This was my Facebook post this morning:
Terror in Sydney! Hostages! **Assault Rifle!** Okay, so, here’s my challenge for the day. Would any of my pro-gun friends care to help me explain to my anti-gun and gun-agnostic friends why the phrase “assault rifle” is problematic? Here’s the catch: you’ve got to explain it in a way that doesn’t insult people who are not stupid and who are always willing to learn something useful if it’s not draped in condescension. Ready? Go! 🙂
Any takers here? I can tell you as a relatively recent convert I certainly had a eureka moment when it was explained to me.
Any “rifle” you carry when assaulting a person or “position,” whether in a war or in a civilian context is an assault rifle. You can purchase magazine fed hunting rifles that will shoot calibers much more potent than 5.56 or .223. Most are bolt action instead of semi-automatic in operation, but anyone who spends a bit of time running a bolt action, magazine fed, .308 will realize that while the rate of fire is much slower, five or ten rounds of .308 will out perform 30 rounds of 5.56 or .223 in its destructive capability. You also get great, accurate, stand off distance with the .308 as you can “assault” whatever you want effectively from 300+ yards away. The US Army is completely rethinking its infantry rifle and hand gun calibers. They may be moving away from 5.56 in the current AR platform and away from the 9mm Beretta to larger calibers for both. They cited the lack of lethality, or “one shot kill” capability with both rounds. I hope they move back to the .45ACP for handguns and to the .308 or 7.62 for their new infantry rifle. Sorry for getting off track here . . .
Only slightly off track! 😉 Still good stuff though. Thanks for the comment!
I personally only know a few converts, Tiffany, but they are all special.
I look at the anti-gunners and see only some that are even willing to talk about guns. Many have made up their minds already, and their likelihood of changing their position is as likely as me changing mine. Some are there because of their life choices, some are there because of they way they were raised, and some are there because of things that have happened to them. And some, I think, aren’t anti-gun as much as they are on-the-fence.
I tend to think of them in three categories. The anti-gun true believers, the anti-gun victims, and the anti-gun fence sitters. Then there are the true fence sitters, people who are neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. They’ve either never considered it, or never had to.
In my experience with anti-gun true believers, you can quickly tell which ones they are. They are never going to convert. They blindly argue the same points over and over, challenge you by asking questions but never listening to the answers or changing the subject when you answer them, and then starting over with new questions, and throwing insults and temper tantrums. You are wasting time and energy with these folks, but the back and forth with them can be useful for converting the anti-gun fence sitters and the true fence sitters. The longer they argue, the more unsound they reveal themselves to be, refusing to answer questions and changing the subject and throwing insults. In general, though, I view it as a waste of time. You can only answer the same question so many times before you get frustrated with the person who asked the same question nine times in two days, and ignored the answer every time, then claims victory because you didn’t “properly answer” their question. Yes, I’ve dealt with a particular person who has done this. I have little patience or respect with this group, once I’ve determined that they fit into this category. I probably should have some more patience and respect for them than I do, but experience has taught me not to waste my time with these ones.
The anti-gun victims are those who have experienced some sort of loss due to guns. They may have been threatened, robbed, a victim of violent crime, or lost a family member to “gun violence” or accident or suicide. Their initial reaction to guns ranges from “icky” to “I hate them because X.” This group is often emotionally and psychologically invested in their choice, but can be converted, especially if care is taken to treat them with respect and empathy. These converts tend to become the strongest voices on our side, though. The experience that should have made them hate guns forever instead has awoken the tiger, so to speak. I find that you more often than not meet these people in real face to face conversations rather than the internet. You might hear about them on the internet, but you’ll likely never convert them through the internet. The personal connection is needed to have any chance with these folks, I think. And it can’t be all about guns with them. Taking them shooting, for example, really isn’t going to help them, because they don’t want to touch the thing. In fact, in some cases, it makes them hate it more. They may eventually get to that point, but it isn’t usually a good starting point.
The fence sitters (both categories) are the easiest to convert, but tend to be the least likely to be active voices. It may be as simple as taking them to the range, or patiently explaining how guns work, or what the laws are, or how use of force works, etc. Because they are not emotionally invested in the answers, they are willing to ask questions. They don’t fear or hate answer, they simply never thought about the question before. Mostly, they operate out of ignorance, not stupidity. Once they are given the facts, and things are explained, they see the light, so to speak. Respect is key, again, because they are competent adults and should be treated that way. They have just never considered both sides, or were misled into their position by folks who were intent upon confusing them.
My reason for putting this diatribe up is to assist you and others in recognizing when to cut your losses in an argument. You’re putting this discussion (the original post) on Facebook. You’re going to be dealing with all kinds, once your page is noticed.
If you’re in a long discussion with someone who has asked the same question three times, and ignores the answer each time, you’re dealing with a true believer. You’ll never get them to change, so the discussion will be entirely fruitless unless there are fence sitters looking on. I mentioned that I used to have a whole bunch of answers already typed up. It was easier than typing out a twenty sentence answer for a question, only to have it ignored and asked again in a slightly different way two minutes later. Now, I hardly ever debate them. I just don’t have the time to wrestle with pigs, as the expression goes.
Anyway, good luck.
Shrimp, thanks so much for this. It’s sobering but still hopeful. I totally get what you’re saying, and you’re right. I have often wasted too much time in hopeless debates, but I’m learning to pick my battles more effectively. Your categories are spot on. In fact, I have a family member whose only sibling was shot dead by their cousin when the three of them were barely in grammar school (playing with a gun they found in the house). To this day she has a psysiological reaction to the sight — dare I say even the very thought — of guns. But she’s entering a phase in her life where she’s challenging herself to conquer certain lifelong fears, and I have been gently nudging her to put guns on the list of fears to be conquered. It’s going to be an uphill slog, but I haven’t given up on her. It’s so odd how tragedy affects us differently. My own personal loss pushed me closer to guns (trembling though I might have been); whereas hers repelled her from them. Such is life, I suppose. Anyway, I appreciate the luck. I’ll need it! 🙂
Well, I’ll give it a go.
Assault rifle, unlike “assault weapon,” is an actual term. By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon that shoots an intermediate cartridge and has a removable/detachable magazine. That means it is capable of fully automatic fire (1 trigger press and bullets come out until the magazine is empty or until the trigger is released), or it can be set to semi-automatic fire (1 trigger press, 1 bullet). It is also not as powerful as a rifle (hunting rifles in normal hunting calibers), but generally more powerful than handguns. The detachable magazine means that it can be reloaded via a new magazine when the current magazine is emptied.
Examples of an assault rifle would be the M-16 (but not the AR-15), the AK-47 (but not its neutered imported cousins, because they are all no longer capable of select fire), etc. In other words, assault rifles are what most non-gun-owning people think of when someone says machine gun.
By contrast, a real machine gun tends to be fully automatic and belt fed, and fires a more powerful round. There are light, medium and heavy machine guns. The distinction tends to be in the rounds they fire, but also in their weight. The more powerful round requires more mass to fight recoil, hence the heavier guns. A light machine gun firing the bigger calibers would shake itself apart or be uncontrollable due to recoil. Ever fire a .357 snubnose made from titanium or scandium? The recoil is more apparent than a steel framed revolver of the same size. Less mass in the frame, so more recoil is transferred to you, the shooter. On a fully automatic weapon, this would be bad. That would make the gun uncontrollable.
I have no problem with the term “assault rifle,” assuming it is correctly applied. I have a huge problem with the term “assault weapon.” Assault weapon is a made up term. It means anything from “that weapon we don’t like you to have” to “that weapon we want banned.”
I’m sorry, I guess I just failed. I was doing so good too…
The issue that comes up with “assault weapons” is that it is purposefully a generic term, and purposefully confused by those who do not want people to own guns. ABC news did a story (probably twenty years ago now) in which they kept talking about the need to ban “assault weapons” and they kept showing police officers (probably SWAT) at the range shooting fully automatic M-16s, but they would identify those rifles as AR-15s and they would say utter nonsense about their rate of fire, and how the pistol grip allowed people to shoot from the hip, etc. They also made it sound like anyone could go buy them at any gun store. Well, realistically, if it is the AR-15, they pretty much could, assuming that the person could pass the background check. What they were pushing in the story was that anybody could walk into the local gun store and buy a fully automatic M-16, which is utter nonsense.
The media, in their haste to be first on the story, get everything about guns right as often as they get everything else right. But in my opinion, there is no doubt they are driving an agenda, as well. Adding the inherent incompetence to the bias, it makes it almost impossible to get any real facts out of the media concerning firearms. (We have a local reporter here in the Denver area that is laughably bad, as she talks about .38 9mms and automatic revolvers and such. I have offer numerous times to help her understand firearms better, but she has never taken me, or anyone else, up on the offer. But that’s a different topic.)
I’m sorry this is so long. I once wrote up a series of replies for the Brady bunch, and used to keep them around for this kind of thing. I’ll have to do it again, since my old computer died and took all my files with it. Most people are simply unfamiliar with firearm terminology, and get confused. Those with an agenda to cause confusion take that into consideration when putting their information out, and thus was born the term “assault weapon.”
If I was unclear, or if you have anything that you think I could have explained better, please let me know. Of course, that’ll mean another long comment…
Wow! Food for thought! I usually hear my gunny friends taking exception to the term “assault rifle.” I actually never thought about the difference between “assault rifle” and “assault weapon”…. Interesting. Learn something new every day! 🙂 Thanks, Shrimp. I’m sure I’ll have more questions as others post (and I welcome long comments), but that’s plenty for me to chew on for now. Do you mind if I post to my Facebook Page?
Sure. I don’t do Facebook myself, but go ahead.
You’re a smart one. For all its positive attributes, Facebook sucks precious minutes out of every hour of every day. And I’m sure it’s played some role in a divorce or two over the years. 🙂
I don’t need Facebook for that. I have the internet and various gun blogs to suck precious minutes out of my day. Holy &*%#, is it 9:00 already? I have things to do…
Ha! 🙂
Just fixed my “it’s/its” typo for all you punctuation nazis out there (I count myself in that esteemed group). Dangling apostrophes are not sexy at all.
…And you didn’t exactly fail… not exactly… A valiant effort, either way! LOL 😉
Assault rifle, unlike “assault weapon,” is an actual term.
Shrimp nailed it dead center.
“Assault weapon” is a term made up by Bull$hi+ slingers and can be applied at will to just about anything.
I bought a Colt post ban HBAR that couldn’t hurt a fly because it doesn’t have the Dr Evil™ collapsible stock, flash hider or bayonet lug.
I bought another AR15 that has the insidious features and the unbridled mayhem hasn’t stopped since.
Hmm… Nothing at all condescending there. 😉
Shrimp nailed it dead center.
The cogent argument had already been presented and is beyond reproach IMHO.
I’m just emphasizing the ‘between you, me and preaching to the choir’ color commentary. 😉
I wish you good luck swaying any of your antigun friends to your point of view and having them dismiss the BS they get bombarded with on “news”, TV and in the movies.
(maybe take them shooting?)
That’s a tall order…not impossible but not definitely not easy.
Yeah, I know. Thanks for the luck! I definitely need it. But I’m keeping my fingers crossed. After all, I’m a convert myself. And I’m not special.