Pro AR-15 arguments

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The minds of the non shooting public are a problem. I think it could be handled. You mention the shotgun handling many situations. On the Bill Maher show, an African American rap type when discussing these issues said - with such a ban, if I (the guest) only have a shot gun, I can reach out maybe to 100 yards but the racists can out to me much farther. I prefer to be able to reach them also.

I agree with your other points. I wonder if they are convincing. I certainly believe in equivalency in arms and common usage from a 2nd Amend. viewpoint.

The police are an interesting case as the antigun folks are also against, for the most part, against the militarization of police. There has been strong push back on AR-15s (M-16s, M4) for the police (let alone full auto guns). I can come up with city council types denouncing the purchasing of some.

Pragmatically, this led to Mini-14 purchases (not that it isn't a usable gun) but it looks nicer. The Remington pump 223 was an attempt at a nice gun. It was promoted as taking advantage of prior training with 870s but that was BS. Similarly the first Ruger PC9s were promoted as a solution to the AR appearance problem. The Hollywood shootout put the brakes on that. I recall reading a gun magazine review of the gun that said - well, the 9 won't penetrate armor but you can shoot the guy in the leg more easily with it. I note that I have a new Ruger, for fun and it is a SD gun also.

Differentiating the full auto vs. semi version of the gun is a double edged sword. I saw a Guns and Ammo tv show where two old farts were comparing an M4 and AR that looked identical. The farts were all a twitter about the former being full auto (implied evil) and the AR being semi and thus a MODERN SPORTING RIFLE and thus nice and not so dangerous. Duh, if you presented a match video and see top competitors run the AR (a friend of mine is the Flash), that difference would be trivial. Even an old fart like me (slow) can run an AR in 5 states with only 3 points down for all. So does that make the argument that we should have them because of their easy and accurate use so that even a nutty old fart can be deadly?

Making the full auto evil - wipes out any attempt to free up NRA guns. I supposed I'm arguing for a proactive presentation of why we need deadly weapons. Will the general public go for that?

[Alembic]

Pro AR-15 arguments...

Does the absolute love of the psychological phenomenon that even a mere photo of one continually drives the leftists into newer, uncharted levels of batshit count?

A wise man once said "it is hard to be heard from a long way away".

Forgive me for digging up an old post, but this quote would never win over a person who given the facts in a non confrontational way might vote for a candidate who is willing to protect the Bill of Rights.

Every gun conversation with a non-gun owner should, IMHO, be focused on bringing a new convert into the fold. The attitude expressed in you post will mark you and all gun owners as extremists, lose us votes and eventually our right to bear arms.

I read the OP as looking for talking points to help an anti gun person into someone who understands the importance of the 2nd amendment.

If you were just being funny, sorry to be so uptight, cause my first reaction was to laugh.

[GyroF-16]

Making the full auto evil - wipes out any attempt to free up NRA guns. I supposed I'm arguing for a proactive presentation of why we need deadly weapons. Will the general public go for that?

I’m assuming you meant to type “NFA guns”.

I don’t think we’d be “making the full auto evil” - I just tend to believe that trying to sell “full auto for all my friends” to even a majority of the public is a bridge too far. I think that full-auto capability has been accepted as a prohibited item, even addressed as such in the generally favorable Heller majority opinion. I’d rather, for the foreseeable future try to answer “why do you need an AR-15?” rather than “why do you need a machine gun?”
The first may have valid answers, and we may be able to change some minds. The latter would be an insurmountable uphill fight.

And, (preemptively) - no - I don’t accept the premise of a “why do you need X” argument. It’s just the phrasing and mindset we should be able to, and prepared to, address.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

NFA - duh. About the full auto, I agree that the public may never buy it but I'd hate to make the distinction part of the reasoning. I'd point out a mistake when someone says an AR is a machine gun but I'd avoid implying that the full auto guns are 'evil'.

[GyroF-16]

NFA - duh. About the full auto, I agree that the public may never buy it but I'd hate to make the distinction part of the reasoning. I'd point out a mistake when someone says an AR is a machine gun but I'd avoid implying that the full auto guns are 'evil'.

I agree. Sounds like we’re saying essentially the same thing, then.

[critter]

If you were just being funny, sorry to be so uptight, cause my first reaction was to laugh.

yeah, I don't actually remember making the comment but I'm pretty sure that was my idea of humor at the time..

[joshs]

The minds of the non shooting public are a problem. I think it could be handled. You mention the shotgun handling many situations. On the Bill Maher show, an African American rap type when discussing these issues said - with such a ban, if I (the guest) only have a shot gun, I can reach out maybe to 100 yards but the racists can out to me much farther. I prefer to be able to reach them also.

I agree with your other points. I wonder if they are convincing. I certainly believe in equivalency in arms and common usage from a 2nd Amend. viewpoint.

The police are an interesting case as the antigun folks are also against, for the most part, against the militarization of police. There has been strong push back on AR-15s (M-16s, M4) for the police (let alone full auto guns). I can come up with city council types denouncing the purchasing of some.

Pragmatically, this led to Mini-14 purchases (not that it isn't a usable gun) but it looks nicer. The Remington pump 223 was an attempt at a nice gun. It was promoted as taking advantage of prior training with 870s but that was BS. Similarly the first Ruger PC9s were promoted as a solution to the AR appearance problem. The Hollywood shootout put the brakes on that. I recall reading a gun magazine review of the gun that said - well, the 9 won't penetrate armor but you can shoot the guy in the leg more easily with it. I note that I have a new Ruger, for fun and it is a SD gun also.

Differentiating the full auto vs. semi version of the gun is a double edged sword. I saw a Guns and Ammo tv show where two old farts were comparing an M4 and AR that looked identical. The farts were all a twitter about the former being full auto (implied evil) and the AR being semi and thus a MODERN SPORTING RIFLE and thus nice and not so dangerous. Duh, if you presented a match video and see top competitors run the AR (a friend of mine is the Flash), that difference would be trivial. Even an old fart like me (slow) can run an AR in 5 states with only 3 points down for all. So does that make the argument that we should have them because of their easy and accurate use so that even a nutty old fart can be deadly?

Making the full auto evil - wipes out any attempt to free up NRA guns. I supposed I'm arguing for a proactive presentation of why we need deadly weapons. Will the general public go for that?

You know that in 2020 we don't have to guess about what particular arguments are persuasive with the American people, or a subset thereof. Surveys are cheap now, relatively speaking, and that makes it possible to test lots of different treatments against a control. We don't have to guess on a gun forum about what might work when it's very possible to determine what does work.

[blues]

You know that in 2020 we don't have to guess about what particular arguments are persuasive with the American people, or a subset thereof. Surveys are cheap now, relatively speaking, and that makes it possible to test lots of different treatments against a control. We don't have to guess on a gun forum about what might work when it's very possible to determine what does work.

You must have a lot more confidence in the "facts" than congress and the public at large seem to support.

Well, then again, I suppose "arguments" are persuasive...whereas facts aren't.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Such a research agenda should have a goal in mind:

1. What works to get maximum funds out of a shrinking, core constituency
2. What works to expand the base of support outside of a shrinking core constituency

The former may work for short term financial gain and perhaps hold the tide in states for the near future

The latter is for long term health of the cause. A strategic goal is to have the RKBA accepted as a core value for the majority of the citizenry in a manner that doesn't have draconian limitations.

If the goal is just to cater to a limited core constituency that we know is shrinking and changing, that isn't impressive.

Look at Virginia, a close vote. Some thought the demonstrations might flip that tight margin. Seems not to have happened. As the area changes and you don't change minds, the close vote won't be close anymore.

We've had this discussion before. Keep having covers that say: Stop the Socialist Wave as a technique to expand the RKBA out of the current core constituency.

[Joe S]

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.

There are a lot of folks with limited mobility, dexterity, or strength who could manage to reasonably fire a loaded long gun, but could not feasibly practice, let alone accomplish under stress, a fast magazine change. Those are the people who need a force multiplier more than anyone else that I can think of, offhand.