Untwisting the Gun-Debate Part I

It seems to be the hot button topic of choice everywhere you look. Political shows, facebook, twitter...shoot even Sunday Night Football seems to want a piece of the discussion "pie" that is gun control.

What is the "right" side of this argument, that is if there is in fact a "right" side of this debate.

The sad truth is that both sides lose when the discussion of gun control occurs. Why you might ask?

Today let's tackle why the anti-gun people lose (trust me tomorrow I'll tackle the other side, third day will wrap it all up):

There are huge examples of this, I'll start with the magazine vs. clip debacle most anti's don't seem to care to be knowledgeable about. Marshal Wirig describes the difference in a very great easy to understand way over at his blog (click HERE to go to link):

"A magazine is what is used to feed the weapon itself, whereas a clip is used to feed the magazine. Clips make loading of magazines much easier and faster, and in some cases, a clip is required in order for the magazine to work (e.g. M1 Garand).
Some magazines are removable (like in the case of all of the magazines pictured above), and depending on the design of the gun, it can have a fixed magazine. Most SKS's, bolt actions, shotguns, and Garands have fixed magazines."

 

Okay on to the other most glaring "misconceptions" that makes the antis look ridiculous. 

"The guns we want to ban are for military only."

"These types of guns shouldn't be owned by civilians" (then proceed to show a clip like this):

(fast forward to :12)

Okay, first rule to a debate or discussion of opposing viewpoints is to be knowledgeable of the other side or the subject discussed. The above video is not of a semi-automatic machine gun, nor is that gun easily obtainable under any law of any state in the Union. It is obtainable but only after high fees are paid, deep background check cleared and you are granted permission by the United States to own it, why? Because that is a fully automatic gun.  Those are closer to military grade firearms but typically even some full-auto weapons are slightly downgraded for civilian purchase as compared to their military counterparts.

So what is a semi-automatic weapon...well it's any weapon that upon squeezing of the trigger a round is fired, ejected automatically, new round is loaded and ready for the next trigger pull. A semi-automatic weapon unless doctored or after market stocks are attached rely solely upon the individual firing them to achieve any rate of fire. Some people can fire them blazing fast, while others are sloth like in comparison. 

The common civilian that doesn't practice regularly won't achieve great accuracy with either semi or full auto weapons if firing rapidly.

So the statement that you're attempting to ban Military type weapons is just absolutely false and very miss-leading to others who don't know the difference as well. If our military used the type of firearms up for possible banning, so called semi-auto "Assault Weapons", we would be speaking German, Russian, Chinese or even Japanese. They are not even close to the capabilities of a fully-automatic military grade weapon...so stop acting as they are one in the same.

"We're not attacking hunting guns, these guns have no purpose other than to kill human beings."

So, I hear this a lot. Maybe it's because I'm such an advocate of hunting myself and would do it full time if it provided for my family. It is partly false (I will tackle this on the pro-gun side tomorrow as well). These so called "assault weapons" do and are used for hunting purposes by people nearly year round. A lot of coyote hunters use AR-15s to hunt coyote, deer, stag, wild boar, elk even!

I do not own this picture to view it at it's source click HERE

I do not own this picture, to view it at it's source click HERE

I do not own this picture, to view it at it's source click HERE

I do not own this picture, to view it at it's source click HERE

As you can see these so called "assault" weapons are not solely designed to kill humans, many sportsman and women own them legally, use them legally and hunt with them legally. So, blanket statements about their use cannot and will not hold water.

Oh and one more thing..."assault" weapons are any weapon. Think about it! Any weapon pointed at my head, I will always consider a weapon of assault...to try and define what is and isn't is ridiculous. I've shown pictures to some anti-gun people of the following rifle (a very common owned rifle for squirrel hunting) and they nearly always say "that isn't a gun to be worried about or ban". Then I show them the next image in the picture below...to which they always say something along the lines "that weapon has no business being on the streets or in the hands of anyone not in the military". 

Funny thing is they're the exact same gun, just a different stock and accessories. The bullet shot by this gun is one of the smallest calibers in the entire gun world...semi-auto bans would take these out of the hands of numerous people (my brother included, father prior to it being passed down) when they're primary use is hunting squirrels, raccoons, ground hogs or the "deadly" pop can targets in yards. 

Here is the picture of a Ruger 10/22 just in two different set ups:

I do not own this image, to view it at it's source click HERE

"We're not attacking handguns."

While this may escape some people it surely isn't escaping the owners of handguns which hold more than 10 rounds. I do not know the specific stats, but a large majority of gun owners that I know (I frequent the local gun shops a ton) carry 9mm or .45. Now depending on the design of the handgun and desired carrying scenarios a lot of handguns would fall into the 10+ round category. I for one inherited a beautiful Taurus PT92 9mm from my wife's deceased uncle (it's basically a Beretta 92 for those who know). If certain proposals get passed or issued through an executive order the ownership of this family piece could be in jeopardy as it holds (depending on magazine used) over 10+ in any of the magazines I own for it. Is that right? I'll let you decide that, but don't do it with fear do it with a logical sound mind and respect for our freedom.

"If there would have been a gun-ban "insert mass killing" wouldn't have occurred."

I cannot express to you how false this is.

People like Piers Morgan are fine examples of why this misconception. Piers has a great passion for getting rid of firearms (especially what he calls "Assault" weapons) and I do believe he has good intentions but has let his passion cloud his judgement of others and facts presented from the other side.

Piers and many others only quote statistical data on gun killings not violent crime overall. It's a proven fact that yes, while gun related murders go down when gun bans are implemented the overall violent crime rates have always increased.

(Look it up! I'm not gonna quote any stats because I want each of you to look them up yourself, then cross check them and make certain you're not being naive to what you've collected)

So letting passion over-ride the correct interpretation of statistical facts is one way the anti-gun folks lose...another way is how they don't do their due diligence in being knowledge about what they're fighting against.

Besides the fact that in every recent mass killing the theater, the temple (if my research is correct) and the elementary school were all gun free zones, and were not in some of the so called "loose gun law states". Connecticut actually has quite stricter gun laws when compared to IN or TX...yet they still experienced this despicable tragedy.

Unless someone can guarantee that a gun ban would officially remove 100% of the guns in civilian hands (law abiding and criminals and (to be "politically" correct) mentally ill people) a gun ban will only ever hurt one group of people: law abiding citizens who go about gun ownership properly and legally. We've "banned" cocaine, heroin, human trafficking, texting while driving, stealing...how have all of those bans worked out for us? The drug market is doing just fine, human trafficking is reaching scary levels, I see people texting while driving daily and yeah stealing still occurs.

The last thing that makes anti-gun people lose is the fact they're so against guns but will they proclaim it with bumper stickers or yard signs? Are they willing to advertise "This house is a gun free house" to everyone? Will they put their faith that the police officer 5 miles away can reach them before a thief decides to take more than just a TV or money...how about your daughter? Gun free zones are like sugar to babies for criminals, there is a reason mass killings almost 100% of the time occur in gun free/low security environments...

This video illustrates what I mean, this "fake" organization sought out media people who preach anti-gun ideas to simply advertise they're gun free and well you'll see what happens:

If you are in the anti-gun boat, all I ask is that you become more knowledgeable, respect us that don't abuse our gun ownership and hold true to your beliefs...don't hide you're gun free, proclaim it (let me know how that works out for ya).

Tomorrow I tackle some of the pro-gun problems to this argument as well.




*I'm starting something new...for all the times my wife hounds asks me if I've read her newest blog, I've never ever heard he comment or state she read any of mine. So....Lisa if you can tell me about this little "prize" at the bottom of my posts (will put them on my posts from here till whenever) you will be surprised with something great. However, the longer it takes the smaller the prize...if you know Lisa please don't spoil this and tell her. (second time posted)