Something good from Quora that may be useful

[hso]

I get questions from Quora. The questions are from the ignorant, the curious, and trolls. The first two warrant a thoughtful response.

This response from one of the other respondents is pretty good to what on the face of it looked like a reasonable question.

It's a great start, but I'm sure we can improve upon it.

What is the central issue in the gun control debate?
If we’re being honest?

Sheer and unadulterated ignorance.

Let’s go over how guns like the AR-15 are described and I’ll make corrections as we go along. I promise I’m less condescending with people who want to learn the basics of firearms before they advocate policy.

• High powered

This is probably both the most common and most ignorant phrase among gun control activists. They may even “prove” that the .223 caliber is high powered by having doctors or surgeons who’ve only ever dealt with wounds caused by handguns speak on the subject.

However, compared to the majority of other rifle calibers, it’s very much on the lower end. This is a handy chart comparing .223 next some popular hunting calibers. If you’re a gun control advocate who “grew up around guns” your daddy’s bolt action was likely chambered in either .270 or 30–06.


As you can see, there’s a bit of a………..difference in size. And certainly a difference in power. As a matter of fact, many states legally require you to use a larger caliber for hunting deer. Several others place it as the bare minimum legally allowed caliber.

• Rapid fire

No more so than any other semi automatic rifle. Again, touching on people who grew up with guns, if your father or grandfather owned a .22 rifle for plinking or hunting squirrels, it very well might have looked something like this.


A Ruger 10/22, a semi automatic .22 rifle and probably the most common .22 in the nation.

One shot per trigger pull. That’s it.

Although certainly less powerful, it won’t shoot noticeably faster or slower than an AR-15. Or at least the majority of people aren’t going to be able to pull the trigger fast enough to notice.

• Customizations

The amount of things I’ve heard regarding the possible modifications of the AR platform have left me a bit concerned. There has been a lot of talk about how the different accessories affect the function of a firearm.

Foregrips?


Useful for fully automatic fire, but really just down to personal preference for an AR-15. Before anyone brings up “followup shots”, keep in mind that most 3-gun competitors don’t use them.

Adjustable stocks?


Honestly I’ve never gotten a decent answer on why those are bad. All it does is change length to be more comfortable for the shooter. At it’s shortest length, it still has to meet the minimum required overall length for a rifle.

Bayonets?


Now we’re just getting silly. Bayonets have been completely obsolete likely before anyone reading this was even born. And as far as I know, I don’t believe any mass shooter has ever had, much less used, a bayonet.

The point of this answer is to say that the debate around guns would be a lot more meaningful if gun control advocates would at least take the time to learn the basics on guns before they advocate for laws regarding them.

To give you an idea of what it’s like for gun owners, imagine your grandparent trying to tell you what kinds of computers should be banned to stop hackers.
​

 

[mjsdwash]

when you have a "legitimate" news agency like MSNBC saying that chainsaws are a common, normal attachment, and that man-child claiming just shooting an AR can give you PTSD., your going to have that.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The central issue of the gun control debate is if a populace, equipped with semi-automatic small arms comparable to those of the military, is sufficient deterrent against an overt power grab by "elected" officials or the established professional military to suspend or discard the Constitution for the purposes of forming a new power structure, in violation of the previous social contract, without the consent of the governed.

Recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding for the purposes of this debate, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is not even really about defense of self, property, or family- these concepts were assumed as natural rights by the Founders which did not need codifiying, woe to us as they could not forsee the gentrification and urbanization of our society.

The 2nd Amendment is a tenant of mutual assured destruction, similiar in concept, if not scope, to nuclear weapons. No one is saying that the unincorporated militia of the people, armed with AR15s, but lacking heavy weapons, artillery, air support, or any of the other myriad necessities of modern warfare, could hope to defeat the professional military in a standup fight. The THREAT, however, of apocalyptic civil war is the key.

The 2nd Amendment is a deterrent. This deterrent only has value, however, if the powerful believe that the people have the ability AND the will to to resist them with force sufficient to leave any victory Phyrric at best. Unfortunately, the rise of the techno-surveillance state, coupled with moral and societal decay, are steadily eroding this deterrent value.

What good is a dispersed and unorganized resistance when they cannot communicate or ralley? Indeed, the entire body of such a group carries around tracking and listening devices on their person daily in the form of cell phones. The ruling class and their intelligence organs already have lists compiled of those most likely to resist them and where they may be found and neautralized. AI algorithms working for the state will only cement their control of the masses.

Meanwhile, the education system works in overdrive to indoctrinate the next generation, remove their appreciation for self-determination and national identity and values, while preaching the religion of collectivism, dependence, and obedience to the benevolent State. Thus is the will of the people eroded and subsumed by Big Brother.

Gun control is about people control. It is about power- the means to wield it and the will to resist it. The Founders understood this truth and crafted the 2nd Amendment as a tool for the governed and a warning to the govenors. Unfortunately, modern technology and the creeping dependence of a listless populace upon their rulers have largely blunted the effectiveness of this deterrent. The powerful have heard the warning, and found it hollow.....

 

[redcon1]

What is the central issue in the gun control debate?
If we’re being honest?

Sheer and unadulterated ignorance.
​

I think I have to disagree with that. Mark Twain is credited with saying "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please". I think, for the most part, "they" have the facts now and they are distorting them as much as they can in order to obfuscate the issue. I no longer assume this enemy is ignorant of the facts. I assume he knows exactly what he's talking about and he is simply trying to confuse people with his rhetoric.​

 

[reddog81]

The point of this answer is to say that the debate around guns would be a lot more meaningful if gun control advocates would at least take the time to learn the basics on guns before they advocate for laws regarding them.

To give you an idea of what it’s like for gun owners, imagine your grandparent trying to tell you what kinds of computers should be banned to stop hackers.
​

Part of the problem is that many of the gun grabbers don't really care about the details. In their mind fewer or even no firearms is the goal. Any means necessary to reach this goal is what they want to focus on. The push to regulate "assault weapons" and all deadly features, like a bayonet lug ,is just their attempt to grab at the lowest hanging fruit. It makes sense to focus on what would seem to be the easiest item to regulate. If they do a poll asking if the populace is in favor of banning high powered assault rifles they will get better results versus asking if semi-auto firearms should be banned. Scary guns with all kinds of features are the first step. Once those are banned they can move onto the next item.

Eventually the argument will be - Who really needs adjustable sights, ejector rods, and push button cylinder releases on their revolver? All those features just make it easier to shoot more people quickly. The founding fathers didn't need any of those deadly features on their guns, why do you?

 

[starnbar]

The central issue of the gun control debate is if a populace, equipped with semi-automatic small arms comparable to those of the military, is sufficient deterrent against an overt power grab by "elected" officials or the established professional military to suspend or discard the Constitution for the purposes of forming a new power structure, in violation of the previous social contract, without the consent of the governed.

Recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding for the purposes of this debate, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is not even really about defense of self, property, or family- these concepts were assumed as natural rights by the Founders which did not need codifiying, woe to us as they could not forsee the gentrification and urbanization of our society.

The 2nd Amendment is a tenant of mutual assured destruction, similiar in concept, if not scope, to nuclear weapons. No one is saying that the unincorporated militia of the people, armed with AR15s, but lacking heavy weapons, artillery, air support, or any of the other myriad necessities of modern warfare, could hope to defeat the professional military in a standup fight. The THREAT, however, of apocalyptic civil war is the key.

The 2nd Amendment is a deterrent. This deterrent only has value, however, if the powerful believe that the people have the ability AND the will to to resist them with force sufficient to leave any victory Phyrric at best. Unfortunately, the rise of the techno-surveillance state, coupled with moral and societal decay, are steadily eroding this deterrent value.

What good is a dispersed and unorganized resistance when they cannot communicate or ralley? Indeed, the entire body of such a group carries around tracking and listening devices on their person daily in the form of cell phones. The ruling class and their intelligence organs already have lists compiled of those most likely to resist them and where they may be found and neautralized. AI algorithms working for the state will only cement their control of the masses.

Meanwhile, the education system works in overdrive to indoctrinate the next generation, remove their appreciation for self-determination and national identity and values, while preaching the religion of collectivism, dependence, and obedience to the benevolent State. Thus is the will of the people eroded and subsumed by Big Brother.

Gun control is about people control. It is about power- the means to wield it and the will to resist it. The Founders understood this truth and crafted the 2nd Amendment as a tool for the governed and a warning to the govenors. Unfortunately, modern technology and the creeping dependence of a listless populace upon their rulers have largely blunted the effectiveness of this deterrent. The powerful have heard the warning, and found it hollow.....

 

[starnbar]

Not to cloud the issue but a agrarian based S.E. Asian country gave some of my best friends and relatives a real run for the money back in the 60s

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Not to cloud the issue but a agrarian based S.E. Asian country gave some of my best friends and relatives a real run for the money back in the 60s

Fair enough, but time marches on. The advent of the digital surveillance state, omnipresent cell phones, intelligence satellites, thermal and IR vision devices, and drones may make the concept of a conventional insurgency obsolete.

I would argue as well that, ultimately, the most effective weapons the VC actually possessed werent AKs and RPGs, but rather propaganda, intimidation, and assassination.

 

[hso]

may make the concept of a conventional insurgency obsolete.

Tell that to the Iraqis and Afghans.