Gun Rights: How do I win this argument...

[Tarvis]

I had a conversation with my mom's husband (step father sounds weird) about guns and such yesterday, when we came on the topic of semi-automatic removable magazine pistol gripped rifles that are generally black in color. He seemed to think that AR-15's (which he actually seemed to think were assault rifles, after I explained to him were not) were not necessary, due to the fact that all hunters really need is a 30-06 and a 270 bolt gun for deer and elk, therefore should be banned and done away with. My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making. Later in our conversation, he said those guns were used in crimes and were designed to kill people. I don't know what the numbers are, but I assured him that the odds of a common criminal (as opposed to someone shooting up a school for example) using any rifle in a crime were slim to none.

Now, I explained the points of hunting rabbits and other fast moving animals as well as competition, along with the fact that it's a free country and if he thought my rifles should be taken away, his truck should be taken away because he doesn't really need it. What are some other good points for my right/need for semi-auto hi-capacity rifles other than hunting, competition and the second amendment?

Also, where is a good place to find the statistics for gun crimes and deaths in general, so I can refute unfounded claims of high death rates due to shootings?

 

[Armueller2001]

www.gunfacts.info has some data on the % of "assault rifles" used in crime... I believe it's less than 1%. Ask him which he thinks a criminal would prefer to acquire... a $2,000 AR15 or a $100 .38 special with a duct taped handle from his dealer? Kind of the same thing as people going crazy over .50BMG guns. I don't think a single one has been used in a crime due to their $3,000 price tag, although the Brady Bunch labels them as a "favorite for criminals and terrorists"...

Gunfacts also has some data on shootings and comparison to auto accidents, drownings, etc. Many of the sources are from the CDC and FBI. Also they talk about how many defensive shootings there are every year. Really a great document to have.

 

[Rokyudai]

Tarvis,

It seems like he is basing his narrow opinion solely from the hunter perspective (dare I say the Obaminator perspective) and not including the shooting sports application which I think is a lot broader. Derailing the whole "man killer" theory behind the nefarious EBR should start with looking at the salient activities that these other types of firearms are used.

I think the topic has come up a lot here that avoiding the emotional rebuttal with fact based responses is your best route. Comparing crime stats may only add some unneeded fuel to the flame. There are people in other countries who thought reasonable gun control laws were alright, we can see where they are now. What is more, that young people who have trained very hard to gain Olympic hopeful status have had to go outside their own country to train...some have had that dream taken away altogether. I think that the greatest travesty of this "progressive" thinking is that it is built upon the shoulders of the innocent law abiding where they carry the burden for the bleeders who can't tell you what a barrel shroud's purpose is and is not.

 

[lions]

My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making.

This seems to be a theme. Most antis deal in emotion and not facts. Ask him if a gang of thugs broke into the house if he would rather have an ar15 or a 30-06 bolt gun? Make sure to emphasize that his loved ones need protecting and see if he wants the best tool for the job.

That also points out another need for semi-auto high-capacity rifles... self defense.

 

[Mannlicher]

Tarvis, I learned many years ago, that arguing or 'debating' folks about gun views is a waste of time.
I would just walk away from the discussion.

 

[Kingcreek]

you will never win an argument with a narrow-minded, irrational person.

 

[joop]

you will never win an argument with a narrow-minded, irrational person.

+infinity

Move on with your life. Convert someone who is interested. Take an immigrant shooting.

 

[bdickens]

You should argue with a brick wall instead. There's a better chance that the wall might listen.

 

[benEzra]

First of all, the "Brady Bill" had nothing to do with the 1994 Feinstein law (the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch). The Brady Bill was a mandatory waiting period and optional background check, on handguns only, that was passed in the early '90s well prior to the Feinstein law.

The 1994 Feinstein law didn't ban any guns, just marketing under any of 19 names, and far more AR-15 type rifles and civilian AK's were sold in 1994 and after than in the previous several decades combined.

Taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than are licensed to hunt in this country, yet less than 3% of murders in this country involve ANY type of rifle ("assault weapon" or not). Twice as many people are murdered annually using shoes and bare hands as using all styles of rifles combined. And the rifle crime rate is no higher now than it was ten years ago.

The homicide rate did indeed decline in the '90s, due to demographic shifts, rising incomes and job opportunities, and the implementation of "community policing" strategies in lieu of older, more distant/authoritarian approaches.

Please point your friend to this thread:

www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466

Rifles, even small-caliber ones with modern styling, are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

FWIW, only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts. 80% of us are nonhunters, and we'd like to keep OUR guns too. The AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, and is also the #1 defensive carbine; the ammunition it uses (.223 Remington) is the #1 selling caliber of rifle caliber in the nation.

He is certainly free not to own one, but a lot more of us own "assault weapons" than own .270's.

 

[everallm]

What you mean he's OK with someone owning and using one of those ridiculously overpowered sniper rifles

 

[telomerase]

Print out this article on the Swiss and give it to him. (The Swiss ALL have assault rifles, and mortars too!)

 

[cmidkiff]

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting... unless you happen to be hunting politicians...

The AR platform has been in service for over 50 years... for a reason.
The AR platform is the most popular civilian rifle on the market... for a reason.

It's simple to operate, lightweight, easy to shoot, accurate, modular, and has millions of after market accessories...

Functionally, the AR platform is _identical_ to every other semi-auto rifle ever built.

If it's suitable for the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, and thousands of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, why wouldn't it be suitable for me?

 

[Cougfan2]

It's not the Bill of Needs.

It's the Bill of Rights.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[RPCVYemen]

My main problem was that he wasn't really listening or taking to heart the points I was making.

Were you really listening to him and taking it heart the points he was making?

If you are trying to win, it's not a discussion, it's a debate. No one is obligated to listen in a debate. I don't try to debate with family members.

If you enter into the conversation with the attitude, "I know I'm right and he's wrong. Nothing he can say will change my mind!", then isn't it fair and just for him to enter into the conversation with the exact same attitude. If it's fair for you to enter into the conversation with that attitude, why is not fair for him to enter into the conversation with that attitude?

I am not accusing you of having that attitude.

However, I do see a lot of posts on THR where folks enter into a debate with someone and the get all whiny - Mommy, he's not listening to me! - when the other party actually debates. No one is required to listen in a debate!

Putting the debate aside, it might be useful to understand exactly why he says what he says - he speaks for a large group of people, maybe a majority of gun owners in the US.

I know that calling people who believe what he believes "Elmer Fudd" is the epitome of intellectual excellence on THR, and makes the speaker sound as clever and elegant as Rush, but it doesn't change the facts.

If you actually listen to him, and probe why he says what he says, then I suspect you will find he works from three postulates - this is what I suspect a lot of people would say:

• The only legitimate uses of guns (by civilians in the US) are self defense and hunting.
• Handguns (or shotguns) are appropriate weapons for self defense. It's actually pretty hard (for non-LEOs) to come up with a realistic self-defense scenario involving a rifle.
• Hunting rifles (or shotguns) are the appropriate weapons for hunting.

From these postulates, he can derive:

• An AR 15 is not a handgun.
• An AR 15 is not a shotgun.
• An AR 15 is not a hunting rifle.
• Therefore, there is no legitimate use for an AR 15.

He is wrong, but there may be nothing illogical or irrational about his stance.

If you argue back that you need your AR 15 to help you fight in the revolution, he will likely think that you are nut case. A lot of people will agree with him and dismiss you as a nut case.

Mike

 

[DRYHUMOR]

First, don't bother with arguing, it's a no winner any which way you look at it. Plus you might get your mother involved and you don't want her to have to pick sides.

Second there are semi automatic, automatic, and bolt action rifles. A rifle can't "assault" someone, and shouldn't be labled or called that. Same with "sniper", a person can be a sniper, but only the rifle a person uses to shoot someone could be labled a "sniper or sniper's rifle".

What labels I use in my mind for my weapons may or may not be what I would call them out loud. Labels however, are what stick in people's minds, right or wrong, they stick.

 

[Tarvis]

You guys are frickin' amazing.

I printed off several pages from gunfacts.info. Next time I see him I'm going to read them to him out loud, then hold him down and rub his face in them like a puppy that peed on the floor. No, but really, I think I may print off all 101 pages of the gunfacts.info booklet just to have sitting around.

The hardest part about talking to him about it was he kept cutting me off and saying I wasn't listening, while in fact I was and was making counter points he didn't want to listen to. It was less about how well I debated and more about his inability to soak in waht I was saying. It was funny at times because he would say something that would prove the point I was trying to make, and in the next breath say they should all be taken away.

Were you really listening to him and taking it heart the points he was making?

I was, however I was intent on winning as well; which I define as making him change his mind, so call it what you will. Hopefully the pages I printed off will do the talking for me, as it removes any ad hominem doubt and shows numbers instead of ideas.

 

[basicblur]

It's NEVER been about "hunting" and has from DAY ONE been about defense of self, home, family, and country.

Didn't you mean defense FROM (not of) government?

 

[Hands of blue]

Freedom is not based on need

 

[Armueller2001]

Didn't you mean defense FROM (not of) government?

Defense of country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[sacp81170a]

Simply remind him that the most feared marksmen on the battlefield use what is essentially a modified hunting rifle. If we're going to start banning guns because they're more or less effective at killing people, it seems to me that a "one shot, one kill" weapon is a far more efficient killing machine than some little poodle shooter. After all, one can hit with a 30.06 at 1,000 yards and have a much better chance of killing a human than the wimpy littly .223. Also point out that the 30.06 started life as a military cartridge while the .223 was based on a wildcat varmint cartridge.

Banning guns because of military utility is not only against the very spirit of the 2nd Amendment, it's a very dangerous, slippery slope.

After all, who needs a powerful sniper rifle capable of killing at a thousand yards?

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Defense of country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

I would say more accurately defense of the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

An interesting side note is that no member of armed forces swears to defend either the United States or the government of the United States instead the take an oath to defend the Constitution.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

He seemed to think that AR-15's (which he actually seemed to think were assault rifles, after I explained to him were not) were not necessary, due to the fact that all hunters really need is a 30-06 and a 270 bolt gun for deer and elk, therefore should be banned and done away with.

The Jews were allowed "sporting firearms" in the Nazi weapons law of 1938. That's all they really needed right? Didn't work out too well.
It's amazing how many people are brainwashed into thinking the 2nd amendment has anything whatsoever to do with hunting, let alone is the reason for the 2nd.

 

[basicblur]

Defense of country from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Domestic enemies...hmmm....you mean like…your government?
Based on the historical documents I've read, it sounds like the purpose of the 2nd was to provide "the people" a way of defending themselves/their country from an "out of control" government?

It's NEVER been about "hunting" and has from DAY ONE been about defense of self, home, family, and country.

I dunno ‘bout that…just did a quick search and came up with basically what I was taught in school waaaaay back when (bet they don’t teach this now!):

“Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia, since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people's arms and make it an offense to keep them.”

As some seem to get, it ain’t never been about hunting, but I cringe a bit every time I hear someone say it’s about defense of home, family, and country.
Now you may mean defense of home, family, and country FROM the government, but lots of folks seem to think it means defense from crime, bears, etc.

Based on what I was taught/learned back in school, and from what I gather reading a lot of the historical documents, defense from criminals, bears, etc is a side benefit of the primary purpose of the 2nd, which is to give you a means to defend yourself FROM your government.

Actually, I though Scalia kinda glossed over (or ignored?) this point, as most in government are wont to do.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Sometimes I like to make it interactive. Ask easy, yes/no questions that force them where you want them to go.
Example: " Do you trust your government?" (usually a NO)
"Do you feel your government has your best interests at heart?"
"Do you feel your government is willing and able to protect you against ALL eventualities?"
"Do you feel your government is fair,honest,just and noble and will ALWAYS be so?"
You get the idea.

 

[wahsben]

You can mention to him about the Korean shop keepers that held so called assault rifles on their rooftops during the LA riots and how their places were the only ones that were not burned down or trashed.