Arguments against an "Assault Weapon" ban

[DanMar757]

So, as a Virginia resident, I was researching data to use in my arguments against an assault weapon (or magazine capacity) ban that have already been pre-filed in the Virginia state legislature when I came across some interesting and disproportionate numbers concerning the use of rifles in murders, private citizen justifiable homicides and law enforcement officer justifiable homicides. I have long felt that the left's insistence that no one should own an "assault weapon" or "weapon of war" was absurd, and highlighting that feeling was the frequent visual on the evening news of law enforcement officers showing up en masse for the latest criminal stand-off, each toting an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine inserted and several more on their tactical vest. I firmly believe that law enforcement officers understand the utility of these types of weapons and consider them indispensable tools in dangerous situations. As part of my research, I was perusing the FBI UCR for 2018 to determine the number of murders by rifle as compared to the total number of murders in Virginia (8 of 391 or 2%) and nationwide (297 of 14,123 or 2.1%) when I came across the nationwide data for justifiable homicide by private citizen using a rifle (3 of 353 or 0.8%) and justifiable homicide by law enforcement officer using a rifle (54 of 410 or 13%).

To me, this data supports that AR-15 like weapons (as a smaller sub-set of rifles) are rarely used in murders, but are heavily relied upon by law enforcement officers as an effective weapon to carry into a dangerous situation, thus supporting the argument that banning these types of weapons will do little to affect crime but will unfairly restrict law abiding citizens from choosing an effective self defense weapon.

I am interested in your opinions (especially any current or former LEO's) on how I can best use this information in upcoming arguments with local and state government officials against an Assault Weapon ban.

Mods, feel free to move this to another area if appropriate.

 

[BCR#1]

They only want control, facts be damned.

Bill

 

[Robert]

Gun control is not about guns.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

The only thing you ever need to say when debating gun laws is that they are only followed by the law abiding. Criminals will continue to get firearms.

This is a very simple fact that many just cant seem to grasp.

 

[fireside44]

To me, this data supports that AR-15 like weapons (as a smaller sub-set of rifles) are rarely used in murders, but are heavily relied upon by law enforcement officers as an effective weapon to carry into a dangerous situation, thus supporting the argument that banning these types of weapons will do little to affect crime but will unfairly restrict law abiding citizens from choosing an effective self defense weapon.

"Because cops rely on them" is a bad angle. Take away the guns ala England and you can get away with fewer armed officers because the chances of gunplay are reduced.

 

[Aim1]

 

[lionking]

Sorry to say but if you plan on presenting a liberal progressive Democrat especially a Bloomberg funded one with facts and reason you are wasting your time. Not all Democrats are for gun control, but the party has been taken over by the liberal progressives and they made it clear if you aren't a Democrat that supports gun control then there is no room for you in place of position for you within the party.

The only people you may reach with facts and reason are the voters that are on the fence, and that ship has sailed in Virginia since your state just gave Democrats full control.

Understand this, their idea of discussion is they talk and you listen and stay quiet , their idea of compromise is they take and you give and thank them for not taking all the guns that they allowed you to keep one or two shotguns or hunting rifles

 

[Dibbs]

On January 20th, at 8:00AM, at the Pocahontas Bldg, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, there will be a VCDL rally of concerned Va. residents and gun owners. Please attend, if you are available. We have been reminded this is a peaceful gathering of law abiding citizens. Please follow all regulations regarding
firearms and concealed carry, and organizers have specifically requested that people do not bring any rifles. All who can make the trip are encouraged to attend.

Reference 1/20/20-VCDL

Once somebody asks you the " Assault Weapon" question, in this manner, they clearly don't know what they are talking about, and aren't even listening for an answer. Focus on things where you can make a difference, like taking a noob to the range, or this upcoming VCDL rally.

REMEMBER, like Bluto said "You can make it be the best of time of our lives, or you can let it be the worst."
I'll be there, before 8, because I'll be damned if the Germans are going to bomb Pearl Harbor again, on MY watch.

 

[reddog81]

"Because cops rely on them" is a bad angle.

I disagree. Cops are more likely to be involved in a shooting but vast majority of times cops are responding to calls from citizens. Regular citizens are the people on the front line when talking about home invasions, robberies, etc. If cops need these types of firearms, the people who are calling the cops and waiting for them to respond also need these types of firearms.

 

[fireside44]

Not all Democrats are for gun control, but the party has been taken over by the liberal progressives and they made it clear if you aren't a Democrat that supports gun control then there is no room for you in place of position for you within the party.

It's true. 8, heck even four or five years ago Democrats wanted common sense gun control. There was at least a veneer of reason and compromise. The party leaders have finally removed their Halloween masks and now openly are calling for what they wanted all along. What you posted here is worth reading twice:

Understand this, their idea of discussion is they talk and you listen and stay quiet , their idea of compromise is they take and you give and thank them for not taking all the guns that they allowed you to keep one or two shotguns or hunting rifles

 

[DanMar757]

The people that I really want to reach are the Democrats holding a very slim margin in their district. I know we face an uphill fight in Virginia, but the fact that well over 100 localities (cities and counties) have adopted 2nd amendment sanctuary or constitutional city/county resolutions will hopefully impress upon those Democrats that their political future is in the balance. The so called "Blue Wave" that gave the left control of both houses in Virginia was determined by only 5000 votes statewide. Many districts' margins were very tight - just a handful of votes - and to see many of these localities city council or county board of supervisor meetings attended by 2, 3 or 4 thousand angry supporters of the 2nd amendment will hopefully encourage them to vote our way on pending legislation.

 

[fireside44]

I disagree. Cops are more likely to be involved in a shooting but vast majority of times cops are responding to calls from citizens. Regular citizens are the people on the front line when talking about home invasions, robberies, etc. If cops need these types of firearms, the people who are calling the cops and waiting for them to respond also need these types of firearms.

Ok great. Cops are trained and can be trusted with deadly assault weapons because they go through a vetting process. But you don't need them because you don't face those daily challenges. A revolver and a shotgun is plenty of firepower for someone not mil/leo. Most gun related crime is pistols not assault weapons, so again, per the cop argument, you/we/us don't need deadly assault weapons. Sorry, just playing anti Gun man-bun soy latte guy here. I actually support the leo argument but it's no good against an anti Gunner. It's the wrong angle to take imo.

 

[lionking]

I disagree. Cops are more likely to be involved in a shooting but vast majority of times cops are responding to calls from citizens. Regular citizens are the people on the front line when talking about home invasions, robberies, etc. If cops need these types of firearms, the people who are calling the cops and waiting for them to respond also need these types of firearms.

You will never get a pro gun control person to believe that, and you will have a hard time making people that aren't anti gun but not really schooled on them believe that either. Joe and Jane average American who supports the 2nd and right to own a gun in general terms but isn't really INTO guns only know about the AR-15 or whatever that they hear. Then the fact they are proud to support the military and police as an idea think "special" weapons should be reserved for them. Because that Jane and Joe average American don't go to the range they don't see how common and popular the AR is for law abiding citizens or that yes people actually do hunt with them.

 

[lionking]

The people that I really want to reach are the Democrats holding a very slim margin in their district. I know we face an uphill fight in Virginia, but the fact that well over 100 localities (cities and counties) have adopted 2nd amendment sanctuary or constitutional city/county resolutions will hopefully impress upon those Democrats that their political future is in the balance. The so called "Blue Wave" that gave the left control of both houses in Virginia was determined by only 5000 votes statewide. Many districts' margins were very tight - just a handful of votes - and to see many of these localities city council or county board of supervisor meetings attended by 2, 3 or 4 thousand angry supporters of the 2nd amendment will hopefully encourage them to vote our way on pending legislation.

Then the best way to reach them is politely remind them their future in politics holding their seat depends instead of trying to school them on the mechanics or true crime statistics of a gun.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Ban weapons of war?
OK, no more drones... .

 

[Ohen Cepel]

It is NOT compromise, compromise is when both parties get something they want. With the left, they only take.

They should have banned heroin, murder, suicide, and prostitution decades ago and then we could all live in peace...................

It is about control, nothing more as others above have pointed out. Have they banned cars or cigarettes?

 

[lionking]

The people that I really want to reach are the Democrats holding a very slim margin in their district. I know we face an uphill fight in Virginia, but the fact that well over 100 localities (cities and counties) have adopted 2nd amendment sanctuary or constitutional city/county resolutions will hopefully impress upon those Democrats that their political future is in the balance. The so called "Blue Wave" that gave the left control of both houses in Virginia was determined by only 5000 votes statewide. Many districts' margins were very tight - just a handful of votes - and to see many of these localities city council or county board of supervisor meetings attended by 2, 3 or 4 thousand angry supporters of the 2nd amendment will hopefully encourage them to vote our way on pending legislation.

I believe those of you coming together as you are is doing the greatest good in getting a message across, you are on the news and getting national attention. But what you mentioned brings up something possibly insidious on a national level. Of recent from their more extremist side there has been a rather fair amount of calling for disbanding the electoral college and adding senators based on population of a state. This would in fact allow them to forever control the direction of politics as they know the massive urban areas would dictate the future just like what has happened in Virginia of late. As some of said it is about control, gun control is just a portion of it.

That said it is good to remember not all liberals are for gun control, not all Democrats are, and for you and us to not remain silent as they want us to and PEACEFULLY fight back with our 1st amendment rights and with voting again, along with reaching out to people on the fence we will prevail in the end I do believe.

 

[LiveLife]

I was researching data to use in my arguments against an assault weapon (or magazine capacity) ban ... AR-15 with a 30 round magazine

I am interested in your opinions ... best ... arguments with local and state government officials against an Assault Weapon ban.

How about some court rulings?

• First Amendment protects modern types of communication such as internet, email, online forums, social media, etc. that did not exist at the time of writing of the US Constitution. In the same manner, Second Amendment protects modern types of "arms" that did not exist at the time of writing of the US Constitution - Justice Scalia in DC v Heller used firearms in "common use" and application of the Second Amendment to modern types of firearms and ammunition storage devices just as the First Amendment applies to modern types of communication - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

• In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

• In Duncan v Becerra, Judge Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" and in "common use" and referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale which also stated large capacity magazines (15+ rounds per federal definition) qualify as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment" and in "common use" - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

And how can we stop mass shootings? As clearly illustrated in recent Texas church shooting, by shooting back as decades of gun control laws and magazine bans have not stopped mass shootings.

 

[Obturation]

Ban weapons of war?
OK, no more drones... .

Yep. Outlaw the m16,m4,249saw, m2 machine gun, m60, ect. ...oh wait.
Never heard of anyone deployed with an ar15.
As long as they're at it weapons of previous wars, looking at you trapdoor springfield and brown bess.
Oh, and sharp stick from the caveman wars 10,000 years ago, banned!

 

[Skeptic13]

I would not worry about trying to justify your arguments. They do not care about right or wrong or the voters. They only care about advancing their agenda and their political careers. For some reason the libs have picked Virginia to see how far they can push the people by passing laws that the voters don't support. They recently did this in Colorado by passing an anti fracking bill that the voters had already rejected. Liberals have been using this tactic for 100 years. They keep pushing the envelope knowing that some things will stick and some will be fought. Every time a law sticks their progressive agenda inches a little bit further. When one fails they regroup and double down. The only way to fight this is not to elect libs in the first place.

 

[TJ AK-74]

Many people are anti-gun, not based on any logical reasoning, but based solely on emotions, mainly fear. You can't win an emotional argument with facts alone. Not sure myself exactly how to get a balance of facts and emotions that will work. At the end of the day, most people will beleive what they want to beleive, regardless of how much evidence contradicts those beliefs.

 

[bdickens]

Not to be an ass, but you're wasting your time.

The useful idiots who support gun control live behind a fact-proof shield and are immune to logic.

As said before, gun control is not about guns.

 

[Hartkopf]

Not to be an ass, but you're wasting your time.

The useful idiots who support gun control live behind a fact-proof shield and are immune to logic.

As said before, gun control is not about guns.

We should always try to reach and teach the uninformed but I agree with you. You can't talk logically to twisted minds.

What we can do is tirelessly teach and inform our family and friends. Too many times we don't get to them in time and the brainwashers swoop in at a younger age than you would've ever imagined. If your 12 year old kid or grandkid has a cell phone, the brainwashers are already twisting their minds.
It starts when they ever so slightly start turning the child against their own parents. It builds from that point on and I've personally seen it happen.
But I'm proud to say to the brainwashers; I WON B@#*!:&S because MY KIDS HAVE NOT BEEN BRAINWASHED!

 

[ATLDave]

I think something overlooked and misunderstood by many people who are non-gun-people is the ratio between the number of semi-automatic rifles in civilian hands and the rarity of their use in crime. The FBI stats are commonly cited on the latter point, but many non-gun-people are simply unaware of the extent to which semi-auto rifles are the "normal" rifles. And that the percentage of them that are used in any malicious way is well under 0.01%.

I think the common-ness, the abundance, of safe and lawful use of firearms is the biggest thing the non-gun people don't get. They think Chekov's Gun* describes the real world... that all the guns are inevitably going to be wrapped up in some tragedy. The math says otherwise. It's likely that a higher percentage of computers are involved in crime than guns, but few people have a sense that computers are themselves filled with some pervasive inevitability of misuse. If there is anyone listening, I think this kind of information can be useful.

*Chekov, the famous playwright (yes, people used to be famous for writing plays- the world has really changed), once explained that, in fictional theater, "if you hang a gun on the wall in one act, it must be fired in the next act." This expresses the storytelling notion that all the salient elements of a story should have some role... not just a thing that occurs or is seen and then doesn't influence the plot in any way. Not bad advice for conventional storytelling, but most definitely not reality.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think that we are beyond arguing about the merits, utility, or characteristics of "assault weapons." These have become totems for the larger divisions, or "tribes," within society. Unfortunately so, IMO.