Need arguments for AR/AK/"Evil" rifles

[silvertear]

Hey Calgunners, I'm not sure that this is the right place for this, but I'd like to ask for the help of the community. I've recently gotten into a debate with a few people on the topic of "Assault Weapons", and was having trouble coming up with 1) reasons as to why AR-style/AK-style rifles would be needed and 2) if there were any recorded cases in which an "Assault Weapon" was used to defend the home.

The people have argued that there are 3 reasons for these types of rifles: hunting, killing and "compensating for a lack of manhood" (rephrasing in a way so that I don't get banned). They have also argued that the rifles are more dangerous because they have pistol grips, can accept suppressors/silencers, have "large capacity magazines" and utilize semi-automatic action (completely ridiculous, I know).

I've been able to argue that we have the freedom to go out and obtain those (legal) rifles, and that those rifles were some of the most effective tools in stopping someone who would wish to do me and my family harm in our home. I was also able to find a story in which a guy chased down 3 people who ran a car into the fence of his home (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/0...to-defend.html). If anyone in the Calguns community could toss out some more ideas or link to stories in which these "evil rifles" were used to defend a home, I would greatly appreciate it.

p.s.

Yes, I've tried looking this up with the search function, but I haven't really found anything. Maybe my search skills need to be improved.

[Josh3239]

1) Is a .223 coming out of an evil black rifle like an AR15 any more deadly than a .223 coming out of a bolt action rifle? Do items like pistol grips, flash hiders, or retractable stock make a weapon any more deadly? The answer to both of those questions is no. Why is it if I take a rifle and add a pistol grip it is an AW but if I remove the pistol grip it is a safe, non-AW? The rifle is the same, the actions are the same, and the cartridge is the same.

What you have to make clear to these people is it is looks, period!

2) I am sure you can find cases where "assault weapons" were used defensively. Many people in this country rely on "assault weapons" to defend their homes.

Their reasons - hunting, killing, and "compensating..." shows their lack of understanding. The number 1 reason the 2nd Amendment was made was for the people to defend themselves from a tyranical government. In addition, it is for huting, self denense, sport, recreating, and just plain freedom.

As for "compensating...", then tell them that you guess they don't need a fancy car or a big house.

I'd love to hear that explanation of how a pistol grip makes a rifle more accurate. That must be the reason why rifle type grips are generally favored over pistol grips for precision/benchrest shooting... oh wait

Supressors, how often are they ever used in commission of a crime in the US? I would put down money that I could count on one hand how many times they have been used during a crime in the past 20yrs. Better yet, ask them to explain why a criminal would want to make a weapon heavier, longer, and larger because overwhelming evidence shows the top 4 most used firearms for criminals are cheap, very small handguns. They are favored for their lightweight, cheap, and easy to conceal. Adding a suppressor takes such features away, it would be expensive, heavier and harder to conceal.

"Large capacity magazines", have they ever seen someone reload? It takes all of 2 seconds. Besides, bad guys don't wait for you to reload.

How about asking them this, who are they to decide which rifles are safe for civilians and which aren't? Do looks have any effect on their decision? Do they even know the difference between guns that don't include external parts that have no bearing on the cartridge or the actions? Do colors have any effect on their decision? Why are they trying to disarm me? What makes you think a criminal, a person who ignores laws, will follow gun laws?

[Gump]

What makes you think a criminal, a person who ignores laws, will follow gun laws?

This is one of my favorite points when having discussions with people about gun control laws.

[Josh3239]

Gah, can't sleep now that I read this read.

Now I want to rant about the idea the guns are built for killing.

Killing and murder are two different things, lets clear that up. Killing is simply taking a life, murder is illegally taking a life which is a crime.

The way these people are talking I assume they mean that guns are meant for murder. This is goofy, to say the least, considering my rifle I bought from parts that were sold to specifically the civilians market and was built by me. So are they accusing the gun manufacturers, who sell the parts to civilians, and people like myself who buy and build these rifle of conspiring to commit murder? Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns, heck freeways take more lives than guns in the US. Does that mean freeways were built to kill people and therefore should be banned?

I am also still having a hard time figuring out why a .223 "assault weapons" is more deadly then say... a .30-06 "non-assault weapons". Or why a 9mm "assault pistol" is more deadly than a .44 magnum revolver.

I am also having a hard time figuring out why, if guns are for the defense of our rights against government, why do we allow said government to decide which guns are "safe" to own. That is like declaring a war on another nation and then asking them permission to bring all of our different weapons.

[dreyna14]

1) I've heard the "Why would someone need one of those evil black weapons?" before, and it makes me sick. Someone could ask that stupid question about a near infinite number of things in our culture.

And I'd hardly call owning an AR "compensating for a small ****". They're just fun to shoot and are the best-looking rifle out there, plain and simple. I've wanted one for many years, and now I have one. This is how I see it, since we have the legal right to purchase AR's & AK's, tell your friends that it's their burden of proof to explain why they aren't needed. Here's what I would do, Google "mini 14" and look for two images. One image of a plain old mini straight from the factory and one with the stock changed over to one with a pistol grip. Ask them which one is the "assault weapon". They will be correct, then proceed to explain that the definition of an AW is merely based on form and not function since both of the guns you showed them are in fact the same gun. Then proceed to give them the finger and tell that that if they feel they don't need one, then to not go and buy one.

2) Owning a gun isn't just about defending one's home. It's about both exercising and protecting one's rights, those which history has shown get taken away in the absence of civilian-owned firearms. And for anyone to think that this can't happen in "this day and age" is dumb and naive.

Criminals will always have guns, no matter how many laws there are, and you can't take the guns away from criminals by trying to outlaw them. Gangbangers and street thugs obtain guns illegally and have no problems with possessing them illegally. All you do is turn good citizens with good intentions into criminals and victims. The way you neutralize criminals with guns is to allow citizens to "keep and bear arms". This allows us to respond with equal force to criminal threats. The only way a 5'3" 105 lb young woman is as strong as a 5'11" 180 lb rapist is after she's put a slug in his brain.

[Ford8N]

This is about the best explanation. Even done by a cop!

[JDay]

They have also argued that the rifles are more dangerous because they have pistol grips, can accept suppressors/silencers, have "large capacity magazines" and utilize semi-automatic action (completely ridiculous, I know).

I'd ask them to prove how having a few cosmetic features on a rifle makes it more deadly than any other rifle and then have them watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0. Also explain to them how so called "assault weapons" are used in something like 1.5% - 2% of all gun crime and that the preferred weapon of the criminal are small pistols that typically hold around 7-8 rounds.

[joelogic]

Awesome Video

[abesh]

You will never win against some peoples' logic, so I thought I might as well try to cheer (or ruin) your day with this. Enjoy:

40 Reasons for Gun Control

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244396

[Tumerboy]

That's a great video Ford!

[sytfu_RR]

great video, they should play that as a public service announcement.

[ghostwong]

Excellent call!!

This is about the best explanation. Even done by a cop!

[Librarian]

The video's good - glad to see it again.

But more to the point, ask your questioners this: who besides me gets to determine what I need? When did anyone cede that authority to someone else?

[Alaric]

The anti's had a "wake up call" on assault rifles coming from a spate of school shootings and the Bank of America shootout in N. Hollywood in 1997. The public perception became that the police were outgunned by criminals, people had easy access to highly effective killing machines, and something had to be done.

Well, the cops were outgunned in N. Hollywood. The LAPD, infamously, had to borrow rifles from a nearby gun shop to be able to compete with the AK's the perps were carrying. These guys had all the evil features - pistol grips, high-cap mags, even body armor. The perps were using "military tactics" - laying down covering fire, shooting from cover, fire and manouver, etc. The cops were simply unprepared to deal with that combination of firepower, body armor and tactics.

Politics is a reactionary beast, especially in a "progressive" land like the PROK. Incidents like these can and do easily lead to a knee-jerk reaction, and a threat to our gun ownership rights.

Now imagine, if you will, if the police and maybe even a few local community-minded civvies had been equally prepared to take those guys on. Instead of waiting for SWAT to finally show up, if a few of those cops or a few customers had had their own EBR's in the trunks of their cars. Would those perps have been able to shoot up the neighborhood and wound so many people over such a long shootout? Would they have even tried, had they known the possibility existed that would be the reaction? The deterrent effect of a well-armed populace is a well-documented and often overlooked positive for "our side".

By most accounts, despite the perception given in movies, the crime rate in the wild-west was far lower than what it is today. You didn't simply walk into a bank and hold it up, lest you be greeted by an angry mob of gun owners upon exiting the bank.

The problem came for gun owners with a basic psychological shift of perception in who's responsibility it is to defend our communities, our property, ourselves. Tragically, the civilian population has largely abdicated it's responsibility for our collective and individual security to what has become an increasingly paramilitary police force in this country, while at the same time allowing itself to become increasingly disarmed.

We must continue to work to shift this perception back. It is our responsibility as a free people to demand our right to arm ourselves against the threats we face, and stand against tyranny in whatever form it takes - criminal, governmental, what have you. EBR's are the latest and most effective tool we have in our arsenal, and are critical to maintaining this responsibility. Take our EBR's away, and we will be outgunned, pure and simple.

Rant over.

[Electric Factory]

This is about the best explanation. Even done by a cop!

I really liked this vid, as methodical and easy to understand a presentation as I've ever seen on the subject. The term 'assault weapon' itself has become pointless, a media buzzword meant only to catch attention. Which it does.

Everyone should pass this link on to someone who needs to be informed.