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.
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.