Rather bizarre that the issue of damage would even be a legal concern. It's not doing as much damage as the standard issue weapons, no matter what they end up putting in those pistols. I can see there being more safety concerns with pistols, which by nature tend towards less consciousness of muzzle discipline and greater likelihood of negligent discharge in an unsafe direction (particularly given the circumstances relevant to issuing a pistol rather than rifle or carbine). But that's not a matter of the laws of war anymore than more frequent sock changes for troops executing dismounted movement.
On the whole, I'm less a fan of the 'government issue solution' mindset the more often I encounter it. "We've been having problems with our one-size fits all issue pistol, so we're going to enormous expense to search for a new issue pistol" kinda strikes me as missing a fundamental aspect of the problem. Then again, some people really love that regimented aspect of a government-run military.
1 comment:
Rather bizarre that the issue of damage would even be a legal concern. It's not doing as much damage as the standard issue weapons, no matter what they end up putting in those pistols. I can see there being more safety concerns with pistols, which by nature tend towards less consciousness of muzzle discipline and greater likelihood of negligent discharge in an unsafe direction (particularly given the circumstances relevant to issuing a pistol rather than rifle or carbine). But that's not a matter of the laws of war anymore than more frequent sock changes for troops executing dismounted movement.
On the whole, I'm less a fan of the 'government issue solution' mindset the more often I encounter it. "We've been having problems with our one-size fits all issue pistol, so we're going to enormous expense to search for a new issue pistol" kinda strikes me as missing a fundamental aspect of the problem. Then again, some people really love that regimented aspect of a government-run military.
Post a Comment