Pro AR-15 arguments

[11B10]

Unlike 100 years ago when a firearm was considered a tool no different than a shovel or an axe, recent generations no longer have a need for guns as a tool for survival. Self-reliance is a mostly alien concept to them as they go to the grocery store to get their food, hire a handyman to change a light bulb, call the landscaper to clear the driveway of snow, and call the police if they feel threatened. Their lives are wholly dependent on others for even their most basic needs, and they are almost universally suspicious of those who are not. At least that has been my take on it...

I get what you're saying but I'm not convinced that this common-ground approach will yield much in the debate over firearms, because in reality we have so little in common with them (which in itself is such a sad commentary on today's society).






Once again, I find myself in near-total agreement with this Gent. Very interesting analysis. Thanks.

[NH Shooter]

@rob_s - all good points, thanks for taking the time to articulate them.

I can be just as stubborn as the rest.

[MistWolf]

We are suffering these mass shootings because weaknesses in our society are being exploited. Not because people have access to any type of firearm. Until we address that weakness, which is in part due to not effectively dealing with those predators who seek to exploit or weaknesses. As long as we're engaged in a debate about gun control, we're not talking about the real problem and will continue to lose lives.

[NH Shooter]

I understand your point. But it’s wrong.

Do you want to be right or do you want to “win” the debate?

I thought this link might be to your point:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemya...great-leaders/

[BillSWPA]

The common ground is very simple: we all want to be able to send our kids to school knowing that they will come home safely at the end of the day. The question is how to achieve that goal . . .

I have yet to meet a liberal who believes that the drug problem was solved by banning drugs. What makes guns any different?

When we limit type of firearm, magazine capacity, etc., we are handicapping defenders far more than attackers. Those with bad intentions get to pick the time, the place, how many friends they bring with them, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

I have not read through this whole thread, but one argument in favor of standard capacity magazines that I have found to be particularly effective is the likely need to control 2 or more kids with 1 hand while running the gun with the other hand. Not having to reload in such a situation is immensely helpful.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[idahojess]

Good stuff!

[Suvorov]

I am but mere toenail clippings to Ken and Mas - but to me the firearm that best fits the aims of our Founders and is specifically protected as part of the 2nd Prefatory Clause is the AR-15 as it is the closest we can get to the standard military arm of our age.

It's simple to me, when an anti keeps getting stuck on the prefatory clause I mention Miller and tell them that if that is the case then we should all own ARs (of the select fire breed) and M9s.

[willie]

Two factors affecting legislative outcomes are how many more mass shootings will we have with AR's and how many more people will die in them. If they continue, defending AR's will become even more difficult. One reason is that not all gun owners are concerned about the issue.

On the subject of magazine capacity, we may have even less support among other gun owners when we argue for no restriction. Once I was asked how having AR mags limited to 10 rounds would have a negative outcome on my using an AR for self defense since if I needed more ammunition, I could insert another magazine. I did not have a good answer. I blurted that I did not want the government telling me how many rounds my mags could hold.

[Mike C]

On the subject of magazine capacity, we may have even less support among other gun owners when we argue for no restriction. Once I was asked how having AR mags limited to 10 rounds would have a negative outcome on my using an AR for self defense since if I needed more ammunition, I could insert another magazine. I did not have a good answer. I blurted that I did not want the government telling me how many rounds my mags could hold.

I whole heartedly disagree. More ammunition equals more time. More time to fight and more time to solve the problem at hand. Stopping to feed your gun when your attacker might not have to can cost you your life. Additionally things can go sideways more rapidly when you are dealing with multiple threats and is even more of a reason to have a larger capacity magazine. I do not want to misquote Tom Givens but I believe he stated there is a 40-50% chance of being involved in a violent crime with more than one criminal actor, (my apologies Mr. Givens if I am misquoting you).

I think the issue of capacity can be articulated well enough to sway or educate people. Tom Givens has some pretty persuasive facts in his books. I will say that someone like MAS, Tom Givens or others in the community could do a more eloquent job of articulating facts but the point can easily be made to people who are on the gun owning wagon but may not take issue with having mag restrictions.