The Experiment That Changed There Minds... ( Well Most Of There Minds)

I think that people who are in favor of gun control are just uneducated and scared of guns. I got into this whole gun control debate and asked some anti-gun friends if i could prove my point, so 7 of my anti-gun friends that i was debating with agreed to let me do my experiment. I showed them two of my guns one was a 10/22 with standard wood stock ( above), the other was a 10/22 with all black plastic furniture, folding stock, large capacity magazine, you know the whole tactical look ( below). Now anybody who knows anything about guns knows that a 10/22 is a very common .22LR rifle that people use all the time for target shooting, hunting small game, and to introduce there children or those who are afraid of the recoil to firearms, they are low powered and have almost no felt recoil.
      I asked them which one is the " High Powered Assault Rifle" and which one is just a Hunting Gun, they all said something along the lines of " Oh that is obvious the bottom one is what a dumb question" I asked them why they though that to which most replied " Well the bottom one can fire faster then the top one and looks like it is high powered, and that such a weapon has no real use other then for a war." Some said " Well you can't hunt with something like that you would blow it into tiny chunks of nothing" One even said " It just looks like it is very deadly and nobody needs a gun that is so powerful."
       I then right in front of them took apart both guns and put all the mechanical parts from the Wood Stocked 10/22 into the Tactical Looking 10/22 Stock, and the parts from the Tactical Looking Stock into the Wood Stock, and asked them again to tell me which one was the " High Powered Assault Rifle" and which was the Hunting Gun. They were all a bit dumbfounded and bit confused how i could make these " High Powered Assault Rifle parts fit into a normal rifle stock". So they then said " well now the top will work like an assault rifle because you put the parts from the assault rifle into it"
     So I got them to agree to go to the range with me. When I took them to the range, I took out the normal magazine and the " High Capacity Magazine" and started loading them both from the same box of .22LR ammo. So one of them asked " Well won't the assault one ( now in the wood stock) need bigger bullets since its more powerful" I told them to just watch and learn. I fired the one that looks like a " Assault Rifle" with as they put it "Normal Parts now in it" First, one trigger pull, one round just like they all expected. But then I took the wood rifle that I put the " Assault Rifle" parts into and fired it,One trigger pull, one round fired, they were all confused as to why that happened and started asking me if the gun jammed I told them no it did not, then one said " that i did not hold the trigger so it won't spray unless I do that" so I said ok let me try again, and again I fired but this time I did not release the trigger, and they were shocked and asked why it did not " spray bullets out at high speed like a normal assault rifle does when you hold the trigger" since in there mind I put parts from a "high powered assault rifle: into the wood stock.
       That is when I explained that what the Govt and Media say is a " High Powered Assault Rifle" or a " Military Style Weapon" is just nothing more then cosmetic changes to a gun, that the action or what makes the gun work and fire is all the same inside, it does not matter if its plastic or wood for the rest of the gun, the inside still works the same, one trigger pull, one shot fired, none of this " Spraying of bullets" the media and govt says happens with a semi-automatic " High Powered Assault Rifle" firearm is fired.
     Then I went on to the " Hi-Cap Magazine" they all said should also be outlawed. I took one " high capacity magazine" and loaded 20 rounds into it, then I took two 10 round mags i had with me for the rifle and loaded them both up. I then asked how much extra time they think it will take me to fire from the two 10's over the one 20 round mag, most said it would take me an extra 5-10 seconds to reload and fire the extra 10 rounds from two magazines then it would from the one 20 round magazine. So I took out my phone and had somebody use the little stopwatch feature and started to fire from the 20 round magazine and timed it. I had them write the time down so they all could remember it, I then took the two tens and told them we will do the same thing, again I started and they timed and when I ran out at 10 rounds I reloaded with another 10 and kept going. Between the two times was about a fraction of a second difference between having all 20 in one magazine and 20 in two 10 round magazines, they were all stunned, that is when I said people can reload and carry many magazines, just because you limit it to 10 rounds does not mean i can't carry 20 different 10 round magazines and change them out in a fraction of a second or even faster just carry more guns.
    As an example I showed them news clips about how in the Virginia Tech Shooting the Shooter carried 19 magazines in a backpack, most of which were 10 round magazines and it was the worst school Shooting in US History. I also showed them the report that says how during Columbine the one shooter used only 10 round magazines and actually managed to fire more rounds and kill more people then his friend with larger capacity magazines. Also the fact that what saved some people during the Theater shooting was the fact that the shooters 100 round drum magazine caused the rifle to jam after the first few rounds and he could not clear it to use it again.
     Then I showed them facts from all different studies ( FBI, Harvard,even news reports and I was extra careful to not use any source that was NRA or any other pro-gun group just so they know i am not trying to be one sided.) that shows how the last assault weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban did nothing to the crime rates. As well as saying how the worst shoot out in police history,97 North Hollywood Shootout, took place during the last assault weapons ban and how Columbine (99) still happened even with the ban in place, and how CT has these same assault weapons bans and magazine bans currently in place, yet sadly sandy hook still happened. All the proof showed them that non of these laws did anything to stop a criminal from getting a gun, or committing there crimes. I also showed how banning guns actually makes violent and other crime rates rise not go down.
     Now 5 out of the 7 think that an assault weapons ban or any other kind of gun or magazine control that is being proposed is stupid because it does nothing but effect how the gun looks and that criminals will still get there guns and commit crimes. The other two well, you can't educate everybody they still think that i tricked them some how and made it fire slower to deceive them and that nobody needs a semi-automatic either, they also said " well if people did not own guns they they would not be stolen and used for illegal means". They also said that since "I was in the marine corps I am well trained and that it would take an untrained person longer to reload a gun with a new magazine."
     Moral of the story is most people who are anti-gun are just ignorant and uneducated about firearms and the truth of gun control disarms only the law abiding, once you show them the truth in person the majority change there minds and realize that gun control and an assault weapons ban is a very stupid. Out of those 7, the same 5 now own some form of firearm and enjoy shooting sports. 3 of them actually went with me the same day as the experiment to buy there first gun and also joined the NRA or GOA.
26-30, M
2 Responses Jan 6, 2013

I appreciate this story. I've written a number of pieces on EP myself addressing the common myths associated with military style semi-automatic firearms, citing many of the same facts you've provided. You've had better luck tham me, at influencing others. Perhaps showing people is better than simply trying to explain it.

You may know about guns, but you did not use the correct spelling of "their." As far as gun control goes, here in Britain we have the world's strictest gun control, and very few deaths from guns. Gun and violent crime is low, and falling. No one could get elected here if they wanted to relax our gun laws. I would certainly fight any such attempt to change our laws, myself. I freely admit I know nothing about guns, but I have researched this extensively, and all the data indicates that death through guns goes up when the number of guns is higher, which should be obvious. What would you do to reduce the deaths through guns in your country?