Friday, November 6, 2015

No: Telling me you don't trust yourself to not abuse firearms does *not* reassure me.

There's something I've been thinking on.

Consider the response that sometimes pops up when discussing conceal carry occasionally someone will reply with: "Oh no I could never carry a gun, I've been in situations where if I had a gun I would have murdered someone." Maybe not in those exact words, but the statement will contain a personal view that if they had access to a gun, they would have fired upon a person and it would not have been justified self defense.

Often this is coupled with this explaining why they're against carry in general (That is their experience means you should not be allowed carry) But let us put that aside for the moment.
Let us note how different groups respond the given statement.

A) Obviously, people who are anti-gun would be in agreement, even if to exploit greater gun control. They're a less interesting case but they have some crossover with the next group.

B) People ignorant of guns, people who aren't very fond of guns would applaud the statement. They might be a bit worried at the admission at the end, but since they don't carry guns,  since they're not experienced with guns  they'll have relief that the person in question (let's call him Edmund) doesn't have a gun on him.  Their focus is on the weapon itself,  which shows a view on the hierarchy of violence (that is that guns are "real" weapons, while knives and clubs are not).  And on deodands, that the gun itself has some agency.

This group would also be worried at the admission of a violent nature on the part of the question but they'd take comfort in "Well he doesn't have a gun so he can't do anything really /bad/"  After all,  people in this group have knives and blunt instruments and they don't kill people!

C) Now gun folk take an... different view.  This is especially true the more someone is informed on self -defense law. In short,  this groups sees Edmund (the person in question) admitting to mens rea. (That is the mental state of a person to intentionally commit a crime).

And yes, the above statement is an admission to being in the mental state where they /would/ have murdered someone. And the only thing stopping them was... not having a preferred tool at hand.
Imagine if Hannibal Lecter smiled at you and calmly assured you that you're okay because he didn't bring his favorite carving knives. How reassured would you feel?

There are a few ways a "person of the gun" can interpret the statement.

1)  Edmund (the POQ) is lying. He hasn't really been in a situation like that,  or when he was he did not really want to kill someone that was not a manifest threat to grievous bodily harm.  He's just saying that to exaggerate what /someone else/ may think. And is using this, as previously mentioned, to advocate for a particular gun regulation.

However... if your advocacy involves you intentionally lying to portray yourself has having murderous impulses... then your advocacy might not be so well thought out.

2) Edmund is lying to himself.  This is a more extreme case of 1.  Maybe they never were in the situation they've alluded to, but they've thought about it.  Maybe they were in a situation and they thought they might do it.  People do fantasize things.

And if we are dealing with someone who is not experienced with firearms, CCW, or self-defense law. Well, then you have their own ignorance and fears playing at their mind. This one has a potential to go very wrong for Edmund. Allow me to have an aside about training.

Training is a way to prepare and hone skills.   Specifically of the sense "If X then (a)"  That is, "If X happens to men then I will do (a)." An important thing to realize is that in an extreme situation one will be pressed for time.
This is why people will freeze in a situation outside their experience, they have no anticipated plan and thus their brain does not know what to do.  How often is a person's reaction to violence something like "I didn't think it was real." "I didn’t think something like this could happen to me." 
Thus the first part of training is to create the frame of "If then".  One has to have the frame of "If this happens to me… I should do (a)!" Later training is to refine the response to get better at doing (a). 
What's important to note, is that high stress encounters do not automatically result in necessitating lethal force. The other person might not be a manifest threat.   The person many surrender.  The person may be too far away. In short,  the Ability Opportunity Jeopardy triad may not be present. 
But that does not mean that the case will not be extremely stressful.  And  good training would improve the situation and perhaps keep it from becoming a mess in the first place.

And now back to Edmund.  We are dealing with someone who has trained himself into thinking he will  murder someone.

He has told himself (and us) that in a high stress situation he would kill someone that is not an immediate, lethal threat.  What is the "if then" operating in that person's mind? What would happen if such a person found himself in a very heated situation? He might take solace that he's "unarmed" but...

Take this hypothetical.

Edmund is driving on the highway,  there's a traffic jam, things slow down. There's a collision with a catering van. (We'll leave out who is at fault for the accident) 
Both vehicles pull to the side.  There does not seem to be any major injuries,  but the catering truck is stalled out. The caterer gets out,  he's a stout slightly overweight man who starts swearing loudly at his younger assistant who also gets out. 
Edmund also gets out to fix a flat. Trying to work with the tire iron sees the caterer yelling at his assistant while the  younger man is trying to recover what he can out of the back of the van.
The caterer then turns to Edmund and starts yelling at him about how he's ruined his business, that he needed to complete this job and now he won't make it. Angrily waving towards the traffic with his open hands, he walks towards Edmund and stops 10 feet away demanding his insurance information and saying that he'll hear from his lawyer. 
And here's Edmund. On the side of the road with cars whistling past,  his heart-rate is up, he was just in an accident, his adrenaline is still pumping in,  his emotions are high, and here's this guy blaming him for the accident that he caused, meanwhile this oaf is distracting him from trying to get these stupid bolts off the flat that he caused. 
So, still holding the tire iron, Edmund looks at the angry man.  Edmund has told many people that he didn't carry a gun because he thought he'd murder someone when his blood got boiling. 
He's told himself that he could murder someone....   And his blood is boiling right now. And here he is with a nice bar of steel and a pestering nuisance in front of him. 
Do you really think that he's got a tire iron and not a gun will make a different in his actions?  Do you think he'd be more or less at a risk of doing something horrific than someone who has not made the given statement?

Let's look at this example from a self-defense standpoint

Note the caterer may be angry but there is no Jeopardy. Being angry and threatening to sue is not a manifest threat of bodily harm. 
Ability is not present either,  while the caterer has an assistant,  that person is in the van. Edmund is not outnumbered. And at the moment the caterer's hands are empty and he has made no furtive movements 
Opportunity is also not as present as the man is outside of grappling range. 
Thus if Edmund killed, or hurt, the caterer he would have absolutely no defense. Especially if it were discovered that he made repeated statements about how he would commit murder in this exact way. In fact if the caterer fought back and hurt Edmund then he would be the one to have a self-defense claim.  Though his yelling and antagonizing Edmund would complicate matters.
(Which is why being calm in such cases is good advice.)

Just imagine if the prosecutor was able to get Edmund's given statements admitted as evidence. They would readily show mens rea for the incident in question.  "Members of the jury this man told his friends on multiple instances how if he had a weapon in his hand he would murder a someone, well," the prosecutor picks up the tire iron in its evidence bag. "this was what he had in his hand on the day in question.  He used it to kill a man,  sounds like it was a weapon to me."

Still, interpretation 2 has you are dealing with a person who has a potentially dangerous self-delusion. One that could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which brings us to the third way to take the statement.

3) Edmund is mentally capable of murder and is knowingly telling you that all that keeps him from murdering when under stress is he doesn't have his ideal weapon at hand.   You can easily replicate the caterer scenario with a person operating under interpretation 3.

One can see how none of the interpretations  1 through 3 reflect very well on Edmund in the eyes of one of the "gun folk". Edmund would range from  disturbingly deceitful to dangerously deluded to manifestly dangerous. Regardless, it makes Edmund a risky person to be around if things go bad.
How much would you trust them in a risky situation? Edmund's he has told you that you should *not* trust him.  He's told you he doesn't trust himself.
Even in a situation where lethal force would be justified.  Would *you* trust having that guy nearby you?
Say you're both walking and a couple muggers come out and shove guns in your faces and demand money or your life. You manage to get an opportunity to draw and shoot one,  he falls and his gun falls from his hand. The other mugger drops his gun as well and starts backing away. 
Now you've got to split your attention between two people who until a second ago were lethal threats.  You also have to get on the horn with the police and medical, deal with witnesses,  *and* be on the lookout for other threats. 
If you had someone you trusted with you...   well maybe they'd have a gun of their own, or if you had a spare gun you could give him it.  Or maybe he could gently kick those guns so the muggers couldn't grab them again. At the very least you could have another set of eyes who can help see if the police have come or if there's more bad guys.
Instead you've just deployed deadly force next to a person who has told you that he is irresponsible with regards to deadly force.

The best you can hope for is he won't make the situation worse. And we're not even getting into what kind of witness he would be.  I don't know about you but having someone who is, at best, a known liar on matters of life and death talking to the police as a witness does not fill me with joy.

For another hypothetical, let's go back to the caterer situation.  Now have it where Edmund is an associate (maybe even friend of yours). You're a passenger in the car.   And the situation starts to play out as it did before. How comfortable would you feel seeing your associate's white knuckles on that tire iron?

Heck we don't even need to have such a dramatic hypothetical.  Just being a passenger in Edmund's car is risky enough. Do you think someone who feels his anger is such he can't let himself carry a gun would be more or less susceptible to road rage?

Monday, October 26, 2015

The Daily Beast admits that gun control is a dog-whistle!

So they're talking about the racist roots of gun control in the US?

Well... no.

Or maybe that gun control still is used in a racist context?
(Take the objections to Voter ID and see how well they remap to UBCs)


Oh, well surely they're admiring that gun control and "common sense laws" are really code words for bans and confiscation.

Wrong again!

No, this article is all about how Gun Control just needs a new name!

Really the central thesis of this article is:  "Too many people think Gun Control is a dog whistle  for 'Gun bans and Confiscation', clearly the solution is to change the label used to advocate for Gun Control."

Heck the phrase "Gun Control" /itself/  was taken because the advocacy groups didn't want to have "ban" in the title.

 Remember the National Coalition to Ban Handguns?
Or by its current name "Collation to Stop Gun Violence"

Or how about the national Council to Control Handguns?
I mean they change their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Which is totally different from "Gun Violence Prevention"

Yeah... that'll fool 'em.

But the article has more to it than that.

1) The article is rampantly insulting to gun owners. Using terms like hoarders, fragile, paranoid, irrational, frenzied, and "holed up in their basement".

2) And the article laughs of the idea that Obama wants to ban guns and that any such fears are irrational.  Except... the president advocated and lobbied for a law that would ban the most popular rifle in America.  And he pushed hard when the bill doing just so came up in congress.  He also endorsed states that passed such bans while he was in office.  Hillary Clinton has also been a long time supporter of such a ban as well.

3)  And going beyond bans, both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have spoke approvingly of laws such as Australia's that confiscated millions of guns.

4) Which leaves two options for the writer of the article, Donna Dees,  a)  Dess is massively ignorant of the very subject she is giving advice on national policy.  Or b) Dees is lying about the intentions of prominent gun control advocates.

5)  Taking in  1-4  why on earth would a gun owner be persuaded by the replacement of the term  "Gun Control"  with "Gun Violence Prevention"?"

6) There's also that Dees is ostensibly saying this term change is required to better sooth the fears of gun owners.  But given the conclusion in 5 and the vitriol she uses in 1...  does that make any sense?

7)  Thus is Dees actually considering this change in labels to better convince people who aren't /gun nuts/?   Though that would imply that gun control has become an unpopular term to the public at large.  Something Dees studiously, perhaps tellingly,  shies from.

8)  Amusingly this article is actually behind the times.  Since trying to replace "Gun Control" with "Gun Violence Prevention" has already been tried and now the new buzzword is "Gun Safety".  Heck the Brady Campaign changed their name to almost the exact same phrase in 2001.

9)  For all the talk about how to label things... the article has a compel lacking of any proposed solutions.   Which perhaps might be because the writer has boxed herself.  If the article talks about how great bans and confiscations are, that means those gun owners are right to be concerned.  If the article talks about how great Universal Background Checks are,  the cited examples of death and destruction can be readily countered by pointing out that in the vast majority of the cases background checks /were/ conducted.

10)  Thus the article reads less like an explanation on how to save lives, and more a media trade journal on how to better market gun control.

11) It's noteworthy that an article that talks about dog-whistles, specifically about how they're used in racist contexts and gun control, doesn't mention for once the racist history of gun control.  Or that there are dog whistles still in use.  How many politicians put gun control under "urban policy"?  Or the old dog whistle of "Oh well urban areas need different laws than rural areas."

Saturday, October 10, 2015

If your cause is so righteous...

Why do you have to lie?

And if you really care about your cause then why do you have to lie so badly.

So part of the Gun Control Movement has been trying to make the claim that the NRA is really all about gun free zones.  How you ask?

Yup... stating that the NRA bans guns on their convention floors.

Yeah... that's a lie.  I've carried at every NRA con I've been at.

Now Erin is starting a neat trend of if one can ID a gunny by their convention carry rig.

Well let's see if that works.

Let's see if one can guess who is wearing that fancy race-gun rig.
And who has their classic 1911 on.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

And Cracked isn't even trying anymore...

Ah,  yes nothing brings me back like another bit of Cracked indulging in their inner anti-gun.

We've got another article by their resident anti-gun crank.  Luke McKinney.

A couple months ago he went on a tear about how why even Gun Owners should hate the NRA.

Now keep in mind,  just based on that previous article...  we've got a guy who  thinks gun owners should take advice from someone who considers high-capacity magazines insane, that Intelligent Americans shouldn't see guns as an individual rights,  and wants to ban AR-15's.

Oh, and that Gun owners should hate the NRA for successfully lobbying against gun bans.

Care to guess what his next article on the subject is like?

In standard Cracked fashion the insitu title differes from the URL.
7 Incredibly Biased Arguments Against Gun Control

Do we even need to go through it?

Well what's interesting is Luke's gotten more insulting where about every other paragraph he has some mockery of gun owners.  Mocking both intelligence and sexuality!

But what's more telling is a scattered lack of focus.  He'll flit around between how the "Constitution is out of date"  and "The constitution can be changed!"

(And yes Luke, the constitution can be changed,  you're welcome to try to get an amendment passed repealing the 2nd.  But if you try that,  we can still call you anti-gun.)

Oh and if you think you're hunting rifle will be safe...   Nope.

Skipping lightly over the part where you find people who say, "I enjoy killing things I don't have to for fun," and responding, "That sounds perfectly sane, have some rifles," I'd like to ask: At what point does one person's hobby overrule another person's survival? 


Oh and his scattered reasoning is on great display when he talks about drunk driving. And then blames unjustified police shootings on...  non-police owning guns.   And then there's his aside that he wants to make possession of guns in public completely illegal.

And the next page goes downhill...  with more of his unfocused ranting.  And continuing the idea that because guns are designed to kill... they are completely pointless.

What's interesting is he seems to be in an argument with a gun rights strawman living in his head.

A favored goal of the loudest gun-wielders is the ability to overthrow the government. I'm not sure how many countries are expected to laud nutballs who want to destroy that country, but I'm glad I don't live in one of them. 

Either Luke doesn't live in America... or he doesn't know what the Delcaration of Independence was about or the founder's views on revolution. That's not advocating overthrow of the government,  that's just pointing out how this country was founded.

And it wouldn't be Cracked if Luke didn't indulge himself and say "billionaires spend their billions sabotaging democracy on every conceivable level".  Huh....  hey Luke...  who is the nation's biggest advocate for gun control?

 And going even further back, the ability to violently overthrow the ruling authority stopped working at around the caveperson level. In every age after that workers were slaughtering each other just to swap elite rulers.

Ah...  so revolution only counts if the previous ruler is personally killed?  Pretty dim view of American history there too.  But see what I said about this guy being angry and unfocused?  And then he goes on about how drones will be used to murder American citizens.

Wow.... way to prove that Americans worried about tyranny are just paranoid.

And the last part does show part of the anger.  There's some blatant subtext that he's totally buying into the "there's a mass shooting every week!" line,  and he's getting *angry* at the lack of flashy gun control.

Again compare to his earlier work.  In that he's less (overtly) insulting to gun owners and while he has no understanding, he tries to make some arguments.

Here he's just venting spleen.   Yet another tell is the guy doesn't even bother to provide any "solutions",  oh there's a mention of "high capacity mags" and an oblique reference to purchase requirements,  but Luke's anger seems to be primarily on the mere *existence* of guns in civilian hands.

Though what really makes me laugh is the progression of the post-article footer.

Luke's  June post:
Check out more NRA nutcasery with 3 Reasons It's Time To Stop Taking The NRA Seriously and The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control. 
Enjoy imaginary worlds where guns make sense with The Strange History Of Terminator Games and The Greatest Video Game Gun Of All Time.
And today's:

Do you want more rootin' tootin' anti-gun argumentin'? Of course you do! We've got more adventures in all-American gunplay right here, with 5 Reasons Even Gun Owners Should Hate The NRA and The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.
And don't forget that minigun barrages are entirely reasonable in professional, movie-invented, killer robot and/or generic foreign despot scenarios. That's why Luke gathered The Toughest Action Dads In Movie History and The Most Advanced Terminator Games Ever Made in handy lists, for YOU.

Yup.   Someone's angry.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Cracked and the NRA

Oh  Cracked

The real problem is the article is only partially about how the NRA is a disservice to gun owners.   Much of it is about how much the author doesn't like that the NRA has kept guns he doesn't like from being banned.

The article seems to be less trying to convince gun owners why the NRA is hurting them, and more about how stupid gun owners are for supporting the NRA.

The former can be seen by how the writer goes on about how he wishes assault weapons were banned while complaining that the NRA has lobbied (with some success) against said bans.

The latter can be seen by the swipes the writer takes to the intelligence and agency of gun owners.  Oh and by the comments section full of anti-gun people lapping up the social signaling.

And the best part are their examples of how #5. They're Paid By Gun Manufacturers

 In the past, Ruger donated a dollar from every gun sold to the NRA, and now they're doubling down, pledging $2 from every Ruger rifle, handgun, and shotgun sold until the next NRA annual meeting. Crimson Trace laser sights donates 10 percent of their sales and $20 for each product sold through the NRA Instructor Program. Crimson Trace employees can't be making that much per unit.

MidwayUSA sells guns, ammunition, and completely sane high-capacity magazines, and it encourages customers to round every purchase up to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA-ILA lobbying arm. Gun companies have donated tens of millions of dollars to the NRA's Ring Of Freedom sponsorship program and spend tens of millions more on advertising in NRA publications.

Yeah...  gun owners should totally *hate* gun companies that...  donate part of their sales.  And *gasp* ask customers to volunteer.

And note the swipe at the magazins that Midway sells...  to... those same gun owners.

Oh, and as a bonus they cite that debunked Yahoo investigation.  And with a double Cracked talks about Adolphus Busch IV's angry resignation.

The NRA represents regular gun owners the same way the National Pork Board represents regular pigs.

And number 4 is going against Nugent which is fair enough, but Cracked then diverts into Zero Tolerance policies with school kids.

And then we get #3 which is about Charles Cotton but opens with this lovely digression.

 I mean, having a gun that can pump bullets into children is a patriotic option he absolutely refuses to take off his or anyone else's table
Gee Cracked, yes I totally should take your unbaised advice on what's good for gun owners.

And then citing Talking Points Memo with this bit

TPM reports that he wrote "Perhaps a good paddling in school may keep me from having to put a bullet in [a student] later." Which definitely sounds like someone who should be equipped to decide if everyone within his line of sight lives or dies on a moment-by-moment basis.
Because...  no one who ever spanked kids could use a gun responsibly!

And then more and a empahtic demand for people to go to NRA on the Record . Org.

Oh  and for #2  the NRA are the racist ones.  You know, not the people who think guns are an "urban" problem,  or who want the police (you know those color blind fellows) to be able to deny permits without cause.   Not to mention the history of gun control...

Not even in a country where a Cracked writer can be placed on the No-Fly list for writing a satirical article. Right now the only difference between NRA talks and Al-Qaeda videos is production value.

What do you bet the odds are that this same Cracked writer wants to ban people on the No-Fly list from owning guns?

And really?  Production value?  That's a nice euphemism for organized murder.

Call me crazy but someone who writes stuff like this...   I don't think they have gun owner's best interests in mind.

And the final point would have some merit (it's about the NRA blaming stupid things from trenchcoats, to video games, and other idiotic things) but the writer goes well off the rails with a paranoid conspiracy theory.

Blaming everything except the gun is their only job, and the angrier it makes people, the better it works. First, the NRA board decoys discussion with patently ridiculous claims, then absorbs the resulting anger instead of the gun industry. Their sole function is to prevent rational debate. They're a responsibility crumple zone, prepared to fire themselves into public spaces as violently and repeatedly as it takes to distract attention from the weapons manufacturers making millions by selling lethal weaponry to civilians. The NRA is what happens when the Westboro Baptist Church settles down to get a corporate job.

See!  They're being stupid on purpose!   The're deflection ire away from the gun manufactures... who you know never get blamed.

Also note the "selling lethal weaponry to civilians."   Why it's almost like the writer doesn't *want* citizens to be able to own guns!

Which is followed by.
They've used political payments and public bullshit to push the gun control debate so far over any possible line that the middle ground ends up with their supporters armed with assault weaponry in every major U.S. city. Which is exactly where they are.

 Huh...   so... this writer thinks gun owners should take advice from someone...  who wants to ban assault weapons.  Oh!  And thinks of assault weapons are an "urban" problem.

Gee...  you know  the writer is conceding that the "middle ground"  would be an overturning of the numerous state-level assault weapon bans.  And that the NRA is contributing to that.

Yeah...  gun owners should *hate* that.

But there's more.  Immediately after that is this;
They've buried the country under so much bullshit that even intelligent Americans start talking about individual rights and waiting periods, as if there was any sane sequence of words that ends with a peacetime civilian holding an AR-15 other than, "OK, Mr. Schwarzenegger, and action!"

Note the writer breezily thinks that this "bullshit" is the *only* way an intelligent american would think about individual rights.   And that even waiting periods is too pro-gun for 'em.

And yes the writer clearly wants a total ban on the AR-15.  Which is the most popular rifle in the country.

Gun owners should totally take his advice.

So...  gun owners should take advice from someone who thinks high-capacity magazines are insane, that Intelligent Americans shouldn't see guns as an individual rights,  and wants to ban AR-15's.

I'm not sure a person that wants to ban the most popular rifle in America actually has the best interests of gun owners at heart.

Nor someone who is engaging in a paranoid conspiracy theory of the NRA being some sort of "
"decoys discussion "  and "responsibility crumple zone".

What's funny is if the writer didn't engage in how much he's really, really like to ban guns,  he'd have a good point to the ineptness and offensiveness of NRA leadership.

And then there's saying things like this:

They've used political payments and public bullshit to push the gun control debate so far over any possible line that the middle ground ends up with their supporters armed with assault weaponry in every major U.S. city. Which is exactly where they are.

Uh...  gun owners *want* to be able to own those assault weapons.  And given that many states have banned 'em.    If the NRA has made the  "middle ground" being overturning those bans...  well wouldn't gun owners like that?

And heck that's not even touching "urban" as a racist euphemism,  which has a long history with gun control.

The real problem is the article is only partially about how the NRA is a disservice to gun owners.   Much of it is about how much the author doesn't like that the NRA has kept guns he doesn't like from being banned.

Which... isn't exactly something the gun owners would hate now is it?

Really this is a prime example of the Anti's inability to do Red Team thinking.

That is that they cannot get into a gun owner's mental "frame". That is follow the logic, desires, and goals of such a person.

Which is why an article ostensibly giving advice to gun owners about the NRA's faults is riddled with asides on how great gun bans are and how bad the NRA is for  lobbying against them

Friday, July 17, 2015

Stross Equiod: A Rambling review.

Okay I'm amused when a writer who has a series that's basically   HP Lovecraft  Applied Mathematics;  Comp Sci division who devotes much of an entire short story to mocking Lovecraft.

(Not just his purple prose and the man's... issues).

But more taking the piss of the man's creative chops and bemoaning his literary influence (this particular series is first person so it's a bit difficult to separate author from character).

Then I realized that it was tongue-in-cheek.   And that the main character was being a wanker.  The real penny drop came when someone had to explain to him r/K selection theory.

Terminology that said character immediately started using like it was old hat.

Said character then started having his own "apocalyptic journal" get infested with purple prose and tacitly admit that Lovecraft's own narrative was actually correct.

So this is my roundabout way of saying that Stross' Equoid was rather amusing.

Though man...   Stross needs to take a holiday somewhere and get some trigger time to add a touch of verisimilitude to his work.  While it's great that his main character has become less of a "I don't like guns" weenie as he's matured (Yeah Bob, if you're a bloody necromancer working for nasty secret intelligence you don't get to whine about having to use a gun).

And that's not even getting into the...  CisBritish goodthinker politics that seems so quaint when put in well....    Applied Mathematics Lovecraftian Horror.

Friday, July 10, 2015

A blast from the Atomic and Jet Age past!

Boeing just patented a... novel engine idea.

Basically use lasers to generate micro fusion reactions.

This generates thrust out the back.  And on the front the high energy neutrons excite a uranium coating a thrust plate.  Said plate then heats up coolant which is run through turbines... which power the lasers.


So it's kind of like a lighter version of the Direct Air Cycle design for the old Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program.

Well. This is probably a less *dirty* design. But my guess it it'll give more radiation release than the Indirect Air cycle design.

Oh...  and the ANP  programs were at least workable.  The whole,  laser fusion thing...  I don't think there's an idea on a way to have the system be able to keep itself powered with the given fuel.