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

[fredvon4]

I have been reading most all the gun ban, mag ban threads and wonder

Many of the arguments against seem to be hunting use, sporting use, competition use is not relevant....( I disagree)
Hunting is to personal / prey specific for selected weapon

But seems to me:

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

I leave it to your imagination but key would be IMO 5.56...
Long range
Precision
Rapid
No mag restrictions.... multi station events would faveor 30 Rd over 10 round mags

Handicapped age groups... young and old
Local sponsors with tangible prizes
regional and national championships

In my short 63 years I have seen a few dying hobbies resurrected this way

Hard ...I mean very hard ---for any Political destruction of a very popular past time by LAW abiding citizens

[rickyrick]

The right is assured by the second amendment, to defend against tyranny. The deadly nature of the gun is why we have the right...

You can’t act like we have even more of a right because of fun and recreational use.

Once our right is qualified by the entertainment value we will loose that right.

Defense of Liberty is the reason, not because guns are fun.

The public thinks people are dying because we don’t want to loose our toys... this philosophy does no one any favors.

The best claim to having a right is because firearms are deadly.

[Lohman446]

While I get the point rickyrick is making let's not lose the point the OP has made either. A good share of AR's and other "rifles with no sporting use" are, in fact, used in various firearm sporting events. A good number in fact were used over the last month for sporting purposes.

[darkgael]

We could create sporting , target, competition events with very high trophy/winnings .....

Those types of events already exist to some extent. Check out the winnings at some (all?) of the ATA Grand American events (Trap shooting). If a person is good enough, one could make a nice living.
Consider, though, that the bigger the purses, the more elite the level of expertise needed to win one be that pistol, rifle or shotgun.
In any case...as mentioned before your rights as a citizen should not deoend on a game. the Constitution does not mention games.

[fredvon4]

OH RickRick I am right with you...In fact I am a solid as written constitutional guy

It just seems to me the argument about Assault weapons have NO PLACE could be dampen a bit IF WE made them VERY popular and desired for more than traditional uses...

Easy to restrict a low use item... vs something that A LOT of people desire and use

BUT I am with you 100% this is a distasteful proposal considering WE should NOT even be having this discussion

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was at a carbine match this weekend with 70 participants. Guess how many people actually own them in the San Antonio area - probably tens of thousands. We had 70 people.

Look it's a nice thought but we know that most guns owners don't train and don't practice. The membership of the IDPA or USPSA is very small compared to the number of gun owners.

If you have the magic formula to get folks to come out - let us know. The firearms industry would love it.

Thousands of folks come out to demonstrate against guns. Ever see a big pro march. Usually a progun demonstration is an embarrassment.

The ballot box is most potent.

[Double Naught Spy]

The right is assured by the second amendment, to defend against tyranny. The deadly nature of the gun is why we have the right...

OH RickRick I am right with you...In fact I am a solid as written constitutional guy

Glad y'all are solid Constituion guys. As such, then I am sure you understand that the Constitution CAN and in the past HAS BEEN changed based on the views of the public and Legislative and Executive branches of government, and such changes have been upheld (in many cases) by the Judicial Branch.

The OP is trying to garner more favorable views of the AR15 to help protect the Second Amendment. Nothing wrong with that.

You can’t act like we have even more of a right because of fun and recreational use.

He wasn't.

Once our right is qualified by the entertainment value we will loose that right.

That does not seem to be the case with the First Amendment.

Defense of Liberty is the reason, not because guns are fun.

So you are saying we can only first for the Second Amendment under on guise only...that if you don't have the right motivation that you should not be fighting for it? That sounds very exclusionary.

The public thinks people are dying because we don’t want to loose our toys... this philosophy does no one any favors.

You conveniently neglected that much of the public sees no pragmatic reality in protecting ourselves from the government and that guns scare them.

The best claim to having a right is because firearms are deadly.

Which is a big reason why many folks want to get rid of them.

Look, I don't think that the OP's competition plan is viable, but the concept of making guns more interesting and more popular isn't a bad idea.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by GEM

If you have the magic formula to get folks to come out - let us know. The firearms industry would love it.

There is some good discussion in this article: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/...-astroturfing/

It discusses the nuts and bolts issues in organizing and turning people out for activism and why some efforts fail. I’d say we already have an advantage in that the common interest in firearms as fun creates some sense of community - though as this board evidences, not all who enjoy firearms support the rights of others to own them.

[rickyrick]

We don’t have lawn darts anymore... that’s what happens to dangerous “toys”.

You have to be honest about why we have the right to own a gun. We don’t have the right because it’s fun. It is fun and enjoyable to shoot, hunt and all the other recreational things we can do with them. But it’s only a side effect.

More and more guns are being sold, not sure if that equates to more owners or not...

Gun laws and restrictions are getting passed constantly, and I see many gun enthusiasts that are not worried because it’s not happening where they live.

The Pacific Northwest has the most gun loving population that I have ever seen, yet gun control gets enacted fairly regularly and easily, Texas isn’t very gun loving but Washington and Oregon are (at least comparatively) yet gun control is happening.

I am a liberal leaning moderate, I am surrounded by progressives... they get pretty disgusted when children are murdered in school and we try to qualify our rights because the item used is a toy for us.

In my opinion the only valid argument is a constitutional discussion around why we have that right.

[Crankgrinder]

I disagree. I live in Texas and all but the big cities Austin, dallas, houston loves firearms. Texas is a rather large place and people from big cities constantly forget that not everyone in every place has 911 access to a massive, well funded police force with a sub five minute response time or that they even trust their local authority whatever that may be county sheriffs office suppose for that matter. Aside from that hunting is like the national past time here, guns are tools, hobbies, sometimes a form of currency between trustworthy parties and heirlooms handed down through families all at the same time.

[doofus47]

rickyrick

In my opinion the only valid argument is a constitutional discussion around why we have that right.

You're not wrong. When gun laws came for us in 2012, my rep was taken to the range by a bunch of pro-gun advocates. I'm not sure what the purpose was except to introduce guns as "fun." Fun is the last thing I use as a selling point.

The part of this whole conversation that drives me to distraction is that a certain portion of the population thinks that the 2nd amendment dropped out of the Twittersphere last year with no historical context. And this is the demographic that feels it can be summarily discarded with no consequences.

I think that a decent starting point to re-frame the discussion (if you were lucky enough to actually be discussing and not arguing) might be something along the lines of "Yes, the zombie apocalypse doesn't look like it's going to start tomorrow. But if your state Governor did send out a call to raise the general militia for some reason of existential emergency, what would YOU bring? A frying pan?"

We are fortunate in many ways that the fundamental reason that we have a 2nd amendment--b/c there's a dangerous world out there--looks very remote to many people.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here’s the thing. If I dress up nicely and go door to door asking my neighbors “Have you heard the good news about Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for you?” I am going to get a lot of doors shut in my face, including many people who are Christian. Much work. Little result.

If I invite a bunch of neighbors to the church fish fry and they have a good time and we don’t talk Jesus, they’ll still hear some of that message just by virtue of hanging around a church - and the ones who are receptive to it will self select. And the ones who aren’t receptive to it will at least remember free fish. Meanwhile, you can do something fun instead of going around town annoying your neighbors and proselytizing.

The Second Amendment has the inherent advantage that’s it is a fun, social thing to do. That’s not the reason why it exists and shouldn’t be the foundation our arguments are built on as many here point out; but we should take advantage of the fact that ripping off a magazine of .223 at reactive targets is pretty darn fun and use it to our advantage.

I thnk that generally speakng, fellowship sells better than fear; but I may be stupidly optimistic that way.

[Double Naught Spy]

I thnk that generally speakng, fellowship sells better than fear; ...

You know, I think that summarizes it nicely.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by fredvon4

Hard ...I mean very hard ---for any Political destruction of a very popular past time by LAW abiding citizens

Having shooting woven into the social fabric is politically useful so long as the social climate is tolerant. We've seen prior periods in which very popular activities were outlawed because the social atmosphere was intolerant. See drinking and prohibition. Popularity is most useful if the activity is seen as positive and useful.

Originally Posted by RickyRick

The right is assured by the second amendment, to defend against tyranny. The deadly nature of the gun is why we have the right...

You can’t act like we have even more of a right because of fun and recreational use.

Once our right is qualified by the entertainment value we will loose that right.

Defense of Liberty is the reason, not because guns are fun.

The public thinks people are dying because we don’t want to loose our toys... this philosophy does no one any favors.

The best claim to having a right is because firearms are deadly.

In fact, the 2d Am. doesn't indicate why we have the right to arms.

Noting that shooting is mostly recreational isn't a qualification on the right. The right to free speech is mostly exercised to blather about nonsense like which shoes are most comfortable and how bad the latest film is. Noting that doesn't qualify the right to free speech.

Moreover, the right to arms isn't just for the defense of liberty; it is a component part of liberty. A parochially insurrectionist utility argument invites abridgement of the individual right.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Here’s the thing. If I dress up nicely and go door to door asking my neighbors “Have you heard the good news about Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for you?” I am going to get a lot of doors shut in my face, including many people who are Christian. Much work. Little result.

This is an interesting analogy. I had a couple of older Jehovah Witness ladies come to my door once. They politely asked if they could tell me about the good news and invite me to their Kingdom Hall (church). I thanked them for their kindness, but noted that I am C of E and wasn't looking for a change. They never returned. I know some people treat JW door knockers poorly, but these ladies were too nice to be met with anything less than courtesy.

Shooters strike me as largely bad at communicating the value of the activity to people who don't shoot. for several reasons. First, they can be so focused on the argument that they may be personally unappealing. Whether you like Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre or Gun Owners of America is very much inside baseball and incidental to why shooting is a positive and enjoyable activity.

Second, they don't seem to give a lot of thought to how to articulate their interest to those not yet interested. In contrast, those JW ladies likely give a lot of thought to how they present themselves to people like me.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

If I invite a bunch of neighbors to the church fish fry and they have a good time and we don’t talk Jesus, they’ll still hear some of that message just by virtue of hanging around a church - and the ones who are receptive to it will self select. And the ones who aren’t receptive to it will at least remember free fish.

In this analogy, we have to recognise a cultural bias against fish and a lot of people who wouldn't know a fish from a cow.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I think that generally speakng, fellowship sells better than fear; but I may be stupidly optimistic that way.

Generally speaking, I bet you are right. I would also bet that children are more amenable. In many urban and suburban settings, it's difficult to get kids past their mothers and to a range, and their are ever fewer ranges. Where I am, even air rifles are "firearms" for the purpose of codes prohibiting the discharge of firearms within city limits.

Though I take groups shooting, I see it as an inherently individual activity, and working fellowship into it might be a challenge.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

I was at a carbine match this weekend with 70 participants. Guess how many people actually own them in the San Antonio area - probably tens of thousands. We had 70 people.

That's a lot of people. I've never attended an Appleseed, though it sounds interesting. I have a practice and a family. If they are like me, carving out big chunks of time for that sort of thing isn't in the cards for many of those tens of thousands of owners.

[rickyrick]

The people that want gun control are not interested in a barbecue. Kids are being mass murdered in schools, theaters and malls. Everyone should want this to stop. A good portion of the public logically think that banning guns will solve this issue. Makes sense on the surface to them.
The fun aspect of guns really rubs them the wrong way, they are talking about dead children and we are worried about our toys.
Guns for fun... not a great message to send to the other side. Sure you can win a few people over, not the people who matter.

[Lohman446]

Kids are being mass murdered in schools, theaters and malls. Everyone should want this to stop

There seems to be a danger of suddenly becoming guilty by lack of objection. Who doesn't want to stop this as much as possible?

A good portion of the public logically think that banning guns will solve this issue.

Let's hear the logical argument. The call for banning guns is emotional in nature and is unlikely to be 100% effective. This is more true if we argue that effective is "not one more life"

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

The people that want gun control are not interested in a barbecue. Kids are being mass murdered in schools, theaters and malls. Everyone should want this to stop. A good portion of the public logically think that banning guns will solve this issue. Makes sense on the surface to them.
The fun aspect of guns really rubs them the wrong way, ...

Of course it rubs them the wrong way; they already didn't like people enjoying guns before any specific event. Being intolerant of other peoples' recreation is a personality flaw, not a policy position.

You shouldn't cater to it.

Originally Posted by rickyrick

... they are talking about dead children and we are worried about our toys.
Guns for fun... not a great message to send to the other side. Sure you can win a few people over, not the people who matter.

Only people who want more gun control matter? What about normal people who are susceptible to destigmatisation?

I would not assume that people who invoke Parkland are rationally concerned about in school murders. Do you?

[doofus47]

bartholomewR

I thnk that generally speakng, fellowship sells better than fear; but I may be stupidly optimistic that way

I see your point. Less about fun, more about showing that we are a positive human experience that enriches one's social life. I'm not sure that that exactly translates to swaying representatives who don't know you, but I see how that works better for people whom you cross paths with every day.

Distinction noted.

[Lohman446]

"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.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by doofus47

I think that a decent starting point to re-frame the discussion (if you were lucky enough to actually be discussing and not arguing)....

If that opportunity presents itself to you, it can be effective not to attempt to frame the discussion at all, but to let the person voice his sentiments and respond to those sentiments, the way one might in an ordinary discussion. It could even develop into the person expressing curiosity about your interest in shooting. You wouldn't want to forego that by treating a discussion like a chess game.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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 firerms.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rachel-maddow-storyteller/

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by lohman446

"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.

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fredvon4

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

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 [b]NOT[/i] the same as a full-automatic (select-fire) military rifle or carbine.

[rickyrick]

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?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

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?

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.