Need arguments for AR/AK/"Evil" rifles

[VAHEVAHE]

Because gun owners are not sheeple

[hoffmang]

Then he shot out the Brady Campaign, citing that I'm 22 times more likely to accidentally injure myself than to shoot an intruder. I'm now looking up counter arguments to the cited "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." article by Kellerman.

Kellerman has been shown to be massively incorrect. Keep googling - might have been Kleck who shot it down. I also think there was some reference to it in the Heller amici on statistics.

You can always ask him why he drives to work in the morning since he's 100's of times more likely to die in the commute than you are to die owning a gun.

-Gene

[silvertear]

Yeah, I've been looking around and I've found some sites disputing his 1993 article and maybe one or two challenging the 1998 one:

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-buckner.html

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF

http://www.pointoflaw.com/feature/archives/000346.php

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=119

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

These links dispute his original assertion that you're 43 time more likely to kill someone else (family, friend, yourself) than you would an intruder or something like that (the 1993 assertion). I'm trying to see if I can find something to quite strongly debunk the "22 times more likely to accidentally shoot yourself" claim, his 1998 assertion.

I remember running across someone's post about Kellerman's studies and he argued something along the lines of "If you perform another study on how many people die from a certain disease after going to a hospital, similar to how Kellerman did his gun studies; then you'll be able to show that the hospital raises your likelyhood of dying X times from going to the hospital for treatment than if you didn't go". However I think that this person would likely not believe anything I say or present.

I guess in any case, it's good to find this sort of info, even if it is just for personal use.

[grammaton76]

Another thing to consider - if you confront a guy in your home with the most evil-looking rifle possible, wouldn't that make the guy MORE likely to surrender and either run or drop his gun?

How is blowing an intruder away with a hunting rifle morally superior to leaving the intruder so overwhelmed that he surrenders?

...yes, very unlikely and in fact if someone's at the point where I'm pointing a gun at them, I'm ready to use it on them. But anti-gun types seem to be driven by questions of ethics and morality, and here's one to give him.

[alex00]

I hate the "why do you need an [insert evil rifle] argument. When is the basis of need ever been a determining factor in America's desire to own something? Do I need a car that goes faster than 70 MPH? Do I need a house that has more bedrooms than my family uses? Do I need a motorcycle?

I also hate having to make apologies for owning something "designed to kill another person". I don't hunt, so my gun choices tend more to the EBR types. If I'm ever going to use my guns outside of a range it will be in defense of myself or others. I want something that will stop the person I'm shooting at quickly. Unfortunately the best means of stopping someone are to disable the parts of the body so useful in staying alive.

Even if EBRs were the most common gun used in crime, how does that affect my ability to own one? I'm not a criminal, and would never use any of my firearms in an unlawful manner. This is not third grade. Just because some people can't play well with others, does not give the anti's the right to take my toys away.

Craigslist is very effective at advertising prostitution. When are we going to outlaw that site? Bars that have parking lots are effective at putting drunks on the road. When are we going to outlaw them? Just about anything that has a legitimate purpose can be used to hurt/steal from/annoy others. It's too bad the ant's won't acknowledge that it's the people using the guns that need to be punished. Unfortunately all the Lib Dems would lose their support base when all the relatives of their constituents are locked up for misusing the guns.

[Josh3239]

Then he shot out the Brady Campaign, citing that I'm 22 times more likely to accidentally injure myself than to shoot an intruder. I'm now looking up counter arguments to the cited "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." article by Kellerman.

This guy just doesn't like guns.

Ooooohhh perfect. He cited the Kellerman study, that piece of crap is so easy to tear to shreds!!! This is it, Kellerman based this study on 43 incidents. That is right only 43 incidents. Of the 43 incidents, 37 were suicides. Granted I don't know the other 6 incident's circumstances, 86% of this "likely to hurt yourself" is suicide.

Basically the Kellerman study is as truthful as much as a KKK study proving white people are the master race.

[Ford8N]

It's too bad the ant's won't acknowledge that it's the people using the guns that need to be punished. Unfortunately all the Lib Dems would lose their support base when all the relatives of their constituents are locked up for misusing the guns.

I would bet a cup of coffee that the majority of those that are misusing firearms are already forbidden from even being in the same room with a firearm. There are already enough laws on the books to keep someone in jail for a long time but judges feel sorry for the scum bags.

[alex00]

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).

Take them shooting. Try to bring a variety of guns, bolt actions, EBRs and "hunting rifles". Let them see for themselves the lack of difference between "lethality" of the evil rifles, and the Super Friendly non-puppy killers. Let them shoot from the hip with all of them and see that real life is not like the movies. Ask them to bring a CA legal silencer and CA legal Hi cap magazine... Oh wait, they can't.

If they refuse to see that these guns are a non issue after a trip to the range, they are not worth arguing with. Let them drink their Kool-aid, and believe the world will be safer if law abiding citizens can't own EBRs.

[mister dize]

You're not going to win this argument, and here's why. Your anti-gun friend started with the wrong mindset: why do you need an assault rifle?

Well, in the strict survivalist sense, you don't. Nor do you need red wine, Volvo station wagons, and National Public Radio.

The argument is going nowhere because your opponent feels that anything that is not explicitly needed (with need being determined by the government) can be banned. Our side takes the opposite stance, that anything not explicitly prohibited can be owned.

That being said, here's what you do: let your opponent drone on about how these killing machines are polluting our society and so on. Let him feel morally superior, because crossing that superiority is what will drive him to argue with you. Much in the way that people who don't approve of homosexuality are instantly classified as homophobes, your anti-gun friend is a hoplophobe - a person who fears inanimate objects. Tell him that you thought this kind of intolerance of basic constitutional freedoms was a thing of the past, and that you really hope he will someday see the world with an open mind.

They hate that kind of sh*t

[silvertear]

I have actually mentioned the fact that people don't need it, like people don't need luxury cars; unfortunately this person still stands by his argument that guns are bad. I'd say that based on his posts, he views guns as a potential danger; and as such, feels that such potential dangers shouldn't exist, or rather should not be in the hands of the average citizen. I'll address this in a bit with him by responding that cars are potential dangers, so is fertilizer (Oklahoma City bombing). In the meantime, I'll be shooting down his argument where he cites the Brady Campaign.

[M. Sage]

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

I hope you use frangibles in that thing for home defense.

Soft points. They're not going to be much if any worse if I miss my shot than 230 grain HP from my .45. And the AK is only if something happens like I'm listening to someone beating my door down. The .45 is my what I'll grab if I have to roll out of bed and check a noise at dark:30.

The kicker is if I miss my shot (oh, I know it'll go through, but so will the .45 - I wouldn't have it any other way, to be honest). With the rifle, that's a much, much, much less likely happenstance.

[m98]

Kellerman has been shown to be massively incorrect. Keep googling - might have been Kleck who shot it down. I also think there was some reference to it in the Heller amici on statistics.

You can always ask him why he drives to work in the morning since he's 100's of times more likely to die in the commute than you are to die owning a gun.

-Gene

Bingo.......how many deaths caused by vehicle accidents per minute VS how many Actual deaths caused by firearms.

You should just ask the guy if he'd like to go out and shoot with you at the range. If he declines then SHEEPLE like that you shouldn't bother wasting your energy,breath and time with. Just let the cops help him if ever a shtf occurs. You'll have one less SheePle to deal with so you can focus on helping people who matters most. I'll be damned if I helped a sheeple out of a bind then that sheeple turns around later to the cops saying I had all these Deadly assault weapons and thousands of ammo stashed away in my house/secret room....Typical Sheeple?

[pdq_wizzard]

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...4-2-Screen.pdf

looking at pages 93 - 96 there is now way Heller should have been 5-4 it should have been 9-0 !!!! this just pisses me off to no end

[WhoDat]

In the specific case of the AR, I talk about the strength of the platform.

Modular - you can easily customize and build it to your specific needs
Flexible - see above... plus, multi-caliber ( 6.8, 6.5, Beowulf, etc.)
Reliable - tried, proven, and improved for around 50 years in the field
Accurate - can be made into the most accurate semi-auto available
Standardized - Many available parts/accessories
Safe - 50 years of experimentation... safety is important to me
Historical - It is America's rifle

Point is, there's a lot more to the AR platform than most people are aware of. I usually show them my 24" BBL target Ar-15 and my Remington R-25 hunting rifle to demonstrate the available configurations. And most people can relate to having something that can be easily customized.

I know, it's a weak argument and doesn't cover many other AWs, but it helps most of my gun-illiterate friends understand why I need so many ARs... each of them winds up being a unique, special-purpose firearm.

[AlexF]

In any debate, the best tactic to use with people whos arguments don't have a leg to stand on is to QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION.

If someone states that pistol grips are dangerous, ask them WHY.
When they tell you why, it will be an argument based on EMOTION and not LOGIC. Keep questioning them and they will break down....they might even get upset....but you will win because there is nothing "immoral" about guns since they are just inanimate tools. If you base your argument on the morality of a persons right to own guns, regardless of whether it's for self defense or hobby, you cannot lose.

This is called the "Socratic Method of Dabating" and it works BRILLIANTLY

In any debate it is also critical that you KEEP YOUR COOL. Let your opponent break down and get loud. Don't stoop to his/her level.