Guys I need some help


October 6, 2006, 12:56 AM
Ok sitting here at work tonight talking with my co-worker, he starts to mention that he thinks military style weapons should be banned, he is speeking of AK's AR's and such. Me being the person I am ask why Oh Boy here we go, he states that only military style weapons should be banned because they are semi automatic and mag fed so they can be unload ammo very quickly. He starts talking about a recent occurance that some children were killed and the man had some assault weapons. I try explainin to him that guns dont kill people people kill people. And that if some one really wants another being dead they are going to kill them by any means neccessary. He does believe me he thinks that only assualt weapons do the killing, but he also claims to be a republican and he even owns a Glock ( dont know which model) So I know I shouldnt stoop to his level and actually start arguing with this individual. But can you guys give me some advice of what I could say to this gut to get him to shut up. On the rights to own AW anyhow. Thank you in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guys I need some help" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
October 6, 2006, 01:00 AM
I suppose you could try the classic libertarian argument and explain how the second amendment relates to the self-evident truths in the D o' I.

October 6, 2006, 01:03 AM
I think you should just not talk to him about it.

Some people just view those types of weapons as "evil" despite handguns being used it a vast majority of crimes, which he so happens to own.

October 6, 2006, 01:04 AM

Print that up or give him the link, let him use his brain pan if he chooses to.

October 6, 2006, 01:05 AM
Tell him you shouldn't ban the tool because of the wrong things done by a few of its users. Mention the LA riots, Korean shopkeepers with 'assault rifles' using them to keep looters away.

October 6, 2006, 01:08 AM
It's a hard position to go against. The only things I can think of, are SHTF scenarios in which case you really have to word your arguement very carefully so that you don't come across all paranoid and out of touch with reality.

Their self defense use is limited to being a trunk gun in the exact scenarios he proposes they are mostly used in. Which wouldn't have happened in the first place had neither of you had them. (disregard whether enforcement works, 'cause that is a "we should give up" arguement)

The only thing I can think of is that the 2nd would protect it, but that is irrelevant when you argueing about right and wrong.

I'd love you hear you guys' input.

October 6, 2006, 01:10 AM
Just because he starts a conversation you don't have to continue it. Simply change the subject.

October 6, 2006, 03:35 AM
hassle him into submission.

did I mention my friends don't get me started on gun stuff no more?

October 6, 2006, 04:04 AM
Tell him that the average response time for the police nation wide is about 15 minutes , out in rural areas it may be as much as an hour and while he may think that a 30 round magazine is alot he would be surprised at how fast it would be used in a life and death incounter and then he would be looking for more 30 round mags to keep him alive waiting for the police to arrive .

On top of that military weapons of the day are exactly what the framers of the Constitution wanted the people to have as it would be hard to fight an oppresive government with nothing but bolt , and lever action hunting rifles when the government troops have FULLY automatic weapons .

October 6, 2006, 04:48 AM
Personally, I would not use SHTF or fighting off oppressive government arguments, as they sort of bolster the idea that "assault rifles" are killing machines. I can only speak for what I would say, but for me I would point out that capacity and action have nothing to do with the ability for a weapon to kill. I would point out that several American wars have been won with muskets, to include the Civil War, and the body count in that war was horrific at best. I would then explain that assault weapons are in and of themselves inert mechanical devices incapable of any sort of action. I would then simply say that I am outraged at how people use weapons that can be effectively used to defend yourself and your home are being used as tools of murder by mentally incompetent a-holes.

All that would be said calmly and cooly. If, after that, he still didn't by my argument, I would simply tell him that we disagree on this issue. If he chooses to push me in the argument, I suppose I would simply stop him and say something to the effect "hey, I heard your side, you heard mine. Are you just trying to get a rise out of me?" Usually, that's enough to stop people. If it still was pushed, I would walk away. I have seen gunnies do more harm than good by losing their temper and yelling. The person yelling is the person losing, generally.

Anyway, thats just what I would do, and thats why I would do it that way. Construct your argument however you wish, but just keep in mind that calm, rational, logical arguments almost always win out over emotional responses.

October 6, 2006, 04:56 AM
folks pictures of a 45/70 lever and a .223 bushie, the anti's always assume the bushie is more powerful!

October 6, 2006, 05:20 AM
These are all execellent replies, thank you.

October 6, 2006, 07:37 AM
I always use the example of the LA riots. There were shop owners who used semi automatic AKs to protect their businesses. Also they are almost never used in crimes and not very easy to conceal. (Is that a 75 rnd mag or are you just happy?) I think the SHTF examples are good (LA, hurricane andrew & katrina). I tell people I might not need to use it but if there is ever a natrual disaster I will be glad I have it.

October 6, 2006, 07:38 AM
The "anti girl friend/mom" threads have a wealth of information to use on antis.

Dr. Dickie
October 6, 2006, 07:43 AM
Not to be picky TimboKahn, but it seems my lot in life:o .
I would not be able to use the Civil war et. al as an argument, where the casultilies were horrific, this was pre-antibiotics and a good scratch meant death (they feared a trip to the doctor, and for good reason:what: ).
It wasn't the weapons, it was the disease that killed (even in WWI, half of the American casualties were from the flu pandemic).
Your point is a good one though. It is the person behind the weapon, not the weapon.
Ask him why the sniper was so feared in Vietnam that the North had a bounty for them (since he use a bolt action rifle).
In WWII, the Marines used bolt action (Springfield '03s) during GuadalCanal, the Japanese use bolt action rifles, the Germans used bolt action rifles. Seems they did a preety good job (yes, for the Germans the machinegun was the primary killing weapon, but the support soliders carried the K'98).

October 6, 2006, 08:03 AM
He's a shooter at least.

Take him to the range and let him shoot your AR. He'll change his tune when he sees how much fun it is.

Or, show him a picture of Camp Perry at match time and let him be the one to go tell everyone there that their rifles are being banned because they are only good for killing people.

Many it's frustrating to me that people are so lacking in the moral courage to acknowledge wrong and try to find scapegoats instead:fire:

October 6, 2006, 08:07 AM
Simply ask him why he is a hypocrite. He owns a Glock and believes it is ok yet he thinks so called "assault weapons" should be banned because he disagrees with them. His only argument is that they are too dangerous because they are designed for killing. However, far more crimes are commited with hanguns than military style weapons. Remind him that handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals due to their ease of concealment not military weapons. If he was really concerned with guns being tools of murder he would have to be more fearful of handguns than military weapons. Tell him to give up his glock and join the antis because his type of hypocrite is far worse for the pro-gun movement than full blown gun grabbers.

October 6, 2006, 08:46 AM
Is there an end someplace to banning inanimate objects that can be used by someone to harm another ? If one is a Christian then the realization should occur that the murder rate when Kane killed Able was at 1 in 4 of the population, and that was with a rock. I think we've made progress ! ( I'm not religous by the way)

I'm always amazed that the answer ,all to many people have, to correct bad/evil behavior is to take away the freedoms of all people. Who are these people that they weren't taught the principles of live and let live ?

I've often thought that the major deference between me and what people refer to as an "anti" is that I am not trying to take anything away from them. I have respect for the rights of others - some people just don't have that respect, and think the world needs to run on their track, and their track only.

October 6, 2006, 08:56 AM
Since he owns a handgun it would appear his problem is with "assault weapons" because "... they are semi automatic and mag fed so they can be unload ammo very quickly". It seems that he has fallen victim to the Brady mind training that the cosmetic look of a rifle somehow influences it's operation. Any semi-automatic hunting rifle, and indeed his GLOCK as well, can unload ammo as quickly as any "assault weapon" that a citizen can legally own. A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic regardless of how it looks.

Having a heat shield, pistol grip, or bayonet lug doesn't provide the ability to "spray" bullets from a semi-automatic, regardless of what the Brady group says.

The assault weapon ban mostly banned cosmetic items, they couldn't ban semi-automatic operation, as even a revolver functions as a "semi-automatic" weapon. Since most of the anti-gunners really don't know anything about firearms, but feel a need to ban something, they just banned anything that looked like a military weapon, the actual lethality and function were not a consideration.

The ban did seem to provide some good, as there was not a single convience store bayonet slaying, or grenade launcher assault against a gas station attendent while the ban was in effect. :)

October 6, 2006, 09:01 AM
ask him "why don't you take it away from me"

October 6, 2006, 09:03 AM
Show him a picture of a Ruger 44 carbine, a Remington 7600 and an AR 15. Ask him which is more "deadly".

In the end, there are no differences between the above rifles in function...only cosmetics. In fact, the Ruger and Remington are much more "deadly" than the AR.

If that doesn't work, tell him you agree with him and you are going to start campaigning for the banning of Glocks...or any semi-auto pistol...or revolvers (ever seen Jerry Micelek shoot fast?)...let's all get matchlocks and the murder rate will plummet.

October 6, 2006, 09:42 AM
i usuall aske these people (assuming SOME gun knowledge, as it appears he may have) If he would prefer that I be shooting at him with a scoped, high-powered bolt action, vs. and "assault weapon" at a range 500 yards.

It only takes one.

October 6, 2006, 10:50 AM
The semi auto, magazine fed argument just doesn't hold water. There are so many non military weapons that fit the same description that I don't have room for them all here. Military folks, as well as prior military folks, are some of the most likely to want to own the AR's etc. They have had extensive training in the use of these fine rifles and are to be admired and respected by all of us. We veterans earned the right to continue to keep and bear arms regardless of the type. And if that logic applies to military types, it applies to all lawful gun owners. The fact that the objector has a Glock should make him receptive to a logical reason for owning these rifles. Thanks

October 6, 2006, 11:08 AM
This genius owns a Glock, eh? Ask him if his gun should be confiscated, because he can easily buy a 30 round mag for his Glock, which he could "unload quickly."

October 6, 2006, 11:13 AM
Shoot him in the left kneecap with one of them evil ayysalt weapons. Then shoot him in the right kneecap with a bolt action .30-06 deer rifle. Then shoot him in the crotch with a Glock just like his.

Ask him if the evil pistol grip, magazine, and bayonet lug on the 'assault weapon' made it hurt any more or less than the others.

Prince Yamato
October 6, 2006, 12:10 PM
Take him to shoot an AK-47. He'll love it. He'll probably buy one. Bye-bye anti.

October 6, 2006, 12:58 PM
Some of the others have already explained it, esp. the Ruger/Remington/AR comparision.

It is not the appearance, but what is under the hood that counts.

Hammer that point home. It has worked for me in blissninny-central DC.

October 6, 2006, 02:42 PM

Against military weapons because they are semi-automatic, and magazine fed? Ask him just what the hell does he think his Glock is?

A lot of police agencies do, and I think some militaries (Austria, at least) issue Glocks, so that makes it a military weapon. And it most clearly is semi-automatic and magazine fed. So, he is for restricting the kind of thing he owns? Why?, because he already has his?

Besides the power factor, you might point out to him that "semi-automatic assault rifles" (I hate that bullsh*t term) generally have fair to poor triggers (match rifles excepted), less than great sights, and have nowhere the power or accuracy of the average deer rifle. (yes there are exceptions, but they came shade the thruth, so can we, a little)

And you might also ask him, since he owns a Glock, about the spraying out a lot of bullets in a short time thing. Ask him if he has ever shot his Glock FAST. Then ask him if he hit anything, or better yet, ask him how many of the fast shots hit what he was trying to hit. So, spraying bullets actually reduces the effectiveness of the weapon. (fewer rounds hit).

And, if you look at the terrible shooting of the last couple of decades where these types of weapons were used, you will see one thing they almost all have in common. They are all done inside a building, or a small area (playground), and most have been against CHILDREN. These foul deeds could have been committed with a handgun or shotgun with the same (or even greater) level of efficiency with no more effort effort on the part of the shooter. Some of them could have done with a KNIFE, only the murderer would have had to move around a bit more. Someone running amok with a chainsaw would have achieved equally grizzly results.

It is not the tool that matters. But since these mass shooters nearly always kill themselves, the tool is all that is left for the media to focus on.

We have lots of laws banning things. We have laws against killing people for fun and profit. Did these stop the shootings? Will a few more laws do it? I doubt it.

You might also check into the histories of the shooters. You will find a significant number of the people who have gone on these rampages are on drugs. Prescription drugs (Prozac, lithium, etc), in many cases, plus what they buy on the street (which are already "banned").

If at all possible, take your friend with the Glock out shooting. Let him see (and shoot if possible) the sort of things he is against. And a deer or elk rifle for comparison. 12gauge too.

Ignorance breeds fear. Fear breeds hate. Hate leads to the Dark Side.

Experience (education) breeds knowledge. Knowledge breeds understanding. Understand can breed acceptance. It is to be hoped.

October 6, 2006, 03:31 PM
Tell him you LIKE shooting AWs. :) Why do you need any other reason?

Ask him what kind of car he has? Capable of breaking the speed limit? Why does he have such a dangerous automobile! 140mph!! Think of the children!! Why don't you own a nice, safe Yugo or better yet take public transportation?? Of course, then you can only go where other people want you to, but isn't that better for everyone than taking the chance on getting into a wreck and taking out a busload of children??

Aside: RKBA has GOT to come up with a better slogan than 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' It's a perfectly correct, logical argument that turns off anyone with the slightest anti leaning. :)

October 6, 2006, 05:40 PM
Ask him if he if even knows the legal definitions of an "Assault Weapon" per the now defunct law. I have been able to expose the ingorance of many with this tactic. Also, explain to him how loose definitions allow politicans to declare anything an "Assault Weapon". Thereby, promoting the incremental disarmament of the populous.

These websites could help. BTW, I made a perfect score on both quizzes. Honest.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guys I need some help" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!