Possible AR argument point


PDA






RustHunter87
January 28, 2013, 12:43 PM
I was thinking, if some how we could some how get the stat on how many deer were shot with an AR's last year and put that side by side with the # of people killed by AR's it might take some of the steam out of there "Only good for killing humans" argument.

If you enjoyed reading about "Possible AR argument point" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dbb1776
January 28, 2013, 12:54 PM
Put me down for a spike, doe, pig, and a coyote.

Yo Mama
January 28, 2013, 06:43 PM
Doesn't matter. The 2nd doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

If we try to justify it, you're just playing into their game to divide the masses.

A gun is a tool.

browneu
January 28, 2013, 07:45 PM
Doesn't matter. The 2nd doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

If we try to justify it, you're just playing into their game to divide the masses.

A gun is a tool.

Correct. Also some states like mine doesn't allow deer hunting with rifles.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Skylerbone
January 28, 2013, 10:26 PM
Yep. It's about limiting liberty incrementally until there is none. Witness Bloomberg and his no trans fats, no big sugary drinks, no smoking and no handguns prison yard. Not taking away rights and freedoms just "reasonably" withholding them.

jamesbeat
January 28, 2013, 10:33 PM
Doesn't matter. The 2nd doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

If we try to justify it, you're just playing into their game to divide the masses.

A gun is a tool.
What he said ^

The Second Amendment protects our rights to keep and bear arms precisely because they can be used to kill humans if the need ever arises.
Bad humans. The kind that like to hurt good humans.

Tirod
January 28, 2013, 11:39 PM
Actually, it does work. I hear it a lot, nobody needs a military weapon or a 30 round magazine. It's BS, but trying to sell "The 2A says I can have one to kill people" is feeding them a real good reason to ban them. That's exactly what they are worried about.

Actually, the AR is a better hunting rifle than the traditional ones. For one, the detachable mag means I can unload more easily, I don't jack rounds into the chamber with a cocked bolt. That's important in a atmosphere of reporting every negligent discharge a manual action has caused on the internet. The AR is a safer, easier gun to unload.

Second, the AR is more accurate, and easier to shoot more accurately. Because they are NOT a high powered magnum deer rifle, there is less recoil, and the shooter is more intent on a good shot. If there is an obstruction or the game moves, the needed second shot comes more quickly because the hand and finger stay on the trigger, the eyes on the sights. A second shot isn't delayed cycling the action and getting the sight picture back on running game. That improves the game being hit properly the first time, and not losing it.

The AR is a better, more accurate, and safer hunting rifle than the traditional 100 year old designs we previously used. Military rifles generally are improvements over the previous designs precisely because more research into human ergonomics and dynamic use is done on them. The companies spend the money because the government requires it as part of the contract, and selling an Army's worth of guns makes money. It's when they have to depend on civilian sales that progress is stifled.

Talking to them in their own language means telling them the AR is actually more humane, ethical, and safer - which it is. It's a lot more palatable than claiming the 2A gives people the right to have guns to kill people. They get that, it's why they want to amend the constitution and remove the 2A altogether.

jamesbeat
January 28, 2013, 11:48 PM
Understood, and I agree with you.
The problem is, if we do use the 'sporting use' defense, we'll be stuck with it.
Then, after a while, we'll see this argument:

'You think it's ok to let kids die just so you can enjoy your sport?!"

Being railroaded into the 'sporting use' argument is the beginning of the end for our rights.
Your argument is compelling, but the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

If you don't believe me, read about the history of gun control in the UK.

PedalBiker
January 29, 2013, 12:12 AM
Don't get in the hunting trap. People use flintlocks and bow and arrow to hunt too, and that's all we will get if we keep falling for the lies.

AR style rifles are the ADA equivalent of wheel chairs or ramps.


AR = light, inexpensive, easy to operate for those of small stature, and those who may be injured or disabled.

AR = medium power, low recoil, ergonomic.

AR = more likely to hit your target than a handgun and less chance for ricochet

AR magazines = easy to store "available" ammo AWAY from the gun.

One of the safest, most effective means of self defense for the average person should not be banned due to the actions of the certifiably insane.

vamo
January 29, 2013, 12:16 AM
If you want to use the hunting argument be prepared to lose your 30 round magazine.

Skylerbone
January 29, 2013, 01:56 AM
And when they limit the AR to a 3-round capacity there won't be a solid reason for anyone to use it. Dead industry, enjoy your bolt action. Lowering capacity to 10 won't stop murderers. That will be the next "proof positive" statistic that incrementally lowers the count to 5 or 4 or single-shot. When murderers continue to murder, statistics will show a shift to handguns (already more popular than ARs), then shotguns and finally all firearms will be deemed evil. Anti gun rights crowd believes it now but they're happy with a slow beat down.

RustHunter87
January 29, 2013, 11:55 AM
Well of course its not the beat all argument for sure many don't want us to hunt either, its more of a starting point for getting some one to actually listen

'You think it's ok to let kids die just so you can enjoy your sport?!"
well considering the fact that Maybe 30 kids were killed with ARs and thousands were used to put meat on the table and cull dangerous predators that eat baby cows and cute fuzzy bunny's

were gonna have to use some logic here guys the antis and fence sitters have all ready bought in to what has been thrown in there faces and many don't even know these guns are widely used for hunting.

I under stand the 2A argument and anyone who dose is on our side the others they will just keep ignoring it like they have FOR YEARS, you gotta give them some thing they understand like maybe a thousand pictures of kids grinning ear to ear because they shoot there first deer thanks to and AR

No its not gonna win every one over for sure but i think it would work good on the rural crowd, divide and conquer just like the opposition

nathan
January 29, 2013, 12:00 PM
Criminals now come in numbers well armed. They are mostly sociopaths and hardcore criminals who have no qualms killing just to get their way. If you are underpowered, then you will be at a disadvantage. THe AR with high cap mag is a big equalizer enabling one to defend and fight against these ugly heads showing up in your front door.

Skribs
January 29, 2013, 12:03 PM
We can attack the argument from both sides, it doesn't have to be either/or. We can say "well, on the one hand, the AR-15 is quickly becoming one of the most popular rifles for hunting, and is the most popular rifle in almost all target and action rifle competitions, so it DOES have a legitimate hunting AND sporting use. On the other hand, the Second Amendment is not about hunting and sports, it is about defense, and the AR-15 is about the best tool for that job as well."

flatlander937
January 29, 2013, 12:19 PM
I agree that it is a bad point to argue with... but on that same note, I'm curious as to how many are used in 3-gun matches vs shotguns in skeet/trap shooting... since that is the bandwagon that every politician jumps on when they "also support the 2nd Amendment." :rolleyes:

Gregg28
January 29, 2013, 12:49 PM
We should paint them pink and blue and yellow. Then they won't look so scary.

Skylerbone
January 29, 2013, 01:13 PM
I doubt pictures of the Branch Davidian compound ablaze with men, women and children being cooked alive by Janet Reno would have any impact on the anti-gun crowd, they just don't care for rational, meaningful or true discussion.

Do you recall what happened with the tax debate? Once Republicans "compromised" by accepting a call for increases on the wealthy, Democrats led by President Obama let everyone know that Republicans had finally acknowledged that tax increases were both necessary and the correct action for the economy.

Offer anything and they will twist for everything. Their compromise will be to lock them up at a "sporting club" where you can go to shoot it under supervision, with a welded in place follower...hey it's just for sporting purposes, right? My compromise? Send the anti-gun folks to Canada.

David White
January 29, 2013, 01:22 PM
Rifles, pistols, revolvers; primary function through most of history:

Weapons of war. Used by men to kill or severely maim others during conflicts or open war.

Small arms; pistols / revolvers;
Developed over time through consistent improvement of cartridge/ gun design.

Primary usage: personal protection, self defense, alternate armament after and for close quarters combat / when primary (rifle) is empty.

Rifles, Long guns; first fully portable method of defense/offense, developed around the use of "gun powder".

Devised as a weapon of war, and as an alternative to the crossbow and sword.
Usable from a distance to up close.
Delivered small (.50-.70 cal.) rounds at high velocity. Shot could penetrate most armor of the early 4th Dynasty.

Rifles / Pistols:
Through history, these Weapons have been used and improved upon for a singular function of which they do well.
To inflict damage and or to kill your adversary.

Secondary functions include hunting and self defense, target shooting, gun competitions, etc.

I know we are in a fight for our rights to self defense.
I know that "killing" is a frowned upon description when speaking of our right to own and use our rifle/handgun.

The problem is, our weapons are designed, first and foremost, to kill other humans who intend on killing us. They originated as weapons of war and remain as such to this day.

I make no excuse for that fact. My firearms are held primarily for that express reason.
I do not hunt.
I am not military or law enforcement.

My weapons (and they ARE weapons) are used, by me for the defense of my home, family and self.. Period.

My weapons are not for "plinking", gun matches, hunting, although they can be used as such.
They are deadly, dangerous and capable of inflicting severe injury and or death.

Firearms are designed to kill, and or severely injure.
They are a tremendous responsibility to possess.
Please, call them what they are.

Deadly.

Skylerbone
January 29, 2013, 01:31 PM
What? No sugar coating? No dividing hunters, sharpshooters and SD guys?

RustHunter87
January 29, 2013, 01:45 PM
wow, Im not talking a bout a compromise Im not talking about a compromise, I was thinking more like some actual evidence that like 99 percent of the ARs in the states are NOT USED TO MURDER people

Skribs
January 29, 2013, 01:48 PM
How about the simple number of people killed with rifles each year? They account for less murders than most non-firearm tools (i.e. knives, blunt objects). Compare that with the number of rifles owned.

Flatlander, I don't know much about 3-gun so I may be wrong, but if you factor in 3-gun and skeet, shotguns will be more prevalent, because I thought 3-gun was shotgun, pistol, rifle...and skeet is shotgun. However, I'm pretty sure that barring leagues that ban semi-autos and the extremely long range shots, most target shooting is done with ARs, and they are very popular rifles for the action rifle sports (as opposed to a lever-action or bolt-action).

jwh336
January 29, 2013, 02:51 PM
I got into it with a guy the other day. You the "why do you need blah, blah..." My response was, why do you need a 700hp Mustang? That ended the conversation.

Skylerbone
January 29, 2013, 03:07 PM
So tell them that for every 30 million ARs sold, one is used, as a tool by a murderer, to kill someone. Bet it doesn't sway them. Haven't you been listening? If "we" can prevent just 1 "incident" like this we owe it to the children! (to strip this and future generations of rights, freedoms, choice for "Public Safety")

Tell them our President (Mr. buck stops with someone else) funneled fully automatic rifles to Mexico with no means or intention of tracking them for the express purpose of damaging the reputation of all firearm owners and to drum up support for legislative bans. That makes him the most prolific mass murderer in the US for the last 4 years. Bet it doesn't sway them.

Tell them about Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all the rest. Show them tanks in Tiananmen Square rolling over unarmed citizens. Bet they don't care.

See a pattern yet? Anyone on the fence has no conviction to begin with.

powder
January 29, 2013, 03:13 PM
Better off using a comparative parallel:

In the US we mainly use machetes for clearing brush, landscaping, etc..

In Africa the machete is used for genocide.

Blue .45
January 29, 2013, 04:47 PM
How about the simple number of people killed with rifles each year? They account for less murders than most non-firearm tools (i.e. knives, blunt objects). Compare that with the number of rifles owned.

Exactly, not just rifles that are military in appearance, but all long guns.

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns


Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

jamesbeat
January 29, 2013, 05:05 PM
We should paint them pink and blue and yellow. Then they won't look so scary.
Ironically, that would make them into illegal 'deceptively colored firearms' in NY...

David White
January 29, 2013, 05:57 PM
This is the link for violent crime in 2012

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

This is from that site as well...


In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.
There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Nearly 44 percent (43.6) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, 20.6 percent were reported in the Midwest, and 14.8 percent were reported in the Northeast. (See Table 3.)

I am still looking to find the breakdown by weapon.

This is an interesting graphic....
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/30/ynygejev.jpg
As is this...
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/30/zazedehy.jpg

k_dawg
January 29, 2013, 10:17 PM
How ignorant does one have to be, to outright refuse to address outright lies and deceptions?

And you think THIS is the best method to ensure our rights?

bushmaster1313
January 29, 2013, 10:52 PM
The 2nd doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

Hunting could be banned under the Constitution.

Deaf Smith
January 29, 2013, 10:54 PM
Dunno about the AR but years ago I took a small buck deer with my Mini-14, also in .223/5.56. 100 yard shot. Used just one shot.

Deaf

jamesbeat
January 29, 2013, 11:17 PM
No its not gonna win every one over for sure but i think it would work good on the rural crowd, divide and conquer just like the opposition

But that's the problem, pushing 'sporting use' or 'hunting' is exactly what the antis do in order to divide and conquer!

Hunting is great, and lots of Americans do it, but it's a hobby not a life or death situation (well, people gotta eat, but still).
2A and self defense are the only arguments that will win this for us.

Gun owners in the UK lost their right to own almost all types of firearm precisely because of the 'sporting use' argument.

Here is how it works, and believe me I know because I was there when semiauto rifles were confiscated:

1. Pass a law requiring firearm registration
2. Pass a law requiring a 'good reason' to own a firearm
3. Decide that self defense is not a 'good reason', only 'sporting use' is accepted
4. Sit back, relax, and wait for a tragedy to happen
5. Create public outcry over people owning dangerous weapons for 'sport' when kids are being killed with them. This also demonizes gun owners as heartless people who would rather let people die than give up their sport.
6. Confiscate firearms by threatening gun owners into compliance by making them criminals if they don't turn in their guns.
7. Using your list of registered firearms, find those who do not comply, kick their door in and arrest them.

Gun confiscation by numbers. Note that number 3 is the 'sporting use' argument.
'Sporting use' gets rid of the main valid use for a firearm, and relegates it to a piece of sporting equipment like a set of golf clubs, a baseball bat, or a pair of swimming goggles.
The important difference is that you can't use a pair of swimming goggles to shoot up a school.

The antis will explain that hunting is not important when it means that people will continue to shoot up schools, therefore banning hunting rifles is a small price to pay.

QED

Skylerbone
January 30, 2013, 12:06 AM
They'll simply call hunting a blood sport and demonize it like...football. Brutish and dangerous.

If you enjoyed reading about "Possible AR argument point" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!