Let's compile a list of the BEST arguments against an AWB...

General General Discussion
1

There are obviously a huge number of reasons, and I’m already aware of and on board with all of them. What I want to do here is have us collectively compile the BEST arguments. Let’s shy away from rhetoric like “because I can” or “the 2nd Amendment says so.” While these are perfectly valid reasons, they aren’t persuasive with people who don’t think like us. We need arguments that are reasoned, rational, and empirical, that can actually change people’s minds who disagree.

So let’s hear some of the most coherent arguments based on the most current information possible.

2

History has shown repeatedly what happens to an unarmed populace in the face of either unforeseen or unexpected circumstances which resulted in their systematic enslavement or death. That should do for most who are capable of rational thought, but of course even that would be insufficient to motivate 100% of the masses as clearly indicated by the election of Obama.

3

If we don’t have a right to keep and bear arms we have no way of protecting ourselves from a out of control government (think american revolution)… Most might think these type of things are not viable in this day and age but our constitution was written to protect us from a repeat of what they went through. You take away what protects us (not just the 2nd but the whole constitution) you are basically saying we have no right to defend ourselves and our republic from infringements on our freedom from the very people who are sworn to defend them. Words won’t defeat tyranny, the same tyranny that used words to take away the main threat to that tyranny.

That is just one arguement, you have others like shtf scenerios; invasion, mass chaos, global economic crashes, the list goes on. The first is the true and real reason it was written into our constitution.

4

Looking at the list of the FBI’s crime stats, none of the top weapons used are “assault” rifles. It’s like trying to ban ownership of ferraris and lamborginis because of a bunch of wannabe street “racers” in Honda civics, integras, mustangs, camaros etc.

5

The October 1994 issue of the now defunct magazine “Modern Gun” presented what I think is the best argument of all time. I still have a hard copy of that magazine even though most of my gun mags ended up “bathroom reading” long ago. I will never forget that in 1994 that one article became the inspiration for a lot of gun owners who thought we were on the brink of the end of the Second Amendment. It was even quoted extensively on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show.

My now-deceased father made photocopies of the article and handed them out like candy.

I searched until I found an online copy of the article:

http://totse2.com/totse/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/gunedit.html

Understand this article was written several months before the final form of the 1994 AWB passed, so it makes assumptions about provisions that were later stripped out of the bill.

Still, it’s a chilling reminder that gun bans ain’t about crime but about controlling the population, and that there are always unintended consequences.

I wanted to quote parts of the article here, but it’s best read in its entirety.

6

Simply barring legally eligible and responsible citizens from ownership, does nothing to thwart the acquisition of such weapons by those wishing to engage in illegal activities…

Drinking and Driving is illegal… yet it still occurs rather frequently… so does that mean we should ban alcohol all together?

Speeding is illegal… yet every single person engages in it from day to day… so does that mean we should ban vehicles all together?

You cannot attempt to circumvent malicious intent by simply removing a tool that may or may not be utilized in such a manner some day…

Since the beginning of the NFA… literally since the 1930’s… there has only been 1 recorded murder committed by a legally owned NFA weapon… I think that says alot…

you cannot infringe on the rights of the citizens to protect themselves, while at the same time providing less than adequate protection in their place…

7

Preservation of self and loved ones comes to mind as the most elemental argument that can reach even the most liberal of hearts. Its universal to comprehend that given the right circumstances, any person would fight to save their own life by any means necessary.

Now if this is true, and the notion that criminals can possess firearms is true, then its ridiculous to the point of laughter to assume that giving the right circumstances, a person has a chance at survival should a criminal event of that level befall them.

8

The ones that are the most cold calculating, logical, factual, etc are often the best.

Bring up how “assault weapon” was defined and current proposals define it. Go on proving how these definitions don’t equate to “greater killing power” or any BS like that. Talk about how a none “assault weapon” is pretty much the same. Give examples. etc.

Bring up statistics on how frequently they are used (less then 1% of all murder and a little more then 1% of murder with firearms). Go through sensationalized events like VT, Columbine, Luby’s Cafe, etc and show how rarely they are used even in these high profile events.

Death with “assault weapons” is just as low today as it was before the AWB ended in 2004.

Largely it does depend on what the opponent wants to argue. But in general use logic and facts. Its my right, second amendment, I need to protect my family, government may come and get you (in general will make you seem the tin foil hat type), foreign invasion, etc usually doesn’t work worth jack unless you can argue those points well and counter argue an opponents points.

9

I believe that the biggest problem with trying to convince/argue the “ban 'em” crowd is that their argument rests in emotion and emotional appeal to those that sit on the fence.

They choose to demonize an item instead of identifying that the problem is “people”. Most people are decent, or at least to the extent that they aren’t going to commit murder in their lifetime. By associating the actions with the availability of the item they essentially make the link that anyone is capable of making the moral break and becoming a mass/multiple murderer for almost no reason.

Crazy people are crazy, and to think that we can stop them from doing crazy things by simply limiting magazine capacity or outlawing items that are easily found, is, well… crazy.

As much as I hate to say it, the most persuasive appeals will be the emotional ones, and it’s really hard to top dead kids when arguing for standard capacity magazines. It’s politics, not science, or there would be a hell of a lot fewer laws than there currently are.

10

how about identifying what the best arguments for an AWB are that the anti-gunners are using, and then determine the best answers to deal with them?

i’m having trouble identifying the reasons FOR an AWB.

11

The banning of something by law only limits/removes its availability to the law abiding, it does not make it cease to exist.

Alcohol was banned by law during prohibition. Alcohol did not disappear, it became a criminal enterprise.

Today many drugs are banned by law. Criminals elements still find access to them.

By definition a criminal will not respect any law that is enacted. Therefore by enacting a law that bans something, you are only banning it from the law abiding who are the people that are of least concern.

Simply put, bad people will always do bad things, this is why they are bad. Restrictive laws only limit the ability of good people to defend themselves from bad people.

12

Thats the issue…most liberal arguments are emotional arguments and not based on facts, math, ect.

Theres well over 300 million people in this country, and ONE nut decides to shoot up a movie theatre. Guess what? over 300 million people decided not to (or at least it never crossed their mind lol).

If someone is persuaded by these stupid emotional arguments then they are pretty dumb to begin with.

If you want to fight on the emotional level get creative, and show REAL LIFE cases where ordinary people used a weapon to defend themselves. With our liberal based media (even fox) very rarely are stories of people defending themselves deemed newsworthy. A dude can save a dozen lives and they debate if shooting at the perps while they are running away is legal (on Fox this week) but when a dozen lives are lost due to a lack of CHL holders who could engage this guy its gun ban talk all over the news (on fox today).

And take NON-gun owning people shooting. Ive taken a neighbor and a friend to the range as well as both of them to range days or 3 gun competitions. It can open people’s eyes when they see a a bunch of people have fun at a SPORTING even with “evil guns”. Debating a hard core lib is fun but almost pointless. Usually they just say “we’ll have to disagree to disagree”, resort to name calling, or otherwise end the debate.

The best defense is a good offense, and creating new gun owners or at least showing people that owning/shooting guns is ‘fun!’ is the best way to make sure people don’t elect rabid anti gunners. After a couple trips you can throw in a comment about how you can’t believe XYZ wants to ban ‘US’ from owning these.

13

I have one against the AWB: helping our military.

Since the AWB sunset, the the general population have been buying assualt weapons and gear up at a dramatic pace. This has helped companies that during the AWB they would be rather hesitent to make products, or produce banned items that were strictly going to Law Enforcement and the military. Now, if the military contract is dropped for 30rnd magazines, the manufacture has a civilian base population to sell to. Back during the AWB, this was not the case.

What this means is that the general consumer can pick up the tab where the Government refused to pay, or fulfill, keeping these companies afloat, and later making magazines in the future that other government agencies might need in a pinch. Was it that towards the end of the AWB some of the “banned” parts were being manufactured overseas because companies either couldn’t make those items, or there weren’t any companies to even manufacture them?

What the sunset of the AWB has also done was create a better atmosphere for product research and development. Consumer based manufactures have sold products to the general firearms community who use their products probably at a more frequent level of use. 3-gun competition comes to mind, along with high end carbine classes that are now becoming more prevalent. Magpul has a large base of followers that have bought many of their products that were considered “banned” items. The PMAG and the UBR stocks have been great innovations that have come out since the AWB, and I am pretty sure would have never happened if the ban had stayed due to the the non-existent market created by the Government. VLTOR’s A5 stock has probably been mated on more civilian weapons that military weapons at this point. And the Surefire mag is a staple feature recently at 3-gun matches.

All these companies have a hand in some shape, manner, or form to the military and law enforcement.

Another aspect is the current techniques of the “assault rifle.” Banning these weapons would actually stifle technique development and innovation to a degree that it will hamper our fighting force in training. I did a large research project on the benefits of practical shooting competition, and my findings concluded that if it was not for these competitions, and the use of the many of weapons the military and law enforcement use, the techniques we use now would not have filtered “up” into the those professional communities that depended on those tactics more than competition shooters.

Schools today are popping up everywhere since the AWB sunset. These schools are getting people properly trained to use their “assault weapons” for home defense; for me, backwoods defense (rural communities have a longer response time for LE, and we have longer ranges to cover); competition shooting; and these schools are coming up with better techniques that are more efficient and getting shooters to put rounds one target better.

Mr. Larry Vickers, or other professional instructors on here, chime in. Would it be harder for you to stay in business, grow and employ people, if the AWB was still around? Could the techniques you are teaching and have developed outside of the your military careers would not have happened if the AWB was still in place?

Since the AR has been gaining in huge popularity, something else has come up since the AWB sunset: better defense ammo, and a revelation that has been a surprise.

For ammo, aside from the Zombie stuff Hornady sells, there are better defensive ammo choices now than there were back during the ban days. Yes powder and ballistics research has helped, but without the demand for good stopping ammo that will not penetrate through and through a dirt-bag in an apartment complex, it is a good possibility this ammunition would be limited by a select few companies, quantity, and would have hampered more development of self-defense ammunition. This may sound far fetched, but in a thread that was posted here on this forum, a “scientific” study of bullet penetration through dry wall proved that the most frequent choice for home defense, the 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buck, was the worst to use in a home citation due to the nine pellets going through all three walls. The .223 defense ammunition either fragmented at the first wall and either stopped there, or stopped at the second wall.

Other studies have also concluded this, citing that maybe the best home defense gun is actually an AR-15 loaded with the right ammunition. Plus, most ARs are legally shorter than most shotguns. Collapsible stocks help shooters with short arms, or even short stature, shoot long guns for defensive, or as of recently, hunting.

What is haunting with the prospects of another ban is the lessons learned by the left from the last one. This ban will center around banning not just on features, but on type of weapon. From the detail I have written above, our military and law enforcement will suffer greatly in the short run, but really in the long run. Manufactures will be forced to down size after the market comes to an abrupt halt, laying off workers, and not having the money or a base to do research and development. And the training and trainers will stagnate as the ripples pan out over a period of time. Their will still be classes and development of techniques and ideas, but will slow to a crawl once the older equipment and weapons systems dry up.

14

This is the one and only arguement. Every other reason offers a give and take from both sides of the house while the people in the middle get the wrong impressions about gun owners.

The only change to gun rights has to be by amending the Constitution. The anti gun bubbas know that this will not work, Congress wouldn’t be able to pass.

Stick to the 2nd and we have a clear playing field. Come up with hunting, protection, and anything else and we give the anti gun bubbas rounds to snipe with.

15

One I tend to use is pretty easy. It’s usually pretty effective against those who are more logical minded and try to use the wording of the second amendment to apply to the militia. These people often think of themselves as constitutional scholars and that the SCOTUS is a bunch of politically biased hacks (not entirely untrue).

I pose a question:

If the 2A said “An armed populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Would they support the idea of the common citizen having access to the kinds of weapons they claim are completely unnecessary?

If they agree, I show them the federalist papers intent of the militia and the US code definition of the “unorganized militia.” That usually makes them go back and think for a bit. Usually they return with hyperemotional arguments.

For the emotional arguers, I either avoid them or pose a counter scenario. If they want to rail against dead children due to crazed gunman, I like to reverse the roles.

Let’s say they win and firearms are banned from use by civilians. Their beloved widowed grandmother lives in a house on the outskirts of town all by herself. One night, around 2 AM, she wakes up to the sound of broken glass and finds four men in her house. She calls the police, but the response time is over 30 minutes. She tries to defend herself, but is quickly overpowered and beaten severely. The men leave before the police arrive, but the woman dies of brain trauma before she can get medical assistance. How do they feel about removing the best means of equalizing self defense now?

This same scenario can be worked for your 90 lb girlfriend, or your teenager who stayed home to do homework while you went out for “date night.”

I often get in “discussions” with guys who thump their chests and claim that being strong and confident is enough to keep them out of trouble and take care of any threat. I counter with one of the above scenarios.

I eventually got out of participating in these arguments, though. It just ends up going in circles.

16

That’d be the shortest thread ever. There would never be a valid reply.

17

Prior to guns, people still murdered each other for thousands of years. They used sharp objects and blunt objects to kill each other. It worked and it worked well. It still works.

Many nations have much stricter gun control, but much higher murder rates (South Africa comes to mind). Murder is cultural.

America has a violent culture. The top rated sports are NFL football and UFC. Meth is hugely popular in the US. We are a nation founded in blood and we can’t go more than 20 years without getting into a war. Banning guns will do nothing to change the national character.

The UK went down the road too. They thought banning guns would make the problem go away. In a few years they were banning ‘commando’ knives. In a few more years they looking ban kitchen knives with points and trying to mandate shatterproof pint glasses because people in pubs were getting cut by them in bar fights.

Again, violence in society is cultural. Notice that this current nut Denver did not shoot up the new Disney movie, no, he started shooting during the big action scene of a dark action movie.

18

It’s a lot harder to be pro-AWB than anti-AWB.

The problem is that those that have “assault” weapons are limited in their actual arguments for their need to possess them over other, more limited weapons.

I guarantee that the majority of Americans that are pro-AWB are most likely not completely anti-gun. They probably don’t mind most hunting rifles, shotguns, and maybe certain, non-evil looking handguns. To them, they just don’t see a need why anyone would need the large ammo capacity and firepower that “assault” weapons possess.

And to be blatantly honest, I only see ONE reason that I choose to be interested assault rifles and enjoy them: Because they exist, and there are not-so-good people out their that have them, and plan to use them. I don’t ever want to be under gunned.

I will also be honest about another thing: I think that the world would be better off if gun technology did not advance past 1900 or so. That way, everyone would be on the same level of firepower, and those that do wish to do harm would not be able to do it at quite the same level as they can today, with firearms.

19

Didn’t Columbine happen in the midst of the national AWB?

Nope…nothing to point out there…

20

Are assault weapons legal in Switzerland? I know they’re one of the most armed and safest places to live yet the gun ban in the UK seemed to do little to curb gun violence. Are there any nations that have a partial ban (AWB) and could be shown that it hasn’t helped?