The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 24, 2013, 03:32 PM   #51
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
No, your problem is that you can't convince anyone that an AR-15 is an innocent and not particularly deadly sporting weapon.
Who said I was trying to? But it's no more deadly than any other type of semi-auto rifle, and less so than many.

If someone supports banning AR-15s then they effectively support banning ALL semi-auto rifles, whether they know it or not.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 03:35 PM   #52
Panfisher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 498
Sometimes giving someone information doesn't make it into knowledge. I have a friend that watched a pretty good explanation on one of the tv documentaries about the difference between an assault rifle such as the M4/M16 and a semi-auto AR-15, she came out of it with the understanding that the AR-15 was exactly like the M-16, believing both could fire full auto.
Panfisher is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 04:05 PM   #53
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,374
An AR-15 is a gun, a rifle, a tool, hell, even a weapon. It has no guilt or innocence because it isn't alive.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:04 PM   #54
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
No, it has no guilt or innocence. However, that doesn't change its nature. You can't with a straight face say that the AR wasn't designed without fighting in mind. Conceding that point isn't the same as conceding defeat.

Also, when you say things like "well my semi auto ranch rifle isn't an assault weapon but put a pistol grip on it and it becomes one, therefore the law is pointless", you are pointing out how the current law has no teeth. Meaning what you're effectively doing is giving constructive criticism to the anti's on how to make the law more effective.

And harping on the "clips vs magazines" thing doesn't help anyone. The two words may have once been different, but nowadays it's a difference without a distinction. The anti's know what a magazine is, even if they call it a clip.

And stop using arguments like "Connecticut has strict gun laws, Sandy Hook still happened, therefore gun laws don't work". It's common knowledge how easy it is to get guns across a state border. Anyone could do it. When you say this, you're actually arguing FOR the need for federal laws to prevent such actions.

And for God's sake, stop saying that the gun bans of Chicago are the reason for the high crime rate. Correlation does not imply causation.


I am as pro gun as anyone here, but when I hear arguments like this I cringe. These arguments are easily picked apart by anyone with a basic understanding of logic.
hardworker is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:10 PM   #55
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,374
Odd, I thought it was designed to be lightweight, smaller caliber version of the AR-10.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:15 PM   #56
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
Which was designed for what?
hardworker is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:16 PM   #57
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,374
Not to be semantic, and not to be a jerk, but I always thought the AR-10 was designed to provide a lightweight, automatic rifle using aircraft components.

Wasn't Mr. Stoner an aircraft engineer before turning to firearms design?
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"

Last edited by SPEMack618; January 24, 2013 at 08:17 PM. Reason: Didn't mean to subvert the language filter
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:26 PM   #58
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
Quote:
Not to be semantic, and not to be a jerk, but I always thought the AR-10 was designed to provide a lightweight, automatic rifle using aircraft components.
Exactly. Why design such a thing? To provide a better fighting rifle.

I'm pretty sure he didn't do it for kicks and giggles.


Guns are not divine objects passed down from the heavens. Some of them are made to kill very efficiently. The sooner we stop getting hung up on this point the sooner we can actually fight battles that we have a chance of winning.

The people who want to ban guns aren't all idiots. They'll tear these arguments apart.

I'm not trying to be a jerk either, but I'm trying to point out the glaring flaws in these arguments.
hardworker is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:33 PM   #59
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,374
Some are made to kill people very effeciently, yes, but, properly employed they can all kill effeciently. As can a pickup truck or bulldozer.

I understand your viewpoint and sense the circular argument coming, but I always feel that we are ceding the field to the antis- when we claim some guns are more intrinsically violent or evil than others.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:38 PM   #60
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
I understand your viewpoint and sense the circular argument coming, but I always feel that we are ceding the field to the antis- when we claim some guns are more intrinsically violent or evil than others.
We don't have to adopt the loaded terms "violent" or "evil", but to refuse to acknowledge the fact that some weapons are better-suited than others to killing large numbers of people in a short period of time is going to be viewed as intentionally obtuse at best, or outright deceptive at worst.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:44 PM   #61
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
Quote:
Some are made to kill people very effeciently, yes, but, properly employed they can all kill effeciently. As can a pickup truck or bulldozer.
In theory they are all dangerous, in practice the jury is still out on that debate point.

Quote:
I understand your viewpoint and sense the circular argument coming, but I always feel that we are ceding the field to the antis- when we claim some guns are more intrinsically violent or evil than others.

No, no gun is more intrinsically violent than any other. However, that doesn't mean one isn't better at killing than another. There's no argument than an AR can kill a lot more than a bolt action before reloading. That's why our military doesn't use bolt actions anymore for anything besides sniping.

Stalingrad. The Germans got so swept up in conquering a city of little strategic importance that their eventual defeat there may have well cost them the war despite making headway throughout the rest of Russia. That's what we're doing arguing about stuff like this.
hardworker is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 08:47 PM   #62
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Stalingrad. The Germans got so swept up in conquering a city of little strategic importance that their eventual defeat there may have well cost them the war despite making headway throughout the rest of Russia. That's what we're doing arguing about stuff like this.
I was thinking the IJN off of Guadacanal, but I see your point.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 09:36 PM   #63
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,720
Theohazard
Senior Member

Join Date: April 19, 2012
Posts: 201

I don't always know what someone means when they say "clip". At the shop where I work, if someone asks for a clip for an SKS, sometimes they actually mean a stripper clip and sometimes they mean a magazine for the Tapco converted versions. If someone asks for a clip for an AR-15, sometimes they actually mean "stripper clip", considering military 5.56 ammo comes that way. And we usually carry a few revolvers chambered in .45 ACP, so sometimes when people ask for a clip for a .45 they want a moon clip for a revolver.

There is a technical difference. That is not debatable. Whether the technically incorrect term "clip" should be accepted by the gun world to mean "magazine" is a different issue.

I say, "No". The biggest problem we have right now in the gun world is our country's complete and total ignorance on firearms. We have a majority of people who have been convinced that an "assault weapon" actually exists, that it's more deadly than other rifles, and that it's a danger to society and it needs to be banned. It's always amazing to me the look on people's faces when I tell them that assault rifles are already all but banned, "assault weapons" are just rifles with scary-looking features, and ALL rifles only account for 2.8% of ALL firearm deaths.

That's the problem in our county: our gun laws are made and supported by people who know absolutely nothing about firearms. Educating people on the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine" is the first step to combat that ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sad to note, but the general public in this country, notwithstanding the "traditions" of the U.S. is abysmally ignorant of firearms and the technology thereof, which is not to say that "rocket science" is involved, it isn't, rather it is a case of the blind leading the lame, media's endless beating of the gun control drum, there are a few exceptions to this, but media, in general feeds the public ignorance, if it doesn't actually create the public ignrance.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
alan is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 10:09 PM   #64
Landis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 7
I finely found that high capacity clip the gun ban people keep talking about...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg image.jpg (173.6 KB, 14 views)
Landis is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 10:56 PM   #65
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,669
Hardworker:

I see your point, but I have to disagree. If the general public understood firearms a little better they wouldn't be so afraid if them. Fear of firearms is what both fuels a lot of gun violence AND gun control.

Popular culture needs to change to the point where more kids are taught that guns are tools - dangerous tools - but tools nonetheless. Instead, most kids aren't taught anything about firearm safety and responsibility and instead they learn that guns are evil, and in the process some learn that if they want to be cool and feared they need to get a gun.

I believe educating the public about firearms is the first step in removing that fear.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."

Last edited by Theohazard; January 24, 2013 at 11:36 PM.
Theohazard is offline  
Old January 24, 2013, 11:10 PM   #66
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Quote:
Wasn't Mr. Stoner an aircraft engineer before turning to firearms design?
Yep. Armalite was a subdivision of Fairchild during development.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 05:01 PM   #67
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
I agree. Firearm education should be taught in schools. I wasn't debating anything about that. And I agree general public education is in order, but what we're trying to educate them on right now is vocabulary.Most people know what a semi-auto rifle is and how it's different from an auto.

The pro-gun counter to that is "Well, the AWB only bans cosmetic differences. I can get the same rifle without a pistol grip and be fine".

To which any anti with a little sense would say "You're right. The current wording of the law is toothless. Let's ban all semi-autos"

Same goes for the magazines argument

"Well it wouldn't have mattered if he had 3 30rd mags or 10 10rd mags, he'd have done the same damage. Changing mags isn't hard"

"If it's not hard then why do you fight so hard for them? Why do the military and the police use them if there's no tactical advantage to be had by their use?"




And despite the fact that they call it a clip, in their mind they are picturing a magazine. They know what it is even if they call it by the wrong name. Trying to convince them of that is a waste of time and makes us look like we're trying to drown their argument in semantics.


I'm not shooting these arguments just to be argumentative, I'm doing it because they're full of holes. Better those holes get shown here than in an actual debate.
hardworker is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 05:56 PM   #68
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 652
Quote:
Most people know what a semi-auto rifle is and how it's different from an auto.
What makes you believe this?
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:01 PM   #69
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
Wouldn't a magazine clip be the kind of clip one uses to fill up magazines such as m16 and m14 gi magazines?

Not a clip that strips rounds directly into the gun
Come and take it. is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:10 PM   #70
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
Quote:
What makes you believe this?
Because generally it's the comments from the few know-nothings that stick out and get remembered. The internet has a handful of those who genuinely don't know/understand. It's those people whose posts we read and remember while ignoring those who do get it. And because it's not rocket science.
hardworker is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:19 PM   #71
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 652
Gun owners, particularly those who own semi-auto pistols, rifles or shotguns, certainly know the difference between semi-auto and auto. But your statement was "Most people", not "most gun owners" or "most TFL members." I doubt if most people in the US know the difference between semi-auto and auto firearms.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:54 PM   #72
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
The pro-gun counter to that is "Well, the AWB only bans cosmetic differences. I can get the same rifle without a pistol grip and be fine".

To which any anti with a little sense would say "You're right. The current wording of the law is toothless. Let's ban all semi-autos"
I've thought about this quite a bit. But I've decided using this argument usually helps our cause.

Many people who support a ban are people (many are gun owners) who don't want to ban "normal" guns. If they learn how stupid and pointless the AWB really was -- that "assault weapons" aren't evil death machines, they're just semi-autos with scary cosmetic features -- they might move away from supporting an idiotic ban and focus more on laws keeping guns out of the hands of criminals; something I'd be willing to compromise on if they did it Constitutionally.

And if they just decide they want to ban ALL semi-autos instead, that's an extreme position; a position far too extreme to have a chance of passing (in my opinion).


Quote:
Same goes for the magazines argument

"Well it wouldn't have mattered if he had 3 30rd mags or 10 10rd mags, he'd have done the same damage. Changing mags isn't hard"

"If it's not hard then why do you fight so hard for them? Why do the military and the police use them if there's no tactical advantage to be had by their use?"
I look at the magazine argument differently. Anti-gun people have a misconception that the faster you can fire a weapon, the more deadly it will be. They also don't understand that having a high-capacity magazine isn't much help when on the offensive, especially against unarmed people. However, a high-capacity magazine can be a big help when on the defensive, especially against armed attackers.

We need to educate people that by supporting a ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, they support a severe restriction on a person's right to self-defense, while at the same time they won't be doing much of anything to stop a criminal who decides to go on a shooting spree.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 09:07 PM   #73
SC4006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 290
I agree Theohazard, having a few 30 round mags or a bunch of 10 round mags doesn't make all too much of a difference when using them against defenseless targets, it does however make a difference when you are using them to defend yourself from an armed target. Limiting magazine capacity really only has an effect on people using them for defense, does nothing to stop crime.
__________________
I don't always get to the range, but when I do, I prefer dosAK's.

They say 5 out of 4 people are bad at math, but what do I know?
SC4006 is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 10:09 PM   #74
oldgunsmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 278
Magazine clip is a term used by many who don't tell you they shot a gun. They say they shot it off.
oldgunsmith is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 12:12 PM   #75
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,720
Re the public's curious ignorance, spelled lack of information, mentioned in a couple of prior posts, the following comes to mind. Anti gun pols, anti gun operatives and "media", largely anti gun too, all share one common trait. They feed into and upon the above referenced public ignorance.
alan 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 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13931 seconds with 8 queries