohansson says

    Addendum: since the moving bits of delayed-blowback guns are in line with the barrel it is easier to engineer them for very good accuracy than most gas-operated systems.
    Films may have marksmen shooting away at long range and hitting every time but that is rubbish.
    Ian McCollum and Carl Kasarda have in fact their own little project called “what would Stoner do” (with modern materials available).
    They came up with a lightweight accurate derivative of Ar-15 ..
    Not a battle rifle by any means, but a proof-of-concept of what may be achieved.
    .
    The abovementioned gentlemen have little appreciation of junk that have been made famous by film and TV. There is a reason why few people use a ‘Dirty Harry’ gun on a daily basis. Other media-famous guns may be fun to shoot but be massively impractical.
    .
    And politicians photographed with guns probably have no time for the hours of practice needed to be halfway competent.

  18. says

    let alone anyone else trying to do to you what you’re trying to do to them

    Probably one of the first things an infantery unit would do is call in some fire support.
    And you would not like to be on the receiving end of that lying in the trunk of your hummer.

  19. birgerjohansson says

    Richard Smith @ 21
    Poseurs should be encouraged to test the old 20mm anti-tank rifle from Finland. Tell them “it’s a piece of cake”. 😊

  20. Bruce Fuentes says

    #13 I found the original on her FB page. I do not know enough about images to tell anything. Some online analysis I found jut came back as suspicious.

  21. says

    @birgerjohansson#24:
    The H&K PSG-1 being a counter-example, but only because of a “no holds barred” design policy.

    On the other hand, you need a decade or 2 in congress to afford one.

  22. birgerjohansson says

    Gun porn:
    My least favv film “Smoking Aces” had snipers with a Barrett shooting away, while a lot of gratutious violence was taking place elsewhere.
    Me: “why are they using a monster gun at a target a couple of hundred yards away?” The same film also had neo-nazis carving away with chain saws.
    -if I show that film to Mrs Greene, will she pose with a goddamn chain saw next?

  23. birgerjohansson says

    Evil idea: send a copy of ‘Boondock Saints’* to every Republican congressman, telling them this is what you do to fight crime.
    Result: photo shoots of them trying to drop WCs on targets from five floors up.
    *despite strong competition, this may be the most unrealistic film out there, not counting anime and superheroes.

  24. naturalcynic says

    And politicians photographed with guns probably have no time for the hours of practice needed to be halfway competent.
    Oh, she has time. Nancy P stopped her from having any committee assignments. Not that she would be interested in doing any congresscritter work. Posing is all she can do.

  25. says

    birgerjohansson@26

    I saw the Lathi L-39 on Forgotten Weapons. It actually set of car alarms when he shot it. That thing is not a rifle, it’s a cannon without a carriage.

    If you’d try to shoot it from the bed of a truck (not that that would fit, BTW), I would not be surprised if the ejected cartidge bounced back into your face.

  26. birgerjohansson says

    Scott Simmons @ 31
    Having listened to every episode of God Awful Movies, I find it perfectly plausible we will soon see an evangelical low-budget film starring Kevin Sorbo where the atheists/jews/muslims use military force to stop Christians (which do not include Mormons, BTW) from celebrating Xmas.

    The film will end with divine intervention (like a christian version of the muslim ‘International Guerrillas’) where lightning strikes down the eevul ones. The sound effects will all be “peew, peew’ and multiple actors will forget their lines.

  27. PaulBC says

    To be honest, I prefer poseurs to shooters. That said, the problem with people like MTG is that they provide encouragement to the nuts out there who accumulate arsenals and actually may shoot at people.

    But I couldn’t care less if she has the scope pointing the right way or not or knows that AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle. Even if she were an actual expert in firearms if would not make her less of a public menace.

  28. says

    That is a Barrett M82A1. Given it’s Taylor-Greene, it’s probably in .50 BMG.
    That’s $9.5k or so

    WTAF?! That’s more than my car!

    This is a bougie gun, if such a thing could be said to exist

    It clearly can!

    You see, more commonly, with people who can afford $10,000 guns, that they’ll at least spend $3,000 on a scope…and another $500 on a heavy-duty scope mount

    Gaaaaah! Coastal elite that I am, I just finished a great book. This “trashy weapon” with a proper scope and scope mount would cost a thousand times what it did.

    That’s why you don’t see Taylor-Greene shooting a Precision Rifle Series stage, or a United States Practical Shooting Association match, or even an International Defensive Pistol Association match….

    And even if you did, it would be totally irrelevant to the job she was elected to do, and for which she’s grossly unqualified and unfit.

    PaulBC @ #35:

    Even if she were an actual expert in firearms if would not make her less of a public menace.

    Yes, this.

  29. beholder says

    @34 birgerjohansson

    Hey, another GAM fan. Nice to hear there are others out there. Do I want Ksorbs or Divorced A. R. White in the lead role, though? Decisions, decisions…

    (Crazy dollaraire money if you’re willing to settle for the cinematic quality of International Gorrilay.)

  30. says

    I’ve never listened to God Awful Movies, but some good critical podcast eps:

    -Citations Needed on Hillbilly Elegy
    -Know Your Enemy on Christmas Cars
    -Jacobin Radio’s Michael and Us on Space Jam: A New Legacy

  31. John Morales says

    I’ve never understood why people with guns feel special. It’s so vacuous!

    I mean, yes — anyone can point a loaded working gun at someone else and pull the trigger. Big deal. Yes, they’re an “equalizer”, because that 10-year old child or that granny can shoot you dead.

    But the mystique? Bah.

    (Also, as noted, they’re pricey things to operate, and pretty damn pointless unless wounding or killing people is what you want to do)

  32. lochaber says

    I wonder if maybe she has her knees bent and her lower legs folded up. It’s not a terribly uncomfortable position, but I wonder about it’s suitability for recoil absorbtion/stability. Along the same lines, I don’t imagine a truck bed makes for a very stable position.

    I dunno, almost the entirety of my firearms experience is with the M16, the M249 light machine gun (SAW) and the M240G medium machine gun. I’d want a more stable position for firing any of those, and they have nowhere near the recoil of a .50 Cal. Hell, then entire 5.56mm cartridge isn’t much bigger then the .50 cal round alone.

    Also, I feel like a lot of people forget about carrying ammo when they are picking out their zombie-apocalpyse weapons and what not. A typical 30-round magazine of 5.56 for the M16 weighs about a pound. I can’t remember for certain, but I want to say the ammo for the 249 Saw was something like ~7lbs for a 200 round drum. I just remember running a training range once, just an hour or two in an afternoon, and I had about ~50lbs of weapon and ammo ~15 for the SAW, and then about 5 drums – one in each cargo pocket, two in belt pouch/drum holders, and one on the weapon. That afternoon sucked. I don’t even remember what the ammo for the 240G weighed, but when running ranges, we each carried a couple ammo boxes in our packs, and we’d usually blow through that before the range was over. I have no idea what the official weight was but I’m guessing at least 10 pounds per box.

    I don’t even want to think about carrying ammo for a .50cal…

  33. Akira MacKenzie says

    @34

    Wasn’t that the plot to “The Reliant.” K-Sorbs was even in it… for about five minutes.

  34. unclefrogy says

    when I first saw that picture it looked like she was saying I am an urban sniper because that is what she looked like it said I can kill you without you knowing anything about it. nothing like Gary Cooper walking down the street alone nor even Eastwood facing down some bad guy no just a sneak shooter at far range.
    I think there is a good chance she could shoot you in the back dead if she thought she could get away with it and you needed it. she can’t think her way out of the cheap paperback TV world she lives in
    @41
    amo is the reason I can’t take shootouts with thee authorities serious they make no sense no one has that kind of supply chain logistics except the government.

  35. birgerjohansson says

    The Barrett and even the famous Dragunov are mainly anti-material rifles.
    Maybe she is preparing to shoot up Cadillacs driven by so-called “welfare queens”* , opening up on any expensive car with a black driver.
    .
    * A term invented by Ronald Reagan based on a single black felon which promptly multiplied in the minds of southern voters into millions of black welfare cheats.
    A meme up there with “Jewish bankers”.

  36. birgerjohansson says

    Akira MacKenzie @ 42
    I’ll be damned, you are right!
    .
    “GAM219 The Reliant”
    The makers of this film literally gave away a rifle as part of the marketing for this film that was shown in theaters a grand total of…one day.
    .
    Nominated for “the best worst weapons”, anything from a Gatling to a goddamn Damascus sword!

  37. birgerjohansson says

    John Morales @ 45
    My bad. Not my first language.
    .
    OT “Science” has an article about thermoelectric materials with higher efficiency. Maybe you one day can recharge your ‘tactical’ electronic gear plus cell phones and satellite phones with heat from your campfire?

  38. davidc1 says

    @26 The British army during the early part of the war had the Boys Anti Tank Rifle .
    Someone wrote it’s main use was as a form of field punishment ,being given to the company
    drunk to carry .

  39. birgerjohansson says

    Beholder @ 38
    No, like ‘Metamorphosis’ in The Producers, Sorbo and White are “too good” for this project.
    At first I considered the three actors playing the brothers in International Gorillay -Batman disguises and all- but then I found Nandamuri Balakrishna.
    .
    He plays a hindu gunslinger killing a million eevul muslims. If Republicans trusted dark people he would replace Sylvester Stallone overnight.
    His “Vijayendra Varma -The Power of an Indian” is an utterly ridicilous propaganda/Tollywood film done by people who nearly overdosed on cocaine.
    Replace the hindu gods with Baby Jesus and the AKs with AR-15s and you will make ten million bucks.

  40. birgerjohansson says

    When an unlimited budget for blank ammunition is not enough.
    Vijayendra Varma -a review by DiamandaHagan, insane British Youtuber. This is how Trump thinks foreign policy should work. The film parts start at the three-minute mark.
    https://youtu.be/4ymyVBiSBtk

  41. lumipuna says

    I figure one might call this peculiarly American type of weapon an anti-wonk rifle– perfect for substanceless poseurs in politics and elsewhere.

  42. kaleberg says

    When you visit sub-Saharan Africa any what-to-pack guide will warn you never to take anything that looks too military, like a camouflage jacket or a belt with ammunition loops. The local authorities, and possibly others, might take your dress up play seriously and you would do well to avoid that.

    Let’s be honest though. For the purpose of doing what military type guns are supposed to do, the gun that matters is the AK47. It’s easy to manufacture and maintain. It’s modestly priced for a reliable deadly weapon. It fires affordable ammunition. It’s not hard to learn how to use it properly. It isn’t supposed to be particularly accurate. It can kill and maim just fine, but it’s final purpose is to terrify people, armed or unarmed, who might be worried about being killed or getting maimed.

    A fancy weapon like this is more a work of art, something to be admired – or loathed – for its very existence. It’s like an $80,000 watch. It’s a work of art, and while $80,000 watches can tell time pretty well, that’s not why they exist. They’re about the creation of an extreme form of an object, an abstraction as it were. The problem with fancy guns is that some people take them seriously and forget they are objects of art. If you are actually concerned with fighting and winning a war, odds are you want an AK47 or some other workman like weapon.

Leave a Reply