Fire with Fire.....idle thoughts...AWB and Mag cap

lohman446 said:
"You all" want logical, constitutionally based arguments. These are not working for a good share of people. A good share of people vote in their own perceived self interest. Another disregard political stances on matters that do not impact them.

You cannot win people who vote in their own self interest over with logical constitutional arguments and limiting yourself to those does nothing for such individuals. Make individual gun ownership in their self interest and you may have something.
Click to expand...

That gets to Bart's observation of the social aspect of persuasion. Aspects of gun culture seem to work against it.

I had a neighbor notice a rifle in my trunk recently. Nice fellow, the sort who knows everyone. While helping a different neighbor carry some brush to his curb, I get "I heard you are a rifle guy. I want to buy something and have questions." During that conversation, another neighbor walks up the drive with a chainsaw, hears us chatting, stops, looks over both shoulders and says sotto voce "I hate that I have a permit to carry - I think it's my right!". I've had a few other people at neighborhood parties bring the subject up.

I've lived there here for eight years, but discretion is my habit. That habit works against casual associations of shooters. It took one fellow to break the ice and let this sort of thing bubble up.
 
Last edited:
fredvon4 said:
We could create sporting , target, competition events with very high trophy/winnings to rapidly gain 10,000~50,000 + participants all across the country...in many classes... done right can invigorate well over several million participants
Click to expand...
You're late.

Three gun
High power rifle

But that would be conceding the validity of the "sporting uses" argument, which Heller put to bed. The crux of the argument is that a semi-automatic rifle or carbine with a handle is still a semi-automatic firearm and is NOT[/i] the same as a full-automatic (select-fire) military rifle or carbine.
 
There’s plenty of people who want gun control because they don’t want us to have guns.
There’s also groups of people that are heart broken because America’s children are being murdered in the classroom with guns. We shouldn’t consider their concerns?
 
rickyrick said:
There’s plenty of people who want gun control because they don’t want us to have guns.
There’s also groups of people that are heart broken because America’s children are being murdered in the classroom with guns. We shouldn’t consider their concerns?
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

We shouldn't submit to that specific concern as if it weren't a stalking horse for a pre-existing agenda being cynically deployed by people who publicize genuine grief as a means to their end.

It can't be a genuine and rational grief that only arises from one method of murder.
 
There’s also groups of people that are heart broken because America’s children are being murdered in the classroom with guns. We shouldn’t consider their concerns?
Click to expand...

"Not one more life" is a favorite cry from proponents of gun control. It sets the "goal" of what an acceptable level of violence is. How are we getting there? I also want to know who exactly is not heart broken by the murder of our children. Is there some implication here that because i do not favor gun control I am not? The premise that these things are heart breaking does not carry over to a regulation of a constitutional right. I'm heart broken by the children killed every day by our national transportation system while going to or from school or even while in school. That is not an argument of abolishing it.
 
Ok, if we discount what a group of people want because they want action for emotional reasons, then how is trying to enhance or further qualify the right to own a gun because guns are fun going to help?
I’m not talking about politicians that use blood to further their agenda. I’m talking about the public.
Not really different than saying “sorry you loved one was killed by a drunk driver, but drunk driving sure is fun.”
 
Ok, if we discount what a group of people want because they want action for emotional reasons, then how is trying to enhance or further qualify the right to own a gun because guns are fun going to help?
Click to expand...

Wanting action for emotional reasons does not mean that the proposed action is going to be effective. Further proposing action that violates the rights of others because you want it for emotional reasons is not legitimate.

You mention the drunk driver and the proposed defense of drunk driving in jest. The "gun control crowds" answer to the drunk driver has little to do with stopping drunk driving and everything to do with prohibition of alcohol. Your analogy does not work for a pro gun control argument.

No one here is arguing that shooting children in school is an activity that should be protected.
 
rickyrick said:
Ok, if we discount what a group of people want because they want action for emotional reasons, ...
Click to expand...

Your premise is incorrect.

As stated, the authenticity of the sentiment is at issue. No one is heart broken over a traffic fatality, but then just fine with airplane crashes. The instrumentality can't be the genuine source of grief.

rickyrick said:
...then how is trying to enhance or further qualify the right to own a gun because guns are fun going to help?
Click to expand...

No one suggested that. The suggestion is to present it to people in a social context as a normal activity. Bart set it forth well in his analogy.

Making it social in a low key way doesn't enhance the right, but may destigmatize its practice.

rickyrick said:
Not really different than saying “sorry you loved one was killed by a drunk driver, but drunk driving sure is fun.”
Click to expand...

Yes, it is really different. No one is suggesting a message that "Sorry your loved one was killed in a school shooting, but school shooting sure is fun."

An arm may be useful for securing or defending one's rights, but let's not underestimate the role of clear thinking in preserving rights.
 
I'm liking this drunk driving analogy. The statistics are about 29 people a day killed in alcohol impaired vehicle crashes. This isn't even getting into the subject of alcohol related violence or long term health effect. Yet we make laws against drunk driving and against the particular violence rather than a new movement for prohibition. We need to start discussing why the difference in our reactions and illustrating why one response is appropriate while another is neither appropriate nor likely to be effectively implemented.
 
BTW, Rachel Maddow - who is all for gun control - likes to shoot guns and you can find videos of her enjoying a 1911 and AR. Just saying entertainment value may not be enough to support the kind of access we want for firearms.
Click to expand...

Entertainment value is clearly not enough as some of our own members who do find firearms fun demonstrate. But firearms are fun, and that’s a good place to start the discussion. I’ve argued with people for months to no avail and then made more progress in 20 minutes with an Airsoft BB gun and some reactive targets in the living room.

It certainly doesn’t instantly convert everyone into Ted Nugent; but it opens their mind a wee bit wider and to use zukiphile’s analogy, they at least know fish from cow in the future. If nothing else, they notice the more obvious lies.
 
I’m not really putting out my views, I’m giving the views of of “the other side”. They do have a dog in this fight.
We are saying to them, “your concerns about gun violence are not valid, because the constitution” a constitution that is open to interpretation and we are adding “... it’s really fun to shoot”
Been shot at... nothing close to fun about it.
Tried to call 911 once with blood soaked hands too... not fun either.

You are not going to make any progress if you continually claim that wanting an environment safe from gun violence is not valid.
I think it is a valid concern, yet we respond by acting like they are stupid.

I also blame the media and our political leaders for the irrational fear of gun ownership.

I’m all for all the good reasons for gun ownership. I love shooting and hunting. Going out shooting is pretty fun. I think for whatever reason the 2nd Amendment was written is our only legitimate claim to a right to own them. Lots of speculation as to why it was written, but I don’t think it was for fun and recreation use.

All the while gun control is creeping towards everyone’s doorstep and we keep doing the same thing.

Now nothing wrong with the original suggestion of competition, fellowship and fun. I’m all for it.
A lot of gun people aren’t very personable, some people won’t like hanging around with them.

The funny thing is: for whatever reason when they talk gun control, gun owners will say “it will never happen!” “Take the guns it’s CIVIL WAR!” But then fun control IS happening on an increasingly frequent basis.

I’m opposed to any gun control, but to say that non-gun people don’t have any valid concerns is not honest.
Denying that guns are dangerous is dishonest.
Saying that an AR15 is not anymore dangerous than other rifles is just as dishonest as saying that the AR15 is the most powerful rifle out there.

We just need to be honest with why we have that right. Sugar coating doesn’t make gun violence any easier for some people to swallow.

People are mad and getting madder. Dangerous political times for conservative things like gun rights.

Lots of people are ready to give republicans a political kick in the _______ . They’re going to hit republicans where it hurts. Guns are high on the list.
 
You are not going to make any progress if you continually claim that wanting an environment safe from gun violence is not valid.
I think it is a valid concern, yet we respond by acting like they are stupid.
Click to expand...

Banning legal ownership of firearms will not accomplish an environment free from gun violence the same as banning alcohol did not prevent the problems associated to the consumption and abuse of alcohol.

This point needs to be hammered home.
 
Exactly, but you do first have to acknowledge their concerns as valid, then you can talk about solutions.
There will be disagreement about the solutions, no doubt. But having meaningful discussion about the solutions would be a start. We can’t get to that point because we aren’t listening.
We acted like our ARs were better than other rifles, we went out bragging about them. We liked them because they looked like what the military uses. We post on social media showing how fast they can be fired... back in the day, shooters bragged about their assault rifles. WE made them scary, and now we deny that they are.
Half the AR misconceptions were the product of gun owners. Now we lie and say they are harmless.
 
I don't recall the same AR dialogue you do.

I don't own one, I don't see any reason for me to own one, but I don't see any reason why other competent adults should not be allowed to make that decision for themselves.
 
rickyrick said:
Exactly, but you do first have to acknowledge their concerns as valid, then you can talk about solutions.
Click to expand...

Where someone's concern is that I can buy an AR with a regular magazine and their solution is to keep me from buying one, they do not have a valid concern.
 
So we don’t acknowledge that 30 round magazines allow a gun to fire more time before reloading than a 10 round?

The point is, I don’t think we should have any limits on firearms. So to me there should be no discussion.
People that want to make guns seem fun and warm and fuzzy are part of the problem.
If it is your absolute right to own a gun, why are we even worried?

No compromise means no discussion.
If you decide to have a discussion, you should have something a little stronger than “its fun”

I see a lot of cruelty from gun owners when these events happen. The same can be said about the anti-gun side. We are supposed to be better than that.
 
I do agree, just presenting how it’s viewed on the other side.

The world is awash in these type of things.

https://youtu.be/7RdAhTxyP64
Click to expand...

I don't really understand why he thinks that is worth doing, but magazine dumps aren't interesting to me. Also not interesting to me: sitting in a little boat on a lake fishing, gardening, parachuting, woodworking, Downton Abbey and drag racing. Those also aren't reasonable bases for tighter firearm restrictions.

Why not try to understand what motivates them, we all know what motivates us?
Click to expand...

You can listen to and understand what motivates a person without taking whatever he utters as valid. You can sit politely while someone speaks a fundamentally flawed position, then tell them it is fundamentally flawed. Or you can refrain from any response if you think their words are less than rational manifestations of normal grief.
 
Last edited:
So we don’t acknowledge that 30 round magazines allow a gun to fire more time before reloading than a 10 round?
Click to expand...

I think it would be a difficult premise to argue. I would question the conclusion that often follows it.

What cruelty in such discussions? I still want to know who is celebrating the loss of innocent life. These keeps getting put up as some straw man argument and I want to know who exactly is making it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top