Among others, I have two AR-15s. One an actual Armalite and the other a Sig Sauer AR “pistol”.
Just a few days ago someone I know and generally respect went off on a rant about “assault rifles”. I listened for a few moments and then asked “What is an assault rifle?”
HIM: “AR… it means ‘assault rifle’.”
ME: “Ah, no. It means ‘Armalite Rifle’. So again, what is an assault rifle?”
HIM: “It’s a rifle that can hold a lot of ammunition.”
ME: “I have a Glock 17 handgun that can hold 20 rounds and more people are killed by handguns (probably Glocks, even) than rifles by a factor of, oh, maybe a hundred times?”
HIM: “Well nobody NEEDS a rifle…”
ME: “Actually, a long gun is far more accurate and easy to handle by a relatively inexperienced shooter than a handgun. They say in the military that if you’re drawing your sidearm to fight, you’re already dead. So anyone serious about home defense most certainly should be using a rifle. Oh, and it’s not about ‘need’, it’s about rights.”
HIM: “Well mass shooters use these rifles to kill people…”
ME: “Talking about mass shooters as a justification for implementing gun control is like talking about airplane crashes to justify taking away cars. Yes, they happen and they are tragic… but they represent a minuscule fraction of the number of people that die in any given year. If you really care about saving lives you’ll stop talking about guns and start talking about sugar and tobacco… two things which kill more people every DAY than AR-15 rifles kill in a year.”
HIM: “It’s a military style rifle that can be fired rapidly…”
ME: “That’s bulls~~~. Fully automatic firearms used by the military are generally not allowed to civilians in this country without a special permit so an AR can only be fired as fast as the person using it can pull the trigger. And when you say ‘military’ what you really means is ‘scary looking’. Admit it. The media furor over AR-15s is all about using the fact that these weapons are black and aggressive looking and occasionally get used in school shootings to scare regular folks into opening the door to what will ultimately become a total gun ban. That’s the objective. It’s not about saving lives or protecting children, it’s about disarming the public. Well we’re not having it.”
Here’s a tip, folks… if you don’t know anything about firearms, you might not want to engage in an argument with people who do.
But I have to say that the most compelling argument I’ve ever heard against gun control of any type is the following:
“Of the rights granted to us as U.S. Citizens by the Constitution, which ones are contingent on the individual proving in advance that they are capable of safely and properly executing that right? Do you have to pass a test to be able to vote? Do you have to meet some government established requirements in order to speak your mind or practice your religion? Do you have to provide the police with a document saying you are individually exempt from unlawful search and seizure or from self incrimination or from having soldiers placed in your home by the military? Are there ANY rights that are denied to you by default and for which you must prove your worthiness to exercise before they will be allowed to you? No? Then why should the 2nd amendment be considered any differently?”
MaxTheElder 2 years, 9 months ago.
