Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Things We Wish Our Anti-Gun Friends Knew

This is a revised version... maybe of some interest and use. I think I'm done "tuning" it for now.

Things We Wish our Anti-Gun Friends Knew

1. The Founders knew very well the advantages and disadvantages of having an armed populace. They chose to give us an armed society. You may argue that it was a bad choice, but nevertheless it was the choice memorialized in the Constitution. If you want to change that, the Constitution provides an orderly way to do it. On balance, an armed society seems to be at least as safe as an unarmed society. Many of us think the Founders chose wisely.

2. The Armalite Rifle 15 is not a peculiarly dangerous firearm. Neither is a Glock or an AK47. They are functionally indistinguishable from a large number of other firearms that don’t get so much attention.

3. The AR15 is not a weapon of war, nor can it be easily or legally converted to its military cousin. If it were a weapon of war, nations would arm their soldiers with it. They don’t. The AR15 looks like some weapons of war, but its function is far different. The AK47s possessed in the US are not weapons of war, either. They are functionally far different from the ones used in battle. For the most part, a US citizen cannot possess the standard rifles issued to our military.

4. Mauser rifles are real weapons of war, used through WWI and WWII by Germany, Sweden, Mexico, Spain and many others. Mosin Nagant rifles were issued to Russian and Finnish troops. The US used the 1903 Springfield. A huge number of all these are still functional and in use. People opposed to firearms don’t seem to object as much to these real weapons of war as they do to imaginary weapons of war like the AR15. The AR15 and AK47 are far weaker than any of them.

5. Part of the Heller Supreme Court ruling is that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual, protected civil right, no less vital than freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Also, the firearms covered by the Second Amendment are those firearms commonly held for legal purposes, which are not excessively dangerous (machine guns, artillery, anti-tank weapons). This protection applies to a wide variety of firearms. The decision also requires that laws affecting gun rights must be narrowly tailored and be based on real evidence of an overriding interest. Proposing tighter gun laws? You have the burden of producing that evidence. Angst is not enough.

6. There is no credible evidence that stricter gun laws will reduce homicide or suicide rates. The record shows no advantage in homicide rates in states with strict gun laws. If more strict laws worked, we could make firearms crimes double illegal, and quadruple illegal if committed against children, or octuple illegal if they were hate crimes committed on Sunday. If you think that octuple illegal won’t help, your gun owning friends probably agree with you. If you’re the target of a crime, a “no guns allowed” sign will not protect you. A firearm is a more effective alternative, and is used between 600,000 and 2,000,000 times per year to prevent a crime in the US.

7. The United States is not a particularly dangerous country, despite what you hear in the press. If you look at the actual numbers, we’re very much in the middle. There are countries with 5-10X better homicide rates, and countries with 5-10X worse homicide rates. We can and should do better, but right now we’re close to the median among countries that track and report homicide rates.

8. If you are at the bank and see an armed, off duty police officer waiting in line, how do you react? A lot of us feel more secure. And a lot of us feel the same way about a civilian that we know has a concealed firearm. The best evidence we have says that people with concealed carry permits are more reliably law abiding than police officers, and at least equal in firearms skill.

9. The National Rifle Association is the country’s greatest advocate of firearm safety. They provide firearm safety training and the School Shield program. Propose a solution that offers greater safety and that does not interfere with the civil rights of law abiding people, and you’ll probably find the NRA on your side. The main reason the NRA is powerful is that it represents the views of several million law abiding gun owners.

10. What you see on television and in motion pictures is not reality. If you learned what you know about firearms by watching television and motion pictures, you’re probably missing essential facts and perspective. Find a friend that will teach you basic safety, and how to shoot. Learn how enjoyable, safe, and normal the shooting hobby is. You really do meet the nicest people at the shooting range.

Very well thought out.
I just don't have any Anti-Gun friends.

You might have added under (4) that bolt action military rifles of past eras are significantly more powerful than AR-15s and AK-47s.

Paul

None of that matters. Eventually, the communistnazis are coming for them ALL.

L.W.

That's a good point. A Mauser K98 will pretty reliably bring down a 1000 pound elk at 400 yards. The AR or AK, not so much.

By any standards of modenity, the AR platform is archaic.

An antique. Mid century....1956..

Most of us were not even bornl when it was drawn up.....
My mother was in 1st grade.

I know that this is a bit far fetched, but if the power and lethality of an AR were the legal upper limit of allowable firearms, virtually all centerfire rifles in existence would be banned. The same would be true if all firearms with a military link in their family tree were banned. As anyone familiar with the history of firearms knows, the developmental path goes in both directions. Military vs.civilian is a distinction without a difference.

And when it comes to laws and legal matters, words do matter. Any lawyer will confirm that. Remember the Cop Killer Bullet fiasco?

Paul

I wish they knew how MUCH I love my guns!!!!

Hey, watch that. I was in Jr. High then.

Sputnik went up in 1958, just for perspective.

I bet they wish they knew this

Great write-up! There have also been some very good supplemental points made in subsequent posts as well.

I really resonated with the way the OP made a subtle comparison of other older, battle rifles to the AR15 and AK47 platforms.

The fact that *bolt action* rifles (Mauser et al and which are not currently being targeted by the antis) have historically served as battle rifles is a complete non-issue for the antis. And realistically, if those rifles were used, given their significantly more powerful cartridges, shootings would have a far greater fatality/wounded ratio.

One aspect i think the OP is a little naive on is how very similar the AR15/AK47 platforms are to their actual military cousins.

The civilian AR-15 rifle looks identical or nearly so to the military M-16 version. And, let's be truthful here, very little has to be changed for the AR-15 to function as their military cousin.

Yes, there are laws against making those changes unless the proper licensing is secured.

However, criminals do not even remotely care about breaking those laws - they are hardly a distraction to a criminal.

So really, regardless of how similar the AR-15 is to the M-16 or how easy it is to alter, the 2nd Amendment does not discriminate, "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

Over the last fifty year, the United States has enacted hundreds of major “gun control” laws on a national level, and thousands on a state level, and THEY DON”T WORK.
The reason they don’t work is because they people writing these laws don’t know anything about firearms, and/or the criminal misuse of them. They don’t know what they are doing.
It’s like people who don’t drive, don’t know how to drive a car writing traffic laws, it’s ridicules.
Luckily, there are millions of people who do know what they are doing. Almost all of them belong to the NRA, GOA and other pro 2nd amendment groups.
We, as a people need to consult them, and follow their advice when writing laws to reduce violence.

The one single thing that I most wish our anti-gun friends would be aware of is that we talk about gun control when we should be discussing how to protect our children in schools. Guns are just a small part of that problem and even if we could eliminate guns, it wouldn't solve the problem of mass killings in schools. We need to tackle that problem and quit focusing on the myth that guns are the problem.

KC

I have NO anti-gun "friends."

I have a problem with the (current) focus on “School shootings”.
The focus should be on reducing all murder, all criminal violence.
Is a school students life worth any more or any less than a person who is out of school ?
Is a person killed with a knife or club any less dead than a person who is shot ?

Whippersnapper! 2nd grade here.

Two years later I had my mother's 1st grade teacher. One did not cross Mrs Fretty!

While I agree with everything posted I also often wonder if these three points might not be counterproductive when addressing gun control advocates. Does this say the AR is not a weapon of war, or does it say all guns are weapons of war? The fact is for those that are anti-gun it is all just about creating stepping stones.

Anti-gun Step one ban bump stocks or high cap magazines (insert low-hanging fruit dejour). Then we argue that bump stocks are effectively a novelty (correctly) and that if 30/60/5000.... round magazines are banned an evil doer could just carry more 10 round magazines and cause the same havoc (also correct). So how does the anti-gun advocate take that logic?

Step two ban semi autos, starting with the 'icky looking ones'. Then we argue (correctly) that many semi autos are used for hunting and that they are no less deadly than the 'icky black ones'. Also that a proficient shooter with a truly high power rifle could cause equal havoc from a distance using a 'mere' bolt action rifle....and 'no one' is looking at banning those right? So how does the anti-gun advocate internalize that logic?

Anti-gun Step three (what we all know they really want) just do away with the whole lot of firearms. This is the end game. Because this is the end game realize you are trying to rationalize differences with a group that DOES NOT CARE. Guns are icky. So is hunting, actively protecting yourself, certainly keeping a party of 'benevolent rulers' in check is icky. They are every bit as interested in seeing Paddler's Pioti King IV (liberal deuce's fancy shotgun for the unacquainted) in the same museum of horrors as they are in seeing my AR. They recon if all guns are taken life can begin in the land of harmony and brotherly love. The history of man proving otherwise bares as little pondering as pointing out that an AR is no more or less effective than any other gun.

I don't propose to have the answers for 'breaking through' to these fools. I do question the tactics of trying to educate them on the mechanics or nature of firearms. My fear being they will just take that as a means to further their agenda. Because guns of all types are more similar than they are different this will always be a wrong tactic (IMO). Only chance is the reason WHY these rights are constitutionally based (nothing to do with hunting or target sports) and history of what happens EVERY time these rights are taken. It is then they find out that liberals bleed the same as conservatives; be it at the hands of a dictatorship or roving thugs that live outside of the law.

Our anti-gun "friends" dont give a dayom what our founders thought. The one world order is another matter. They dont give a dayom how much you love your guns or kids. They will fughk them both up. They give a dayom about how much you will pay while letting them have things done their way.

They didnt care in Russia or Germany or China.

This is what you support, djs, whether you know it or not.

Agree with most of what you have listed except:

1. "If you want to change that, the Constitution provides an orderly way to do it." There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government can abolish or modify any of the natural rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

3. "For the most part, a US citizen cannot possess the standard rifles issued to our military." They should be able to.

5. " Also, the firearms covered by the Second Amendment are those firearms commonly held for legal purposes, which are not excessively dangerous (machine guns, artillery, anti-tank weapons)." That's not in the Second Amendment. You left out many excessively dangerous weapons like ground-to-air missiles, hand grenades and mortars citizens would need in wartime.

7. "The United States is not a particularly dangerous country, despite what you hear in the press. If you look at the actual numbers, we’re very much in the middle." If you removed all the crimes committed in our large liberal run cities and states from the crime statistics I believe the USA would be at least in the top 5 safest countries in the world, maybe the safest.

8. "The best evidence we have says that people with concealed carry permits are more reliably law abiding than police officers, and at least equal in firearms skill." What evidence? I know there are a few bad cops but I've never known one.

It's still a pretty good list but you just can't convince a liberal that the Second Amendment is a good thing or even a natural right.