How would you respond to this?
I was reading on a regional forum, Carolina Shooters Club, about the need for education on this subject. Specifically, mention was made about how a number of gun owners / hunters have been put before a proverbial microphone and quoted as saying, "I am a hunter / sportsman, pro 2A, gun owning American and I don't need a military assault weapon and support a ban on these". The article claimed one of the things that these people need to remember is that if their brothers and sisters are successfully restricted that it won't be long before they are next as we will need to ban military style sniper rifles (i.e. hunting rifles).
In a discussion with someone who is, I believe, a step leftward of our compatriots mentioned above, the following quote was made:
Emphasis mine. Clearly this is how many people see these weapons. My question is, how would you even respond to them? Simply saying because it is my right to, or because I want to isn't an acceptable answer to them. To say that you don't have to justify it to them simply puts them off and they embrace the anti rhetoric. It would seem that these beings see it as intuitively obvious that if, we the average citizen gave these types of guns up, for which we have no need, that it would put a stop to the violence. To me, this is an obvious fallacy and the the answer is NO AWB, no semi-auto ban, no magazine limits, not now, and never again Is there even an acceptable (to them) answer?
For the record, I have no problem with hunting rifles; handguns are practical for hiking in dangerous wilderness. I see no rational use for automatic or assault weapons outside of the military and paramilitary/police services. Large-capacity magazines...why are they needed by civilians? Such incidents may never be entirely eliminated now that the genie is out of the bottle, but the carnage can be limited at the very least by prohibiting sales and ownership of such weapons designed specifically for mass killing.