|
Administrative Note: For the purpose of this article, when we use the word “rifle” it will be used to define or relate to any AR-15 or AR-15 style rifle, AK-47 or other similar style rifle or rifles, or other rifles that have the same or similar characteristics as those or others previously mentioned. We are not referring to bolt action rifles or others that are commonly referred to or used as hunting rifles. For many years certain people, groups, and politicians have made it very clear that the American people should not have the ability or continued right to possess a gun of any type for any reason (target shooting, sport shooting, hunting, defensive use, heirloom, etc.). That is a hard sell to most of Americans as it is estimated that there are more than 393 million guns owned by civilians [source 1]. It is also estimated that approximately 32% of adults in the United States personally own a gun(s) and approximately 44% of people state they live in a household where a gun is present [source 2]. If you want to have a higher probability of getting rid of something, especially a right, you need to start your fight with the smallest part. Meaning, an easier sell to most Americans, even some gun owners, is the abolition of rifle ownership by civilians. One of the reasons this is an “easier” sell by legislators or anti-gun advocacy people and/or groups is because there are far less rifle owners in the United States than there are other guns. Estimates vary on how many rifles there are in the United States, but 5 million to 15 million seems like the average approximation [source 3]. Therefore, it is easier to target those owners because they (anti-gun people/groups) know they have a higher possibility of getting more support behind it, even from some gun owners who do not own a rifle or rifles. The reason some gun owners would be on board with it is because they have the mindset of, “I do not own one, or want one, or need one, therefor no one else would/should either.” Looks and perception does matter when dealing with rifles and the anti-gun people/groups take full advantage of that. At a quick glance or to someone who does not understand the AR-15 type rifle or other rifles, it would appear that the AR-15 type rifle or other rifles are far more dangerous than a handgun or a shotgun. It would also appear that AR-15 style rifles or other rifles would account for most of the gun deaths in America because of how “scary” they are, because they are “weapons of war”, or because of the misinformation (whether intentional or unintentional) associated with them. They (anti-gun people/groups) also use impressionable terms or carefully crafted verbiage that make it very difficult for some or most people to oppose and still sound like a "good person". Some of these terms are, but not limited to: "common sense gun control", "gun violence is a national health crisis", "guns serve no purpose in a civilized society", "weapons of war", "you do not need a gun, that is what the police are for", and "the majority of Americans, including gun owners would agree (insert blanket statement)". These statements or others like them are also used as a way to virtue signal. The principle there is simple, "if you support guns, you support death and therefore, you are a horrible person". To pro-gun people/groups who have the knowledge and experience and who also understand the purpose and application of rifles, along with all guns, these terms are nothing more than a hurdle to overcome while articulating rational talking points that serve a factual purpose. To pro-gun people/groups who cannot articulate their point or opinion, typically these "feel good" anti-gun statements silence them. A lot of ani-gun people/groups know that, which is why they use them so often. The fact of the matter here is, a lot of the people and/or groups pushing for more regulations with or complete abolition of rifles do not understand or have a working knowledge of that weapon. This is made evident in some of their absorbed and often times irrational subject comparisons or claims. Case in point 1: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee – 2019: [source 4] (partial statement) “I’ve held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I had it. It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, a .50-caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street,” I did not know that “boxes that you might be moving” (regardless of contents or size) is a unit of measurement, but I am glad to see that it is used by an individual, more specifically, a Representative who references that while attempting to restrict the Second Amendment right of the American people. To further show her ignorance on this topic, she stated, “the bullet that is utilized, a .50-caliber”, but that is not the most commonly used caliber within the AR platform. An AR-15 is typically chambered in .223 or .556 or both, which is much smaller than a .50-caliber. In full disclosure, there are some AR platforms that are chambered in .50-caliber, but I do not believe she was specifically and discriminately talking about those. Case in point 2: California State Sen. Kevin de Leon – 2014: [source 5] “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” There is no doubt that he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Unfortunately, this was during a press conference and since he is an elected leader, people look to him for proper information and context. It is safe to say, none of that happened with his statement. What did happen was misinformation and implementation of fear. I do not think it was necessarily intentional. I think he was overwhelmed by something he did not know much about (the rifle) and he appeared to be a little nervous. To be fair to them, I know they are not a subject matter expert (S.M.E.) on the AR-15 or other guns, so presenting or stating incorrect information and/or data is somewhat expected and to a certain extent, understood. However, if you are attempting to restrict a right of the American people which is protected by the Constitution of the United States, you better have your facts together and fully understand what it is that you are attempting to do. There is no places for propaganda, hyperbole, political agenda, or “misspeak” when you are dealing with the rights of people, unless you have the specific intent to deceive and deprive them of their rights through the use of false or misleading information. I know that was just two examples of people not articulating their points very well, but this type of “reasoning/justification” or echo chamber talking points are fairly common with anti-gun people/groups or just individuals who do not like guns simply because they don’t understand them or their purpose. I do not have sources you can reference to support my last statement or even the percentage of people who think that way, but I know from personal experience its factual due to conversations I’ve had. I have been working with and around guns for about 20 years. In that time, I have had hundreds, probably even thousands of conversations with people from all walks of life who are or lean in the direction of anti-gun who knowingly or unknowingly recite false information or misconceptions as reasons why or justifications for the abolition of all guns or the implementation of more gun restrictions. I have colleagues who have had similar experiences with people. To be fair, there is nothing wrong with not knowing something or everything about a topic being discussed. It is important to remember, at some point everyone did not know anything about something they are now familiar with or an expert in. Ignorance is not a fault, willful ignorance is though. If in the future there is legislation implemented to ban AR-15 style rifles or other types of rifles that are confined within their definition of an assault rifle, it will only be a matter of time until they begin the work of banning other guns. It is not about the preservation of life, it is about the removal of guns or even more egregious, the depravation of rights. All too often people are willing to sacrifice freedoms in the name of “safety”, and that is something that anti-gun people/groups know and take advantage of using manipulative methods and/or information. I say this with confidence because their (anti-gun people/groups) reasoning for it does not make sense when you get past the “feelings and emotions” part of their claims. I have personally heard people say things like, “we need to get rid of AR-15’s because they are weapons of war and each year 40,000 people die from guns”. Going off feelings and emotions only, that is a very compelling statement, and it is understandable why so many people would support a “call to actions” for it. While there is truth in statements like that, there is not context. Context is incredibly important, especially when you are attempting to deprive people of their rights. Please allow me to provide you with some context: According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) crime statistics [source 6], in 2019 there were approximately 13,927 murders/homicides. Of those:
For comparison purposes:
So approximately 2.61% of murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using a rifle. Again, for comparison purposes, 10.6% of the murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using a knife or cutting instrument, 2.85% of the murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), and 4.31% of the murders/homicides for 2019 were committed using personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.). To break it down even further, in 2019 the population within the United States was approximately 328.2 million people [source 7]. Of that, approximately .000111% of the population were murdered using a rifle. Just to stay consistent with comparisons, approximately .00045% of the population were murdered using a knife or cutting instrument, approximately .000121% of the population were murdered using blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), and approximately .00018% of the population were murdered using personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.). Looking at the numbers, murders/homicides using a rifle is lower and, in some cases, much lower than other means of murder/homicide. If some people want to ban or restrict rifles for the preservation of life, then they need to have consistency with their concern and push for the ban of or restriction of other things such as: knives, hammers, clubs, hands, fists, and feet. If they are more concerned about something that has a lower percentage of death associated with it then they are of other things that have a higher percentage of death, then it is safe to assume their motivation and/or intentions are of a malicious intent. This article does not take into consideration other types of death compared to deaths caused by a rifle. For instance, there are more deaths (approximately 3,873) caused by unintentional drowning [source 8] then there are rifles. If someone's goal is to ban or restrict rifles because they cause death (whether intentional or unintentional) and that person or group is truly concerned about preservation of life, then they need to apply the same amount of effort into banning water, or other types of liquids. To read an in-depth review of deaths caused by guns compared to other causes of deaths, please reference our article: A National Health Crises or Propaganda? My ConclusionThe idea that rifles should be and need to be banned or regulated even more for the purpose of “protecting the people” is nothing more than a trojan horse principle. Get the people to think it is a good thing and have them welcome it into their life. Once it is inside, then you are free to ransack the Constitution. To support my theory even more that banning rifles is a steppingstone into banning most or all guns is the fact that handguns are used more in murders/homicides than any other type of gun. Referencing the same F.B.I. crime statistics [source 6] from 2019, there were approximately 6,368 murders/homicides committed in which a handgun was used. Now I'm no rocket surgeon (sarcasm intended), but it seems to me that if saving lives was really important, an attempt would be made to save more lives instead of less. In my opinion, they (anti-gun people/groups) know that pushing for legislation on the ban or further restriction of handguns is far more unlikely to succeed than that involving rifles. If they start with rifles (even though less people are killed with them, but less people own them) it could be easier later on to go after handguns and/or all guns. The premise is this, get as many people as possible on board before you sink the ship. If and when they (anti-gun people/groups) can successfully pass legislation to ban or restrict rifles, it is only a matter of time until they come for other types of guns. It is a smart tactic to start with rifles, because if they started with handguns or shotguns, more people would be affected by that. It is safe to assume, in order to pass legislation on handguns, shotguns, and/or other types of guns, they (anti-gun people/groups) would have more pushback. If I wanted to strip the American people of a right, I too would start with low hanging fruit (rifles) and work my way up the tree (all guns), which is exactly what they are doing. In my opinion, there is not enough data to justify the actions to further restrict or ban rifles, ammunition, or even the accessories that go with them, especially since the Second Amendment is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT! The InformationI know 2019 is one year out of many, but the numbers across multiple years are similar. I urge you to not just take my word for it. Please do your own research. This is why I provided links to the sources I used. We are fortunate to exist in a technologically advanced time where information is literally at our fingertips. Filter through the data and form your own opinion. This article is not necessarily meant to change your mind or opinion on rifles or the purpose of them, it was meant to provide information so you can make a more informed and rational decision. If at the end, you are still against rifles or guns in general, more power to you, that is your right. Just because you have the right to bear arms (regardless of the reason) does not mean you have it use that right if you do not want to. Please remember though, there are millions of people who also have that same right and they choose to use it. Your decision not to use that right does not supersede others who decided to use it.  Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Sources
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
August 2024
|
RSS Feed
