How to defend black rifles?
- Thread starter Droid noob
- Start date
- Status
fatcat4620
Member
21st century repeating rifled musket.
Maybe... but it also gives them the ammunition to ban all firearms and handguns more importantly. I'd give up my rifle before a handgun. I'm not carrying a handgun or having a rifle in my nightstand. They'd start adding all the firearm murders and say it's more than the knifes confirming in their mind they're "killing weapons".
Saying "because I'm allowed to own it" also means they can disallow you to own it. "It's my right!" also translates to "I have the right to kill at will." That does no good...
Again the only way is to have them shoot an AK/AR with other rifles, probably with something like a Mini-14 and something else in a higher caliber with removable mags. They'll start to realize that it's the person pulling the trigger that's in control. They'll probably have a lot of fun too! Give them 10 round mags and yourself 30 round mags... they'll probably want the 30's soon because of the loading time. If not after, ask them to define what's "more lethal" (a slippery slope too because they might think then all guns should go) and they'll probably realize that defining "assault rifles" is possibly the dumbest thing legislation has done.
Certaindeaf
member
Maybe take him shooting.
tyeo098
Member
And in case the LA Riots ever happen in your neck of the woods, you're prepared.
Inebriated
Member
If people ask why I need something like that, I just tell them that if they have to ask, they won't understand.
I've learned it's time to stop arguing onsies-twosies. Don't defend why you need it. Defend that as long as you are a free citizen, you should have the right to own whatever you want, and the crime should be the action and not the object. Argue against the logic that banning private citizens from owning these weapons will do anything to stop criminals from getting them. That's where I'm at, anyway.
Exactly. That's where YOU are. That's not where non-gun-owners or one-gun-owners are. Again, ask yourself whether you want to thump your chest and feel indignant, or whether you want to move some middle-ground people over to your side. If the latter, you have to go where THEY are, and speak to the things THEY care about.
Don't say it is a tool or for sporting purposes. :banghead:
It is for self-defense and defense against tyranny.
Yes, you could defend your home most of the time with an SW Model 10 but sometimes you can't. Thus efficacious firearms are protected by the 2nd Amend.
It is for self-defense and defense against tyranny.
Yes, you could defend your home most of the time with an SW Model 10 but sometimes you can't. Thus efficacious firearms are protected by the 2nd Amend.
hey.moe
Member
I agree that it's not necessary to defend owning such a weapon. However, you might explain that while many people believe that a gun is a gun, there is no ideal all-purpose weapon. While it's possible to make do with only one weapon, each has its specific niche and everyone has his/her own specific needs. For many the AR/AK is the weapon that best fits a particular need.
-Stan-
-Stan-
Because they are good shooting rifles, light weight, realitively inexpensive to shoot, accurate, light recoiling, and just plain fun. I purchased my first in 1972, it is hard to believe that's 40 years ago, and bought my last one Oct 2011.
They are still fun to shoot.
Jim
They are still fun to shoot.
Jim
W.E.G.
Member
Tell the man you simply enjoy target shooting.
Invite him to the range.
If he won't accept your offer, he does not want to understand.
If he accepts your offer, and is still opposed, he never will understand.
Invite him to the range.
If he won't accept your offer, he does not want to understand.
If he accepts your offer, and is still opposed, he never will understand.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Separate your front line argument from the propriety of fighting implements, and fall back to the basic value proposition of military designs:
They are accurate, hardy, reliable, foolproof, and cost effective.
They are accurate, hardy, reliable, foolproof, and cost effective.
What is current technology is the most likely to be viewed as the most "militaristic", but this is an illusion based on a lack of understanding of firearms development and history. Since almost all firearms in the past few centuries that have become common have either started as military arms or be put into use as military arms. The current civilian versions of current military arms are just the most recent evolution.
The current carbines are not designed or intended for accurate long range fire. They equivalent to the 30-30 lever guns for common reference as opposed to long range weapons. Like the 30-30 lever gun they're well suited to hunting in conditions a long range rifle isn't. Point out that a famous hunting writer eventually came around to understanding their use in hunting after originally voicing the same sort of opinion he did.
The FBI statistics, and those of individual states, shows that all rifles combined are the lowest population of firearms used in crimes. That's all rifles with AR and AK type semiautos being a fraction of that total. More people are killed with non firearms than with rifles.
The current carbines are not designed or intended for accurate long range fire. They equivalent to the 30-30 lever guns for common reference as opposed to long range weapons. Like the 30-30 lever gun they're well suited to hunting in conditions a long range rifle isn't. Point out that a famous hunting writer eventually came around to understanding their use in hunting after originally voicing the same sort of opinion he did.
The FBI statistics, and those of individual states, shows that all rifles combined are the lowest population of firearms used in crimes. That's all rifles with AR and AK type semiautos being a fraction of that total. More people are killed with non firearms than with rifles.
The problem is, we get into all these little debates. Should I be allowed to have a "black rifle"? Should I be allowed to have "high capacity" magazines? Should I be allowed to buy FTF? Should I be allowed to have NFA weapons? Should I be allowed to have hollowpoints? Should I be allowed to have a "sniper rifle"? Should I be allowed to have...
The answer is yes. The simple answer to all of these questions is:
1) The media exaggerate's the capabilities of these weapons.
2) The media downplays the capability of "acceptable" weapons.
3) The anti-gunners want to put every gun owner on trial just for owning a weapon.
4) The anti-gunners assumes that gun control will prevent criminals from getting guns, and if (this is a big if) they do take guns away from criminals, that violent crime will cease to exist.
Using that basic concept to apply to "black rifles"...
1) The media assumes the AR-15 and AK-47 are long-range sniper weapons, and often says they are accurate to longer ranges than hunting weapons. A decent .308 or .30-06 is going to be accurate to longer range and carry more energy. The belief that the "black rifle" is a long-range sniper weapon, but "hunting rifles" are not, is a fallacy.
2) The media assumes that a "hunting rifle" (read: bolt-action rifle with an internal magazine) is safer to give to a citizen than an AR-15, because it is too slow to kill people quickly. This ignores:
A) The bolt-action can be accurately fired nearly as fast as a semi-auto, if practiced.
B) The internal magazine can still be loaded quickly with stripper clips, and overall it will not hinder the shooter from reloading.
C) Even without a reload, the shooter can shoot a lot of people before running out of ammunition.
Thus, the belief that only letting people have hunting rifles will prevent people from commiting mass shootings is a fallacy.
3) By being asked why you need one, the asker is essentially putting you on trial (which is why we often get defensive, and look defensive, because we are acting in our own defense of our rights).
4) Preventing you from owning a black rifle will do nothing to stop a potential shooter from getting one on the black market; either one smuggled in, one made at home, or one stolen from LE/M. Implementing new laws will do nothing for the millions of guns that will suddenly "go missing in a tragic boating accident."
So yes, I believe we can use general answers for the specific questions, without ever having to go on trial for each perceived offense by our anti friends.
1) This gun is not as deadly as the media wants you to believe, nor am I somehow more psychopathic by owning it.
2) The guns the media wants me to have instead are no less capable of horrific crimes.
3) 99.999% of gun owners do nothing wrong with their weapons, so blaming the gun community for violence is blatant stereotyping.
4) If you're worried about the criminal, stop them from commiting the crime with social programs and reduce recidivism by keeping violent offenders in prison. Make guns illegal, and he can still use guns, or he can use...knives (9/11 was done with knives), bombs, an automobile, poison, fire, or something else.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
I worry about you.
In your knife block at home, you have a knife that's almost a dead ringer for the one used by that crazy guy in Hitchcock's Psycho.
Why do you need a knife that big and dangerous?
What are you compensating for?
Don't you realize that a blade that size is almost an invitation to violence? Clearly, something with that much violence associated with it -- even if only by cultural meme -- is going to make a guy more inclined to engage in violence when other, more peaceful, means of conflict resolution are available.
Why isn't there a pre-purchase psych evaluation required for a knife like that? Doesn't anyone recognize the danger?
At the very least, ownership of things like that should be listed in a government registry. At least government has the tools to control violence and the resources to investigate people to make sure they're not nuts.
After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about?
In your knife block at home, you have a knife that's almost a dead ringer for the one used by that crazy guy in Hitchcock's Psycho.
Why do you need a knife that big and dangerous?
What are you compensating for?
Don't you realize that a blade that size is almost an invitation to violence? Clearly, something with that much violence associated with it -- even if only by cultural meme -- is going to make a guy more inclined to engage in violence when other, more peaceful, means of conflict resolution are available.
Why isn't there a pre-purchase psych evaluation required for a knife like that? Doesn't anyone recognize the danger?
At the very least, ownership of things like that should be listed in a government registry. At least government has the tools to control violence and the resources to investigate people to make sure they're not nuts.
After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about?
Scary thing; I looked it up, and apparently in Britain you have to have a justification for even carrying a knife. Something like if it's not 3" or less and foldable, you have to require it for your job, and you can only "carry" it so much as it pertains to your job (i.e. you can transport it to work, but must be locked in your car in order to do errands on the way to/from work), and you can't carry anywhere where carrying it would be deemed "offensive" (i.e. convention, bar, sporting event).
And since that hasn't stopped stabbings, they want MORE knife control.
Cesiumsponge
Member
Doctors and chefs push for kitchen knife ban. " The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Uniquely British anti-stab knife. "He says a knife can never be totally safe, but the idea is it can't inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just "grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8101032.stm
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Uniquely British anti-stab knife. "He says a knife can never be totally safe, but the idea is it can't inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just "grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8101032.stm
coolluke01
Member
The 2nd amendment protects our rights to have the same weapons the military has. We are a long way from that. Sporting guns are not protected by the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment is only important when the Government tries to take our weapons from us.
The 2nd amendment is only important when the Government tries to take our weapons from us.
It's what the wife thinks about them. Yea, got the same response from in-laws when wife told them I bought a motor cycle - doesn't make any difference what kind, the 'your going to shoot your eye out' thing. I did have a discussion with a guy that sold rifles at the HW store. He didn't think anybody needed anything more that a 4 rnd mag. So what is the diff between a 4x '06 and a 20x '06? Tell him when the zombies come you can protect his daughter better. Now, talking to a true liberal, you can't win any argument about anything with them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
