Question for anti's on "characteristics"


PDA






wooly bugger
January 23, 2013, 04:39 PM
I've yet to hear an anti explain how banning any of the assault weapon defining "features" makes us safer.

Typical exchange:
Me: "So, how does removing a bayonet lug make a gun less lethal? By reducing the epidemic of bayonet charges?

Anti: "What's a bayonet lug?"

Has anyone heard a good response? Has anyone seen this issue raised by the mainstream media? Why aren't people asking it of public figures?

If you enjoyed reading about "Question for anti's on "characteristics"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Manco
January 23, 2013, 04:45 PM
Anti-gun politicians and the media all say that these features make a rifle an "assault rifle," which is a very bad thing because assaulting people is bad. For those who do not particularly have an interest in firearms, that's enough to make up their minds. The next step is to demonize those who are knowledgeable about firearms, so that the public won't listen to them.

I've yet to hear an anti explain how banning any of the assault weapon defining "features" makes us safer.

They don't need to--assault is bad, therefore "assault rifles" are bad, and banning them therefore makes everybody safer. The truth requires a modicum of additional thought and common sense, but that's asking an awful lot of the public.

Me: "So, how does removing a bayonet lug make a gun less lethal? By reducing the epidemic of bayonet charges?

But it could theoretically happen someday, right? And Biden keeps saying that Congress should pass gun control legislation if it would even save ONE life, so there you go. By extension, any series of laws restricting our rights could be passed just to save that one notional life, which ultimately means that our freedom is not worth even a single life. :scrutiny: But few people care because making them understand would require too much thought to purge what they've already been indoctrinated with, and it's up to the government to decide what's best for us, anyway, because that's their job. :rolleyes:

Skribs
January 23, 2013, 04:51 PM
Anti's are good at spinning words. To the layman...

Flash hider: sounds like a suppressor
Collapsible stock: makes it sound like something you can shorten greatly so it can be easily hidden (like a folding stock, for example).
Pistol grip: many people believe this reduces recoil, allowing you to kill more people quicker.

They're just buzz words that the layman sees as making it military-like.

wooly bugger
January 23, 2013, 04:53 PM
Of course I understand the truth. My question is, how do antis respond? Has anyone ever heard a response that makes a bit of sense?

svtruth
January 23, 2013, 05:10 PM
to create the "assault rifle" was to down load the rounds so the soldier could carry more rounds.
"Assault rifles" are not "high powered" they are depowered.

wooly bugger
January 23, 2013, 05:12 PM
Still no answers to the original question. Because there are none. This question should be asked (and answered) of EVERYONE who supports the AWB

G.barnes
January 23, 2013, 05:27 PM
The response i get is ok then they should all be banned cause they're all dangerous, but every liberal i personally know will tell me how i shouldn't have a gun and then they drink and drive when there is more alcohol related car deaths than gun murders

AlexanderA
January 23, 2013, 05:58 PM
The idea from the antis is to ban military-style weapons because "they belong on the battlefield, not on the streets of our cities." The list of "evil features" is just an attempt to define or quantify what makes a "military-style" weapon. They necessarily rely on cosmetic characteristics, because when it comes to basic operating systems, there is no difference between civilian and military.

This all misses the main point, because under the 2nd Amendment, military-style weapons are protected above all. The Amendment is not about hunting or recreational uses. It's about protecting the arms of the militia (which is all of us) so that we can defend ourselves and our community from aggression and tyranny.

Skribs
January 23, 2013, 06:06 PM
Well there is, Alexander. Semi-auto vs. select-fire. But that's already regulated/banned. So they need to do "military-style" to ban more.

I wonder, since my airsoft AR has these features (I have 3 of the 5), if it's next? Probably not. Because these cosmetic features aren't what make the rifle deadly.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 23, 2013, 06:29 PM
The idea from the antis is to ban military-style weapons because "they belong on the battlefield, not on the streets of our cities.

Ugh, this "streets of our cities" thing drives me nuts. And I know they're not your words, Alexander, but I've heard it so many times lately, even from Obama himself, that I just seem to react to them. Can be infuriating, because these weapons are not "on the streets." Everyone seems to know that the vast majority of crime is committed with handguns, but still they say stuff like this. The truth is the vast majority of the still-small amount of these types of weapons ACTUALLY ON THE STREETS are in the hands of law enforcement. I think I recall hearing during the debate on the NYS bill that there was something like 5 people killed by rifles last year.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 23, 2013, 10:36 PM
I've yet to hear an anti explain how banning any of the assault weapon defining "features" makes us safer.
The idea isn't that banning the features will make a difference. The idea is banning "military-style" weapons. The original AWB had a list of specifically banned weapons (Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; Beretta Ar70; Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12) and also banned copies thereof.

In an attempt to prevent similar weapons from slipping through, the following was included in the definition of an assault weapon: a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of [the following features]: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher.

The idea behind these features was not that the features themselves were dangerous, but the "military-style" weapons that were being targeted typically included a detachable magazine and at least two of the features. It's not that bayonet lugs are a dangerous feature, it's that they are typically found on "military-style" weapons along with the other features mentioned.

The features are red herrings to the true intent, which is banning "military-style" weapons.

The latest iteration of the assault weapons ban going around has been "smartened up" and features like bayonet lugs and flash hiders aren't being considered.

beatledog7
January 23, 2013, 11:56 PM
It's all about incrementalism. Anti-gun types appeal to the emotional weaknesses of the sheeple to gain support of a few little things, which they can parlay into a few more things, and so on and so on.

Turning sheeple against assault weapons, whether such a thing even exists or not, is just a wrung on the "disarm the people" ladder.

jamesbeat
January 24, 2013, 12:44 AM
It's simply a circular argument that makes no sense but confuses the general public enough to garner support for their cause.

Essentially, an 'assault weapon' is bad, because 'assault' is bad.
The features themselves are not dangerous, but are a means to determine whether a rifle is a sporting rifle or an 'assault weapon'.

They're reasonable people, I mean they're not coming after hunters, just unhinged extremist 'gun nuts' that want to kill children.

So how do you tell the difference between a hunter and an extremist?
Look at their rifle. If it has evil features, you've got yourself an extremist.
These people must be disarmed, for the kids!

This argument sounds reasonable to Joe and Joanne Public.
They don't want to stop hunters hunting, but they don't understand why someone would 'need' an 'assault weapon'. Must be to kill kids, right?

Here's the plan:

Use footage of machine guns and a scary-sounding but meaningless name for 'assault weapons' to make the public afraid and demonize gun owners.

Get 'assault weapons' banned. Not sporting rifles, just the 'assault weapons', the ones with evil features. Never mind that the two types of rifle are functionally identical, one is 'ok because it's for hunting' and the other is 'not ok because it's for slaughtering innocent people'.

When the 'assault weapons' are banned, simply point out that, actually, those 'hunting rifles' are functionally identical to illegal 'assault weapons', so we should ban them too!
No hunter 'needs' a rifle that is just a thinly-disguised 'assault weapon' (after all, the only differences are a few cosmetic features).
Hunters can hunt just fine with a bolt action, they don't need to 'spray bullets from the hip' to kill a deer.

Bolt action hunting rifles will then become 'high powered sniper rifles', and so on. You get the idea.

Simple :)


I'm from the UK, and I remember this whole thing happening there too.
Since hunting is not as popular in the UK as it is here, they didn't bother to make the distinction and simply banned ALL semiauto rifles.
They didn't even bother to give them a scary name or pretend that they were machine guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question for anti's on "characteristics"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!