A challenge

[brewerbob]

To the poor, misunderstood gun prohibitionists.

What of the idea of challenging these people, especially those that claim semi-autos spray hundreds of rounds per minute, to come to a range with us. We will rent an ar-15 platform semi-automatic rifle. Instruct them on usage. Pay all fees so that none of their money goes to the evil gun store/range. Have them demonstrate firing hundreds of rounds per minute while being videoed. Here is their chance to prove us wrong.

Any ideas as to what could go wrong? I'm seeing this as a slam-dunk for our side. Of course, denial can be ingrained so deeply that nothing will penetrate. But hey, I figure it's worth a shot.

[rugersol]

Sounds awesome! ... I absolutely abhor firearms! ... where do I sign-up?!

[brewerbob]

Sounds awesome! ... I absolutely abhor firearms! ... where do I sign-up?!

Sneaky. I see what you did there.

[onebohemian]

"What could go wrong" is that your silly attempt at proving they can't fire hundreds of rounds in seconds would still more than likely show a completely novice shooter being able to dump 30 rounds in ten to twenty seconds, load a new magazine in another ten to fifteen seconds, and then repeat this process until all of the 30-round mags you set in front of them are empty. I'm actually surprised the antis haven't already put together videos like this to show how easy it is to quickly go through ammunition. There's a video floating around of some guy showing the similarities between AKs with wood verses poly stocks, and then arguing that the cosmetic differences shouldn't be the basis of lawful prohibitions. Although his intentions are undoubtedly good, whenever I watch the video I get the sneaking suspicion that the antis could use it as an example of how the AK actions themselves should be banned instead of just the AKs with the polymer/cosmetic features that make the guns look menacing. Sometimes pointing out the obvious flaws in another's argument does nothing other than allow the other to refine that argument.

[xracer390]

Have them load the mags, that will slow them down. And pay for it.....

[onebohemian]

I think the best thing we can do is introduce more people to our hobby/life. Take a newbie to the range and respectfully show them how much fun shooting and collecting can be. I think it's pretty hard for anyone -- even an anti -- to stop a big grin from coming across their face when they feel the adrenaline rush that can be created from the exhiliration of firing a gun. It's a great idea to inform the masses, but the message has to be one that accomplishes our goal -- and definitely not one that antagonizes and thus helps solidify the anti's side. We aren't going to win any fans over by making them feel stupid. We may, however, reduce the chance they simply blindly follow the leaders with another agenda because we have given them the information they need to make up their own minds about whether the proposed new laws are a reasonable use of their tax dollars and time.

[OldmanFCSA]

I've got a 50BMG target rifle they can fire.
I may even forget to put the muzzle brake back on for them.
That should knock some sense back into them.

[LarryFlew]

More likely to knock what little sense they might have left out of them.

[bbk]

"What could go wrong" is that your silly attempt at proving they can't fire hundreds of rounds in seconds would still more than likely show a completely novice shooter being able to dump 30 rounds in ten to twenty seconds, load a new magazine in another ten to fifteen seconds, and then repeat this process until all of the 30-round mags you set in front of them are empty. I'm actually surprised the antis haven't already put together videos like this to show how easy it is to quickly go through ammunition. There's a video floating around of some guy showing the similarities between AKs with wood verses poly stocks, and then arguing that the cosmetic differences shouldn't be the basis of lawful prohibitions. Although his intentions are undoubtedly good, whenever I watch the video I get the sneaking suspicion that the antis could use it as an example of how the AK actions themselves should be banned instead of just the AKs with the polymer/cosmetic features that make the guns look menacing. Sometimes pointing out the obvious flaws in another's argument does nothing other than allow the other to refine that argument.

Then show how 2 well placed rounds from a legally carried gun can stop such actions.....

[northernbird]

yeah that might not go over so well for our interests.. I can hear it now 'So and so, a complete novice to firearms was able to fire xxx many rounds with deadly accuracy'.. no mention of whether it took 10 minutes or that they never hit the target.

What drives me so nuts about this is that people think the crazies dont have other options... of which some could be alot worse.. of course you cant talk about that, because then your a 'disturbed individual' for pointing out how blind people are. sigh.. very sad days we live in folks.

[MNHandK]

i've got a better challenge. every mayor, city official, state or federal politician, state or federal employee - aside from POTUS and his family.. anyone that has armed security that tax payers are footing the bill for has to go without it.

we need to start forcing these politicians to live like the rest of us. let them live by the laws they enact. from taxes to healthcare and gun control. and allow the courts to police them, not themselves. if they're caught lying cheating and stealing from the tax payers they need to be held accountable.

[Lunchbox]

i've got a better challenge. every mayor, city official, state or federal politician, state or federal employee - aside from POTUS and his family.. anyone that has armed security that tax payers are footing the bill for has to go without it.

we need to start forcing these politicians to live like the rest of us. let them live by the laws they enact. from taxes to healthcare and gun control. and allow the courts to police them, not themselves. if they're caught lying cheating and stealing from the tax payers they need to be held accountable.

Should throw every person that has tax-payer funded security detail go without, what makes their lives so important? They can count on the police like they want the rest of us to.

[Ironbear]

i've got a better challenge. every mayor, city official, state or federal politician, state or federal employee - aside from POTUS and his family.. anyone that has armed security that tax payers are footing the bill for has to go without it.

I've been known to suggest that if "10 rounds is enough" then perhaps every security team should be restricted to 10 rounds total!