[P95Carry]

OK - we are right now discussing just this on other threads, in various ways. But ... let's look at one specific aspect.

First... this ''assault'' label gets tedious ... right?? But .. the one thing that seems to most get levelled at us is ..... capacity and ''firepower'' ......

We know the ''deer'' rifle can be and is probably the archetypal ''sniper'' weapon .... if you wanna define it thus. But the semi with large capacity mag potential is so often sited .... not just with this damn ''assault'' label, so popular with media and anti's ..... but as the ''killing machine'' too.

We all have our wants and also our enjoyments .. but this seems a real hurdle to cross. So - how do we [BEST calm these heaving breasts of anti's etc .. when it comes to capacity and semi-auto ''firepower''.

Just interested to know what y'all might think and suggest for good answers. How do we lower the ''hype'' factor??

[Ryder]

The magazine capacity limitations imposed for hunting are to give the game a sporting chance. If the end justified the means "hi-cap" magazine weapons would be just as suitable to hunting.

Hunting is a sport. There are rules in all sports. Survival is not a game, there are, and should be, no rules.

[Preacherman]

I don't know that it's possible to "calm these heaving breasts of anti's", because their heaving breasts are not caused by facts and reality, but by emotions and imagination. They truly don't even begin to understand the situation.

Put yourself in the shoes of a sheeple. He has grown up knowing nothing about guns except what Hollywood and the TV networks show him - namely, guys pulling off impossible over-the-shoulder, unaimed shots, the impact of bullets blowing guys through a glass window or across the street, and so on. He now has this fixed mental picture of the vast, immense power a gun can unleash. Couple this with the constant, unvarying anti-gun propaganda barrage of the liberal media and education establishment, and you can understand that by the time he's reached maturity, he thinks that all guns are terrifying, evil, threatening things that should be banned, or at least strictly controlled. He regards a citizen walking around with a gun as being equivalent to a citizen walking around with a delicate glass vial of smallpox or plague germs - a potentially lethal accident waiting to happen.

You and I can protest to him all we wish about the fact that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous or evil. It won't do any good: the brainwashing has sunk too deep by now. Only one of two things will change that: if he's the victim of a criminal attack, and realizes how defenseless he is, and that he needs a gun to change the balance of power; or if he moves into a social climate where guns are accepted as a normal part of everyday life, and slowly, over time, is de-programmed by his new environment.

Now, this same sheeple is asked about a high-capacity magazine. He doesn't think in terms of the capabilities of the weapon: he sees an image in his mind of that number of people (the same as the capacity of the magazine) being blown backwards across the street, shedding blood and grey matter as they fly through the air. He doesn't know anything about ballistics, energy transfer, accuracy problems (and the fact that the vast majority of bullets fired in combat miss their target), and such things: he sees the Hollywood image of a 30-round AK magazine producing 30 contorted, bleeding, mangled dead bodies.

He's thus all in favor of limiting magazine capacities, because to his mind, it limits the number of deaths. The fact that one can carry as many rounds in 9 10-round magazines as in 3 30-round units, and fire them almost as fast (if one practices mag changes), is lost on him. He's focused on the thing, not the operator of the thing.

I don't know if this helps, but I think it shows our difficulty... :rolleyes:

[P95Carry]

P'man ...... as ever ... thx!! You manage to well cover the salient aspects. You input is always appreciated. :)

I think you are right re the ''sheeple'' take ... but also, I wish i knew a way to ''calm the troubled waters'' ... some way to get it across to ''them'' that these 'evil'' rifles were not, per se .... the armageddon machines they claim they are!!

Of course ... (JMHO) .... to the uninitiated and casual observer ....... these tools in wrong hands can and do ... produce very real mayhem.

Always it seems .. the mere mention of ''semi-auto'' .... being of course instantly translated into ''assault''!!:mad: means to them the slaying of hoards!!! I sometimes feel like giving up in attempts to find ''conversion'' approaches ... but as ever .. plod on, hoping to find small gaps in their ''armor'!

[Old Fuff]

Also notice that the anti's always frame this on the basis of need. "You don't NEED a large capacity magazine." Or "you don't NEED a firearm that looks like a military weapon." Of course they somehow have the right and responsibility to be the ones that define what YOU NEED. What they really want to say is, "you don't NEED any kind of gun at all," but they are willing to go in steps.

When I write to a legislator I always end by saying, "we don't NEED you to represent us and just might vote for someone else." If they get enough letters that say this the fence-sitters often get the point. The hard-core anti's of course don't care.

[pytron]

I'm not able to rant so eloquently, but please bear with me.

It does not matter what attributes the firearm has. They are all equally lethal when used properly. Some attributes make them easier to use properly, but one must remember that all firearms can (and should be) deadly.

That said, what difference does it make if it is full-auto, semi-auto or single-shot? All are equally deadly when used properly. The capacity of the magazine makes little difference, as one can always carry more magazines. Caliber/power makes little difference -- more powerful firearms require more skill to control, thus making repeat hits harder. Even the lowly .22 can kill (and often does).

"So, if there are little differences between firearms, what does it matter if we ban some types of them?" asks the anti. The burden of proof is on the anti. If they cannot argue the need to ban all firearms, then they cannot argue that they can ban any of them based on their attributes.

A little rhetoric for the antis: If we banned sports cars because the driver's tend to have a high accident rate, would that change the driver's behavior? Do the attributes of sports cars lend themselves to accidents, or is it driver behavior that causes these problems?

The root of criminal violence (with or without guns) is criminals. To blame a tool because of it's misuse is ridiculous, illogical, and false.

A final note. One fallacy of pro-gun organizations and individuals is to argue against the AWB by saying that "full-auto is already illegal, these are not full-auto firearms". Perfectly true. But that is basically saying that you support restricting firearms based on attributes. While we know this is not the case, that is how it appears.

-Pytron

[Mark Tyson]

We're a nation of worrywarts. This applies to more than just "assault" weapons and even guns, but to everything.

The problem is ignorance and irrational fear. We all suffer from these two problems to some degree in other aspects of our lives. It's similar to how some people are afraid of flying, even though the accident rate has been declining while number of airline passengers has been increasing. The things most likely to kill you these days are things as prosaic as bad nutrition and unsafe driving, not some notional "assault" weapon spitting instantly lethal bullets. Your chances of being hurt or killed by someone with a gun are very small by comparison. Homicide(with guns or without) isn't even in the top 10 causes of death in America.

It's funny how antis accuse gun owners of being paranoid for owning guns, when their whole ideology is based on the idea that the presence of a gun increases your chances of becoming a victim of a homicide. From our experiences at the range and among gun owners we know that most gun people, like most people everywhere, are decent and trustworthy. The few dirtbags and maniacs who do something wrong get attention out of all proportion to their numbers.

[Black Snowman]

I find the best way to debunk people is to ask them questions. In particular I like to ask "How did YOU reach that conclusion?" I ususally get something like. "Oh I read it here." I come back "Yes, but WHY do you agree with it?" Most of them either dismiss me out of hand or they start to question. I never say that my stance is correct or superior, many times I never even mention what my stance is. I try and get them to convince me of their stance and just ask obvious questions. As they realise they don't have the answers or that their perspective is skewed I get a lot of "I'll have to look into that"s.

By not being advisarial but by encouraging them to make their point and bring their evidence it forces them to think about the issue and process the information. By making them think for themselves and just bringing up weak points you never make yourself out to be the "maniac gun nut" that will automaticly turn them off.

Sensable rational arguments and evidence are everywhere. A good collection is here: http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm The key is to make them question what they assume to be true and open their minds to both sides of the equation.

I'm already sewing the seeds of truth in my roomate's son before he get's brainwashed by the public school system.

He wanted to stay home instead of coming with his Father and I to get some food.

I asked "Why?"

He said he wanted to protect the cats.

I asked "What from?"

He said in case someone we didn't know showed up.

I asked "Who would protect you?"

He said the house would (now, he just wants to play with the cats, he doesn't actually care, so the fact the house could protect the cats is not even considered ;) ).

I tell him "The house is just an object, it can't protect you."

"Sure it can."

I tell him "No, the house can be broken, people have to protect themselves and the ones they care about."

"Oh."

That sent the gears turning. He's 4 BTW.

[Standing Wolf]

No justification is ever needed for exercising our constitutionally protected civil rights.

[geekWithA.45]

In a nation of equals, no one has the right to tell me what I need and don't need.

That being said, a few words from Evan Nappen, Esqu, from his book Nappen II, NJ Gun, Knife and Weapos Law:

101 Reasons why you need an assault firearm

1 To help continue the American tradition of citizen soldier
2 for recreation
3 to collect military small arms
4 to get quick extra shots at more game when hunting
5 to get quick extra shots at the same game when hunting
6 for more fun plinking
7 to defend yourself from a street gang
8 to defend yourself from mob violence
9 do defend yourself against looters
10 to shoot a DCM target match
11 to shoot an action rifle or practical rifle target match
12 to assist the police in an emergency (eg 1966 Texas tower sniper, citizens w/ m1s assisted)
13 to help defend the country from foriegn invasion
14 to help defend the country from an internal takeover
15 to help the firearms industry remain economically strong
16 to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife
17 to encourage further research into firearms technology
18 to save time while shooting (as opposed to reloading)
19 to have increased reliability in functioning
20 to have a longer lasting firearm
21 to have an economical firearm
22 to have an easier to manufactur firearm
23 to have an easier to repair firearm
24 to have an easier to take apart & clean firearm
25 to have a more versatile fiream
26 to own a highly weather resistant firearm
27 to appreciate the evolotion of firearms technology
28 to defend your business
29 to defend your home
30 to defend your boat
31 to defend your camp
32 to defend your farm/ranch
33 to defend your family
34 because you're a Libertarian
35 to have reduced recoil when shooting
36 as an investment
37 as a military souvenier
38 as a hedge against inflation
39 because criminals statistically prefer revolvers (as of 1985)
40 to have a more pyschologically intimidating firearm, and thus reduce the need to fire
41 to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime (< 1%)
42 to own a firearm that purposely functions slower than other firearms (eg Remington 1100)
43 for Olympic competition
44 to appreciate the mechanical genious of firearms inventors
45 to have a firearm that uses external magazines
46 to shoot the National Matches @ Camp Perry
47 to reject anti gun media bias
48 to challeng "Big Brotherism"
49 to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs
50 to own a firearm easier for the physically handicapped to use
51 to save all firearms by not giving in to "salami" tactics which gradually erode all our rights
52 to do trick shooting (eg multiple aerial targets)
53 to shoot milsurp (cheaper ammo)
54 to be part of an armed populace (a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemy)
55 to familiarize yourself with your country's military rifle
56 to familiarize yourself with a foriegn country's military rifle
57 because all firearms are interesting.
58 to hang on your wall
59 to shoot clay targets
60 to shoot paper targets
61 to shoot metallic silhouettes
62 to excercise your Constitutional Rights
63 to excercise a natural right
64 to excercise a civil right
65 to excercise an unalienable right
66 to excercise a human right
67 because you know it's right
68 to defend yourself after an NYC type blackout
69 to defend yourself against an LA type riot
70 to defend yourself after a St. Croix type hurricane, in which both officers and escaped prisoners ran amok
71 to avoid a "Tiananmen Square" in the US
72 to own a militia type firearm protected under the SCOTUS decision US vs Miller
73 to protect livestock from predators
74 to show support for the political ideals of the founders
75 to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (as per the Director of the Wound Ballistics Lab)
76 to own a firearm not readily convertible to full auto (LAPD testimony before CA assembly)
77 to own a firearm which LEO is opposed to banning (1989 poll of 16k LEOs by NACP)
78 to own a "state of the art" firearm (eg Steyr AUG)
79 to own a historic or "turn of the century" firearm (eg Borchardt)
80 to own a a firearm which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter/less recoil)
81 to own a a firearm that is no frills and practical in design
82 to own a a firearm that is difficult to conceal
83 to own a a firearm that the media glamourizes
84 to own a a firearm which might be banned
85 to own a a firearm which IS banned
86 because all your other firearms might be banned next
87 to own one of the most mechanically safe firearms (eg uzi)
88 to own a firearm that is a "work of art"
89 to own a Valmet M-76, which the ATF say has no sporting use
90 To own a Valmet hunter, which the ATF says HAS a sporting use (note: the hunter and m-76 are mechanically alike)
91 to own a firearm that made history (eg M-1, M-1 carbine)
92 to shoot a firearm that made history
93 to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function
94 to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function
95 to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and still function
96 to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function
97 to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function
98 to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in US Code (10 US Code Sect 311(a))
99 to distinguish between and object and it's misuse
100 because you believe in freedom
101 If YOU say you need one. In America, an individuals need should not be determined by the state. There are approximately 70 million firearms owners in the country. That's 70 million more reasons for owning any firearm.

[Gordon Fink]

Their goal is total disarmament. They will not be appeased.

~G. Fink

[Ironbarr]

let's also work on the "illegal gun".

There are some bumper stickers around here with "Report Illegal Guns" that appear to be put out by LE Dep't folks (but probably more like do-gooders fantasizing about "Peace On Earth" - or something Edenic.

Pytron's The root of criminal violence (with or without guns) is criminals. To blame a tool because of it's misuse is ridiculous, illogical, and false. struck a chord. How can a gun be illegal? It may have experienced life with an imperfect owner or possessor doing illegal things, but the gun cannot help its use - or misuse.

If "assault" isn't really correct, then neither is "illegal". They both impose a negative connotation and send alarm messages to those "frighty" types and provide ammo for those "make-'em-more-frighty" types.

[obiwan1]

As far as I am concerned, I use the terms are "homeland defense" rifle and magazines are "standard capacity".

Who NEEDS a car that will move faster than 70mph?

Who NEEDS a car that will carry more than 2 people for their daily commute?

Who NEEDS anatomy augmentation? (your choice- female or male)

Who NEEDS the internet?

Who NEEDS an SUV for their daily chores?

Who NEEDS more than one beer at a sitting?

Who NEEDS a "collection" of anything?

I could go on, but you get my drift. Those folks that want to intrude into my likes/dislikes WILL get an argument directed at them.

Now I'll just sit back and chuckle at the replies that I know are coming
:D

[Gordon Fink]

If “assault” isn’t really correct, then neither is “illegal.” …

Notice my use of quotation marks when I write about “assault” weapons, “illegal” carry, and gun-control “laws.” :D

~G. Fink

[TheOtherOne]

They are not assault weapons. They are Homeland Defense Rifles and I own them to stop terrorists.

[Ironbarr]

"I feel your pain".... see my sig :)

[raz-0]

well, if you want to make a plea for needing high capacity magazines based on logic you can try the following.

Based on studies, on average, any cartridge takes two rounds to stop an assailant. Also, in a high pressure defense situation, hit rate is about 50% of what you acheive in practice. At best. Just look at the statistics for police shootings. So, practically speaking, you need 4 bullets for every one threat. a home invasion by 3 baddies already puts you in high-capacity evil killing machine of doom land.

From a mundane standpopint with no life-and-death scenarios, It lets me practice with less magazine reloading and with ahving to buy and carry around less amgazines in general. It's also useful for scoring better in limited and open in IPSC.

not that they'll care much about any of it as logic and reason don't enter into it.

[grampster]

To an Anti...if there is a protuberance that can be pulled, pressed, pushed, stroked, bumped, caressed or otherwise manipulated causing a sound like KAPOW, and the odor or burnt powder wafts through the air, then it is the unseemly, deadly, "Assault Weapon" and must be banned and the owner of same duly imprisoned for being a ravenous murderous lunatic....As a matter of fact if it is merely a picture or rough cardboard, paper, rock, candy, gum or licorice facimile of the above the same action should be taken to the owner.

:banghead:

[wingnutx]

for one thing, I have started referring to 'hi-cap' magazines as 'normal capacity'.

They aren't enhanced magazines, the new ones are deliberately handicapped.

[P95Carry]

They aren't enhanced magazines, the new ones are deliberately handicapped. True Wingnutx, in many cases.

As Gordon has stated .. use of full quotes is I think a definitely need with the ''assault'', ''illegal'' .... and now add also ''Hi-cap'' if that term needs used at all. Maybe, as long as Skunk not too upset (:neener: ) .. maybe I'll also add ''tactical'' too ... seeing as on the ''other side'' they sometimes seem to love that too!

Thx for the input guys.:)

[Moparmike]

I havent heard them called handicapped before, but I have heard them called castrated.

My homeland defense rifle is waiting on somebody's rack waiting for me to get some gumption and $$$ to go get it. But the car comes first at the moment, as well as the credit card.:(