Or, “Boom scary black rifle”

One of the most controversial rights (really a type of thing that shouldn’t be controversial) in recent years has been the right to bear arms. Arguments against this fundamental and extremely important right are almost entirely emotion based, factless, and irrational. Does that hurt your feelings? No? Good, you’re learning how to not be a pansy. For the sake of argument, we’ll take a look at why people oppose guns. I’ll give some anti-gun statements, then explain why they’re trash.

Guns are a very useful tool. This includes their use as a tool for killing people. Small arms are the primary weapon of warfare, which is why it baffles some that any ordinary citizen should be allowed to own one. No person needs a military grade assault weapon unless they plan to kill someone.

Wrongo. Civilians actually can’t purchase military grade weapons without a license to deal arms. This includes extensive background checks and vetting by the state government, and even still, there are few states where you can purchase a military grade weapon even after this license is granted. A big reason that people are scared of “assault weapons” (not a term that actually exists, by the way) is that they associate them with warfare. Rationally. We see the M4 and M16 carbine and rifle in movies all the time. They’re standard issue weapons. Everyone in the military learns how to use them because they’re great guns. They rarely jam, they’re light, and they’re modular. Modular means that parts can be replaced with variants, for the liberals in the crowd. They have low recoil and they’re extremely accurate. Civilians cannot buy these rifles. The model of rifle that the left is so terrified of, and that “journalist” Gersh Kuntzman (come on dude, change your name) refers to in an article about firing one is the AR-15. That does not stand for Assault Rifle 15, it’s actually Armalite Rifle. Very different. Anyway, he says

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

There are literally videos of four year old girls shooting the exact same variant of that rifle. That’s how big a wuss this guy is. Reading his article actually makes me sick to my stomach because I can’t imagine that a man that weak is able to pass on his genes. Seriously, this is the kind of guy that would apologize to the ISIS militant about to behead him. So why do I bring this up? Most people don’t know the difference between an AR-15 and an M4A1. If you don’t know the difference, you shouldn’t be talking about it. Here’s a picture to explain where the idea of scary black assault weapons falls apart.

Let’s discuss some more. The AR-15 has been under fire (lol get it?) this year because of the Orlando shooting, in which Omar Mateen shot up a gay night club with a Sig Sauer MCX (not an AR-15, just looks like one). Somehow, Republicans took the blame for this, but that’s a different issue. Surely, if things like this are happening so often (San Bernadino, Aurora, Sandy Hook…I think that’s it), the rational thing is to get rid of that weapon.

The irrational response of liberals who didn’t know what the hell they were talking about was to call for a ban on a rifle that wasn’t even used. A rifle that is used, in fact, in less than 2% of gun crimes. Banning the AR-15 would do nothing, anyway, because there’s so many different companies that make similar guns. But the irrationality of this whole thing lies within the idea that banning the sale of this gun would do anything other than get it out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The very same people using the argument that banning something doesn’t stop its sale to get legal marijuana are the ones trying to say banning guns will get rid of the crime. This is so, so absurd but it’s happening.

Let’s look at one last supposedly rational anti gun argument.

AUSTRALIA! AUSTRALIA BANNED GUNS AND THEIR GUN HOMICIDE RATE DROPPED OFF ALMOST TOTALLY? HOW ABOUT THAT YOU STUPID CONSERVATIVE? Australia banned guns following a string of horrific mass shootings. This was in 1996. The argument from this is that they’re gun crime rate dropped. So, banning guns stops murders, right?

Wrong again. Australia had an extremely low homicide rate to begin with, only 1.9 per 1,000,000 citizens. That has dropped, but only to 1.3 per 1,000,000 citizens. The number of gun crimes has decreased, including murder, but the murder rate really hasn’t changed. People just use different weapons now. Like knives and baseball bats. Here’s a graph.

Now that we’re through the pseudo-rational arguments, we’ll move on to the ones that have nothing to do with facts.

The AR-15 is a high powered rifle.

Your standard AR-15 fires a 5.56 NATO round, a variant of the Remington .223 hunting round. That’s literally the second smallest round a firearm can be built to fire. It’s not high powered at all. A high powered rifle is something like a bolt action .308 hunting rifle. There are handguns that outpower the AR-15. Lots of them. So this one is just plain incorrect.

Guns kill more people each year than any other weapon or procedure.

Wrong again, that’s actually abortion.

High capacity magazines enable the shooters.

It takes about 5 seconds to reload a magazine fed rifle. If you’re slow.

The second amendment only gives rights to the militia.

When asked who the “militia” were, George Washington said it was the people. Actually, one could argue we’re supposed to have available funding from the government for our weapons, as regulated in that clause means “supplied”. And no, that’s not the same as the national guard. A militia is not organized.

It only applies to muskets.

News flash, we had rifles back then. And Puckle guns. And cannons. The point of the amendment is that citizens should be armed to face their government in case we need to overthrow it. And before you argue about that, remember that just because you’re a great driver does not mean you don’t buy all sorts of insurance.

It still only applies to the weapons of the time.

Fine. Your free speech is limited to spoken word, hand written letters, and the printing press. That’s how dumb that argument is. Also, no abortions. They didn’t exist so the constitution doesn’t guarantee your right to them.

Assault Weapons are –

Just stop. Assault Weapons aren’t a thing. That’s a term made up by gun control activists. You’re referring to a modern sporting rifle. We went over what the difference is.

But nobody needs and AR-15.

Actually, the lightweight frame and modifiable nature of an AR-15 make them great for young and old people who aren’t strong enough to carry a heavier style of rifle. People who live in rural communities often use AR-15 variants to hunt for food and kill dangerous animals.

Okay we’ve talked a lot about AR-15 weapons but who needs a handgun?

Literally anyone who is concerned for their own safety. 200,000 women use a handgun to prevent sexual assault every year. In fact, for every one time a gun is used to commit a crime, fifty more crimes are stopped by armed civilians. The average death toll for a shooting spree stopped by a police officer is between 14 and 15, yet an armed citizen is between 2 and 3. Here’s another chart.

That has all it’s own sources and several of mine. This is getting long, so I’ll stop here. If you somehow still think there’s an issue with guns and not simply scummy people, please ask and I’ll answer.

Works cited, for your convenience. Gersh is the biggest pansy, by the way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia