Monkeyleg
Member.
I recently started a new job, and one of the guys there is a Viet Nam vet. He was drafted, then enlisted, and was in the war for six years, four of them with the Rangers.
He's very much a liberal, but on gun issues he's a moderate. He believes in concealed carry (he carries a pretty wicked knife, and sometimes a derringer), likes to shoot handguns, and for the most part supports gun ownership.
I enjoy debating with him because he's calm and rational, and there aren't any hard feelings if we disagree.
Anyway, yesterday we were talking about guns again. He pressed me on gun laws, and I think I successfully shot down the Brady Law, the AW ban, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and other anti-gun laws.
However, I had a hard time with him on full-auto's. I took the position that thirty rounds from a magazine in seconds isn't much different than thirty from a magazine in twenty seconds. Further, the FOPA of 1986 only raised the cost of full-auto's. And that the GCA of 1934 merely taxed a type of firearm that was never in much demand for civilians to begin with (Auto Ordnance practically was begging people to buy Thompson's). And that, since 1934, only a couple of hundred thousand had been registered, with only one being used in a crime. And that there are many full-auto's in the hands of criminals, but they come through the drug channels.
His positions on full-auto's were: if an untrained person--such as a kid-- got his/her hands on one, they would do more damage than with a semi-auto; that the small number of full-auto's registered means the '34 GCA worked; and that full-auto's are more deadly. He based that last statement on his experience in Viet Nam.
We also got on the subject of "cop-killer" ammunition. I was able to explain that almost any rifle round larger than .22 LR will penetrate Kevlar, that armor-piercing ammunition is already restricted, and that the term "cop killer bullets" is a media creation. I ran down the story of CBS and the KTK ammo story from the 1980's, and how CBS was irresponsible for running the story, a point he especially agreed with. All in all, not too bad.
He then turned to the dreaded Black Talon ammo. I explained that the issue over the Black Talon ammo was more media hype, that the ammo was still available by another name, and that hollowpoint ammo is made by many manufacturers for both hunting and defense. I then explained the purpose: efficiency, less chance of over-penetration, more humane kills when hunting, and more effective stopping power for defense.
He couldn't quite wrap his mind around this, as he's shot some Black Talon ammo, and imagined what it would do to a human body.
I don't think I won him over on that one, although I'm not sure why. After all, if you need to shoot someone, you want your shot to be as effective as possible in stopping the person by shutting down the system.
Here's where I have a hard time: he's been in combat, and I haven't; he's killed people, and I haven't (I would never even presume to ask how many he killed); he's seen the effects of all sorts of weaponry, and I haven't.
So, what I know about killing and ballistics and hollowpoints and full-auto's killing power are from reading. What he knows is from his experience with killing with FMJ's, full-auto's, and other weapons (such as claymores).
I think I could bring him around on the issue of legalizing full-auto's, and I may have brought him around to accept hollowpoints, although I'm not sure.
Any suggestions? I think I may have a chance to create a 100% pro-2A liberal if I do it right.
He's very much a liberal, but on gun issues he's a moderate. He believes in concealed carry (he carries a pretty wicked knife, and sometimes a derringer), likes to shoot handguns, and for the most part supports gun ownership.
I enjoy debating with him because he's calm and rational, and there aren't any hard feelings if we disagree.
Anyway, yesterday we were talking about guns again. He pressed me on gun laws, and I think I successfully shot down the Brady Law, the AW ban, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and other anti-gun laws.
However, I had a hard time with him on full-auto's. I took the position that thirty rounds from a magazine in seconds isn't much different than thirty from a magazine in twenty seconds. Further, the FOPA of 1986 only raised the cost of full-auto's. And that the GCA of 1934 merely taxed a type of firearm that was never in much demand for civilians to begin with (Auto Ordnance practically was begging people to buy Thompson's). And that, since 1934, only a couple of hundred thousand had been registered, with only one being used in a crime. And that there are many full-auto's in the hands of criminals, but they come through the drug channels.
His positions on full-auto's were: if an untrained person--such as a kid-- got his/her hands on one, they would do more damage than with a semi-auto; that the small number of full-auto's registered means the '34 GCA worked; and that full-auto's are more deadly. He based that last statement on his experience in Viet Nam.
We also got on the subject of "cop-killer" ammunition. I was able to explain that almost any rifle round larger than .22 LR will penetrate Kevlar, that armor-piercing ammunition is already restricted, and that the term "cop killer bullets" is a media creation. I ran down the story of CBS and the KTK ammo story from the 1980's, and how CBS was irresponsible for running the story, a point he especially agreed with. All in all, not too bad.
He then turned to the dreaded Black Talon ammo. I explained that the issue over the Black Talon ammo was more media hype, that the ammo was still available by another name, and that hollowpoint ammo is made by many manufacturers for both hunting and defense. I then explained the purpose: efficiency, less chance of over-penetration, more humane kills when hunting, and more effective stopping power for defense.
He couldn't quite wrap his mind around this, as he's shot some Black Talon ammo, and imagined what it would do to a human body.
I don't think I won him over on that one, although I'm not sure why. After all, if you need to shoot someone, you want your shot to be as effective as possible in stopping the person by shutting down the system.
Here's where I have a hard time: he's been in combat, and I haven't; he's killed people, and I haven't (I would never even presume to ask how many he killed); he's seen the effects of all sorts of weaponry, and I haven't.
So, what I know about killing and ballistics and hollowpoints and full-auto's killing power are from reading. What he knows is from his experience with killing with FMJ's, full-auto's, and other weapons (such as claymores).
I think I could bring him around on the issue of legalizing full-auto's, and I may have brought him around to accept hollowpoints, although I'm not sure.
Any suggestions? I think I may have a chance to create a 100% pro-2A liberal if I do it right.
