*personal rant buffer*

In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting I would like to talk firearms. As a multiple firearm owner I obviously stand on the side of keeping the current right to own firearms. As a Californian that right is very heavily regulated, just like vehicles. Not that most of the regulations that California put forward would ever directly affect me. I have no need for fully automatic firearms or a .50 BMG rifle (though I would like one because how cool), but I can own a hunting rifle, a pistol (home protection), shotgun (hunting/home protection), and a few vintage rifles for their own value and intrigue. While there are more I would like to add to my very small collection, I am not in need of any more.

Now that you know some background, I would like to talk policy. I have no issues with talking about banning firearms or restricting them more. I have no problem with banning them altogether if that is what our government decides that is what is best. I would prefer to keep them, but not at the cost of being a felon etc. My only problem is that the debate between keeping firearms or not is not much of a debate. This is especially true at the public level and pretty true at the government level too. My main gripe is not with the for firearm ownership group, but with the anti-firearm ownership group. At least from my own experience the people for owning firearms are fairly reasonable willing to discuss the pros and cons of firearm ownership. While yes there are radicals on both sides, the issue I have with the anti-firearm side is education. The anti-firearm side for the most part has very little to no firearm education or experience in using them and in all honesty that hurts their argument and usually makes them look uneducated. This was extremely prevalent when the California state government decided to ban the “bullet button” for the AR-15. Sidenote, AR stands for Armalite, not assault rifle. For those not in the US or unaware of CA law, the bullet button was a safety feature that required a tool to remove the magazine from the AR-15 to make it harder and slower to change magazines. Thus helping deter rapid reloads in a shootout since that is the only time other than competition that you would need to reload quickly. Unfortunately the term bullet button made CA government officials think it was easier to fire the gun faster. As you can see in the video below of Senator Kevin de Leon, he doesn’t know what he is talking about and just watch the faces of the officers behind him as he speaks.

So my point is that I believe the anti-firearm side should learn how a firearm works and operates. Otherwise how can you form a complete opinion on the matter? How can you say guns are evil and everything about them is bad when you can’t tell the difference between a semi-automatic, lever action, bolt action, single action, double action, pump action, and fully automatic firearms? How can you look at an AR-15 and say that is is an evil gun when a Mini 14 is the exact same thing, just wood and blued metal instead of “tactical”?

Advertisement

I would be willing to take anyone I knew out to the range and help them understand a firearm, even to help them concrete their stance on not wanting to own or operate one, but at least they will know how to and they will know how a firearm functions in order to better form an argument. Seriously, if any of you are in CA and want to go to a range and learn or even just talk firearms and learn more about them I would be happy to help. I think every person should learn how to properly operate and understand how a firearm functions in the very least for common knowledge, but it could be a good life skill to have in an extreme emergency.