[zekevermillion]

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just go to meetings where you practice blending into population. Like, an organized concealed carry sit-in at Starbucks where you don't tell anyone you're carrying and try not to be noticed? Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages?

[jonathankoren]

> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff.

Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.[1] However, you look like a fucking action movie star. Tactical vests, "every day carry" trauma kits, throat mics, body armor, etc. There's no practical reason for any of these, other than the owner wants to play dress up. Businesses know this. Why else would say armor manufacturer AR5000 unveil a Boba Fett helmet[2].

[1] http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-ri... [2] http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tac...

[runjake]

> the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.)

1. Actually, the .223/5.56mm round has less penetration in residential[1] that most handgun rounds due to its tumbling characteristics.

2. I'd say the AR-15 is impractical for home defense due to its stigma of being an evil black rifle, and that it seems like "overkill" to uneducated people. That's a shame, due to point #1, that it has less drywall/wood penetration than most handgun rounds.

The AR-15 is a pretty useful and relatively economical system, due to its modularity. That said, I agree with a lot of your other opinions regarding elements of the gun/tacticool culture.

[1.] In the drywall/stick-built US, anyway.

[linkregister]

I started to look for sources to refute claim #1, but found several firearms manufacturers' websites that affirmed it. I was pretty shocked.

I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense, since that same search engine query returned many results of state and federal cases where houses football fields away were penetrated by stray .223 rounds. Buckshot won't have the range to maim or kill compared to the NATO 5.56 round.

[defen]

> I would still encourage use of a shotgun loaded with buckshot for home defense

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but one thing I've heard from "gun enthusiast" family members is that this is fine if you're imagining an "ideal scenario" of being barricaded in your room waiting for the cops to show up, but it's worth considering what can go wrong - compared to a shotgun, an AR is much easier to operate with one arm (if you just woke up and one is asleep, or you were involved in a struggle that disabled one, or whatever); much less recoil (could be an issue if smaller family members need to use it); faster rate of fire and more rounds available before reloading (in case you miss or there are multiple attackers).

[runjake]

This isn't to confirm or refute your information, but rather some points:

- Houses that were penetrated by stray .223 rounds from football fields (aka multiple hundreds of meters) away probably weren't rounds shot through drywall. Maybe from outdoors, or through a window, who knows.

- .223 rounds that encounter no obstacles in flight have a flat trajectory of about 200 meters (2 football fields). .223 rounds that penetrate any substance of sufficient density have their flight path altered.

- In my limited experience with buckshot (none with residential materials), it's probably going to have a relatively flat trajectory, even through drywall. Something to especially consider if you have other people in your home.

[mapt]

My impression from what I'd read is that nearly anything that's got enough impact energy to penetrate clothing, soft flesh (denim & ballistic gel) and the hard bits of thorax, is going to get through perpendicular drywall very easily.

Here's the lightest round in common use, 22LR, holing 8 layers of drywall sequentially. This is 1/12th as much muzzle energy as .223:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME3IEYoQXc

Here's pricy specialty frangible rounds designed not to go through walls... still going through walls in a test:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/daniel-zimmerman/sh...

[hatsunearu]

>Here's the lightest round in common use, 22LR, holing 8 layers of drywall sequentially. This is 1/12th as much muzzle energy as .223:

22LR doesn't tumble.

>Here's pricy specialty frangible rounds designed not to go through walls... still going through walls in a test:

Frangible rounds are usually used so it doesn't ricochet and hurt someone. It just becomes dust when it hits something hard that would normally bounce a bullet.

[mapt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qgQoej5zE

Here's a 223 round going through 10 layers of drywall, a pine 2x4, and six inches of ballistic gelatin afterwards. While tumbling, I'm sure.

[Thriptic]

Mind explaining what you mean by tumbling characteristics?

[hga]

When a long spitzer (pointed) bullet like those used for .223/5.56 NATO rounds changes media, they start doing a 180, that is, tumble, so that the denser rear is in the direction of travel.

[runjake]

When a 5.56mm round strikes a solid object, it tumbles (aka "yaws", or rapidly changes orientation).

Contrary to popular legend, it does not tumble in flight.

[thecoffman]

I agree with almost everything you've said here with the one exception being that an AR-15 is actually an excellent home defense weapon.

Drywall penetration depends on which tests you're looking at but generally speaking it penetrates walls less than or at least not more than any standard pistol or shotgun round and its more likely to fragment on impact.

As a sibling pointed out, the overall length of an AR is actually less than that of the commonly recommended shotgun, making it easier to handle in tight hallways. (Though its arguable that you shouldn't be doing much moving at all in such a scenario).

I would also add that the recoil on an AR-15 is vastly more manageable than a pistol or shotgun making you less likely to hit things you don't intend.

I'm in 100% agreement with the other stuff however. The "tacticool" segment of the market is basically adult dress-up.

[twothamendment]

Impractical for home defense? That statement is a bit broad. It all depends on your home and you. Are you in an apartment in the city or multiple acres in the middle of nowhere? For some, home defense might start with the unknown drunk guy driving his ATV in a circle on the driveway while yelling crazy things. Home defense isn't always a bump in the night inside your house.

I won't tell anyone they shouldn't use a handgun or shotgun or AR-15 for their defense - they all have their place, but I know which one I wouldn't want my wife to have if I were the bad guy. It has something to do with being light weight, very low recoil, fast follow up, multiple rounds and the way the steel silhouette made a "ding" each time she pulled the trigger.

[ptomato]

The AR-15 is almost certainly the most-used gun (not a majority, just more used than any other model of gun) for hunting in the US, though it's more common for varminting than for medium-large game. Hunting e.g. whitetail deer with .223 is fine even, though you're somewhat restricted in shots you can take for a humane kill vs. other calibers.

Also, it's a perfectly reasonable gun for home defense - compared to e.g. a 12 gauge shotgun which is commonly recommended, a typical AR-15 length (with extendable stock extended) might be around 37", whereas a typical 12 gauge shotgun even of the tactical variety (I.E. with an 18" barrel instead of a 24 or 28" hunting barrel) would be at least that long, but usually a bit longer. #00 buckshot has about the same drywall penetration as .223 FMJ, but using JHP (preferable anyway for defensive purposes) instead significantly reduces that.

[wyager]

It is not illegal to hunt small game with an AR-15. Many people on Texas ranchland use ARs and similar rifles for pest management.

ARs are a very reasonable general purpose rifle. Medium size rounds, cheap parts, lots of flexibility, highly standardized, easy to maintain.

It's also disingenuous to ignore recreational shooting. Hunting and home defense are not the only uses for firearms.

In the case of militiamen, it's also a perfectly good combat rifle. The US military has been using it since Vietnam with mostly success (excepting a few early issues).

[alricb]

re: Throat mic, they have their use! Specifically, being able to properly do the "Ah-ah" in "Da da da": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtMThVUpc-U

[hga]

The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways.

All those who advise and use shotguns disagree, and a short carbine is certainly more manageable than a 20ga or greater shotgun. And they're certainly easier to aim under stress than a handgun, and ideal for bunker tactical situations (e.g. you stay in your bedroom waiting for the police to arrive, too bad for the intruder if he tries to break into that room ignoring your warnings).

Too powerful for drywall.)

I'm told this is most certainly not the case, or, rather, handgun bullets and heavy shot loads penetrate a lot more. I don't know because I prefer a 1911 for inside the home self defense, but I would most certainly use a rifle outside the home if opportunity allowed. Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.

and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.

They're fine for anything hog sized or below, and as far as I know legal in those domains. With the right modern bullet selection would be OK for white tail deer and I believe legal in some states (but I hope not for bigger game), but the laws from before the revolution in hunting bullets obviously weren't written with those in mind. I mean, it was derived from this successful varmint round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington

ADDED: So, given all the real civilian world civilian utility they have, for a lot of men you could view them as modern versions of accessorizing a car.

[pavel_lishin]

> Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.

Genuinely curious: when have people used an AR-15 rifle outside for self-defense?

[laotzu]

Against zombies

[hga]

Maybe by virtue of being on drugs, but it's a real thing, try for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=ar+15+used+in+self+defense or substitute home for self.

[pavel_lishin]

With the exception of the LA riots, every result I'm finding talks about home defense.

[eaandkw]

An AR-10 (7.62) would be an excellent hunting rifle. It would be quicker and easier to take follow on shots if you miss or only wound the animal.

[nordsieck]

LA riots

[RyJones]

The data you seek on penetration is on The Box of Truth. I am on a phone or I would link directly to it, but here is the website.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/tag/original-chapters/

[hga]

Thanks, although it's not data I seek.

Handguns have a lot of advantages in home defense, such as maneuverability and much better retention if things get up close and personal (the lever arm of a long gun is necessarily much longer, an adversary can grab it outside of your grasp and twist it out of your hands, as I demonstrated to my stronger and fitter nephew before he went to college, a bit to his surprise).

[eaandkw]

A handgun is surprisingly difficult to shoot accurately past 7 meters in a life or death situation. Look at all of the stories of police shooting up to one hundred rounds at a suspect and still missing them.

[hga]

Police aren't a good example for talking about civilian handgun marksmanship:

They are under an obligation to use their guns in many situations a civilian wouldn't, or could trivially avoid (either by not being in that sort of place, or safely retreating).

Few get much training or practice, and this is particular true for ant-gun Blue cities, with NYC being the extreme case of having extinguished its gun culture and the force being run by hoplophobes at critical times (details on request, but that includes police who care about marksmanship having a difficult time practicing on their own).

They simply don't pay any serious penalty beyond maybe their city paying a civil settlement for such examples, usually of contagious fire, which also simply can't be a problem in the usual civilian self-defense case where only one good guy has a gun. If we civilians were to pull those sort of stunts, we'd rightfully end up in prison.

They seem to be more prone to completely lose their shit like with Chris Dorner, which caused one of those cases against two total innocents in a pickup truck that bore little resemblance to Dorner's, except it being a pickup truck. And, again in a Blue part of the country.

7 meters is way too long as a general metric for this domain, as of ... the '70s or '80s the average distance for police use of handguns was 7 feet. 7 meters is 23 feet, which is close to the Tueller Drill 21 feet metric, and is a distance you'll find in home defense, but it still generally works out for civilians defending themselves in their homes. And weapons retention doesn't become an issue until an adversary closes the distance, which per the Tueller drill gives you an opportunity to fire a shot or three if you've already got your gun out and pointed.

[golergka]

> But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population.

It's very effective indeed, if you disregard all problems with international law and basic human morals. It's a tactic that have been very successful for Hamas in recent years, for example. Fighting in civilian clothing means that (1) your adversaries will kill much more civilians, honestly mistaking them for you and (2) all your losses can be easily counted as "civilians" by even slightly biased observers. Next step in effectivety is just keeping a couple of children around you in a firefight.

Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting against always assume some form of uniform, because among other things, it helps to keep at least some rules of engagement in place and protect innocents to some extent.

[gaius]

Hence the orange jumpsuits of the Rebel Alliance.

[Aloha]

A quote comes to mind - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." or in more polite terms - "One man's hero is another man's villain."

In war, what is right, or what is wrong on a decision by decision question, is often overshadowed by the meta moral questions of the broader context.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

"International law" is one of the things that people like that really hate, c.f. all those people getting mad about "agenda 21".

[davidw]

> Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting

Going beyond the contradiction in that sentence, there appear to be a lot of quite diverse people in some of these groups, some of whom might care deeply about the well-being of others, and others who are simply spoiling for a fight. Some people in this latest event in Oregon were very much focused on intimidating locals who happened to work for the federal government in some capacity, or who happened to be on the 'wrong side'.

[jcranmer]

The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (National Guard or Gendarme) end up doing very little.

The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution, seeing themselves as the necessary vanguard against government oppression and particularly the potential oppressive nature of a standing army, which usually turns out to mean "I want to use this land that no one's using but the evil government won't let me."

To lend credence to their claims, they need to look the part of a militia--the part of a well-armed, well-trained soldier, while their ideology precludes them from gaining experience in an actual properly-trained military environment (it seems to me that there are very few ex-military in these militia groups, and most current and ex-military are as disdainful of these groups as the general populace). I rather suspect that even if they did end up fighting the US Army, they'd still do it in their uniforms because a) they'd be clearly recognizable as heroes then and b) they think they'd still win anyways.

[laotzu]

>The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution

As a proponent of non-violence I have no real support for such activities but after having read much of the constitutional debates I feel compelled to point out the fact that a civilian militia as a check/balance on government power as well as for auxiliary military purposes was a very considerable topic of discussion in the constitutional debates of the founding fathers:

>No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use.

-George Mason, "The Father of the Bill of Rights", Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8...

However, others such as Alexander Hamilton noted the logistical difficulties of sustaining such a militia:

>A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1788

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

[tedks]

This is a naive and over-optimistic post. You're allowing the horns-effect bias to overcome your rationality.

The world we live in is big, and there are a lot of different people in it. Some of them are smart, and some of them are stupid. Some of them are leftists, some of them are rightists.

There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss. There are, undoubtedly, militant right-wing militia members who have a very strong grasp of military strategy, insurgency strategy, insurgent tactics, and are planning to use these to fight their enemies.

By their very nature, you will not know about these people. They will not occupy a federal office in a dramatic attempt to coerce the state into doing what they want it to do. They will be completely invisible until they decide to act, and when they do, it might not even be clear that they are acting if they don't want that.

Intelligent people who are happy and healthy and well-fed rarely turn to these sorts of things, but the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring. Further, since the Internet is essentially causing massive global-scale group polarization, it might be much more likely for an intelligent person who might otherwise hold moderate beliefs to be radicalized. It can happen, and because it has billions of chances to, it almost certainly will.

[hackuser]

> the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring.

I guess that's been true for centuries, but I don't see what it has to do with militias. Like everyone with a bad idea, they want to say 'this time it's different'.

> There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss.

Perhaps not a law of the universe, but it's not just personal subjectivity. I personally dismiss that the world is flat, and I'm confident smart people widely agree with me for a good reason.

[tedks]

>I guess that's been true for centuries, but I don't see what it has to do with militias. Like everyone with a bad idea, they want to say 'this time it's different'.

Well, automation is going to start taking away knowledge worker jobs soon, so many intelligent people might find themselves in rather dire circumstances.

It's certainly unfair to compare rightism to flat-earthism. If you can't admit that there are people as smart or smarter than you who have opposite political views, you're hopelessly blinded by partisanship.

[hackuser]

> It's certainly unfair to compare rightism to flat-earthism

I didn't; I was talking about fringe movements planning for the collapse of civilization. They certainly do not represent the right wing.

[tedks]

By definition no extremist represents the center or the average of their political ideology. But extremists exist and occasionally are very intelligent.

[sevensor]

> Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages

This is a requirement for operating an amateur radio in most jusisdictions. Ham radio is the concealed-carry of communications technology.