Dealing with & Educating Anti-gun folks

[ripcurlksm]

I frequent another forum which has younger folks 16-25 perhaps. I posted my new shotgun (Franchi I-12) and I got a lot of positive responses wishing me well and telling me to get out there and "have fun" with it. However one person respecfully dissented their opinion on gun control and also asked what the purpose of guns serve to non-hunters. Please note that I am not an expert on all of the laws but I wanted to be constructive in educating anti's.

This following is his post and my response. Did I do good?

I'm not trying to be facetious (though in the interest of full disclosure I do believe in total gun control), but how does one "have fun" with a new gun? Do you take it to the range or something? Can you take shotguns (or sawed-off shotguns) to a range? Do you shoot it in your backyard? What I don't understand why people buy non-hunting rifles for reasons other than self defense (which I don't really get either, but I see why some people might feel safer). How do you get to have fun with them?

Again, I'm not gonna waste more space in this forum lecturing on what I think about being able to buy guns;
I just honestly want to know what people do with them once they buy them!

Here was my response:
Good questions. With shotguns, you can shoot trap, which is clay pigons. You yell "Pull!" and a clay pigeon goes flying out and you shoot it. Thats pretty much the basis why I have a shottie. I also camp outdoors frequently and a small firearm (such as my semi-auto handgun) is appropriate in certain areas where mountain lions, coyotes and bears frequent. I would like to state that most of the animals will be more scared of me and firearms will likely not be needed, but large cats like mountian lions are smart, agressive and fearless.

As far as gun control, I respectfully disagree with you Cobalt - it is my view that most gun control laws simply takes guns out of the hands of responsible, lawful owners. Its a fact that gun laws ONLY affect citizens, criminals will always have access to firearms no matter what laws are passed. IMO if you want less violent crime with guns, I dont think gun control is the proper way to address crime. Does this make sense? Some guns should be banned for obvious reasons...for example, I agree with the fully auto ban on firearms, which outlaws large capacity magazines and firearms with high rates of fire. That makes sense to me. But handguns, shotguns and semi-auto rifles should always be registered to lawful citizens.

Some people who are in favor of gun control have never even fired a gun, like its a bad or taboo thing. Get out there and try it on your own if you are interested and form your OWN opinons. Take care!

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Seems pretty reasonable overall to me. Maybe a tiny bit long.

The most important part was the closing, where you encouraged him to experience and form his own opinions. With a lot of these folks, subtly implying that they aren't being open-minded can be a good ploy, though some people are totally closed off to most rhetorical methods.


Only one small thing: it might be more realistic to mention that humans are more of a danger than animals, when backpacking the wilderness. I'm pretty sure that this is statistically right. Maybe point out that you're far from any law enforcement, and feel the obligation to be prepared for possibilities rather than expect "The Man" to somehow magically find and rescue you.

-MV

 

[Stickjockey]

A couple things:

Some guns should be banned for obvious reasons...for example, I agree with the fully auto ban on firearms, which outlaws large capacity magazines and firearms with high rates of fire.

I'm taking it you refer to a ban on fully-automatic weapons? If so they (and the "sawed-off shotguns" he refers to in his post) are not banned. They are registered and taxed, and the only machineguns that are banned for civilian use are non-dealer sample guns made after 1986.

Second, you might have changed your "hey, get out and try it" line to more of a "Come on out; I'll provide guns and ammo" invite type of thing if he's in your area.

 

[LoveMyCountry]

Some guns should be banned for obvious reasons...for example, I agree with the fully auto ban on firearms, which outlaws large capacity magazines and firearms with high rates of fire. That makes sense to me. But handguns, shotguns and semi-auto rifles should always be registered to lawful citizens.

Do you also want to ban fully automatic cameras, large capacity hard drives or vehicles with a high rate of speed? Any one of those could be used to commit crimes. How about registering those books, magazines and websites you read? Do you think that background checks should be done before a person can read a book or speak in public?

You say that criminals will always have access to guns, so banning them will not stop criminals. I am not a criminal yet you want to keep me from owning certain types of guns. How will that stop crime?

Information is not bad, but you can do bad things with it. Cars are not bad, but you can do bad things with them. Guns are not bad ,but you can do bad things with them.

What's the common factor here? YOU. If you are not wanting to do evil then you could have a machine gun in your sock drawer and nothing will ever happen. If you are wanting to do evil then no laws, rules or restrictions will stop you.

It's not the item, it's the person.

LoveMyCountry

 

[heypete]

Some guns should be banned for obvious reasons...for example, I agree with the fully auto ban on firearms, which outlaws large capacity magazines and firearms with high rates of fire.

Er...the 1986 FOPA, which effectively banned new civilian machineguns, had no effect whatsoever on "large capacity magazines" ("large" in comparison to what? It's all relative.).

Your I-12 has a "high rate of fire", in that it's semi-auto and will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. By your own statement, should it be banned?

Your opinions are your own, of course, but I'm simply encouraging you to be a bit more clear about what you're referring to. If you feel that full-auto guns should be banned, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to express that (I personally disagree, but that's not the point). But it's inaccurate to suggest or imply that the 1986 FOPA prohibits the ownership of certain magazines or firearms with high potential rates of fire (a machinegun is well-defined legally and mechanically) that are non-machineguns.

I'm also curious how you can say on one hand "gun control only affects the law-abiding, not the criminals" and "certain guns should be banned" on the other. They're both man-portable guns, and are not nearly as extreme examples as the "should nuclear weapons be regulated?" that some anti-gun folks throw out. Why the difference in regulation between "regular" guns and full-auto guns?

Just my $0.02. Otherwise I think your message is a good one.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Not bad at all. Sounds like Cobalt needs to be taken to the range.

 

[Havegunjoe]

You were doing OK until.....

You said, "I dont think gun control is the proper way to address crime." Excellent but then you followed it up with, "Some guns should be banned for obvious reasons...for example, I agree with the fully auto ban on firearms, which outlaws large capacity magazines and firearms with high rates of fire. That makes sense to me. But handguns, shotguns and semi-auto rifles should always be registered to lawful citizens." What "obvious reasons" are you speaking of? I don't see them. What registartion? Registration is the first step to confiscation.

I have to ask, what kind of gun enthusiast are you with a statement like this? Do you know that there was a hairs breath of difference between your semi-auto shotgun and the guns banned by the AWB. Change a couple words and you and I can't shoot trap any longer. That is why I am against all gun control and it drives me nuts when a so called gun owner gives the anti's something to work with.:banghead: All they have to do is say, "look, even a gun owner is for gun control."

You may not see a "need" to own a military style firearm but that does not mean others don't. Some people think shooting little clay discs is a waste of time. Gun control of any kind just opens the door for more and more gun control.

Whenever I hear the statement, "all we want is SENSIBLE gun laws" I cringe. I always ask, "Sensible by whoes standard"? If it isn't me, then it isn't sensible as far as I am concerned, but nobody ever asks me. Don't let the Anti's get a foot hold or we will one day say good by to our guns.

 

[crunker]

Well if the guy considers self-defense a good reason to own a gun, there's little work to be done.

 

[Stickjockey]

Was gonna add it in, but Heypete beat me to it; the laws regarding FA guns and "high-capacity" magazines are completely different, and one has nothing to do whatsoever with the other. Also, as of September(?) 2004, the Federal "high-capacity" and "assault weapons" bans have gone away; neither are in effect at this time. Your state laws may vary.

 

[ripcurlksm]

..

Hey guys, I have no problem with anyone owning a full auto, nor would I vote to ban such.

With that said, I wanted to give a full spectrum to them in regards to gun control perhaps by showing them that I am pro gun, but I did not want to appear to be one-sided on the issue to the effect that they dont listen to what I have to say. So I gave a perhaps poor example of gun control.

To HaveGun, LoveMyCountry and Pete - Thank you for clarifying, I am for full auto, its just I just hear so much about the bans on assault weapons and the like - I did not have correct information. Clearly my err. Please understand that I did not want to appear one-sided in my discussion with them on gun control. So please forgive me. You can shoot a bazooka for all I care, just dont point it at my car

So, am I allowed to own an M-16 in CA or what?

 

[qlajlu]

Actually, ripcurlksm, you didn't do too badly in your response to Mr. Cobalt with the few exceptions that have already been pointed out to you. Of course, when you ask a board as large as this one and with members having things of particular interest to them, you are going to get several answers of varying degrees.

One thing I would caution you about is the mention of "registration."

But handguns, shotguns and semi-auto rifles should always be registered to lawful citizens.

Any registration, no matter how harmless it appears, is still gun control. That is why the NRA is continually watching to make sure that the records of sales do not remain with BATFE over the period of time specified in federal law. Who owns what and why should be no one's business. NO ONE. Once the Instant Check has been accomplished to assure you are not a "prohibited person," the register should be destroyed.

Can you take shotguns (or sawed-off shotguns) to a range? Do you shoot it in your backyard? What I don't understand why people buy non-hunting rifles for reasons other than self defense (which I don't really get either, but I see why some people might feel safer).

You failed to tell Mr. Cobalt that shotguns are used in hunting ducks and other waterfowl, upland game birds, and in some states are required for hunting deer.

Again, though, you did hit the bottom line correctly. The use of the gun depends on the person who uses it. Mr. Cobalt might be surprised at how many people around him are armed without his knowledge through a small victory by the pro-gun lobby called Concealed Carry.

 

[heypete]

So, am I allowed to own an M-16 in CA or what?

Sadly not. It is my understanding that NFA owners who had the federal paperwork completed a while ago were "grandfathered" (mostly because they already had the local police sign-off, which now requires state paperwork in California), but new NFA signoffs are not occurring in the state, effectively banning the sale or transfer of NFA articles in California.

Of course, in Arizona, it's a different story all together. My suppressor's just waiting on my Form 4 now.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

So, am I allowed to own an M-16 in CA or what?

Nope, but you can buy rifles that shoot the exact same cartridge, and use the same magazine, but look slightly less "evil". It's all about cosmetics.

For example, this is legal in CA because it has no pistol grip:



-MV

 

[Il Duca]

Mr Vanitas, who makes that rifle? It is very interesting.

 

[SFvet]

That is very interesting. Looks like an AR upper/lower on an old trigger and stock hehe.

 

[Il Duca]

I'll bet it would be a good alternative to a Mini.

 

[CypherNinja]

Thats the Blackstar BSR-15. Its an AR lower, all uppers and accessories fit. California legal.

http://blackstararms.com/punbb/

The normal buffer assembly is replaced by a plunger and spring arrangement housed in a Remington 1100 stock. Pretty much all aftermarket Rem 1100 stocks fit.

 

[Gord]

I'd also add that "form your OWN opinions" might be seen as an insult, since it implies that he's just believing whatever the Bradys want him to believe. That may well be, but it's kind of tactless to word it that way.

Seems like you've got a ways to go, yourself - why are you trying to explain to someone how you can "have fun" with a shotgun when you, yourself, don't understand how someone can "have fun" with a full-auto or a 75rd drum for their AK?

I give it a C-.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

I'd also add that "form your OWN opinions" might be seen as an insult, since it implies that he's just believing whatever the Bradys want him to believe. That may well be, but it's kind of tactless to word it that way.

Agree that it's crucial to imply it tactfully, but it is a pretty strong point if worder properly.

A lot of Americans have a notable anti-authoritarian streak, and this can be used to our advantage.

-MV

 

[Travis Lee]

So your supposed "pro-gun" post supported a ban on presently legal full auto weapons, supports outlawing "high capacity" magazines (what? 20 rounds? 12 rounds? 6 rounds), and registration of firearms.

So you side with the anti in practically half his agenda against us, and you got.... what?

You think the gun grabbers don't want you in the gulag, for your duck gun, right next to us desperados who have 15 round magazines?

Dream on.

You are for the firearms that YOU think are ok, and everybody else can go hang.

Literally.

Sure, MAYBE they'll ban YOUR guns last.


--Travis--

 

[jeepmor]

"all we want is SENSIBLE gun laws"

To me, that means every family in America owns a gun and it should be a law. Seems "sensible" to me. Removing guns from law abiding citizens in any way, shape or form is not sensible. Criminals don't abide by laws and people without guns are much easier targets for them.

If you want to be a slave/serf/peasant/etc in a despot nation, just keep buying into the government's idea that lack of guns reduces crime. These very government antis want to take the firearms out of your and my hands while they simultaneously stockpile arms for the police forces. What do you think they have planned?

Do you think Johhny Law is going to just "appear" when you need him? I don't, but with my gun, I can safely wait until he gets there to tally his statistics and file a report.



jeepmor

 

[ripcurlksm]

Travis, chill out. Please read my follow up posts. I was the only one on the forum, I was asked a question and I tried to answer as best I could. You know more than me about guns. You can proabably beat me in an arm wrestle too. :banghead:

Turns out one other person on the forum I post on corrected me as well. A few responses from everyone over there and there is a respectful conversation going on amonst the folks.

 

[Travis Lee]

Well, OK Kevin, If I got your number wrong I apologize....

I've had so many years of arguments, strained relations, sacrificed friendships, and such, that I've come to feel that there is NEVER anything to be gained by comromise or ceding rhetorical points.

I stake out the most extreme position because that creates the battle field that THEY have to fight over. Not me.

The second Amendment means what it says. It's up to the Antis to justify THEIR position.

Full auto? 12 year olds buying M1As by mail? Felons legally owning firearms? Nuclear wepons? Why not?

I don't stay up nights over those issues, but I'll never have to justify "why this and not THAT?"

--Travis--

 

[ripcurlksm]

No apology needed there Travis, I party deserve some