Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes

[rjinga]

We're looking at ways of changing peoples' minds and attitudes. We're fooling ourselves if we believe that can be accomplished in connection with gun control issues through formal logic.

Are you saying that being able to recognize, and then thereby point out, a flaw in another person’s argument/position/mindset can’t lead them to change their attitude on an issue? My personal experience has been that it can. Is it the only way? No. Is it a way? Yes. Will it be successful with everyone? No. But, even if I couldn’t convince that particular person at that particular moment, many times it gave me the opportunity to engage other people regarding the issue. We should never abandon the use of reason in a discussion, no matter how unreasonable the other person may be. If we do that, they’ve won already.

There is simply too strong a visceral dimension to peoples' attitudes about guns.

And how do you propose that we go about changing their minds and attitudes? Do you believe that it is even possible?

So an argument to a gun control advocate who is personally afraid of people with guns that an AR-15 is not dangerous will be dismissed as ludicrous.

Be dismissed as ludicrous by whom? Are you referring to the people on the other side of the issue with their “strong visceral dimension”?

Such an argument will also impair our credibility.

Impair our credibility with whom?

We will be seen as missing the point, and in practical terms we really are.

And in your mind, what is “the point”?

 

[speedrrracer]

If we can not articulate why having an AR is important to our very foundation, I fear it is only a matter of time before the 2A is defined to exclude them.

And we certainly can, and have articulated why an AR is important to our very foundation. There are videos on Youtube by Navy Seals and other firearms experts detailing why, in their opinion, the AR-15 is such a great choice for home defense & the resistance to potential future tyranny. I personally don't agree with them on the home defense front but that's my prerogative.

As for re-defining the 2A...altering the Constitution, bring it on. That's what I'm hoping will happen.

 

[rjinga]

I am looking to be credible when talking to intelligent people about why anyone needs an AR.

I understand. And, I know we’ve all agreed that “need” is the wrong word, so let’s change it to something like “Why should someone have an AR?” My first response would be “Why not?” NEVER accept the opposing side’s premise at face value; they proposed it, make them defend it.

We can deny the premise that ARs are dangerous… or we can admit that this begs the question of why anyone needs to have a weapon capable of such destruction.

At the risk of appearing condescending, when I’m only trying to be precise (and maybe a little pedantic), let’s me go over this again. A person’s opinion on whether an AR to be dangerous or not, may prompt us to ask the question why someone should be allowed to own a weapon of its capacity, but it does not beg the question. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Example: Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.

"Why does anyone need/Why should anyone own a weapon capable of such destruction?"
"Why not?" And then after they've chewed on that question for a while, maybe something like: "Do you have any idea of the capacity for destruction contained in your Prius?! If you picked the right target, say a group of preschoolers walking down the sidewalk, you could maim or kill dozens in a matter of seconds. And then, if you could get my hands on an 'assault vehicle' like an SUV, or a dump truck, you'd have the capacity for even greater carnage."

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That just does not fly. Many disagree with my analysis but the core usage of the gun is a weapon, the core usage of car is to drive around.

That the latter can cause accidents is not as psychologically potent in the debates.

Can I have a bottle of anthrax? Why not?

I know some of the choir cannot accept the core usage argument but you have to think of what works to convince people outside of the choir. If you can't - you lose the upcoming fight with a whine that it's a sporting toy or why can't I have my toy.

 

[speedrrracer]

Many disagree with my analysis but the core usage of the gun is a weapon, the core usage of car is to drive around.

Is it? I'd agree it was likely the original purpose. But in actual usage in the USA? Aren't the DGU numbers quite large, and if so, wouldn't they suggest that the core usage of the gun has become to deter would-be criminals?

I know some subset of DGUs actually involve pulling the trigger, but I was of the belief that most (including the vast number of supposedly unreported DGUs) DGUs are of the "I showed, he ran" variety

Honestly asking -- I don't know the answer

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It deters people because it is potentially lethal weapon. Then bad people use them to rob and kill. Both are weapons usage

A car does not deter criminals. In fact, they may use a gun to steal your car. They don't use a car to steal your gun except in some convoluted scenario. Like running over Mr. Open Carry and picking the gun out of the goo.

I'm rather sick of this endless debate. Let me keep my nice gun with the thing that goes up and the big clip. Please, please, Diane, Nancy, Barbara, Barack, Joe, Mike, Gabby, etc. It's nice!!!

 

[K_Mac]

rjinga your answer is without question condescending and pedantic. I don't hold it against you. I am sometimes guilty of the same, if you can believe my family and friends. You may seek precision, but what we want is honest dialog. Winning the battle may be intellectually satisfying, but if we lose the war it is little solace.

 

[rjinga]

K Mac,

To the extent that you thought my post was condescending, I do apologize. That was not my intention at all.

 

[K_Mac]

rjinga,

No apologies necessary. I respect your position and your ability to express it. I think there is value in the discussion. An old book I am fond of has a proverb in it that says, "As iron sharpens iron so does one man sharpen another." I think your intention is to do just that. I am not offended.

 

[rjinga]

Proverbs 27:17 - one of my favorites. And yes, that was my intention.

 

[44 AMP]

"why does anyone need....?"
"why should anyone be allowed...?"

One answer, used by at least one fictional character and likely some real ones too, is,

"because I don't want to be killed for lack of being able to shoot back!"

And isn't this the real bottom line of the matter? Weapons like the AR are good at what they do, either carrying out or STOPPING an attack. The simple fact is that bad guys have them, and use them, so isn't someone pushing to legally prevent me from having one an actual attack on me and mine?

They want a law(s) that if obeyed would guarantee that I could not be legally armed to match a terrorist. Why ban me from having the same arms you demand the police have and use for your protection?

Isn't this a form of giving aid and comfort to the enemy???

 

[Frank Ettin]

Are you saying that being able to recognize, and then thereby point out, a flaw in another person’s argument/position/mindset can’t lead them to change their attitude on an issue?...

In this context that's exactly what I'm saying. It might work in a debating society. It's relevant in scientific papers. But not really here.

This is about people who are afraid of guns and who are afraid of people with guns. Don't try to convince them that guns aren't dangerous. They won't believe you. I won't believe you.

Guns are supposed to be dangerous. They fling small bits of metal at high speeds long distances, instantly, on the demand of the handler with just a press of a trigger. Once fired that bit of metal will hit with potentially devastating effect whatever the gun was pointed at. A gun that doesn't isn't much use as a gun. It's that attribute of a gun that increases an evil person's capacity to do evil. It's also that attribute of a gun which makes a gun useful to the good person to defend against evil.

So this business about "guns aren't dangerous, people are" is fundamentally sophistic balderdash. People are afraid of dangerous people with guns. I'm afraid of dangerous people with guns, and that's why I want a gun of my own (and some good training).

Other people who are afraid of dangerous people with guns don't see having a gun of their own as a useful response. Some of them are themselves afraid of guns. That's why I've been so involved over the last 15 or so years with helping to teach people to handle guns safely and to shoot.

Also, many people don't trust people with guns. They are influenced by stereotypes of gun owners as people who aren't like them. My wife and I have had some success opening the minds of such people by being the types of people who they would never have thought would own guns.

This is not an exercise in boolean algebra. This is about winning hearts and minds. It is about culture.

 

[rjinga]

This is about people who are afraid of guns and who are afraid of people with guns…. People are afraid of dangerous people with guns.

It sounds like you’re talking about two different sub-groups of people, contained within a larger group. [See photo. Circle and oval size does not necessary represent sample size.] For example, I’m concerned about dangerous people with guns, but I’m not afraid of all people with guns, and I’m not afraid of guns in general at all.

So this business about "guns aren't dangerous, people are" is fundamentally sophistic balderdash.

I never said that.

In post #51 I quoted K Mac where he said that “the argument that only people are dangerous and ARs are not is disingenuous.” Then I asked the question “Why do you say that?” I was simply asking him to support his assertion. I would say that you have fallen into the classic Strawman fallacy; but, since you don’t believe that pointing out the flaw in the other person position is effective in this context, I’ll move on.

This is about winning hearts and minds.

I agree. However, as always, the devil is in the details. For example, if someone you were trying to win over said “I heard Rep. Alan Grayson from Florida say that the Orlando shooter was able to buy a weapon that shoots 700 rounds a minute. That’s just outrageous! We have to have more gun control to stop things like that.” What, if anything, would you say in response?

My points would be the same: Rep. Grayson was wrong; shooter's rifle didn't/can't shoot that fast; one trigger pull equals one bullet fired, just like with a pistol; etc. The manner in which I presented that information would depend on my relationship with the person. And, believe it or not, one of my goal is always to try and grow the relationship.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In discussing effective debate techniques, I think it is important to note that an effective appeal to pathos is rarely countered by logos. Look at Trump's success - he has said things that are demonstrably false, contrary, etc. Yet pointing that out doesn't dull his message at all because he isn't selling logos and he isn't connecting on that level. As Twain once said: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to."

I think a lot of gun control is driven by fear. To the extent that fear is one of the unknown, then the best way to conquer it is direct experience. $10 of ammo at the range will make a bigger impression on someone than 2 hours of perfect logic. And what's more, if you make the unknown familiar to them, they'll start to realize the extent they are being lied to.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I’m concerned about dangerous people with guns, but I’m not afraid of all people with guns, and I’m not afraid of guns in general at all.....

That's you. We're not talking about you.

But Suzi Soccermom isn't sure who she can trust with a gun. She's not really sure whether the guy on the next block who folks say has some guns is a level headed, normal, stand-up guy like her friends who don't have guns, or if he's kind of bent, tending to violence, or teetering on the edge of psycho. She might well imagine that many gun owners are more like the latter -- that's why the have guns. And if you read the gun forums, some of our fellow gun owners aren't helping to dispel that fantasy -- some seem to try hard to confirm it.

She might be okay with guns if she could be sure that they were kept out the hands of the "wrong" people. But some recent rampage murders passed background checks and bought their guns legally. And I believe that Glenn has posted in the past that we really don't have a good way of predicting whether someone is a dormant rampage murderer.

....if someone you were trying to win over said “I heard Rep. Alan Grayson from Florida say that the Orlando shooter was able to buy a weapon that shoots 700 rounds a minute. That’s just outrageous! We have to have more gun control to stop things like that.” What, if anything, would you say in response?

My points would be the same: Rep. Grayson was wrong; shooter's rifle didn't/can't shoot that fast; one trigger pull equals one bullet fired, just like with a pistol; etc.....

Of course mistakes of fact need to be corrected. If someone says something like that, we must explain that he's wrong -- that he is referring to the cyclic rate of fire for a fully automatic gun, and that's not anything like the sort of gun used. Either he can't be bothered to check his facts or he's purposely exaggerating things as a rhetorical trick to add weight to his argument.

But going into the "one trigger pull equals one bullet" business too deeply probably doesn't help. Split times firing a semi-automatic can still easily run 0.2 second or less. That still translates to a rate of fire in the neighborhood of 300 rounds a minute. To Suzi Soccermom that will still be an awful lot of bullets in a short time. She's not going to see a big difference between 300 rounds and 700 rounds in a minute.

The primary reason for always challenging mistakes of fact is to cast doubt on the credibility of the speaker. If he's so wrong about a basic, easily checked fact, what else is he wrong about? How can anything he says be trusted? At best he's just wrong, while at worst he's trying to manipulate us by exaggerating things.

 

[K_Mac]

rjinga in post #5 I said the following:

I believe that semiautomatic rifles with removable high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding citizens make us stronger as a nation. Their ability to be fired quickly, repeatedly, accurately, and with great effect are what make them desirable and important to a free state in my opinion. These qualities also make them dangerous. I think the argument that only people are dangerous and ARs are not is disingenuous.

I listed the attributes that make ARs dangerous. You reject the premise and insist it is not valid. You repeatedly point to my inability to defend this proposition in a manner that satisfies you. The purpose of this thread is to discuss how to defend the right to own AR style rifles to people who ask why we need them. Your dogmatic use of the Socratic Method may make for interesting discussion, but it has little value in making our case to the millions of people in the circle of 'People who wonder why AR rifles are legal'.

 

[44 AMP]

Cyclic rate of a semi, or full auto, is a calculated number, how fast the action mechanically cycles. AND, it varies with conditions (including the ammo used for testing).

I have books listing the cyclic rate of the M16 as 700-900rpm.

How many rounds one can actually shoot in a minute is a MUCH different matter. Generally speaking, it is not possible to fire a gun at its cyclic rate under field conditions.

.. a weapon that shoots 700 rounds a minute. That’s just outrageous! We have to have more gun control to stop things like that.” What, if anything, would you say in response?

While car/gun comparisons are seldom good comparisons, there are points of congruence that sometimes allow people to understand concepts better.

My four cylinder Ford Focus has a speedometer that goes up to 140mph! (oddly enough, my wife's Mustang with a more powerful 6 cylinder engine has a speedometer that goes to 120mph )

Can anyone (not on a test track) actually DRIVE a Focus at 140mph?? I can't, and can't even get close to that on any ordinary road.

But, using the same logic, isn't a 140mph car "just outrageous"? Don't we need more laws to stop people from buying things like that??? (deliberate sarcasm)

And, yes, I get it that 300 rpm is a huge amount of ammo (and justly frightening to Suzy Soccermom and to all rational individuals) but claiming the gun does double that or more (cyclic rate number(s)) when it cannot be done in the real world is simply a lie.

SO, in debating, as in court, when you get caught in an outright lie, ALL your credibility is now suspect. After all, if you are going to lie about something small, and largely irrelevant, what ELSE are you lying about???

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And, yes, I get it that 300 rpm is a huge amount of ammo (and justly frightening to Suzy Soccermom and to all rational individuals) but claiming the gun does double that or more (cyclic rate number(s)) when it cannot be done in the real world is simply a lie.

SO, in debating, as in court, when you get caught in an outright lie, ALL your credibility is now suspect.....

That's correct. It's really not about the actual rate of fire, theoretical or under field conditions. It's being wrong about that fact, especially when the error inflates the datum purely for dramatic effect.

 

[rjinga]

rjinga in post #5… I listed the attributes that make ARs dangerous.

Yes you did. However, I’d forgotten that by the time I got to post #70 and #93. It was a sin of omission, I promise. I did go back and edit, or clarify, my previous remarks just now.

 

[rjinga]

Bartholomew Roberts, good stuff in post #94.