The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 18, 2013, 06:58 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Thank you so much for all the help guys. I know FaceBook may seem trivial but it is playing such a big roll in the current gun issue, as is Twitter. I really appreciate the support.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 07:02 PM   #27
Rainbow Demon
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2012
Posts: 397
A bit more on the Sidwell friends school.
this from a so-called fact checker site.

This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.

Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)
The chief of security job requirements include being licensed as a "Special Police Officer", so he may also be licensed to carry a firearm in DC or Maryland.
Its unlikely that security officers at a school of this sort would openly carry a pistol on their belt, if indeed they wore uniforms at all.
So only the statement by Ellis Turner actually provides any support for the article's claim of no armed guards at Sidwell Friends School, and thats second hand at best, and despite the added claim in brackets does not address the SPO who may carry firearms in the course of their duries.

They carefully avoid mention of the Secret Service Detail, or any private body guards employed by wealthy parents of other students at the school.

Sidwell Friends School has been embroiled in recent drug, alcohol, and sex scandals.
Rainbow Demon is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 07:22 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Ben Franklin
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 07:38 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,053
The OP is doing the perfect thing here, let's lean on each other, we have a very broad set of skills available here, and we have got to hang together.
^^I have to agree with this.^^ Facebook covers a large community of voters. Replying might not sway the person who posted that, but it might persuade some of the many who read through it that are on the fence, and those are the folks who need the truth.

I also got the same Facebook post, from a friend who shared it on his own wall. Here is my reply (and I am terrible at political debates so correct me if I am wrong)

my reply:
(first) Hitler: the author obviously did not read the entire snopes article he cited. The fact that Hitler did not say that quote does not dispute the fact that Hitler did establish gun control. I would cite a reference but that snopes article already clarified that.

(second) Secret Service protection: I am not self inflated to believe that my children are more of a target than any politicians children. There have been more school shootings in history than any attack on any politicians children.

(third) There are no laws requiring confiscation: False, registration laws are the first step. Registration does nothing to prevent crime and only affects law abiding citizens who are gun owners. Criminals do not register their guns. A majority of gun control laws attack ownership and place restrictions only for law abiding citizens and without any credible evidence these laws reduce crime. The argument that these laws are the first steps to total confiscation has no counter.

(fourth) ...ok, moot point on either side. Everyone knows the myth about baseball bats vs guns and it proves nothing for either side to discuss.

(fifth): "I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing." says who... ?

(sixth): "I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game" Does the Author not research his arguments.... the NRA video game does not shoot at virtual people, only training targets. It is not violent. If only the video games marketed today followed suit...

(seventh): "I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries. " says who?

(eighth): "I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory. " totally agree.

(ninth): "I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US." says who? Not according to this article:

(tenth): "I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the "developed" world." says who? Where does the author get his statistics from?

(eleventh): "I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined." says who? and the author claims in his own article that he is not anti-gun?

(twelve): "I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere." huh? So we are taking our advice from the author who does not read? Try this article:

(thirteen): "I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns. " there are a number of credible bi-partisan studies, statistics and articles that support this to be true. I suggest starting with reading the book "more guns = less crime". A good summary of the book can be read here:

(14): "Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it's not being proposed." see gun registration laws...

(15): "If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table. " Seriously, does the author really not understand his own argument. To keep it short, Virgina Tech has a complete ban on all firearms on campus. So do all public schools like Columbine. If you don't want to leave anything off the table, then consider removing the gun free zones in schools and campuses allowing law abiding teachers and parents to carry concealed guns. There is a reason these criminals target these venues...

(16): "And yes, criminals don't typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No." um, I think the author just admitted the gun control laws ineffective.
not clear on the rest of his article except he says hes not anti gun... but clearly the author is.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 08:01 PM   #30
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: Port Crane, NY
Posts: 31
My standard response: "If you don't like the rights afforded us by the 2nd Amendment, strive to get it repealed. Until you succeed, mind your own business when it comes to how others choose to exercise those rights."

Don't bother getting into extended arguments with these people....
Brian Carp
"Powder, patch, ball!"
BCarp is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 08:33 PM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
I also got the same Facebook post, from a friend who shared it on his own wall. Here is my reply (and I am terrible at political debates so correct me if I am wrong)
Koda, I hope you dont k=mind my stealing some of your responses? I found them to be very effective.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 08:38 PM   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,053
not at all. copy/paste away...

(note: my reply is to the shared thread. I'm not FB friends with the original author and its not open to comment so mine wont show up there.)
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
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  
Old January 19, 2013, 08:15 AM   #34
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
good stuff guys, I posted several arguments, some I got from here, some I did myself. 11 hours and counting, and no response. how disappointingly typical! some others are more aggressive however and will be more likely to involve themselves in a true debate so I will be saving this stuff lol
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 12:59 PM   #35
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,170
Even here, confusion is evident...

While bringing up some good valid points, a couple of the posters have made technical errors, solely due to the intentional confusion created by the anti's choice of terms.

Assault weapon actually is a _very_ precise term - it means a gun in an intermediate caliber that can fire in full auto: one trigger pull, many bullets. It is often misused in gun control discussions to stir up fear and emotion, and to associated semi-automatic civilian arms with negative connotations.
This is incorrect.

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.
This is also incorrect. Now, let me explain how they are incorrect. They are incorrect because the posters swapped the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon". Exactly the thing anti-gunners hoped for when they chose the term "asault weapon" Here is the accuracte use of the terms, and a bit of their history...

This is, indeed, a very precise term. It was first coined by Adolf Hitler in 1944. When the Nazis were rampaging across Europe and winning, there was a standing order put in place forbidding developement of new rifles. IT was considered a waste of resources. This prohibition did not include submachineguns. German industry developed and fielded (in small numbers) a new class of rifle in 1943. Because of the order it was called a submachinegun (MP in German termanology). In 44, when Hitler first learnd of the new rifle, he was furious that his order had been flouted. When the gun was demonstrated for him, he changed his mind, and enthusiatically christened it the Sturmgehwer. This translates to "assault rifle".

The rifle in question (Stg 44) is an air cooled, magazine fed, select fire rifle, using an intermediate power round (more than a pistol, less than the standard infantry rifle of the day). It has a protruding pistol grip, detachable 30rnd mag, and a more or less straight line stock.

The shooting community adopted the term, and while sometimes loosly applied to semi autos with the same style, it was always understood that actual "assault rifles" are select fire. FULL AUTO and Semi auto. Guns capable of full auto fire are, under US law, machine guns, and have been highly regulated since 1934. NO new law was needed for the "new" assault rifles (as a class) after WWII, they were machine guns, already covered under US law.

This is a term, made up by the anti gunners in the early 1990s. And it came about like this...
The mass shooting in Stockton Ca (a school), the shooter used a semi auto AK (and a pistol to kill himself). The media screamed "he used an assault rifle!" We answered back, "No, he just used a rifle. It was semiautomatic. Assault rifles are select fire, they fire FULL AUTO as well as semi."

Then the media screamed "He used a semiautomatic assault rifle!!!"

This prooved to be a rather cumbersome sound bite for talking heads to beat us with, so, after a year or so, it became "assault weapon".
This term was codified in law in 94, and does NOT refer to ANY full auto or select fire weapon. It refers to SEMI AUTOMATIC firearms with cosmetic features listed in the law.
The term "assault weapon" was deliberately chosen to promote confusion, between the valid (and in use) term "assault rifle" and the ordinary person's understanding of the term "assault" in English.
Lots of people think any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon. And, in general terms, they are right. But in the specific terms used in law, they are not right. In law, "assault weapon" refers ONLY to certain specific rifles, pistols and shotguns, those that have the right combination of features, as defined in the law.

While there is a very different definition of them in law, in common usage in the last decades, the two terms have come to be understood as meaning the same thing in conversation. Kind of like engine and motor in your car. Use either one in conversation, we know what you are talking about.

BUT, go to order parts, or discuss some technical aspect, and you find there is a HUGE difference between a motor and an engine. And when talking about law, one MUST be technical. Which is why the anti's created the term "assault weapon". Technically it means what ever they say it means, and what they got in law.

NOW, one can find the anti's talking not only about "assault weapons" but "military style assault weapons" (wonder what civilian style AWs are? simple answer; they are whatever the anti's SAY they are!)

PLEASE, take some pains to use the two terms correctly. There is a difference.

And, one more thing...the anti's completely missed the point about the armed protection of the President's kids. Right away they began screaming about how "of course the kids are protected, they are important!"...and they are important, all our kids are. TO me, my children as just as important as the Presiden't are too him, I'm sure. And that was the point, NOT that the Pres's kids don't deserve protection, but that ALL our kids do.

Nobody says take away their protection, we're saying give us the same. Don't DENY our children the same protection your kids have! A "Guns to protect us, but none to protect you" is a hypocritical, elitist attitude.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old January 19, 2013, 03:01 PM   #36
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
While bringing up some good valid points, a couple of the posters have made technical errors
Thank you for pointing those out, and explaining the error so thoroughly. I appreciate the information, as well as any other corrections and clarifications. It's hard enough to discuss gun control without making it more difficult myself with mistakes.

NRA Life Member
Fargazer is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 05:45 PM   #37
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,640
assault weapon, assault rifle definitions

assault weapon, assault rifle.

Thank you 44amp. Any chance of making the definitions a sticky?
DaleA is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 09:57 PM   #38
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Location: OH
Posts: 50
OP I got exactly the same message.
Ruger SR1911, Colt 1911, Glock 17, Glock 21, Beretta M9, Ruger GP100, Ruger LCR, SW M&P15, Lee Enfield 303, Savage .22, Ruger 10/22. Guns the great equalizer.
loltraktor1918 is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 01:08 PM   #39
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,957
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
salmoneye, check my post above, it has all of the info about the Nazi disarmament program.
Sorry about that...

I simply broke my own rule about reading the entire thread before posting...

As I did not want to waste time reading the rest of the 'points' by the 'anti' in the OP, I neglected to read your post...

I apologize for that, and thanks for the details...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:26 PM   #40
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2008
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 672
1.) Hitler did not try to oppress (conquer) germany, he used radicals to gain control of the government with the support of the people.
2.) Obama knows the value of harmed guards to protect his childern.
3.) That's not the way it will work, you will lose it slowly. *Can't sell, transfer or gift the gun. *Upon your death the gun will have to be surrendered to the government for destruction. *Or they will just change the law. As far a the car argument goes, you only have to register the car if you want to drive it on public roads.
4.) I believe the stat says that more people are killed by clubs (bats and such) than are killed by rifles not guns in general.
5.) For DUI the driver is punished not the car!
6.) Funny he finds so many things disturbing, many if not most mass shootings are committed by disturbed people.
Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet
olddav is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 11:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08507 seconds with 7 queries