A Modern Sporting Rifle Thought question and Boston

[Alabama Shooter]

When I see pictures like this, I sometimes wonder if all our discussions about what to call our AR-15s are rendered mute by the growing militarization of police.

I can I have been woefully and willfully ignorant of the trend, the Sheriff's Dept. in my county still issues Mini-14s and Remington 870s with wood furniture, but seeing police officers outfitted like the SF guys I saw in the Sandbox is scary. And I'm not saying that the police shouldn't carry AR-15s, it is a great platform, but seeing that guy sorta makes me take pause.

I didn't go tromping around Afghanistan to see this back here.

If you notice the pictures I posted you will see that the police look astonishingly like the military of their particular day.

Their firearms are a few years behind the military (just like the police in the last twenty years have started adopting the fifty year old AR).

Everything in the pic you posted is perfectly legal for any non-felon to own in free states.


Do you really think the police want to run around in all that gear? Did you? I am sure like you they would like to have the best equipment available to deal with whatever expected threats they are facing. With one killed and more than a dozen wounded did you think that they should run around in their duty uniform and hope for the best?

If you are afraid of their gear I would suggest you are adopting the argument of "it looks scary therefore we should not allow it". Do you know who does that?

 

[lcpiper]

If you are afraid of their gear I would suggest you are adopting the argument of "it looks scary therefore we should not allow it". Do you know who does that?

In defense of SPEMack618, I think what he is saying is not so much that he is afraid of how this looks, or that he doesn't think our cops need this gear.

I think it's that if our cops had needed this kind of equipment 40 years ago, they would have looked like this 40 years ago. It is sad in a way that it has come to this, necessary or no.

 

[DaleA]

I just say I have a rifle.

I'm fine with that and pretty much agree with what Dr. Big Bird and SPEMack said.

I snort when I hear the term 'assault weapon' and say it's ridiculous. I'd be a hypocrit if I expected the other side not to do the same if I used the term 'modern sporting rifle'.

Better folk than me have pointed up the stupidity of the anti-gun crowd and here are some great examples of it:

U.S. Representative Diana DeGette Colorado
She doesn't know that magazines can be reloaded.
"What's the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you these are ammunition, they're bullets."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbel4SASUPQ

U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy New York
Becoming infamous as 'the woman who wants to ban the thing that goes up.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Joe Biden "Buy a shotgun buy a shotgun." video and graphic examples of why it's not the best idea - as Kraigwy also said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia4csoQLvGY

 

[Gaerek]

Without reading all the replies, and just making a reply to Glenn's post, here are my thoughts.

First of all, the first time I heard the term Modern Sporting Rifle, I asked, "What the heck is that?" The reply I got was, "Oh, it's a PC name for an AR." I rolled my eyes. Changing the name of something, doesn't change it's appearance or it's function, which is where the criticism comes from. I remember I played paintball from the mid 90's until the early 2000's. When I first started playing, I owned a "Paintball Gun." Well, some genius decided that the term gun (while perfectly describing this piece of sporting equipment) was giving paintball a bad name, so we should call them "Paintball Markers" instead. Well, it wasn't the name of this piece of equipment that was the problem, it was the idiots that would use them to shoot up their neighborhoods, and things like that. Or who would go play in the woods and just leave all their paint everywhere without trying to clean up (we cleaned up as much as we could).

My point being, there is a lot in a name, but a name won't change anything about what we're doing. It might make some people on our side feel better, but those on the other side will see right through what we're doing. It doesn't hurt, of course, but it doesn't help either.

Functionally (full auto notwithstanding) the rifles carried by Boston SWAT and the rifle locked in my safe are basically the same. But I could say that the rifles carried by Boston SWAT and my Ruger 10/22, Model 750, and M1 Garand (I don't own one, just using an example) are basically, functionally the same. The all fire a round of some kid each time I pull the trigger. There might be some differences in caliber, capacity, ergonomics, etc, but they are more or less equally deadly.

For me, the fact that Boston SWAT is carrying them around is proof as to why I need one and should be able to own one. If they need it to protect themselves from a dangerous criminal, then it stands to reason that I should be able to provide the same level or protection to myself and my family. There are other reasons, close to actual purpose of the 2A that says I should have the same weapons as the police and military.

For an anti-gunner, Boston SWAT carrying those weapons is proof as to why we should not be able to have them. They have them because they're the government, and they're trained, and they're pursuing a dangerous criminal. They have them to protect us! (Though, the real reason they have them is to protect themselves...not us).

The MSR moniker, in my eyes was a non-starter. It was ineffective when the term was coined, it's been ineffective since then, and it's still ineffective. The whole Boston thing doesn't change that.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

You can "show them".

I teach a ladies Firearm Safety and Self Defense class every Wednesday night.

Same thing comes up. They ask, and I tell them I prefer the rifle, but I don't tell them which to choose, I SHOW THEM.

I have the women shoot both the shotgun and AR, I haven't found one yet that after shooting both that would rather have a shotgun then a carbine type rifle.

Good way to prove the point and I am sure you get to show many of the ladies a good lesson in the differences of both shotguns/carbines. Btw, thanks for doing that.

As far as LEO's becoming more militerized, I feel it is something that is necessary in light of the increasing threat of organized crime and extremists here on US soil, it's just sad that's its come to this point IMHO.

Im not going in to the discussion of amored vehicles, etc, since this thread is about "modern sporting rifles" but I do have a question. I've heard "militarization of police" locally a bit too when it comes to rifles/carbines. Im good (my personal opinion) with the military, LE and public having whatever small arms they want/need/whatever, as long as they arent a violent felon. Now with that said. Why should the public and the military "want/need/whatever" a rifle/carbine, say an AR-15, but LE should not have them because that "militarizes" LE? Not picking on you. Just curious in all honesty...

If you are afraid of their gear I would suggest you are adopting the argument of "it looks scary therefore we should not allow it". Do you know who does that?

I know who does that. Its a good point you make there.

 

[lcpiper]

rifle/carbine, say an AR-15, but LE should not have them because that "militarizes" LE? Not picking on you. Just curious in all honesty...

I know why I would agree with him on this. It's not that I think the cops shouldn't use them, it's that it's sad that they need to at all.

You get what I mean?

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Yeah, lcpiper, I get what you mean. I really do. I wish in a lot of ways that we lived in the days of Mayberry (if there ever was such a time). Would be nice to just say, "aww shucks Otis, just come on to the jail and sleep it off tonight" and not even need cuffs. But it doesn't work that way today. As to the debate on firearms, I know several folks personally that have a AR for home protection/sport, but are against LE having them at all. I find that position odd myself.

 

[Kimio]

Pretty much what lcpiper said. It's not that I think LEO's shouldn't have the tools necessary to protect themselves or the innocent, it's the fact that they have a need to have such equipment to combat an ever growing hostile environment. It makes you wonder about society and how we've declined so much, granted I think we're a far cry from the 1920's and such, an era wrought with organized crime syndicates and such like Al Capone, it's still a telling sign that things are pretty bad when LEO's find themselves in need of using military style equipment just to cope with what the bad guys are toting nowadays.

Where does it end? The bad guys use automatic pistols/SMG's cops upgrade to Kevlar, bad guys then start using armor piercing rounds to combat the cops, cops upgrade to rifle caliber firearms and start using plate body armor to compensate, escalation. Humanity certainly has it's dark side, and it's precisely this reason why I have so much respect for most LEO's, the amount of crap they have to put up with, they should be given a medal IMO.

Anyway, sorry for hijacking. Back on topic, I agree with those that refuse to change the terminology. My AR15 is a rifle, as someone else said, if I'm feeling unapologetic at the time, I'll simply refer to it as an AR. Explaining what it really is and laying it out in the most basic and simplest form I think is the best way to dispel suspicion.

Calling it a "Modern Sporting Rifle" just leaves room for the anti's to come up with even more crafty ways to jam a different interpretation of the "Sporting Clause" down our throats IMO.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Something to ponder: the militarization of police and sheriff's departments nationwide is being driven by the fact that they get most of the equipment free, courtesy of the federal government. Since the 1990s, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security have been donating surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies. The donated equipment includes rifles and handguns, grenade launchers, helicopters, armored personnel carriers -- pretty much anything you might think of, in fact.

So it stands to reason that local police departments are going to want to play with all this cool stuff, and find reasons to put it to use.

Here's an article describing some of the goodies that have gone to local departments in just one state (Georgia).

 

[Dashunde]

We like them because they are durable and customizable, much more so than say a Remington 750 compared to a AR-10 or FNAR, yet their functionality/lethality remains the same.
First is their appearance, bolstered by their origins, but then its made worse by description.

I think we should wash all of the "assault", "tactical" and similar tacticool "hard-core operator" vernacular out of the sporting arms manufacturers mouths, it does none of us any good whatsoever.
Here's an example, read the description at the bottom - We can do without that kind hype.

 

[SPEMack618]

If you are afraid of their gear I would suggest you are adopting the argument of "it looks scary therefore we should not allow it". Do you know who does that?

I'm not afraid of their gear at all. It looks intimidating, yes. And it serves a purpose. Heck, there is even a tinge of jealousy too. When we deployed, we didn't get the shoulder protectors or the new cut down helmets, lighterweight helmets.

However, in an urban enviroment like Boston, I don't see the need for the police to don ACUs and look like Delta Force. I'm sorry. I just don't think it appropiate.

 

[lcpiper]

The same exact equipment in a good old Police Blue might be better. Nothing in the world says COP better then Royal Blue and White Lettering.

Velcro tab the White Lettering panels for easy removal and the color isn't that non-tactical particularly in low light.

 

[hardworker]

Last month here in VA a state trooper was shot dead in his own car as he pulled someone over. Dressing like delta force would probably have saved his life. Not saying we should outfit every cop in full tactical gear for everything they do, but there are times when it is necessary.

People go on and on about the police state and point to the actual policemen as an example of it. Policemen are out there doing their job, which boils down to arresting and citing people for breaking the law or maintaining law and order in time of emergency. If you want to complain about the 1984ization of this country, complain about the laws.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A little off topic but I think that seeing M-4s pattern, M-16s, ARs, etc. in the context of military looking police just reinforces to me the idea that the modern sporting rifle mantra is going to be silly or even counterproductive.

The issue is how to convince those who aren't in the gun camp now, that it is legit to own such. I've had folks tell me they believe the Biden story that they are not out for your guns and you can defend yourself adequately most of the time with the double barrel. Now that may be true for the classic burglar - but how about the other scenarios without sounding like an apocalyptic nut?

 

[Spats McGee]

The issue is how to convince those who aren't in the gun camp now, that it is legit to own such. I've had folks tell me they believe the Biden story that they are not out for your guns and you can defend yourself adequately most of the time with the double barrel. Now that may be true for the classic burglar - but how about the other scenarios without sounding like an apocalyptic nut?

I've had folks tell me that same underlined part. When I asserted that an AR might be an appropriate home defense weapon, or that one might face multiple attackers, I was told "bah, that's all just speculation." The speaker didn't like it when I pointed out that my position was no more speculative than hers.

Now, when I hear stuff like the underlined part above, I ask, "How do you know?" How, exactly do folks know what kind of fight may be brought to my door at some undefined point in the future? Am I allowed to borrow the crystal ball? The Petit family seems to be a horrible, yet accurate, example of multiple attackers in a "good" neighborhood.

 

[Evan Thomas]

The basic problem is that euphemisms don't work over the long haul. As long as the referent of the euphemism continues to be scary, repulsive, or offensive, those values will attach themselves to any "alternative" term.

"Assault weapon" caught on rather easily as a term for scary-looking black rifles because so many people find them scary. Rather than trying to sell a less scary term like "modern sporting rifle," we'd do better to focus on de-mystifying them. I don't have any magic proposal for how to do that, other than doing what we're doing already: talking to people about what they are and are not.

I think we should wash all of the "assault", "tactical" and similar tacticool "hard-core operator" vernacular out of the sporting arms manufacturers mouths, it does none of us any good whatsoever.

This would be a good place to start.

 

[btmj]

Spats, here is an example from just yesterday
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/24/5-reportedly-dead-1-in-custody-in-winchester-ill-shooting/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-2-boys-3-adults-shot-to-death-in-manchester/

In this case it was just one thug, but he was armed with a shotgun, and he killed 5 people. No word on the type of shotgun, but I would surmise it was a repeating arm, since he was able to murder 5 people and then go on to have a gun fight with police.

I would not want to go to war with an shotgun-armed intruder if all I have is a 5-shot 38, or Uncle Joe's double barrel. I shoot regularly and have some modest level of training. The average person, so-armed, would be severely out-gunned in this circumstance.

Jim

 

[zukiphile]

The basic problem is that euphemisms don't work over the long haul.

Indeed. They have the added problem that as soon as one figures out what they mean they lose their euphemistic allure (the euphemism treadmill) but carry the baggage of insincerity.

My wife is crippled. The treacly condescension of the term "differently abled" communicates no genuine charity.

While it is certainly true that the AR pattern is used in several sports, it seems most likely that any euphemism will be received as a deception. In a minor way, that is what every euphemism is.

Correcting the more dangerous deception of the dysphemism should do.

 

[lcpiper]

Just keep two videos on your phone.

One showing a soldier shooting an M4 in burst or full auto fire.

The second showing a dude at the range shooting his M4 single fire.

"This is what the soldiers use."

"This is what we civilians use."

"They look the same, but they are not."

 

[btmj]

I have always preferred the term "military patterned rifle" to describe my such rifles.

Newbe asks "what does that mean...military pattern?"

I answer " It means the shape, form, and fit are derived from, or are similar to, a military rifle... but it is not the same as, or equivalent to, a military rifle".

All bolt action rifles are military pattern rifles, derived from the 98 Mauser, 1903 Springfield, etc.

M1 Garand is a military rifles (no "pattern" about it). Many semi-auto hunting rifles were made and sold from 1945 - 1960, and while these were not directly patterned off of the M1 Garand, these hunting rifles were operationally similar, and could have been used as a military arm in WWII or Korea. Many M1 Garand surplus rifles were used as hunting rifles in this time period.

When Newbe understands that a civilian owning and shooting a bolt action 30-06 in 1928 is no different than a civilian owning and shooting a 223 AR-15 today, in terms of comparable military capability, the lightbulb goes on... and I have made a convert...