Need some Help Explaining a couple of things

[Rockwolf66]

I have an Acquaintance who is a firearms owner. Recently they posted an Image from Occupy the NRA about how a "real man" did not need over six rounds to defend themselves.

In talking to them about it I find that they are for both Magazine restrictions and increased background checks to own a firearm. The main argument that they have is that in their local area there is a group of trash who get together, get drunk and shoot up things.

I would love to have sources to show them that Magazine restrictions don't work and that More background checks are not an answer to social issues involving firearms either.

I have already linked them to the CDC study on the Clintoon assault weapon ban and how that didn't work and I have linked to a Harvard Law School study on Gun control. I would love to have even more links so that I can make it perfectly clear that neither Magazine Restrictions or Increased background checks will solve the above mentioned social issues.

 

[bdickens]

Rob Pincus has a video where he does the math:

http://video.personaldefensenetwork...c-mgz-vid&utm_campaign=nrapdnjul13&vscid=6347

 

[hso]

"Real Men" arguments are moronic by their very nature. In this arena they are particularly idiotic since the RM image is some fantasy action adventure character. Old men and young women, handicapped or pregnant, etc. people use firearms and not some cartoon character with bulging biceps and ninja training.

Statistics from DOJ for rates of violent crime show that there is no correlation between mag restrictions and crime. Chicago, DC, LA, Oakland, etc all have restrictions that haven't driven the murder rate down.

If your buddy buys into "Real Man" arguments then he's probably not going to be able to have a rational discussion, but point out that "Real Men" existed when we hacked peasant levies apart with sword and ax before the advent of firearms back when rape and pillage was acceptable behavior. Kinda like the trash he's concerned about.

 

[tuj]

There are plenty of cases of police shootings where a cop has unloaded into a bad guy to no effect. PCP tends to mitigate the effects of trauma unless you hit a vital that carries the nerves.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...ng-near-umd-campus-leaves-one-hurt-77621.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-confiscate-cellphone-with-photos-of-it-all/

http://www.siena.edu/pages/7653.asp

 

[Potatohead]

This is a good question.

I also would like to know if the countries that have a firearm ban fare any better than the U.S. regarding firearm crimes, or have less of these mass shoot em ups.

 

[JM Browning]

How many nukes does a country need to be considered to have balls?

 

[yzguy87]

There is a video of Suzanna Hupp on YouTube where she talks about her experience in the diner where her folks were shot. In the video she talks about mag restrictions and how ineffective they are. I don't think she talks about background checks but it's a good vid anyway.
Also I would say her experience/credibility is pretty valid since she has first hand experience in an active shooter situation.

Here it is:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

 

[J-Bar]

,,,

 

[we are not amused]

The whole "occupy" movement is far Left, usually with a hard core socialist ideology, leavened with Progressivist/Fascist elements and a large nihilistic faction. If they are listening to arguments from the fringe, I seriously doubt that any rational argument would work as such.

Still, you might ask them why six rounds? Why not five?, or four? or better yet, just one flintlock, or better yet matchlock weapon? After all "REAL MEN" can start a fire with flint and steel and light the fuse on their matchlock if they need it.

Pointing out the absurdity of their position by asking why give them six rounds, may make them start thinking, but I doubt it.

 

[tuj]

I also would like to know if the countries that have a firearm ban fare any better than the U.S. regarding firearm crimes, or have less of these mass shoot em ups.

Well it is contentious, but in theory, Australia had a number of mass shootings and implemented very strict gun control laws in 1996. There have been a number of studies done and there is no doubt that the number of shootings has went down, but it is not clear if this is a structural/cultural/economic change, or a direct impact of the gun control laws. Like everything, the truth probably is somewhere in-between. Its also worth considering that only about 5% of Aussies own guns, far less than the US.

Now that being said, Norway has fairly restrictive gun laws (ie. one must obtain a permit and pass a safety class before being able to buy a gun), but that didn't stop the 2011 attacks that killed 77.

Ultimately there are so many guns in the United States that probably any increase in gun control will have only minor or negligible effects on crime and/or mass shootings.

 

[Atbat82]

Link to a squad car camera recording a chase in LA with a quick and dramatic ending:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=511107388962621

Do you want to be limited on ammo when facing these two guys? It could be anyone, not just policemen facing these two. Unfortunately we never get to chose our opponents.

You know that's from a movie, right? It still makes your point, but it's fictional.

 

[cambeul41]

Real men ignore those that use such "real men" arguments.

I'll wash my quiche and sushi down with white wine if I feel like it.

 

[J-Bar]

You know that's from a movie, right? I still makes your point, but it's fictional.

No, I did not know that it was fictional. Thanks for the correction. The link had been forwarded to me as a real video.

I am deleting the link...

 

[Dnaltrop]

I love those "real men" arguments.

In the summer months, It's not uncommon to see me in a Utilikilt on top of my standard Hawaiian shirt. (and yes, still wearing the Blackhawk in the shoulder rig with it). (http://www.utilikilts.com/ if you want to see one, the pockets are HUGE, can conceal my full-size M&P in one as a pocket gun! Incredible in the heat, and of course, only a Real Man can pull off wearing them )

I stay at home with my 3 girls while my wife works. ( admittedly because of mobility issues, not choice) I can make very long hair into a perfect bun by grabbing the top of a kid's head and telling her to spin until it's twisted up for Ballet, or to take them shooting.

I cook, Well.

I do what I call "cleaning" in small bites, but we don't live in our own waste, or piles of stuff.

Anyone who wishes to question my manhood based on the capacity of the gun(s) I'm wearing on a given day, is welcome to do so ONLY after I re-create the Sharon Stone "Leg Cross" scene from Basic Instinct, in my kilt.

(picture the actor who played Ogre in the Revenge of the nerds movie, in that Viking credit card commercial, and you come close)

 

[morcey2]

Self defense isn't a sport. It isn't about making sure the Bad-Guy at least has a fighting chance. It isn't about "I'm going to do him left handed... That's the only way I can be satisfied..." (his name is Inigo Montoya, not mine.).

It's about overwhelming force. Unfortunately, overwhelming force is heavy and not very practical so it breaks down to sufficient force. And it's my definition of "sufficient", not anyone else's. If I want to carry an M1A for self defense, that's my decision. It's a little unwieldy, not to mention the fact that I don't own one, so I don't carry it. But a CZ-82 w/ a spare mag for a total of 25 rounds works for me at the moment.

I doubt anyone will ever say after having to defend themselves/others "I wish I had a smaller gun that held half the rounds my current one does."

Matt

 

[we are not amused]

I love those "real men" arguments.

In the summer months, It's not uncommon to see me in a Utilikilt on top of my standard Hawaiian shirt. (and yes, still wearing the Blackhawk in the shoulder rig with it). (http://www.utilikilts.com/ if you want to see one, the pockets are HUGE, can conceal my full-size M&P in one as a pocket gun! Incredible in the heat, and of course, only a Real Man can pull off wearing them )
Anyone who wishes to question my manhood based on the capacity of the gun(s) I'm wearing on a given day, is welcome to do so ONLY after I re-create the Sharon Stone "Leg Cross" scene from Basic Instinct, in my kilt.

(picture the actor who played Ogre in the Revenge of the nerds movie, in that Viking credit card commercial, and you come close)

Another Man who wears a dress!

I actually have two modern kilts, one solid Black dress Utilikilt and a tan every day wear kilt with more pockets and places to conceal things like guns, daggers and grenades.

 

[Chilibreath]

Yep, it's a movie alright (End Of Watch), but that particular chase scene was one of the better ones that Hollywood has put together. I actually worked that area of South Central L.A. and I drove those same streets (albeit in the mid-60s), and the only fault I could find -- or maybe question -- was the way the two officers walked forward while firing before the situation was over. Most of us (all of us!) would stay behind cover until we were sure the bad guys were down for the count before we popped our heads up. Then again we didn't have ballistic vests back then and only 6 shots per loading, so that was also factored into the question of how brave we wanted to be.

Ah, the memories!

 

[Lex Luthier]

I would make the counter argument that a "real gunman" only needs ONE round. Spin their logic into the ground.

 

[denton]

I'm not sure of the efficacy of attaching sins to a goat and driving her out into the wilderness. I am sure that we can't help the murder rate in Oakland, Chicago or DC by projecting social ills on a 30 round rifle magazine and driving it out.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Recently they posted an Image from Occupy the NRA about how a "real man" did not need over six rounds to defend themselves.

1. You may not need more than 6 rounds, but what is the harm in carrying 17 in a double stack 9mm?

2. I would rather be a wimp and be alive, than be a "real man" at my own funeral.

The criminals are not going to limit themselves to 6 rounds just because a law tells them they are supposed to.

Here's a good argument you can give them - why should I not be allowed to be as well armed as the criminals that I might have to defend myself against? They aren't going to keep their no-more-than 6 round magazines unloaded in a separate locked case from their unloaded guns. They aren't going to not hide their guns just because they don't have a permit.

 

[Archie]

Logic?

This sort of law - magazine limitation - is just another law which places the blame for human behavior (misbehavior) on an inanimate object.

Sort of like blaming 20 ounce soft drinks for obesity.

 

[orionengnr]

So, let me be sure I understand the argument.

The same people (generally known as criminals) who disregard the law saying that they cannot own a firearm will suddenly respect a law saying that they can only have six, or ten, or however-many rounds?

I think your friend suffers from a logic deficit.

Tell him that perhaps a "real man" doesn't need a gun at all. See how that goes over.

 

[Atbat82]

No, I did not know that it was fictional. Thanks for the correction. The link had been forwarded to me as a real video.

I am deleting the link...

I don't know if you needed to delete it...I think the overall point was still valid. It's from a movie called End of Watch. I've never actually seen anything other than that clip.

 

[PavePusher]

Ask them if they are willing to bet money on their precognitive skills.

I have an Acquaintance who is a firearms owner. Recently they posted an Image from Occupy the NRA about how a "real man" did not need over six rounds to defend themselves.

In talking to them about it I find that they are for both Magazine restrictions and increased background checks to own a firearm. The main argument that they have is that in their local area there is a group of trash who get together, get drunk and shoot up things.

I would love to have sources to show them that Magazine restrictions don't work and that More background checks are not an answer to social issues involving firearms either.

I have already linked them to the CDC study on the Clintoon assault weapon ban and how that didn't work and I have linked to a Harvard Law School study on Gun control. I would love to have even more links so that I can make it perfectly clear that neither Magazine Restrictions or Increased background checks will solve the above mentioned social issues.

 

[Ignition Override]

yzguy87: Excellent reminder. Your comments about Suzanne Gratia-Hupp are almost understatements.

In front of politicians such as the smug NY Senator Chucky Schumer, Suzanne describe how Texas laws at that time prevented her from bringing her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria, in Killeen, Texas. Suzanne's well-prepared speech used logic to shred assumptions about gun control fed by the mass media to the public. And in a very public forum!

The OP might want to ask his friend whether such previous TX laws would be better if applied now to every state.
Ask him how He would feel if He were unarmed and a psycho drove or walked into a cafeteria and began murdering his parents etc, or children.

Have the OP ask his friend whether it is better for the psychos to be able to pick almost any public or private building, and plan in advance (nutjobs comprehend this...) that all of these people could be defenseless. He might tell his friend that the shooter in the Aurora CO movie theater selected a movie complex where no legal carry-guns were prohibited.