Talking Points

[steveincowtown]

I have an inner circle (very limited) that know I carry everyday.


I have a slightly bigger circle (not by much) that knows I have a varied collection of weapons.


I have a little bigger circle that knows I enjoy shooting and hunting. Over the past few weeks these folks I have asked me what I thought about the recent tragedy, and the thought of a AWB. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is old, played out, and really doesn't have a place in the current dialogue (IMHO).


That being said I have found myself repeating the following in conversations, and would like to know what other have been using as "talking points."


#1> The killer at Sandy Hook had committed multiple felonies, including entering a Federally Mandated Gun Free Zone, before a bullet was even fired. More laws won't stop a crazy like this.


#2> A ban on the capacity of magazines is a horrible answer to a complex question. Reducing the number of bullets fired TODAY, would not make our schools any safer than yesterday. In fact it probably wouldn't even reduce the total bullet count. Letting someone get into a school and harm our Children is wrong, whether he shoots 1 round or 30.

#3> No I don't have any Assault Rifles. Although some of the modern sporting rifles I have the same "look" as a military assault rifles they are not equipped to fire in an automatic or "one trigger pull shoots a ton of bullets" manner. Semi Autos only shoot one bullet when the trigger is pulled.

#4> Banning modern sporting rifles and the magazines that go with them is akin to putting a speed limiter on every car on the US, and then banning the manufacture of any cars which can exceed the speed limit. Just because someone doesn’t need a car with 500 horsepower, doesn’t mean it isn’t their right to have one. In fact, car crashes kill far more children in the US than guns. Do you know what else killed more folks than guns last year, the flu. I am not excusing the numbers, but we have to keep things in perspective here.



....hopefully the some of the smart folks here can add to this....

[Bob in Big D]

If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun how on earth can you trust them with your child?

[DEB]

If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun how on earth can you trust them with your child?

This...

[The Annoyed Man]

Bob, that's a good answer.

I have also started another tactic. I carry 3 spent cases in my pocket now: a .375 H&H magnum, a .308, and a 5.56. I begin with the usually true assumption that most people who are asking genuinely know NOTHING about guns. So this is a unique educational opportunity. I then start with the big magnum case and I talk about how it is used. I am very clear to emphasize that this truly is from a high powered cartridge, that although it can be used for self defense, like any firearm, it is way too unwieldy for that, and that it is really only useful for taking the largest and most dangerous game. I explain that this would be a common caliber for use in areas like the Alaskan wilderness where there are a lot of large dangerous bears.

Then I take out the .308 case. I explain how it is for a cartridge that is less powerful than the old .30-06 cartridge; that it is used for hunting medium to large sized game, like deer, hogs, and elk; and that it is also used by the military in a small number of rifles, and in some "medium" machine guns.

I then take out the 5.56 case, and I start by explaining that this caliber was originally developed for varmint hunting and for small game. I define "varmint" as "prairie dogs and other pest animals." I say that it is definitely NOT a "high-powered" cartridge. It is only after explaining its small game and target shooting uses that I explain that this is also the cartridge fired by the AR15. This gives me the segue into explaining what exactly the definition of an "assault rifle" is. That gives me the opportunity to explain that by the military's own definitions, the AR15 is NOT an assault rifle. I concede that it LOOKS like one, because there is no use in denying that, nor does it need to be denied, but that then gives me the opportunity to explain that throughout history, hunting rifles have often looked like the military rifles from which they descended, and visa versa. I explain the appearance relationship between the K98—a 19th century "assault rifle"—and early models of the Winchester Model 70—a truly classic hunting rifle. That then gives me the opportunity to talk about how modern bolt action "sniper rifles" were arrived at by standardizing civilian varmint and target rifles. So in the end, the fact that the AR15 looks like a select-fire M16 is completely irrelevant. It is just one more example of the constant design flow, back and forth, between the military and civilian rifle markets for over 200 years. And I reiterate that the civilian versions are NOT fully automatic. When they say they have doubts about one trigger pull, one shot, I ask them if they object to revolvers.

But the bottom line is that, what starts out as a fearful person ends up being an educated person who, if they are honest, can see the faultiness of the gun-grabbing logic.

[TexasCajun]

I think that a clarification of school carry may be in order in addition to what you've already laid out. I don't believe that anybody is an advocate of mandating teachers to carry guns in schools, but that seems to be some's understanding of the proposal. Explain that we are in favor of allowing teachers who are WILLING to carry to be able to. Also explain that allowing concealed carry by teachers should not replace an actual security plan, it's merely a last-ditch-effort to try to prevent another Sandy Hook or at least minimize the damage.

Another point. It seems that more often than not, these psycopathic murderers (quit calling them gunmen) break off the attack & kill themselves at the mere hint of armed response. So if an all-out ban & confiscation does come to be, an attacker has a good 10-15 minutes to inflict as many casualties as they can with the banned weapons.

Also, here is a related thread: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=60485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I've pulled the gem of Charles Cotton's post as another point to bring up:

The question should not be “why would you need a handgun,” it should be “is there a compelling reason to exclude handguns?” In view of the excellent track record CHL’s have earned over the past sixteen years, the unequivocal answer is “no.”

[Bob in Big D]

I think that a clarification of school carry may be in order in addition to what you've already laid out. I don't believe that anybody is an advocate of mandating teachers to carry guns in schools, but that seems to be some's understanding of the proposal. Explain that we are in favor of allowing teachers who are WILLING to carry to be able to. Also explain that allowing concealed carry by teachers should not replace an actual security plan, it's merely a last-ditch-effort to try to prevent another Sandy Hook or at least minimize the damage.

Another point. It seems that more often than not, these psycopathic murderers (quit calling them gunmen) break off the attack & kill themselves at the mere hint of armed response. So if an all-out ban & confiscation does come to be, an attacker has a good 10-15 minutes to inflict as many casualties as they can with the banned weapons.

Also, here is a related thread: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=60485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I've pulled the gem of Charles Cotton's post as another point to bring up:

The question should not be “why would you need a handgun,” it should be “is there a compelling reason to exclude handguns?” In view of the excellent track record CHL’s have earned over the past sixteen years, the unequivocal answer is “no.”

One other other point on teacher carry is that not only should it be voluntary to the teacher but said teacher should be part of and overall "active shooter" plan that is developed in conjunction with local LE to delay the shooter(s) until LE arrives. That means the teacher is the last resort to protect the children. Each school is designed differently so each schools plan will probably be different to some degree.
Lets not forget that the media has informed the world that US schools are easy targets not only for a one off nutjob but potentially for any group of terrorist that will have no compunction to killing infidel children.

[TexasCajun]

I think that most schools use a lockdown plan when something like Sandy Hook happens. So any CHL holders on campus at the time of a situation would be relegated to taking up defensive positions until law enforcement arrives. The primary difference would be that an actual defense could be employed. Any other plan that would involve CHL holders acting as responders or on-site security would be hard to get approved & probably would end up as a disaster worse than what's already occured.

[jmra]

I think that most schools use a lockdown plan when something like Sandy Hook happens. So any CHL holders on campus at the time of a situation would be relegated to taking up defensive positions until law enforcement arrives. The primary difference would be that an actual defense could be employed. Any other plan that would involve CHL holders acting as responders or on-site security would be hard to get approved & probably would end up as a disaster worse than what's already occured.

[Robert*PPS]

Here's a point that I used just yesterday that seemed to get one of my co-workers thinking beyond the normal ban talk of the media:

She asked me 1:) do I own an "assault rifle"? 2): what reason could I possibly give to explain the need for "large-capacity" magazines.

I answered: 1:) No, if you are classifying an "assault rifle" by the magazine it takes. and 2:) I asked her if she feels it is necessary for anyone to provide a reason as to why they exercise any right guaranteed by the constitution? I used examples such as: what reason could you give me to explain the need to have a religious sign placed on your desk? (it was the easiest right to relate to her at the time). I told her what makes the gun conversation in the USA unique is that the right to bear arms is guaranteed and held as being just as important as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process, privacy, etc. etc. I asked her how would she like to have to submit a reason to someone else's approval in hopes that a right, that she deems fundamental, not to be infringed. And my final comment was, you may not exercise your second amendment right, so you feel you will not be affected, but know that a government allowed to become powerful enough to infringe upon one fundamental right will have the power to infringe upon all fundamental rights.

At least with this co-worker, it got her thinking...and all I can do is plant a seed.

[Dragonfighter]

At the station the other day we had the inevitable conversation about Newtown. Some were adamantly against more gun control laws but were also against arming teachers. So I played a little mind game. Fortunately it was slow at the time. I started my watch alarm for 2:30 which has been the most positive response time reported for CT first responders.

I sat there with my finger pistol and said bang ten times rapidly, "changed magazines" and repeated. I got off a couple hundred hypothetical shots before my time expired. Then I asked, "If a teacher had your kids in a defensible position (one way in), would you rather them acquire a sight picture and fire if an assailant entered the class room, or would you rather them act as fodder being shot BEFORE the kids?"

I think the same effect can be made by simply starting a watch and telling the other person to picture shooting and reloading undeterred, or facing that shooter for two and a half minutes while you sit in silence. That's how long the teachers had to sit and pray while Newtown's finest rushed to their aid. It has an impact.

[The Annoyed Man]

At the station the other day we had the inevitable conversation about Newtown. Some were adamantly against more gun control laws but were also against arming teachers. So I played a little mind game. Fortunately it was slow at the time. I started my watch alarm for 2:30 which has been the most positive response time reported for CT first responders.

I sat there with my finger pistol and said bang ten times rapidly, "changed magazines" and repeated. I got off a couple hundred hypothetical shots before my time expired. Then I asked, "If a teacher had your kids in a defensible position (one way in), would you rather them acquire a sight picture and fire if an assailant entered the class room, or would you rather them act as fodder being shot BEFORE the kids?"

I think the same effect can be made by simply starting a watch and telling the other person to picture shooting and reloading undeterred, or facing that shooter for two and a half minutes while you sit in silence. That's how long the teachers had to sit and pray while Newtown's finest rushed to their aid. It has an impact.

Very good!