Three Things You Need to Tell A Liberal About Guns

The Truth About Guns ^ | 3 July, 2011 | Robert Farago

[marktwain]

As Lola and I rocked up my Mom’s waterfront idyll, I knew there was going to be trouble. The Lexus 460hl sitting in her driveway told the tale. It’s a $100k+ carcoon powered by a 438 horsepower hybrid gas – electric engine. The 20mpg luxobarge can scoot from zero to sixty in 5.5 seconds. The 460hl’s a hugely expensive, enormously powerful automobile for wealthy owners who want to believe they’re doing their bit for the environment. It is the perfect car for a liberal. Mind you, the good Doctor, his erudite wife, successful son and beautiful daughter-in-law proved to be relatively open-minded. They didn’t sneer once. It was my mother, as usual, who blew me away . . .

I love my mother. As did my father, who only talked politics at the distant reaches of my mother’s limited hearing. And for good reason. Mom is the only person I know who’d fail to grasp the irony of Sean Hannity’s nickname for Barack Obama: “The Anointed One.” If Mom heard Hannity’s not-so-gentle jibe, she’d simply swear sailor-like at the Fox News curmudgeon—not for a moment suspecting that Sean nailed it: she’s deified President Obama.

Mom provides me with excellent insights into the “see no evil on our side” hearts and minds of American liberals. She personifies your basic Kind-Hearted Artistic Intellectuals (Us) vs. Neanderthal Boorish Robber Barons (Them) mindset. I never fail to sup from her splendiferous anti-Bible basher buffet, served as it is with a magnum of champagne socialism.

“Selling” my Mother on gun rights would be a bit like promoting the joys of bee-keeping to someone prone to anaphylactic shock. But her friends and I got into it. Mum felt obliged to, as the Brits say, put her oar in. She did so when the Lexus liberals started talking about high-capacity “clips.”

“There’s no need for those guns that shoot lots of bullets and kill people,” Mom said, miming a fully-automatic firearm.

“Mom, they don’t sell machine guns to civilians,” I corrected.

“Yes they do,” she said, brooking the usual amount of debate. “You can go into a gun store and buy them.”

I didn’t argue. (Hey, what do I know?) Besides, I was grateful for the wake-up call. Mom’s remark reminded me that gun control is high concept; liberals and independents are not “up” on firearms regulations’ real world impact (or lack thereof). “Supporting common sense gun control” is a euphemism for “uninformed and proud of it.”

If you’re debating gun control, never underestimate your opponents’ lack of knowledge on the subject. Before you try to explain the rational basis for your position, make sure liberal-minded gun control advocates and fence-straddlers have a basic understanding of the subject. Here are the three key points you need to cover . . .

American have the right to own guns

What? What part of “the right to keep and bear arms” don’t they understand? The “right to keep and bear arms” bit. True story: millions of people don’t know that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and/or what that means.

Before you can point out the lunacy of “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership, ask your opponents if they’re familiar with the Second Amendment. No really. And then ask why Americans have the right to armed self-defense.

There are still plenty of people who believe that the framers guaranteed the right to own guns solely to maintain a militia (i.e. a volunteer army). They think gun ownership is a collective right.

Disabuse that notion by pointing out that all our constitutional rights are individual rights. And that a “well-regulated militia” is merely a bunch of people (legal term) with an individual right to keep and bear arms getting together for common defense.

If your debatee knows that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, ask if they agree that all our constitutional rights exist to protect us from the government. This they need to know.

Guns are safe

By and large, gun control advocates are urban dwellers who aren’t familiar with or comfortable around firearms. The “logic” they deploy when discussing firearms regulations is colored by personal ignorance and a deep-seated fear of “gun violence.”

[NB: The most liberal person I know---other than my mother---is adamantly, experientially pro-gun: "I want us to have at least the same amount of firepower as the right wing extremists."]

Pro-gun folk who counter gun control advocates’ fear with stats—proving that guns are safer than prescription meds or swimming pools (true story)—miss the point. The real basis for the antis’ argument: THEY don’t have guns so YOU shouldn’t either. NO ONE SHOULD.

Gun control is not about criminals or gun safety. It’s all about creating a level playing field—making non-gun owners feel more comfortable about not owning a gun.

The best way to make a gun grabber feel safe enough to let them let you own/carry a gun: range time. If you’re careful, a hands-on demo with an unloaded carry piece can be equally transformative. You’d be amazed how five minutes’ familiarization changes the tone of the debate.

Short of that, ask them how many gun owners there are in America. Tell them it’s around 80 million. Ask them if they’d consider privately held guns safe if .01 percent (one tenth of one percent) of these firearms owners were involved in some kind of fatal shooting.

Tell them that in 2007, less than one-half of .01 percent of American firearms owners were involved in a shooting. Half of those deaths were suicides. Most of the remaining deaths involved guns held illegally by previously convicted criminals. Are cars that safe?

Machine guns are illegal

When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers. Vast swathes of America believe that commonly available “assault rifles” are fully-automatic rifles.

The obvious cure (again) take the ballistically misinformed down to the gun range and show them what’s what. Unfortunately, most liberals would rather attend a Bush barbecue (roast pork, not politician) than shoot a gun.

Meanwhile and in any case, remind our loyal opposition the difference between semi and fully-automatic weapons, and that bad guys can’t buy machine guns at a gun store.

I know: what the hell difference does that make? American citizens should be able to buy fully-automatic rifles to defend themselves or just because of the “shall not infringe” part of the Second Amendment. But a good poker player doesn’t reveal his or her cards until they have to. And maybe not even then.

Just as gun control advocates wrap their gun banning hopes and dreams in the mantle of crime prevention, gun rights guys need to appear politically palatable to liberals who see them as “gun nuts.” Begin by not being unpalatable. Tell them machine guns are illegal.

And there you have it: three basic concepts to move the ball forward. Just remember to wipe your feet before you enter the house or my mother will have you, mate.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

You are absolutely correct in your declaration of why these 25 year old fully auto rifles are so expensive. However, this is the first time I have ever heard that police officers are able to buy brand new fully auto M-16s or fully auto receivers. Not that I doubt you, but I would really like to hear from a LEO out there if this is true or not. Is there something in the Hughes amendment that allows them to do so or is there been something passed since the Hughes amendment and the 86 law has been passed that has allowed this?

[coloradan]

“Machine guns are illegal” is hardly a principled position to take in arguing guns with liberals. If it’s somehow good that they’re illegal, why can’t anything and everything else be illegal too?

[DCBryan1]

However, this is the first time I have ever heard that police officers are able to buy brand new fully auto M-16s or fully auto receivers.

Perhaps, I overstated that I guess. The DEPARTMENT can buy whatever they want, subject to their mayor/city atty/police commission, etc. An individual cop CANNOT send/fax his B&Cs to HK and say, "send me an MP5, im a cop".

There has been some abuse by LEOs and NFA, for instance, Greenland, AR has 8 full time cops, but the chief was a gun-nut and had HUNDREDS of machineguns in the vault to take out and play with. Also, constables would deputize his brother, cousins, etc, and get them brand new HK G36s to play with.

ATF has SOMEWHAT been cracking down on LEOs, but not nearly as much as infringing on law-abiding citizens' rights lately.

[deoetdoctrinae]

Ask them if they’d consider privately held guns safe if .01 percent (one tenth of one percent) of these firearms owners were involved in some kind of fatal shooting.

Math was never my strong suit in school, but... Doesn't .01 percent = one-hundredth of a percent? If so, I think the writer meant to say .10 percent is one-tenth of one percent.

Regardless of my fuzziness on math, I agree that fatal shootings involving privately held guns are very, very infrequent occurences, statistically speaking.

[Puppage]

You can have a fully automatic rifle.....it just can’t be selective fire.and that’s here in The Peoples Republic of CT

[Old Teufel Hunden]

So what you are saying is they are breaking the law by doing this? I really don’t like to see the ATF crack down on what I believe to be unconstitutional laws. However, in this instance I fully support the ATF doing this. If we can’t have these guns, then why should LEOs or those “more privileged” than us have them. Maybe when the “more privileged” among us get this right taken away, there will be more of a push for all of us to have our constitutional rights restored.

[Tainan]

You have to know what people think- we don’t need to hear ONLY our side all the time
Always preaching to the choir is not helpful

Well...I do agree with that.

[The Great RJ]

Look at the absurdity of our PC anti-violence culture in schools where a cub scout pocket knife or even a butter knife is regarded as almost a weapon of mass destruction. During my high school years most of the student’s cars in the parking lot had shot guns during pheasant season and there was never a Columbine type incident anywhere.

[Maverick68]

b

[03A3]

It’s true. Actually went out with a LEO a month ago shooting a full auto AR15 which ran the county around $1K.

[Manly Warrior]

LEOs do not require BAFTE permits-they are sold to a government agency.

The reason why “my” M16 costs $20K and a LEO can opder one brand new from COLT, Rockriver Armalite etc is because they are post ‘86 LE guns. Cannot be transferred to a private citizen.

As stated in earlier posts, the cost of the M16 or whatever version of a full auto firearm you wish to own is a supply and demand issue; very limited supply, high demand= high price point. Civilians must find a “for sale” pre ‘86 firearm, whereas LEOs can buy one made yesterday.

Best;

[marktwain]

Math was never my strong suit in school, but... Doesn't .01 percent = one-hundredth of a percent? If so, I think the writer meant to say .10 percent is one-tenth of one percent.

I found the total number of firearms homicides in 2008. It was 9,484 total. Say 80 million firearm owners... I suspect that this is a low estimate... That would by 9485/80000000 or .0119 percent of gun owners involved in a fatal homicide.

As we know that Suicides are about 55% of all fatalities involving guns, suicides would be about .00145% of all gun owners.

Fatal firearms accidents are a very small number in the U.S. The last figues I can come up with are 613 in 2007. That comes to .00077 percent of gun owners involved in a fatal firearms accident.

[marktwain]

As we know that Suicides are about 55% of all fatalities involving guns, suicides would be about .00145% of all gun owners.

Oops..got an extra zero in the suicide line. Should be .0145% of all gun owners.

[dangerdoc]

My response, what about my right to privacy?

It leaves them looking a bit confused.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers.***

actually gun owners were their own worst enemy in this. I have several magazines from the early 1980s that use the term “assault rifle” well before Josh suggarman latched on to it.

PISTOLERO 1980. Assault Rifles to use against Sneaky Snipers.

COMBAT ARMS 1983 (Guns and Ammo pub) ASSAULT RIFLE ROUNDUP.

EXOTIC WEAPONS (Pistolero) 1985. Customize your H&K Assault rifle!

SHOOTERS SURVIVAL GUIDE 1981, Assault Rifles for Defense.

ASSAULT WEAPONS 1983 ASSAULT RIFLES-RIOT GUNS-SNIPER RIFLES.

ASSAULT RIFLES (Gund and Ammo) 1982

ASSAULT FIREARMS (Guns and Ammo) 1984 Big Bore Battle rifles, Assault Rifles.

ASSAULT RIFLES (Guns and Ammo) 1992

I believe Mel Tappan first popularized the term in his book SURVIVAL GUNS AROUND 1975.

[JimRed]

Machine guns are not illegal per se, just highly regulated and punitively taxed.

[JimRed]

Plus, it has to be a pre-87 made fully auto rifle.

How hard would it be to fake date-stamp some parts?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"How hard would it be to fake date-stamp some parts?"

I'm no expert in this. I have a bushmaster semi. I owned a lot of pre 86 banned M-16's in the Marine Corps, but I eventually had to turn them into the armory!! : )

I would just say that you would have to buy the lower receiver or full rifle illegally to begin with. My understanding is that most of those have their serial numbers erased. Plus, in order to fire it you probably need your own property. At least around where I live in western PA. My gun club and all the gun clubs that I know of around here will not allow you to fire a fully auto rifle, legal or not.

[deoetdoctrinae]

"I found the total number of firearms homicides in 2008. It was 9,484 total. Say 80 million firearm owners... I suspect that this is a low estimate... That would by 9485/80000000 or .0119 percent of gun owners involved in a fatal homicide."

Outstanding job of finding the numbers. Thanks very much. So, in reality, if 2008 is representative, we can expect that in a given year, the number of American firearm owners involved in a fatal homicide would be slightly greater than 1/100th of one percent. Strange, I thought we were all supposed to be crazed vigilantes, filling the streets with blood. /sarc

As long as the gun-control crowd continues to paint us with that super broad brush, we will continue to have a battle on our hands defending our 2A rights.