One way that I fell flat on my face in this discussion occurred when the other person referred to the number of deaths from AR's used in mass shootings. Then she asked me to justify AR ownership when the likelihood of mass shootings might continue. I said nothing. AR owners must prepare to articulate logical answers to these questions and not be caught speechless as was I.
I'm going to give a big shout-out to the Guns Guide to Liberals podcast. It provides excellent discussion strategies and motivation for advancing pro-gun arguments.
Coming off of that advice, I'd lead with an appeal to shared value- we all agree that human life is valuable and worth protecting, so laws should generally support that principle. If you get nothing else out of your conversation, you will at least get to plant a flag that pro-gunners care about human life, and that's not nothing.
The lethality of a mass or school shooting is broadly independent of the weapon type used. The Sutherland Springs school shooting provides a potent example. The killer used an illegally obtained pump shotgun and .38 revolver to first shoot the school's SRO, and then spent 10 minutes killing his classmates before being engaged by police. There's not a ban anywhere that would touch pump shotguns and .38 revolvers. They are low capacity guns, over 100 years old in design, and were used to gruesome effect in Sutherland Springs because the kinds of guns used in a mass shooting do not determine the lethality of the event. There have been multiple instances of people using ARs to unsuccessfully attempt mass killings.
If an attempt at a mass killing is actually made, the primary factor that affects body count is how quickly the shooter can be effectively resisted. Basically every state allows some form of concealed carry, so the most straightforward way to reduce the amount of time that it takes to provide effective resistance against a person attempting a mass killing is to increase the number and types of places where concealed carry is permitted.
As far as why ARs with their LCMs need to be legal, aside from the constitutional reasons and the resisting tyranny reasons which usually don't reasonate in such a conversation, I have the mom, sister, and ex-wife reasons. My dad died back in September, and now my mom lives alone. My sister has been a widow for about as long as she's been a mother. Back when I was married, I had a job in the oilfield where I would sometime work off-shore and leave my wife alone at the house.
More people get killed by stabbings than are killed by rifles of any kind. More people are beaten to death, than are killed by rifles of any kind. There are over 4,500 home invasions per day and over 1M per year in the US. Attempting to deprive my mom and my sister, who must protect themselves by theirselves, of their ability to defend themselves threatens human life.
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
Thanks, @joshs -Originally Posted by joshs
Wouldn’t it be cool if we knew someone at, say, the NRA/ILA that might be familiar with the results of surveys like that?
And it would be awesome if someone like that were a member of P-F, and we could get them to provide input on a thread about how to argue to people who might be skeptical of AR-15 ownership.
But since I guess we don’t know anyone like that, we’ll just have to keep guessing on our gun forum about what might work.
I thought P-F was better than that.
Sorry, dude. My point was directed at Glenn because I've discussed this with him several times. The arguments for AR-15s that are most effective with a broad swath of the American people all focus on self-defense.
We've consistently, for the last ten years, gotten very high positive response to a statement along the lines of:
"Law-abiding Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with the firearm of their choosing."
Arguments that tie ARs and mags to self-defense will almost always be the most effective argument with those who do not already own them.
My point in my earlier post was that Glenn knows this, I've told him before, but he thinks arguments that link ARs to fighting the government would be more effective. Those arguments have always done very poorly in our research.
Thanks, Josh. I appreciate you putting your earlier reply in context.
And I certainly appreciate your input to this topic with a basis in actual surveys.
Thanks for your patience and your participation here.
Good points.
I would take it one step further with the mother, sister argument stating about how an AR can be a much more effective weapon, as well as easier to train and easier to deploy for smaller individuals.
There seems to be a general consensus, at least in my opinion, that for smaller individuals, smaller lighter guns like light weight revolvers are better. They don't understand that their trigger pulls are much worse, and The Recoil is no fun for someone, especially a small framed individual
Furthermore, they need to be educated about how ineffective handguns rounds are. When someone hears about the police shooting an individual 20 times it's always put in the context that the police are racist thugs, not that it can take 20 bullets from a handgun to stop someone who is motivated.
cc
I would like to add nuances that seem to be ignored.
Does the self-defense argument have any appeal to those who are not already committed gun rights supporters? I argue to try to move those who are in the middle or slightly anti. Surveys are insufficient and I would have a research program using attitude change techniques to see if these folks can be made more positive.
While self-defense is a compelling argument for having some sort of gun, it includes the minimalist approach of Shotgun Joe Biden. It includes the '5 is enough crowd' who decry a person with a Glock 19 and a higher capacity mag. A pure SD argument could easily see a state say - Why, yes, SD is important but you are well served with a SW Model 10 or similar gun as the paradigm of choice.
Can you separate minimalist SD, based on the perceived average incident, from the right to have an evil weapon of war?
Defense against tyranny is a core value and should not be ignored.
In my discussion of the government, I specifically wanted to tailor and add appeals to groups outside of the current core constituency for fund raising with specific appeals that with the rise of targeted groups attacks (strongly against people of color, people of the Jewish faith), these groups need to support and encourage having the guns that match what we know exist in the hate groups of various persuasions. Note that the hate group message can and should include Christian targeting but don't down play explicit mention classic racist and anti-Semitic hate.
Controversial but in defense against government - one should mention the possibility of elected officials encouraging explicitly, implicitly or with covert actions, attacks on the minority groups. There is a strong history of such actions.
This is a different take from Stop the Socialist Wave as the governmental threat. That is a threat meme that turns off half the country. Research may indicate it sells to the core constituents but as I said, I think chasing that demographic is to lose by attrition over time.
So to conclude, defense against government is nuanced and is different from what that is usually presented with "they want to take away our guns to control us".
Let's have a cover of an NRA magazine that headlines:
"With the Rise of Hate in America, People Under Threat Need the Ability to Counter That"
Subtitle - A 5 shot revolver (good for a single mugger) or a Double Barrel Duck gun will be insufficient.
Some prose, in TX a church was attacked. The shooter, fleeing to perhaps do more harm, was stopped with an AR-15 in private hands. Another church was attacked in TX and the shooter stopped by a citizen with a 'dreaded' semi auto handgun. The members of Members of the Congregation Netzach Yisroel in NY would not be allowed by the 'SAFE' act to own such items.
You get the idea.
The good points about ease of use, multiple assailants, etc. can be part of that article.
Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; 02-02-2020 at 11:34 AM.
I think the argument made by Andrew Whiting about why his wife and sister need an AR-15 for self-defense is an excellent example of the type of effective argument we should be seeking to make with non-AR owners:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7Ty0jepCQb/
I agree. Put him on the cover. Get that African-American from Bill Maher's show and put him on the cover.
Drop the 'first priority' is to support the GOP crap. Explicitly and I mean in Bold Type, say party is irrelevant, gun rights are the first priority.
The VFW was able to tell Donald he was full of crap over the traumatic brain damage dismissal in Iraq. After the Bump stock incident and his weird meeting with Diane and not being afraid of the NRA - say explicitly that support for Trump is based solely on his support for the RKBA and without a proactive legislative program (not rhetoric or just wait for the judges). Funding will go more to legislative battles than to him.
Of course, the public image of the NRA would be better served with a 'leader' without the current baggage. Most executives know when to go or a real board can make that decision for them.
Here's an example:
This may be diversion from the AR issue but without a good spokesperson with credibility the AR arguments will be discounted by many. It's well known in attitude change that if you start with a stupid argument, later good arguments are ignored.Boeing said on Monday that it had fired its chief executive, Dennis A. Muilenburg, who was unable to stabilize the company after two crashes involving its best-selling 737 Max plane killed 346 people and set off the worst crisis in the manufacturing giant’s 103-year history.
Up until very recently, VT was at or near the top of the list for deadliest mass shootings in history (and it is still way up there). The critical factor is the killer having time unopposed to do whatever they want, not a specific type of weapon. As far as number of deaths, relatively few people are killed annually with any long guns, let alone AR types.
Reply With Quote