The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 1, 2013, 08:00 PM   #1
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 912
Was talking to an semi anti gunner, would like some advice on how to reply.

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.
Kimio is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:14 PM   #2
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
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?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:28 PM   #3
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 912
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."
Kimio is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:41 PM   #4
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
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 major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:50 PM   #5
Ridge_Runner_5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,894
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.
Ridge_Runner_5 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:54 PM   #6
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 912
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.
Kimio is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:55 PM   #7
PawPaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,113
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.
__________________
Dennis Dezendorf

http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com
PawPaw is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 09:51 PM   #8
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
Ask him how prohibition worked out, and alcohol was not a constitutional right.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 10:02 PM   #9
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 912
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 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 10:32 PM   #10
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,401
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 10:43 PM   #11
Buffalo444
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
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
Buffalo444 is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 10:47 PM   #12
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,945
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.
mehavey is online now  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:24 AM   #13
MagnumWill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 700
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.
__________________
Generally speaking holes in anti-gun theories are called "facts."
-Madcap_Magician
MagnumWill is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:29 AM   #14
MagnumWill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Colorado
Posts: 700
...and for how many people keep ending up on the damn subway tracks in NYC recently, let's ban them too
__________________
Generally speaking holes in anti-gun theories are called "facts."
-Madcap_Magician
MagnumWill is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:30 AM   #15
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
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.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 10:29 AM   #16
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 403
Ask him if he thinks banning automobiles is a good solution for drunk driving...
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:12 AM   #17
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,737
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:22 AM   #18
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,496
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.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:28 AM   #19
btown
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 1
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.
btown is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:39 AM   #20
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimio
...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...
  • 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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM. Reason: Clear up formatting
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:41 AM   #21
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
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.
and

Quote:
"Alcohol is not firearms. Everyone drinks alcohol whereas owning firearms is not really something everyone does,
Ask him if he thinks we should ban the 5 gallon Home Depot buckets and gasoline, in case somebody decides to fill the buckets, carry them into a target rich environment, dump them and drop a match.

Ask him if he thinks we should ban ball bats or fire pokers, because a 20 year old psycho could easily break into a kindergarten classroom and kill as many people as he wants to until somebody with a gun shows up to stop him: that would be 10 minutes in the case of Sandy Hook. Any doubt in his mind that one guy with a blunt instrument and 10 minutes could kill more than 22 little kids?

The only appropriate answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun, on the scene when the incident happens.

You can not prevent nutters from doing crap like this by passing laws affecting only the rest of us.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:24 PM   #22
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,927
Quote:
It's a lot easier to take some guns off the market than to change human nature.
Therin lies the problem. It sounds as though this person is less interested in actually solving the problem than he is in quick, easy, feel-good action. The problem herin lies that there is no quick, easy, feel-good solution to the problem.

Try putting it to him this way, banning guns in an attempt to stop violent crime is akin to banning computers in an attempt to stop the distribution of child pornography. Sure, it would be more difficult to distribute such filth without a computer, but it certainly wouldn't stop it. The fact of the matter is that people have, throughout history, come up with newer and more creative ways to do evil upon one another and removing one tool will simply make them turn to another.

A firearm isn't the only, or even most efficient, means of killing a large number of people. A crude pipe bomb wrapped in duct tape and nails could be used to unleash just as much, if not more, horror than any gun. Worse yet, while there are certain safeguards in place to try to prevent a criminal or mentally unstable person from getting a gun, anyone with an internet connection can figure out how to make a pipe bomb quite easily.

The cold, hard fact is that there is no quick, easy panacea to cure the problem of violence. Even if we could wave a magic wand and make all firearms disappear tomorrow, people would still find ways to kill each other. By and large, evil people are a cowardly lot who prefer to inflict their malice on those who are smaller, weaker, or at some other disadvantage to them. A firearm serves as an equalizer of sorts in that it removes, or at least goes a long way towards removing, the advantage of an evil person. If someone who is larger, stronger, or part of a group of like-minded people is able and willing to harm you, a firearm is your best chance for survival. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, target shooting, or other "sports" but rather about the fundamental right to defend one's life.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 12:38 PM   #23
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Have him google "mass school stabbings" read a bit and then see if he still agrees.

BTW not everyone drinks alcohol. About half the population of the US does not drink at all and a signficant percentage of those who do drink, drink very little.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:05 PM   #24
RobertInIowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2012
Location: Iowa
Posts: 149
The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms so that 1) We can serve as a militia should the need arise. And 2) To give the people the ability to defend themselves privately and individually. And 3) To give the people the ability to defend against anarchy or government oppression.

Most people think it's about sports, being shooting or hunting.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, fathers with pretty daughters do.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three comes pretty close.
Proud NRA member
RobertInIowa is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:37 PM   #25
Nine the Ranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 215
Ask him 'If you had to stand off against an "Assault Rifle" would you want a Single-Shot?'

That's the best thing I can think of.

The Criminal will ALWAYS have the gun that'll do more damage. If someone REALLY wants to do a mass shooting, not much will stop them.

I want what they have. The odds that I'll have to duel a guy with an AK are pretty low, but if I had too I'd want an AK too.
__________________
'A Vote is like a Rifle; It's usefulness depends upon the character of the User.'-Theodore Roosevelt

'In a Man to Man fight, the Winner is He who has one more round in his magazine.'-Erwin Rommel
Nine the Ranger is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13544 seconds with 7 queries