Was talking to an semi anti gunner, would like some advice on how to reply.

K

Kimio

New member
We're friends, and he's not exactly against banning, though he certainly leaning that way. He made some points that I'm not entirely sure how to reply to them and I'd like to be able to give him a better explanation if possible.

He is of the opinion, that if there was to be any form of legislation to try and mitigate crime with guns. He thinks that if semi automatics were banned it would make it much harder for the shooter, the average joe or jane, to inflict harm on a mass number of people. School shootings would be harder to carry out, if the shooter walked into a theater with said hunting rifle, the civilian populace would try to over power him so that he couldn't continue his evil deeds.

I already made the point that laws won't do anything, also stating that a bolt action rifle such as the old WWII rifles are not exactly hard to use, and you can put an impressive amount of firepower down range, albeit not nearly as much as say an AR15.

He believes that due to said semi auto firearms being banned or if magazines period were banned, the average joe or jane, such as a teen or college kid would not be able to find let alone have the know how of contacting an illegal arms dealer to obtain said firearm.

I talked about Charles Whitman, and he replied stating that he was a trained marine sniper, and most don't have the skills to be able to do what he did.

TL;DR Essentially I'm trying to tell him what would be the reason you would want a magazine fed rifle or handgun. He agrees that banning aesthetics and such does not limit the lethality of the firearm, what makes a firearm more deadly is the amount of rounds someone can put down range in a short amount of time. Thus, if the user was forced to use only a single shot or WWII style rifle, he or she would not be able to cause the mass deaths as seen in the recent shootings.

Your insight would be appreciated.
 
There are probably close to 300 million guns in America and although they are not all semi-auto I bet a large percentage are.

So, by banning guns does he also include confiscation of existing guns? If so how does he see that working? How would he handle the legal issues surrounding confiscation?
 
I brought that up as well, and he said that you track the guns that can accept said magazines. If I understand his reasoning, you can then confiscate said magazines.

I mentioned that it would be a monumental and expensive task to try and get all of them off the streets. He replied that the old ones would be grandfathered, and that the new production of parts magazines etc. would be banned and eventually the old ones would wear out and break.

I asked him why is it that we're punishing the law abiding, and I quote

"The goal isn't to punish the innocent. It's not about what's fair, it's about saving lives. TBH I don't really think there's a need for more gun regulation. These freak school accidents are really insignificant, more people die in car crashes daily than what occurred there. It's just more shocking when it's all in one place. But if there was to be any kind of gun regulation passed, decreasing the amount of semi auto magazine fed weapons on the market would do the most to decrease the lethality against large groups of humans in legal weapons."

I told him is a social problem, not a gun problem and I think this sums up his opinion pretty easily.

"It's a lot easier to take some guns off the market than to change human nature."
 
I am really concerned about the number of people that simply disregard the Constitution as it relates to gun rights. When I mention this they just act as if the Constitution is some outdated document to be tossed aside at a whim.

I fear this is also showing up in other areas such as freedom of speech versus hate speech. I remember the day when Jewish ACLU Attorneys defended the right of Nazis to hold public rallies, but now I fear we are not far from seeing the Justice Department arresting Ministers for statements they make in a sermon.

I fear we are focusing too much on what is best for “society” by oppressing the freedom of the individual.
 
A bolt action rifle might have slowed down Lanza, but it wouldn't have stopped him. Enter the school, shoot anyone in his path. Kill the teacher, block the doorway, he now has a room full of weak targets that he could kill at whichever speed was comfortable to him.

As for the theater, the killer's AR-15 jammed right off the bat. He did all his shooting with a pump action shotgun and a handgun. Just as much opportunity for someone to stop him then as if he had a bolt action rifle.

People don't grab for the gun, or run away when a killer is reloading. They go full on deer in the headlights, duck down and stay in place. Maybe behind cover. But they won't move when the shooter approaches them.
 
That last part of his statement makes me feel that he wants an "easy" fix to a very complex problem, but the simple fact IMO is that this is something that is NOT going to be easily remedied.

Nothing we do will stop this from occurring again. If it isn't a gun it'll be some other tool, if that's what it takes to "save a few lives" I feel there are those who would rather become a victim before realizing that we are only hurting ourselves in the long run.
 
The slippery slope toward confiscation.

Remind him that gun owners despise violence, especially gun violence, for all the right reasons. The terrible loss of life, the anguish of the parents, the aching hole that all violence leaves in the victims. As gun owners, as human beings, as parents, brothers and sisters, we all deplore violence, but that murder and mayhem are already against the law.

Then ask your friend if he's okay with the government confiscating private property that until yesterday was legal to own? Ask your friend how well the other government confiscation (illegal drugs) is working? Ask your friend if he's okay with giving the government permission to take private property from law-abiding citizens whose only problem is that they own something that until yesterday was completely legal?

Remind your friend that a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring inside. That it's easily manufactured in an industrial society, and that there are tens of millions of them in circulation today. Remind him, also, that after WWII, the Japanese government collected hundreds of thousands of swords and destroyed them, yet today it's easy to buy a correct antique samurai sword on the market. (Those swords with artistic merit were spared) Obviously such a ban didn't work in Japan, and it won't work here. The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but it is close. Bans simply don't work, except against the law-abiding.

Remind your friend also about the latest David Gregory incident, where he held up a magazine on national TV, in a city where those magazines are banned. Remind your friend that the law should apply to everyone, regardless of social standing and if he believes that Gregory shouldn't be prosecuted for simply possessing the magazine in a city where that magazine is banned, then he should re-examine his perceptions about the rule of law.

Gun control isn't about guns, it is about control. I don't want the government to have that kind of control over me.
 
Did that for both magazines and prohibition as well.

What he said in regards to both. I'm adding what i said for more context


Saying that because they're more scarce and hard to come by will reduce the crime is like saying "If we eliminate alcohol alcoholism and all the associated bad things with it will become lower" We tried something like this in the 1920' it was called the prohibition era, the era gave birth to the Mob and Al Capone.

"Alcohol is not firearms. Everyone drinks alcohol whereas owning firearms is not really something everyone does, and if they do do it, it's like an old handgun in their desk drawer. Firearms is a much less practiced activity. Equivalent to maybe just rum by itself and not all of alcohol. And then banning just semi auto magazine firearms would limit that further to like a certain flavor of rum. If all prohibition did was ban a certain flavor of rum, people would have just switched to wine or beer or a different flavor of rum. No alcohol kingpins."

There are millions of handguns that can already accept said magazines and just as many magazines as there are guns. It would require that every law abiding citizen either turns in said high cap mags for destruction or the government committing a completely unrealistic amount of resources to forcefully confiscate said magazines.

"So make the sale of further magazines and semi auto pistols illegal, eventually the older pistols and magazines will wear out and there won't be many produced to replace the old ones."
 
Kimio's point about prohibition is a good one.

However, it only goes halfway because it falls into the same trap many pro-gun arguments do: arguing from utility. Asserting that gun control won't reduce violence is only half of the story.

The primary issue is philosophical. Prohibition was supposed to make people better. It failed at that, as will any attempt to do so through laws or regulations. Millions who imbibed responsibly were punished for the acts of a few.

The same argument applies to gun control. I have a right to defend myself. That right has already existed. Locke and Blackstone spoke eloquently on it. The framers made sure it was protected with the force of law.

Bad people will do horrifying things, but penalizing the people who didn't do it isn't just, fair, or righteous in the least.
 
Whitman wasnt a sniper. Whitman received a sharpshooters badge in the service, which isnt even the highest you can receive.

I love when people exaggerate things for their arguments....

sent from the rust monster
 
A standard 115-year old pump-action shotgun w/ 0-0 buck would have created every bit the carnage as the Bushmaster.
Perhaps more.

At this point, only the Illinois proposal might have an effect
http://tinyurl.com/adjjxzk

and at that point, use of a samurai sword over a 30-second timeframe would yield the same damage -- only far, far more horrifically so.

You just have to keep walking their arguments back on them, one weapon at a time, as they splutter in their cocktails.
Pretty soon they run out of ideas and revert to pounding the table.
 
This is the point that I always make when the "utility" argument is brought up, "since gun use is really rare" to some people.

Consider guns are non-existant. Something equally as likely to happen, what if the shooter at Newtown decided to run all of the children over outside at recess? What if the Aurora shooter thought the same thing as a huge mob of people waited outside for the movie? Would we now ban vehicles, because we can't trust YOU with a vehicle? Or "I'm sorry, would that be too inconvenient because it applies to YOU?".

Also in both cases (equally as likely) that they decided to quietly and quickly bar the doors, and proceeded to set the building on fire? (I promise that fire suppression system companies would be dissolved for how ineffective the systems really are). Then what now? Do we remove all means to create fire? Remove all accelerants from life?

If he still disagrees you should invite him to a range. Once he has a blast with your little tube-fed .22, remind him that you can fit more than ten rounds in it and it'll be illegal. :rolleyes:
 
There is no point in even trying to reason with an anti. They are emotionally driven. Logic does not fit into their equation.
Stay friends by staying away from the subject.
 
I might argue that you can't argue with an anti. It depends. Many progun folks were negative in attitude but changed their views.

About the mags - without some god-like power of confiscation, the existing stocks can last for many, many years. The life span is very long.

The rampage shooter, who plans to kill a bunch and die, only needs about two mags for the plan. They will easy to obtain.

IIRC, it took 10 minutes for the cops to arrive at Sandy Hook. Having something like a modern pump shotgun and no opposition at a school, with a backup handgun - banning ARs or AKs is irrelevant.

I took a couple of modern shotgun classes - reloading isn't that slow and being charged by 6 year olds isn't a real threat.
 
Any ban will only stop the law abiding. Anyone with "evil intent" will find a way to bring tragedy to bear, be it automobiles, gasoline, blades, ANFO or 5 round firearms. You can legislate until the cows come home, won't change a thing except keep good people somewhat defenseless/helpless and quite possibly dead in dire moments of need.

How's that War on Drugs or Terror going again? Trading Liberty for Security seems to be a guaranteed method to end up with neither. Or so I've read... and seen. Large groups of unarmed = target rich environments for those with an agenda directed by the voices in their heads.

Remember the adage: For some, no explanation is necessary. For others, no explanation will suffice.

Agree to disagree, hope that an open minded fence sitter listening nearby will concur with your logical explanation and move on. One only has so much time alotted on this planet. Use it wisely.
 
Talking to anti's

I would politely ask them to read the 1st,2nd,4th,9th and10th amendments, for starters . A lot of anti-gun folks simply aren't familiar with the Bill of Rights. And I agree that all violence, gun or otherwise, is a social problem.
 
Kimio said:
...He thinks that if semi automatics were banned it would make it much harder for the shooter, the average joe or jane, to inflict harm on a mass number of people...
Click to expand...
  • The worst school mass murder in U. S. history was committed without a gun: The The Bath School disaster -- 1927, 45 people killed (including 38 children) with dynamite, firebombs, pyrotol, a club and Winchester rifle (the rifle was used only in the killer's suicide).

  • One of the worst mass murders in U. S. history was committed without a gun: The Happy Land fire -- 1990, arson killing 87 people (and don't forget the Oklahoma federal building and 9/11).

  • And there was Priscilla Ford who in 1980 intentionally drove her car onto a crowded Reno, NV sidewalk killing 7.

  • If you have a look at the listing of rampage killings on Wikipedia, you'll see that a great deal of damage has been done world wide without firearms.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top