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
October 14, 2016 at 5:27 pm
Again, I agree with your basic premise that most gun control initiatives are a result of a false narrative and reactionary behavior, but I don’t agree with your lines of attack. Dismissing liberals as ignorant or stupid does not help you convince anyone, and alienates practically half of your possible audience. Also, during some of your segments, you got a bit off track and started talking about other issues like abortion in a cavalier manner, alienating more readers. I agree that Gersh Kuntzman’s reaction to firing a gun was ridiculous and childish, but that does not warrant repeated name calling and ad hominem attacks. You need to get back to basics. Dish out statistics, call out untruths, and rationally deconstruct arguments you disagree with without resorting to personal attacks, mockery, or generalizations. For all of your statistics, you should include citations to give credibility to your arguments. Style-wise, I think that you used pictures and quotes in an effective and aesthetically pleasing manner, and I liked how you addressed individual arguments in rapid fire succession. If you choose interesting and controversial topics, address multiple sides of the argument, and give rational, facts-based critiques without getting carried away, your blog definitely has the potential to be great.
October 14, 2016 at 7:08 pm
I admit I’ve been reading a bit too much Louder with Crowder and it’s influencing my writing
October 14, 2016 at 8:42 pm
I think blogs are a great way to voice your opinions, however, I would suggest trying to go about doing it in a way that is a little less aggressive. You have some really great points in here, but for people with the opposing view, it might not necessarily help them to better see from your perspective.
March 20, 2018 at 4:31 pm
It is M4 carbine and M16 rifle. m16 aint a carbine.
btw gr8 article
June 25, 2022 at 12:12 pm
I understand that this post is 6 years old now, but for anyone who happens to see it, I just figured I give an opposing view.
As an Australian myself who stumbled upon this blog while looking for American pro-gun ideology (I don’t really know the right terminology), I figured I give my two cents.
You don’t need guns.
Or… before everyone gets pissed, you certainly don’t need big guns. I am now going to provide my arguments in tier list form (yay!)
1. The whole “background checks are run on people looking to purchase military grade weapons” argument is invalid. People don’t need a criminal history to pick up a gun and fire it at someone. Give them a big ass gun and their gonna kill a lot more people. With the current American population of 332 million (2022), if your law allows ANYONE without a criminal history to purchase and operate a gun, who actually believes that not a single one of those people aren’t gonna use it to hurt someone else? It only takes one mentally ill person with a gun to shoot someone and result in there death. And if someone manages to defend against that person with a gun of their own, a death has still most likely occurred, whether it’s the psycho with the gun, or the less psycho psycho with the gun, someone is still dead, which could have been prevented.
2. The argument of the fact that people still kill others with guns that aren’t “big” is against the point. A gunLESS society would be great, but if you could choose to shoot up a school or group of people with a little gun or a big gun, which do you reckon you’d pick?
3. The self-defence argument. I feel like smashing my head into a desk when I hear this one. Once again, I’m not from America, and I don’t understand everything about the norms of your society, but I sincerely HOPE that no one carries a gun around with them everywhere they go. Americans who actually own guns I’m sure wouldn’t likely be carrying a gun with them at the same time as another who is trying to kill them. Whether it’s a home invasion, a school shooting, an act of terrorism or countless other instances, you are not going to have your gun on you. And what if you did? What does that do? Level the playing field? Let’s just give a bunch of people high power assualt rifles and stick them in a room, adrenaline pumping, high stakes situation, life or death, and see what happens. Whether the gun man drops first, or an innocent victim, with a gun or not, what has placed either of them in that situation? Guns!
4. The Australia argument. My favourite. Anyone who could possibly counter this argument is an inbred. You are simply pissing in the wind, to attempt to counter this argument, backed by solid data and evidence. Where I’m from, in the magical land of “South Queensland” we still have guns. My grandfather owns 3 (2 rifles and a shotgun). Not a single one of them has a magazine. They aren’t even semi-auto. Two are bolt action, and the other is break action. I have personally taken them out and mucked around with them. I have also been to a pistol range a few times with him and fired a .22 ruger. and a 7mm (not sure what types). I also participated in air rifle shooting for 3 months, not your classic gun but still a potentially lethal weapon. The difference between America and Australia, is the ease of access to guns, and the types of guns. I believe that in australia we don’t allow any gun over that is semi automatic (other than pistols) , let alone fully automatic. The access to guns is even more limited. Having seen my grandfather purchase an air rifle, I understand it is a slow, and painful protest. It takes ages to undergo police checks and finally, to receive the gun. Whilst this may sound bad… it’s not. It prevents the purchase of a gun with ease during a homicidal rage. Nobody needs to access a fire arm quickly, and any reasons you can argue aren’t justified.
5. Other weapons in Australia. You were correct in your article when you say that in Australia, we use other weapons. You were sort of correct in saying that our homicide rate hasn’t changed. There are multiple investigations that have proved otherwise. The only problem is, when googling this, results are kind of everywhere. You can find some for small amounts of change, and some for lots. Something that cannot be dismissed however, is the SEVERE reduction in suidice rates (down at least 70%). This is a incredibly important objective fact around the debate. In terms of homicide rate in Australia with other weapons, the argument here is that we use “other weapons”. An extremely laughable argument. Having proved that our gun law changes have decreased “gun crime” ITSELF, the article goes on to mention that “People just use different weapons now. Like knives and baseball bats.” Yes, I would prefer someone to attack me with a bat or knife rather than a fully automatic AR-15. I do think that would increase my chance of survival tenfold. Your saying it like, oh, well, they can still kill each other, it’s just less easy than in America. Too right! It’s probably one of the worst arguments here. Yeah we stab each other with knives and bash each others heads in with bats. Because we can’t walk to our local walmart and buy a fully automatic weapon! Try running at someone with a bat over here and see what happens. The local eshays would mess you up. And it’s not as if someone in America can’t do the same. The problem is, they can achieve the exact same result with a much larger and dangerous weapon.
Ultimately, I’ve said what I’ve had to say. In the unlikely event someone sees this, know that when I started it was 8.30 and now it’s 10, so I’ve dedicated a good hour and a half to getting pissed off at the stupidity of people trying to reason their dumb law, after getting riled up over America’s decision today to remove abortion laws from the constiution (which is a whole other matter that the article writer also brings up randomly. My opinion is that it is a persons decision and none of your damn business, simple as that). It’s like arguing with a flat eather. You’re too stubborn to see it from anyone elses point of reasonable view other than your gun toting, weed smoking, pro life, earth is flat, tinfoil hat conspirasist point of view. In short, you don’t need guns, you just want them. Or rather, some of you need them to more easily do things (I understand the predicament of farmers, we do have farms here), but you don’t need an “assault weapon” to kill a pig.
Later. Thanks for reading my rant.
June 25, 2022 at 12:23 pm
Also just found this lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVcaWyNN-Q
For anyone disagreeing, please watch it