How would you respond to this?

[noway2]

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:

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.

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?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Piratesailor]

I wouldn't. People like that will not understand any discussion around the facts, numbers and the second amendment Don't waist your energies.

[Piratesailor]

Btw, just a couple of facts. In 2010 of the 10k+ gun related murders in the US, only 380 were by rifle. There were almost 2k murders using knives and 700 or so where the person was beaten with a bat or blunt instrument. There were another 2k where the person was just beat to death. So, eliminating these rifles will do nothing. Heck, ban bats and knives.

Oh and lastly look at the statistic of mass shootings before Brady and after. Interesting numbers.

[tcox4freedom]

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?

I bet that statement is going well over there. (NOT!!)

Got a thread link? I've missed this conversation and I want to make sure I can find it.

[HotGuns]

Just tell him that they are designed for mass killing.

Thats why you want one...

[Domr]

There's probably no response that they'll accept. They can't let "facts and figures" get in the way. I am firmly against an AWB...not because I have/want an AR, but because I think it's just the tip of the iceberg. Banning all guns at once would result in a tremendous uproar and perhaps even a new civil war. But if they pit gun owners against each other. Little by little they can pass new laws through because fellow gun owner feel "that doesn't affect me". Sometime down the road we'll be lucky to have bolt action rifles and pump shotguns left if things go down that path.

[NY27]

I'm failry stubborn. I've had this discussion with members of my wife's side of the family. Even when I present my statements w/ hard facts, these mindless mutants respond with emotion filled non-sense. I'm growing tired of having the same discussion, but my hope is that if I can make "one" of these lefty libs start to realize the error of their beliefs, than I have done something good.

[mg27]

Msnbc is constanly using hunting as an excuse why we dont need these arms. They keep feeding people's minds with the 2nd amendment only for hunting. People need to realize these weapons are here to keep government from becoming like the syrian government..

[Ring]

tell them you will donate to PETA in there name...

[Ring]

" such weapons designed specifically for mass killing"


thats why the cops use them....

[TX expat]

Just tell him that the Second Amendment isn't about protecting us from a rogue deer.

[GeorgiaDawg]

I would say that "assault rifles" were designed for mass killing so the military could be more efficient in waging war. The 2nd Amendment allows for the citizenry to possess firearms for the designed purpose of fighting a tyrannical government set on turning citizens into slaves, and the military would be a primary instrument in such a scheme. In order for the citizenry to defend itself from said enslavement, they need to have firearms designed for "mass killing", just like the military has, so that a realistic fight can be made to protect freedom. Hunting rifles and .22 target pistols are not very effective against such a force of brute strength, thus assault weapons would be a vital ally in such a fight.

[noway2]

As a follow up, here was the response that I gave:

Dialog is also a prerequisite to any sort of meaningful progress on the issues that everyone really wants to address. One thing that is clear is that the true objective is to reduce the carnage and devastation caused by these types of incidents. The problem, at least as I see it currently, is that some see the mechanism to reducing criminal and lunatic activity is to put restrictions on people other than the criminals and lunatics in the hope that this will some how have a trickle down effect. I think that this belief is enhanced by the failure to understand any legitimate purpose behind these types of weapons. I also don't think that to those who don't believe civilians should have them that there is any argument or reason that they will find acceptable. Similarly, those of us who do believe that civilians should be able to posses these types of weapons don't understand the rational behind banning them, nor do we believe that it would make any progress towards the desired goal of reducing the violence and we also believe that the historical data backs this position. The same can be said about magazine limits, etc. To those who don't agree with a ban, these tactics are not viable solutions to a problem we agree exists, but an assault on our rights. Both sides are equally entrenched, neither side will give ground, and the argument can not be rationally won. I also doubt whether or not either side has the political capital to do more than create a stalemate over a bunch of scorched earth.

To me, it appears that as a nation as a whole, and as a society, we have a choice. Do we want to fight over "the usual suspects" (awb, magazine capacity, etc) or do we want to work together to come up with meaningful solutions? Which is it more important to (the proverbial, collective) you: to punish the (proverbial, collective) me for something that (the proverbial, collective) I didn't do or get to the real end goal of reducing the bloodshed in a manner we both can live with?

Personally, I think that if the threats of bans were taken off the table, or were at least set aside, we could get a lot farther. In fact, I think focus being bans is making things worse.

[noway2]

I bet that statement is going well over there. (NOT!!)

Got a thread link? I've missed this conversation and I want to make sure I can find it.

Here is a link, post #17 in the thread.
Do not back down one inch

[Billb1960]

See my signature