Need arguments for AR/AK/"Evil" rifles

[InvictusManeo]

To the OP, regarding the original issues:

Ergonomics features such as pistol grips make the rifle more maneuverable. The faster you can acquire a target, the better aimed the shot will be, and the lower the chance of collateral damage.

Flash suppressors help save the shooter's vision in a low-light situation, assuring that they can see where they are shooting if follow-up shots are necessary. Again, lower chance of collateral damage.

Silencers are considered the only polite way to shoot in some countries with a strong shooting culture: they protect everyone in the area who didn't have time to prepare for the shot from hearing damage. Also, most (all that I have heard of in service calibers, but I'm not omnipotent) do not result in silence, but rather tolerable noise levels.

Arguments for hi caps have already been made abundant, and I would reiterate the low incidence of AW being used in criminal activities. The preference is toward small cheap handguns, and banning these would leave the poor without self-defense options.

ETA: SBRs with collapsing stocks would be highly useful in HD, for the same reason as pistol grips.

[trinydex]

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.

this actually doesn't work well at all, especially on the internet. i've observed it countless times. you can question someone to the very specifics of what you're trying to get them to realize they're wrong about and they'll skirt hee and haw all day long driving you in circles until it becomes a battle of fatigue. the socratic method of reasoning relies on and requires that the subject being questioned is OPEN to being wrong. this cannot be readily assumed, especially about emotional topics.

it has been said. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self- evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

to mirror this i think that all lies and half truths attempting belief will pass through way more stages. first comes the appeal to self evidence, then will come an appeal to common sense, then will come an appeal to statistics via anecdote or "professionals," then will come diversionary topics that are marginally related, finally comes the insult of the questioner, particularly how foolish they are for questioning.

[AlexF]

this actually doesn't work well at all, especially on the internet. i've observed it countless times. you can question someone to the very specifics of what you're trying to get them to realize they're wrong about and they'll skirt hee and haw all day long driving you in circles until it becomes a battle of fatigue. the socratic method of reasoning relies on and requires that the subject being questioned is OPEN to being wrong. this cannot be readily assumed, especially about emotional topics.

it has been said. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self- evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

to mirror this i think that all lies and half truths attempting belief will pass through way more stages. first comes the appeal to self evidence, then will come an appeal to common sense, then will come an appeal to statistics via anecdote or "professionals," then will come diversionary topics that are marginally related, finally comes the insult of the questioner, particularly how foolish they are for questioning.

Well yes, if the Socratic Method does not help them see the light. Stop wasting your time on them. They are probably a lost cause.

[Crusader]

Plain and simple. This is my reasoning any time one of my idiot friends questions me about the 2nd Amendment.

If you want the right to freedom of speech, I want my right to firearms. Who are you to pick and choose which parts of the Amendments of the Constitution should apply today? Who are you to say that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" refers to the state, whereas all the other mentions of the term "people" in relation to the rights of speech, fair trial, etc etc belong to individuals? **** you.

That's usually how the debates between my friends and I go. And that's usually how they end.

[trinydex]

how many friends you have left?