Spats - this is the way I see the public opinion battle with those are not in the choir.
1. The tool argument does not work because of the intentionality of the instrument and its perceived uses. It's a problem of categorization.
Guns are seen primarily as weapons and lethal. They have lesser attributes as sporting instruments. However, the sporting instruments are derivative of their weapons use.
There are no tool uses, except in some exotic realms which folks know little of.
It's clear that the lethal core concept of the gun can evoke negative ideation in people. EBRs have been shown to do that even in some gun friendly samples.
It is debatable whether images of guns and possession of guns push one towards violence. There are studies that say yes and some that say no.
This is for 'normal' folks. For those who have mental illnesses that make them violence prone, the gun may channel their aggression.
Thus, the tool - inanimate argument doesn't really work.
If you look at other instruments - say a knife - it's core conceptualization is more closer to tool usage. We use them every day in nonviolent ways. Yes, some folks use them for violence but there are clear nonviolent uses - there are few for guns. Note that violence oriented knives have been limited as have guns. Switchblades, gravity knives, various sizes - have been legislated against.
2. One has to make a case on why one should have an instrument that is primarily lethal. Without going into long philosophical discussions, most governmental and religious proscriptions have practical implications for someone. Arguing having an EBR is a God Given Right won't be convincing to folks not in the choir as it doesn't speak to utility. There are too many God Given proclamations of dubious validity in various religions to accept this on faith.
Guns are protected by the 2nd as weapons that have utility to support our social structure. They are not supported as tools or sporting toys.
The utility for firearms ownership are:
a. Self-defense
b. Defense against organized enemies - domestic and foreign.
c. Defense against tyranny
To convince folks, you need to strike these cords - so you can justify having a fundamentally nasty instrumentality.
SD probably works for many but not all. However, SD arguments for EBRs have a tough road to hoe. We have seen in the Colorado debates how gun folk rhetoric on how many shots you need and the carry of smaller capacity guns implies you don't need an EBR. However, EBRs have the rampage risk.
Can we get past that conundrum?
One scenario that might work is a Katrina, lawless period. Power out, etc. h
b. and c. might give a way
Invasion - this can make you look like an idiot. The common threads are that the Japanese didn't invade us or the Germans didn't invade Switzerland because of some dudes with rifles.
They have no historical validity and if you make these arugments you will be vaporized.
One might argue the border problems but you have to be very clear to stay away from racist rants. That hasn't always been the case but ranchers on the border can make the case for needing significant SD weapons.
c. Defense against tyranny.
I regard this as crucial but not in the usual we need to be armed to prevent health care or some other tin foil hat presentation. We've seen the UN coming or 50,000 Chinese on the border. That makes you sound like like an idiot again. It will have no force and probably contributes to banning guns.
More compelling in my mind are the uses of firearms in the Civil Rights movement - a true struggle against government supported tyranny. Significant long arms were used.
A resurgence of government violence against minorities is possible in some extremis. Japanese, Native Americans, Blacks, workers in some industries, Jews - have all felt armed oppression by the government.
It could happen again.
Thus, I conclude tools and sports are dead ends. The modern sporting rifle argument folks have NO concept of modern concept formation. I've seen idiotic TV shows with the fuddy host holding an M4 and an AR saying how different they are. However, they share most features except the full auto capacity. That makes little difference to the non choir but the choir thinks it does. Ever see the argument that you can fire an AR really fast as a reason to think it isn't dangerous? Huh? The Colorado case pointed out that you can reload really fast with a 10 rounder, so why do you need a 15?
We argue that since you can be equally lethal with a 10, so lets have a 15! Who's going to buy that? Folks not in the choir don't like lethality.
It's like the post where someone got bent out of shape with saying the UCSB shooter had an arsenal because you have 400 rounds at home. He had the 400 rounds in 40 ten round mags read for the rampage. Well, since he could ramapage with 10s, let's have 15s. The non choir folks will say have 5!
Oops - carry a J with no reloads - that's a 5. At that's all I need - say it proud on the Internet.
Given you cannot split the core concept of a gun from lethality, the nice MSR , tool, sports, baloney is just baloney from a opinion change view.
That's my take and some may not like it.
PS - from later discussion:
One thing I didn't mention in my post in the innoculation effect.
If you make a weak or stupid argument, then further arguments (even if better) are ignored.
Call someone who doesn't like guns a bigot - and you have lost any further power to convince them. If anything, you have strengthened their belief.
Call an AR a modern sporting rifle while holding it next to a M4 and the argument that the former is
nice is so unconvincing that further arguments for having them will be discarded.
Here's a gentleman with a modern sporting rifle.
You are not going to convince anyone not in the choir with that use of 'bigot'. Frank is correct.
One thing I didn't mention in my post in the innoculation effect.
If you make a weak or stupid argument, then further arguments (even if better) are ignored.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ve-forward-on-border-with-Bundy-s-5612344.php