4 ideas to defend against the Anti gun crowd.

brunobell said:
Hit them with the "3% of homicides in the states are used with rifles, with black rifles being a subset of that" stat.
Click to expand...


Amen brother. If the issue gets mentioned I dont go on a tirade about how "they wanna take mah freedoms! hurp derp". Just "well- the issue isnt as cut and dry as some people on either side want to make it" and then bringing up supporting figures. Especially the 3% figure thats shocking for most people to hear.

Acknowledging that there is a violent crime problem in the US helps. Also a good point- bringing up the fact that white people in gated communities can afford to be anti gun while people trying to raise a family in south central LA need guns for protection.
 
use it in good health
Jackasswhisper_zpsadbb1f37.jpg
 
Don't waste time on anti's. They have made their mind up, it's waste of time and effort. Spend your effort educating the people I the middle, the undecided. Bring a new friend out to shoot, someone open to it, and educate on responsible ownership, and the real story on gun control. It's astonishing how many people I work with that just simply don't understand the issue. I spend my time teaching these people, I don't waste my breath on those I know will never listen. This is all PR, the more people in the middle we bring in the better. If everyone on here introduced one person to shooting sport we could almost double our numbers.
 
saitek11 said:
Don't waste time on anti's. They have made their mind up, it's waste of time and effort. Spend your effort educating the people I the middle, the undecided. Bring a new friend out to shoot, someone open to it, and educate on responsible ownership, and the real story on gun control. It's astonishing how many people I work with that just simply don't understand the issue. I spend my time teaching these people, I don't waste my breath on those I know will never listen. This is all PR, the more people in the middle we bring in the better. If everyone on here introduced one person to shooting sport we could almost double our numbers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the 'opposition' are saying the very same things about us. The only difference is, they think we are senseless monsters who don't portray human emotion to anyone.
 
First of all no born and raised canuck will ever understand that in the states it is your right to own firearms not a privillage like up here. So that means unless you forfit your rights visa-vi commit a federal crime you will never loose your rights. Further more any one who says that assualt rifles are not used in hunting well they do not understand what the seconded ammendment means. It states the citizen must bare arms at all times to ensure that they are not enslaved by the government. Thus ensuring there freedom. Further more any federal law must be past first by the congress then by the senate. Don't think for a second after Laperrie got that snake senator realected and one of the most non-restricted firearms states in the union that it will ever see the light of day of I'll bomb ya's desk :p
Left leaning liberals just meet the wall ;)
 
Crack Feather said:
First of all no born and raised canuck will ever understand that in the states it is your right to own firearms not a privillage like up here. So that means unless you forfit your rights visa-vi commit a federal crime you will never loose your rights. Further more any one who says that assualt rifles are not used in hunting well they do not understand what the seconded ammendment means. It states the citizen must bare arms at all times to ensure that they are not enslaved by the government. Thus ensuring there freedom. Further more any federal law must be past first by the congress then by the senate. Don't think for a second after Laperrie got that snake senator realected and one of the most non-restricted firearms states in the union that it will ever see the light of day of I'll bomb ya's desk :p
Left leaning liberals just meet the wall ;)
Click to expand...

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/common_law_right.htm There are many other web pages like this. This was just the first google came up with when I typed " Inalieable right to bear arms in canada".
 
brandneo said:
Lets stop calling semi auto rifles assault rifles, that term really doesn't exist other than in the movies and it simply confuses people who don't know any better. Also no 'black' rifle terminology, it's a semi auto, why call it by paint color, besides black is scary, and red goes without saying. Lets keep the terminology simple and we will all be better for it. Single action, double action, leaver action, bolt action, pump action, semi auto...and we'll be fine
Click to expand...

The firearms community has to do nothing other than use the definitions in the government-required firearms safety courses.
 
I live on Vancouver Island so when the anti gun crowd starts spouting I always point out how well our drug laws work and ask them why would banning guns be any different? Our small community is awash in illegal drugs so it shuts them up pretty quick.
 
I support the 3% stat mentioned, but people will always run out of arguments and land on "But if it saves even just ONE life isn't it worth it?" Which is a great argument considering there's no legit way to prove or disprove that it would or wouldn't save a single life. Usually I'll just ask why they're not so up in arms about banning cigarettes if they feel so strongly about saving a single life. Let's not also forget that a lot of these upper middle class soccer-mom antis are the type going out buying whatever "super-food" Oprah's talking about this week and driving prices of staples like quinoa up so high that villages in developing countries who've literally relied on these crops for centuries can no longer afford them. I guess they don't care about kids starving to death on the other side of the world, or gangs who are the real reason gun crime stats are so high. There are just so many armchair antis who are more and more vocal thanks to the internet, but in reality are just agreeing with what they saw on TV because that's what a smart sounding british guy told them.
 
Dukkake said:
I support the 3% stat mentioned, but people will always run out of arguments and land on "But if it saves even just ONE life isn't it worth it?" Which is a great argument considering there's no legit way to prove or disprove that it would or wouldn't save a single life. Usually I'll just ask why they're not so up in arms about banning cigarettes if they feel so strongly about saving a single life. Let's not also forget that a lot of these upper middle class soccer-mom antis are the type going out buying whatever "super-food" Oprah's talking about this week and driving prices of staples like quinoa up so high that villages in developing countries who've literally relied on these crops for centuries can no longer afford them. I guess they don't care about kids starving to death on the other side of the world, or gangs who are the real reason gun crime stats are so high. There are just so many armchair antis who are more and more vocal thanks to the internet, but in reality are just agreeing with what they saw on TV because that's what a smart sounding british guy told them.
Click to expand...

Aint that the friggin truth. And because of a bunch of easily swayed soccer moms our hobbies, our sports, our recreation is in danger. Thats why i find it important to conduct myself in the most positive way possible when dealing with these folk to try and convince them we are not all psycotic gun toting hillbillies. Some of us are polite, clean, safe and intelligent gun toting hillbillies.
 
Redbearded1 said:
Aint that the friggin truth. And because of a bunch of easily swayed soccer moms our hobbies, our sports, our recreation is in danger. Thats why i find it important to conduct myself in the most positive way possible when dealing with these folk to try and convince them we are not all psycotic gun toting hillbillies. Some of us are polite, clean, safe and intelligent gun toting hillbillies.
Click to expand...

hahahah!
 
Redbearded1 said:
What it all comes down to is that I like to shoot guns. Its fun and makes me happy and I dont want that taken away from me.
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely. My guns are locked so up so tight that if I was involved in a "home defence" scenario the perpetrators would be on their third appeal by the time I was ready to fire a round. I just use them for enjoyment, and am worried that people are going to take this away from me.
 
There is also the misuse and indoctrination of the phrase "high capacity magazine" by anti gunners.. 30 rounds for an AR15 is considered "normal capacity" and 17 rounds is "normal capacity" for a Glock17.. etc.. A Beta C-Mag would be considered "high capacity", but I guess that's just my opinion. It IS a FACT that anti gunners use the phrase as a fear monger tactic to other antigunners and to those who don't know bettter. I think people should have the right to buy a beta mag, but at the same time they are expensive, heavy, cumbersome, fragile and not very practical.. Although they DO fit certain scenarios if one were outnumbered and oungunned by bad guys.
 
Charlie357 said:
There is also the misuse and indoctrination of the phrase "high capacity magazine" by anti gunners.. 30 rounds for an AR15 is considered "normal capacity" and 17 rounds is "normal capacity" for a Glock17.. etc.. A Beta C-Mag would be considered "high capacity", but I guess that's just my opinion. It IS a FACT that anti gunners use the phrase as a fear monger tactic to other antigunners and to those who don't know bettter. I think people should have the right to buy a beta mag, but at the same time they are expensive, heavy, cumbersome, fragile and not very practical.. Although they DO fit certain scenarios if one were outnumbered and oungunned by bad guys.
Click to expand...

Thats another very good point!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom