View Single Post
Old January 19, 2013, 03:26 AM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Posts: 440
I’ve taken to posting all types of facts and my own personal opinions on my facebook wall to try to enlighten others and point out things the media constantly ignores. I firmly believe this is an important avenue for us gun owners plus it does help other gun owners as well enabling their arguments to be better articulated, therefore more readily accepted by giving facts and strong talking points, much like we’re doing here. I’ve had these same conversations lately and most have been civil and open but like you, I too have one that is ex-military, owns three guns, a High School teacher near Aurora and a big surprise, liberal. Needless to say, I get tired of the asinine comments as well as bogus facts and tactfully, yet making no mistake about it, spank him constantly as his resources too are often from snopes. The key word is tactful as you don’t want to let your emotions run too high and come off obnoxious or a raving lunatic as that just paints us like the media always portrays us. But it is extremely important to shut them down…politely.

Now, as you can already see, brevity is not a strong suit of mine and often my responses are rather long but the points I make are usually worthwhile when taken the time to read. The key to getting your friends to read it is to start off with a foot up the butt right away…tactfully. This serves two purposes. First, it ticks off the “idiot” only making him more irate then throwing out other asinine facts which you’re easily refute and exposing his true colors to where your friends will be “turned off” by his ramblings and more akin to embracing your ideologies. Second, you’re friends will be drawn in right off the bat because people like a fight. Now bear in mind, this is only after a few exchanges when you start to see a pattern of stupidity and the same nonsense being posted by the same individual and not a “first time” response. For me, I would start off with something like the following:
The fact you have ocean front property in Arizona AND a Brooklyn Bridge for sale only tells me you do as much research in your real estate acquisitions as you do in your gun facts. Snopes? Really? With all the available information out there from the FBI, CDC, UNdata, etc. the best you can muster is snopes. Of course I will admit, considering your other two “sources of data” you spent so much time and delved so deep into finding, snopes actually was a welcomed relief.
Of course, keep in mind that when you start off like this the game is on and you’re going to have to maintain this level of snarky comments. Personally, I kind of enjoy it.

Regarding his “Fourth” statement:
When talking about blunt objects like bats killing more people as well as knives and even fists, we’re comparing it to “rifles”. Rifles only. Not all firearms…rifles. Not handguns…rifles. Not shotguns…rifles. Why are we only talking about “rifles” when stating the number of 323 homicides committed with “rifles” in 2011? Because that is what is being discussed right now…another “Assault RIFLE “ban. That is why it’s important to differentiate the actual numbers as opposed to lumping in handguns or shotguns or all firearms together. A number the media won’t share or the likes of politicians like Feinstein conveniently “dismiss” as it’s so low. And it’s been like that from 2007 – 2011 and here are stats from the FBI crime database to show it. I know, it’s no snopes but it’s the best I could do.
Regarding his “assault weapon” thing
As far as calling them “Assault Rifles”, this is a coined phrase generated by the media most likely due to the fact of them being called “AR” rifles. Technically, they’re a semi-automatic rifle but it’s an AR style; much like a “pump action” shotgun or a “bolt action” rifle. This actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle which was the first company that produced this style of rifle for the military which was designed by Eugene Stoner who was an Engineer for ArmaLite. There’s more to the story but this is it in a nutshell. Of course, “Assault Rifle” sounds more intimidating then “ArmaLite Rifle” as everyone knows assault is bad and most likely, whoever first used that phrase probably never knew what the “A” stood for to begin with and most likely believed it to stand for “Automatic Rifle”. Of course, my own personal favorite is EBR (Evil Black Rifle)…that one always makes me smile!

And let’s take a look at what the Clinton “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994 was all about. Now here is the real deal on this ban. This ban only addressed “cosmetic” issues…the way a gun APPEARED and not the way it functioned. Remember, these are all semi-automatic firearms that require you to pull the trigger every time you want the gun to fire much like many deer rifles, shotguns, handguns and rimfire rifles that have been in production for decades. The two things this ban did accomplish was: A) It solidified the phrase “Assault Rifle” where the media, over time, has been able to more or less indoctrinate the non-gun community into associating “assault rifle” with fully automatic rifles which of course are already regulated heavily through the NFA of 1932. B) It legally redefined factory standard or stock magazines as “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” i.e. “High Capacity Magazines” which sounds much more lethal and intimidating than “OEM Magazines”. If you want to strike fear in the uninformed masses, which do you want to use; “Assault Rifle with High Capacity Magazine” or “ArmaLite Rifle with OEM Magazine”? EXACTLY! Studies have shown this ban had no dramatic change in gun violence and since its expiration in 2004, no dramatic rise in crimes either. As a matter of fact, according to FBI stats released mid 2012 for 2011; violent crime is approaching historic lows. Evidently, the sky is not falling like we are being led to believe.
Regarding the Media:
The media is very selective in what it reports and it definitely doesn’t give much attention to guns used in a positive manner. A prime example is the Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon that happened a week or two prior to Sandy Hook. The shooter had an AR rifle with I believe a 100 round drum magazine that caused his gun to jam but not prior to killing two and wounding one. He’s working to clear the malfunction to continue his “I am God” euphoric feeling when a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons) permit holder pulls his pistol and confronts the guy. The CCW holder didn’t shoot as there were people behind the shooter and he didn’t want to risk hitting an innocent bystander. The shooter, seeing the CCW holder with his pistol drawn on him, retreats into the stairwell and kills himself.

Now why wasn’t this covered by the media like Sandy Hook and Aurora or touted by the likes of Feinstein and other politicians who want to ban guns? He used the same type of rifle. He had a 100 round high capacity magazine. All the ingredients for their “Ban the AR” cake have gone from the mixing bowl to the cake pan and are now in the oven cooking. The reason it wasn’t covered is because of the CCW holder putting a stop to it and being able to do so without firing a single round off. Their cake fell flat. The thing is, you didn’t hear about the heroic actions of Nick Meli unless it was local news and it if was touched on by the mainstream media, it was fleeting and definitely not like we’re seeing with the Sandy Hook tragedy. But why is that? The reason is this story put a positive aspect on gun ownership. More importantly, the strong impact of concealed weapons and how normal, everyday law-abiding citizens that are CCW permit holders are actually the first responders to dynamic events such as this and can put a stop to it with minimal casualties involved. The vastly liberal based media wants to continue having you believe guns are evil, guns are a problem…not a solution!

As callus as it sounds and much to the dismay of many, the only way to stop violence is to meet it with equal and greater violence. Is it the best solution? As a society that would like to consider itself evolved and advancing, you’d hate to think so. Is it an effective solution? Absolutely! The Columbine shooting changed the operating procedure of police in the way they handled an active shooter scenario. They used to wait and surround the perimeter until they had an overwhelming force before going in. Now, when two policemen are there, they go in. They understand that the longer they wait, the more likely innocents will be shot or murdered so they have to move fast as every second counts and neutralize the threat. Much like what Nick Meli did.

“Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
In closing (this usually is used after future exchanges to where you really have them flustered):
I’m more than happy to have a debate but if you want to get into a p*****g match with me, especially about gun facts and gun control, you had better drink some more water and lay off the Kool-Aid my friend!
Now this approach isn’t for everyone but what I have noticed is when I see other friends who are facebook friends, they always ask “what’s up with this guy?” which I find to be humorous. Other than the opening comment, these are all things I’ve posted on my wall with the more sarcastic ones being directed to that one individual.

If you want, you could always PM me with a link to your facebook page so you could accept me as your friend. I’d be more than happy to send him crying to his momma and take the burden and frustration off your shoulders. Of course, there's a good chance he'll "unfriend" you too LOL!

Last edited by Freakdaddy; January 19, 2013 at 03:42 AM.
Freakdaddy is offline  
Page generated in 0.04318 seconds with 7 queries