a letter from my site visitor - and my humble reply

Status
Not open for further replies.

max popenker

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,111
Location
Russia
Got this email in mailbox today:

Dear Modern Firearms Assault Rifles:

I'm curious - what logical reason can you give for why you sell/produce guns that can shoot "600, 750 rounds per minute?"

I don't get it. Isn't it obvious to you that such guns have no purpose in our society other than to slaughter innocent people by nuts who think they can become "famous" by killing at random, in schools, malls, churches and other public places where automatic rifles have no place.

I cannot think of a single reason for such a weapon, other than for military purposes - or if you are being stampeded by a pack of lions or some other danger/life-threatening animal.

Is it about money? If so, how sad is that!?!- money cannot bring back the lives of the people killed by these weapons.

Please reconsider what you are doing and think about the lives you can save by ceasing to produce such deadly - and nonsensical weapons.


My reply was as follows:
Dear Mrs. *****,
first off, you should read the disclaimer on my main page, which tells that "I do not sell weapons, and the site is for informational and educational purposes".
Second, the rate of fire information is useful for many people - be that students in military history, military and police personnel (who uses my website for identification of firearms), as well as for ordinary people interested in the subject.

As for purposes of weapon, there are much more than of "military" or "police" purposes.
To name few most important, those are:
* hunting. In many parts of the world guns still bring necessary food for people who cannot afford buying food. It is also good sport, which brings fresh meat and helps to control population of wild animals which otherwise would harm humans ( i.e. hunting small vermin which eat corn and other grains)
* target shooting, which is great and SAFE sport (it is actually more safe than baseball, football or car racing!)
* self-defence. This is an important issue, as violent crime is increasing and the only means of protection for a "weak" people who are untrained in martial arms or are in bad health are the guns. You simply cannot stand against a knife-welding rapist or robber if you do not have a superior weapon - a GUN, which you can use. The one's life and life of its close relatives are key priorities of any human, and if i would have to decide which life is more important, mine (or my family member's) or some drug-filled thug, i would chose mine over his every time.

As for "gun causing crime", you should look into examples of modern Japan, which has almost NO firearms ownership, yet a very high suicide rate, or into Great Britain, where civilians are disarmed by laws but criminals still kill, rob, rape and shoot as they are criminals and thus do not care about any gun-banning legislations.
In my opinion, recent string of public shootings has more to do with American mass culture, such as movies (like Natural Born Killers) and computer games, rather than guns, as well as with bad mental health and troubles with diagnosing psychotic types.


--
Yours, Maxim Popenker


Hope i didn't screwed it too much ;)
 
Well, let's see... we're trying to get rid of all that dangerous ammunition as quickly as possible. See, we're on *your* side... :evil:
 
Dontcha wanna just shake 'em sometimes?

I can't take credit for coming up with it, but I've often used my favorite reply to antis and gotten the trademark, "I'm shutting off all logic and reverting back to my rote mantra, thus avoiding the need to admit to you and worse, MYSELF, that I'm not being rational."-type response.

The aforementioned reply is thus:

"What say I give you a demonstration of the 4 Rules of Gun Safety, then hand you an unloaded handgun with the action open.
Then how 'bout you load it yourself then lay it on this table, pointed in a safe direction? Then let's watch it until it kills somebody."

Then they MUST answer, if only to themselves, that it takes a human to touch it off.

This conclusion, that they caught themselves reaching on their own, has always been when their "mantra" response occurs.
 
No mention of the primary reason the Second Amendment exists, and the primary reason why military pattern rifles are needed. To protect against tyranny. I dont think we need to hide from this fact, even though it shocks a lot of people. We just need to do a better job of re-educating them.
 
How can you criticize someone for blaming guns for crime, and then yourself blame movies and computer games?
 
I am proud of you for taking the time to reply to this nonsense with an educated response. My hat is off to you.
 
I don't get it. Isn't it obvious to you that such guns have no purpose in our society other than to slaughter innocent people by nuts who think they can become "famous" by killing at random, in schools, malls, churches and other public places where automatic rifles have no place.

That one definitely doesn't get it, anyway. Too much gin on the corn flakes, maybe.
 
Max...Ya might wanna go write back and explain that civilian-legal AW clones don't fire at a rate of 600-750 RPMs. It may be helpful to also explain that
real "Assault Rifles" such as the M16 and AK47 offer a full-auto option that the civilian versions don't. Those points may help in your argument that they're often used for "Legitimate Sporting Purpose"...whatever that means.

Just my 2% of a buck.
 
How can you criticize someone for blaming guns for crime, and then yourself blame movies and computer games?

This is a fair question, and I'd like to hear your rationale for placing blame on inanimate objects, Max.
 
tmpick and PobreBrusco, please note that I'm blaming not the "inanimate objects" per se, but the "American mass culture" in whole (that is - a social attitude towards some types of events), which, as typefied by movies and games, depicts violence as cool and even sociably acceptable way to solve various personal problems, and also makes violent events the center of news-media (which attracts all types of megalo-maniacs and Herostratus types)

I can be hardly described as anti-American, but American mass culture (we Euro-types sometimes call it "popcorn culture" or "hamburger culture") has its own dangerous trends. I'm not praising "refined" Euro-cult as opposed to McD-cult, but what the heck, do you think that all those mall-shooting nutjobs found this whole idea appealing by themselves?
 
All-in-all, not bad, Max. I'm actually in partial agreement with the part of your arguement where you mention modern shoot-em-up movies. I think it could use a little explanation, though. You've over-simplified things a little.

Nobody ever talks about the fact that just as art imitates life, life imitates art. How many nutjobs are there in the world with a tenuous (at best) hold on reality? Of those, how many need just the smallest nudge to send them off the edge, into a fantasy world like what they see in the movies? How many "copycat" killings have occurred because some whacko sees the "fame" garnered by mass shootings like Columbine and VT?

The problem is not the media, though, or the message. The problem is not movies that glorify violence, or video games, or Rock and Roll, or any other modern method of entertainment. The problem is that our society has no means of identifying and treating these potential psychopaths before they act.

As long as we have freedom, there will be those who use that freedom to do bad things. There are a finite amount of ways to deal with those people. We could ignore them in the hopes that they'll go away. We could try to take away any material items they might use to do wrong. We could give the police far-reaching authority to conduct warrantless searches, and surveillance, with the goal of catching these people before they act. Or we could do something else.

None of these ideas will work 100%. How often does a problem you ignore just "go away"? How can you rid the world if every single tool a man migh tuse as a weapon? How many of your freedoms are you willing to give away in the hope of a little security?

Evidence from past violent episodes shows that the best response to a violent mass-murderer is an armed populace, willing to defend it's members from his actions. Anything less is simply not effective. Therefore, that armed populace deserves the right to arm itself with the safest, and most effective weapons that will be suitable for the task of self-defense. Among the most effective weapons available are those the popular press calls "assault weapons".
 
Max said:
tmpick and PobreBrusco, please note that I'm blaming not the "inanimate objects" per se, but the "American mass culture" in whole (that is - a social attitude towards some types of events), which, as typefied by movies and games, depicts violence as cool and even sociably acceptable way to solve various personal problems, and also makes violent events the center of news-media (which attracts all types of megalo-maniacs and Herostratus types)

I can be hardly described as anti-American, but American mass culture (we Euro-types sometimes call it "popcorn culture" or "hamburger culture") has its own dangerous trends. I'm not praising "refined" Euro-cult as opposed to McD-cult, but what the heck, do you think that all those mall-shooting nutjobs found this whole idea appealing by themselves?

Most sane human beings would be able to tell the difference between a movie and real life. The people that cannot are people that would end up being a criminal or mental patient anyway. Trying to lay blame on entertainment for changing a mindset is imo pretty uncalled for. If you want to lay blame on anyone, it should be the parents of the individual that's doing this crap.
 
I'd have pointed out that 500 rounds per minute is theoretical, since no 500 round magazines exist. Heck, a revolver in the hands of Jerry Mikulek (sp?) has a rate of fire of about 145 rounds per minute... but only untill its time for him to load another 6 bullets. Is that an "assault revolver?"

In my opinion, recent string of public shootings has more to do with American mass culture, such as movies (like Natural Born Killers) and computer games, rather than guns, as well as with bad mental health and troubles with diagnosing psychotic types.
Maybe this has something to do with sending a mentally unstable person off the edge... but its only half the story, in my opinion. The collapse of the traditional two-parent family is a bigger issue. Many of today's kids are left with no parents, as their single guardian works harder and harder to finance all the material "stuff" that she thinks her kids need. The end result is often a sociopath, 18 years in the making, who has never experienced any form of emotional support.

Imagine if you took a dog and locked it in the basement for over a decade. Every now and then you bring home some pet toys for the dog, just to show it you care, but you never spend any time with it. Do you think your dog will develop behavioral issues? That's how kids are growing up these days.
 
I'm curious - what logical reason can you give for why you sell/produce guns that can shoot "600, 750 rounds per minute?"
When people hear or read a "per minute" rate of fire, they think that you can shoot 600 or 750 rounds within 60 seconds. Unless you have a minigun with a 2500 round belt, you are not going to be able to shoot that many rounds ina 60 seconds. Just because I can drive my car at 100 mph doesn't mean that I covered 100 miles in the last 60 minutes.

such guns have no purpose in our society other than to slaughter innocent people
The guilty will fall just as quickly. The rifle doesn'y choose its targets. Whether the targets are victims or perpetrators is up to the shooter.

I cannot think of a single reason for such a weapon, other than for military purposes - or if you are being stampeded by a pack of lions or some other danger/life-threatening animal.
Isn't the gun-wielding "nut" you spoke of just such a "life-threatening animal"? You've answered your own question.
 
Most sane human beings would be able to tell the difference between a movie and real life.

Oh?

Here's a list of things I learned about guns from movies and TV:

1) Guns always click as you point them at people.

2) The average cartridge capacity of a gun is as many rounds as it takes to get to a dramatic point to run out of ammo.

3) Guns make noise, but not enough to cause any kind of hearing problems.

4) A shot to the shoulder, arm or leg stings a little, but you can go on fighting.

5) Gut shots take exactly one week of recovery time before you can return to your normal routine.

I think if every time someone got shot on TV and in movies it went down like the medic in Saving Private Ryan, things would be different.
 
How can you criticize someone for blaming guns for crime, and then yourself blame movies and computer games?

I agree completely. Your response was pretty good but you really veered off on that part. I think blaming violence on movies and games is even crazier than the antis trying to blame violence on guns. Very dangerous statement there.

Dope
 
Dope - i repeat myself, i "blame movies and games" only as a part of mass culture which treats violence as a common and even "cool" way to solve things rather than ultimate solution 'when all else fails'. Of cause, this is only part of the bigger picture, but it is most obvious one.
Yes, parents also to be blamed for failure to raise kids properly, but both parents and kids are products of the society, especially in this age of mass misinformation.
 
Hmmm I guess I understand what you're saying. I think it was just the wording that stood out to me and made it look worse than it was.

Dope
 
Good reply, Max.

You might also want to consider explaining that good, honest information is vital to a free society. That kind of information is neutral: it's neither good nor bad, and it's not responsible for what anyone does with it.

In this instance the information you provide helped your complainant make his own political and social points. Perhaps in other instances it might lead him or other people to different conclusions.

You're not directing anyone's conclusions by providing objective facts and information. They don't hurt or kill anyone. Their absence, though, does hurt people and can lead to many deaths caused by demagogues who prey on the ignorant and ill informed.

Without solid facts and information all anyone can do is speak from a position of ignorance. If ignorance is better than knowlege, there's no need for schools or a free press.

It's important to know that the Earth is not flat even if that knowledge might frighten some of us, and that disease can be sexually transmitted even though the very thought is unpleasant. There's also no high to be obtained from reading the labels on cans of spray paint.
 
I think you did what you could to send a rational response to an individual who didn't even bother to understand your site (insofar as she didnt even realize you dont sell firearms), but what quick to question your motives for said site.
 
You responded wisely, Max.

I agree with your analysis of poor mental health care and profits made on films and games that shamelessly peddle death and destruction. It tends to desensitize us, and then we are shocked when a mentally ill person tries to emulate a fictional character who had solved problems by violence. Of course this is an over simplification, but the truth hurts.

It is much easier for frustrated people to focus on the armament than it is to honestly address the mental health needs of many of our citizens. I hope that will improve, but I don't know what it will take to make more people realize that if one of us is hurting, we must not ignore the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top