Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: article from Gunbroker.com

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default article from Gunbroker.com

    Below is an article that came in the Gunbroker.com newsletter. Just thought I'd pass it along. Comments?



    Updating AR-15's Image

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation is trying to rebuild the image of the AR-15 rifle and you can help. The NSSF has coined the term Modern Sporting Rifle to more accurately describe the AR-15 platform and is asking that shooters do the same. The NSSF asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles.

    If AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

    AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

    The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

    AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

    AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

    Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

    Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

    AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

    And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

  2. #2
    Member Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Niceville, FL
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Nothing we haven't been saying for years! But it's never a bad time for a PR reminder.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Yes the modern day sporting rifle is a favorite of our modern day gay/muslin military members plus regular folks like them too

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default learn something new

    I never knew AR stood for Armalite Rifle. Pretty cool. It is nice for guys like me, who are not fully immersed in "black gun" history and doings, to get information like this. The more articulate we are, the more knowledgable we are, the better we can inform others, and the better that we can defend against inaccurate comments.

  5. #5
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    I'm not one for sugar coating stuff. Folks that don't like guns aren't going to swayed by changing terminology. Neither are they going to change the image of the "tacticool" crowd.

    If you really want to get the message across, you bring the public at large to ranges and let them shoot ar-15's. Nothing like sending copper clad lead down range to give shooters a positive immage.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default Hi Paul

    I think people are swayed by rhetoric. Take our current President for example? When it comes to extremists, you are correct. Butting heads is about all that will be accomplished.
    But what about the majority of people that are not that committed? Those are the people that I want to be smart enough to utilize good information to sway to my side. Those are the folks that people like us need to talk to. We need to talk in a way that they can, or are willing, to understand.
    We can stand tall and proud and pound on our "bibles of righteousness", but that might not be how we pull the fence sitters over to a position to see our perspective. If you come at me yelling your indifference to my perspective, you'll turn off any hope that you have of me keeping an open mind as to your message.
    Good honest information presented in a non confrontational format, may go a long way to aid in neutral folks becoming better informed. The antithesis is that they listen to the other side, and believe them.

  7. #7
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul H View Post
    I'm not one for sugar coating stuff. Folks that don't like guns aren't going to swayed by changing terminology. Neither are they going to change the image of the "tacticool" crowd.
    I mostly agree with you Paul, but I think that using the less biased terminology is still a good idea and "modern sporting rifle" is a much better term than "black gun" or "assault rifle." The anti crowd is thankfully a fairly small crowd, and while they are not going to be persuaded by a change in nomenclature I can't help but believe that the non shooters are persuaded by competent, descriptive education.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul H View Post
    If you really want to get the message across, you bring the public at large to ranges and let them shoot ar-15's. Nothing like sending copper clad lead down range to give shooters a positive immage.
    I agree completely with this statement. Even in my small community there are lots of people that are unfamiliar with guns and I've rarely received a turn down from an invitation to go to the firing range. Initiating new shooters is the single greatest means to combat foolish gun policies IMO.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default to be fair

    I did not reply to Paul's statement about taking folks to the range. But you and 1COR are right. Spend time with people showing them how much fun guns are, and that they are not scary, and likely you'll end up with a convert.
    Well said folks. Thanks.

  9. #9
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    I'm not one for sugar coating stuff. Folks that don't like guns aren't going to swayed by changing terminology. Neither are they going to change the image of the "tacticool" crowd.
    True. I think most people already have their minds made up on the issue. But one of the tactics that the enemy camp likes to use is driving a wedge between hunters and the tacticool crowd by making statments such as "You don't need one of those to hunt with", or the anti-EBR, elitist Fudds saying you can't hunt with them. Those arguements have been squelched since AR manufacturers have been producing AR type rifles specifically for hunting and more of them show up in the hunting fields every year.
    Now what ?

  10. #10
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    I am adamantly against anyone banning the purchase or ownership of military-style rifles. I think it's unconstitutional; I think it's bad policy; slippery slope; and very importantly, very very few murders are committed with them (last time I looked at this, it was less than 1% of all murders). If you ban the type of weapon used in less than 1% of all murders, you will not even reduce murder by 1%. The idea that the murderers using an AR will suddenly stop murdering instead of simply picking up the next best thing in their minds, such as a 12-ga pump shotgun, is nonsense. For example, when my unit was in urban areas in a combat zone in 1991, some of the Devil Dogs were issued Remington 870s. Now, if some Marines would rather use a pump shotgun in a tight urban environment, I'm sure any criminals using an AR to commit murder can do fairly well with that alternative as well (and that's even assuming that the banning would render ARs unavailable to criminals). Thus, unless you are going to ban all shotguns, which means you are pretty much banning hunting, you are not going to have any positive impact on any type of crime. And if you banned all shotguns (and other mainstream weapons) the crime rate (see the statistical analysis of Prof. Lott and others) will go way up, just as it did in England and other places where guns were banned. There really is no practical benefit for banning military-styled weapons.

    All that being said, however, I agree with Paul H about not sugar coating it. I do not think we will win a public-opinion or political war with a disingenuous argument. I can empty a 40rd mag from my AR-15 or my FS2000 in about 8-10 seconds, and repeat the process rather quickly with pre-loaded additional 40-rd mags. It's nothing like a traditional semi-auto sporting rifle with a 3-rd mag.

    The argument that "AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms ..." seems too cute by half to me. And I don't like making unpersuasive arguments in order to win a contest of ideas.

    The M-16s we carried in Desert Storm were not automatic. They had two hot settings: single fire and 3-rd burst. And the 3-rd burst setting was essentially useless in all but the most uncommon of situations. Yet, that M-16 at single fire (just like an AR-15) is a much more deadly rifle in most circumstances than, say, a Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster. It just is--unless you banned anything larger than a 5-rd magazine, and I don't want that.

    There are many compelling reasons why ARs and M1As and the like, including their hi-cap mags, should not be banned. But I don't think trying to convince people that my AR with multiple 40-rd mags is not any different than a Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster will work.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default Hello MarineHawk

    Good to hear from you, and let me say thanks for your service to our country.
    I have personally sat on the fence when I was faced with something new, or relatively unknown, as to which way I would lean. I recall looking at one perspective, and thinking "that makes sense". Then looking at the other side and thinking the same thing.
    I don't consider myself stupid, but there are things I don't know about. It is easy to take a side without getting the whole picture.
    I remember sitting in church as a boy trying to get a handle on religion. Some of it made sense. Some just did not seem to fit. Then came the preacher. He was hellfire and brimstone, and I was doomed to hell. His presentation, his demeanor, his words, turned me off. I was done. No way was I listening any more.
    Year later, I recall being on the ferry in Southeast AK. I ended up talking to this quiet guy about religion. We talked, he listened, I listened. We had a great talk. We communicated. I started to see some things I had missed, in part because I shut down when the message was force fed down my throat as a boy. The guy turned out to be a Methodist minister.
    My point, if not clear, is the way we deliver a message matters. Really, it doesn't matter what you think. Or anybody else. It matters what the receiver of the information perceives.
    I know you know that. We all know that. We all have our similar stories. Personally, I feel it is important to find out what the other person is thinking, and try to paint a picture that he can manage with. That is not sugar coating, that is smart communication.
    Never forget that every person we convert to a gun owner, or at least a person who is accepting of gun owners, is another person on our side.
    Again, thanks for sharing.

  12. #12
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ak River Rat View Post
    Good to hear from you, and let me say thanks for your service to our country.
    I have personally sat on the fence when I was faced with something new, or relatively unknown, as to which way I would lean. I recall looking at one perspective, and thinking "that makes sense". Then looking at the other side and thinking the same thing.
    I don't consider myself stupid, but there are things I don't know about. It is easy to take a side without getting the whole picture.
    I remember sitting in church as a boy trying to get a handle on religion. Some of it made sense. Some just did not seem to fit. Then came the preacher. He was hellfire and brimstone, and I was doomed to hell. His presentation, his demeanor, his words, turned me off. I was done. No way was I listening any more.
    Year later, I recall being on the ferry in Southeast AK. I ended up talking to this quiet guy about religion. We talked, he listened, I listened. We had a great talk. We communicated. I started to see some things I had missed, in part because I shut down when the message was force fed down my throat as a boy. The guy turned out to be a Methodist minister.
    My point, if not clear, is the way we deliver a message matters. Really, it doesn't matter what you think. Or anybody else. It matters what the receiver of the information perceives.
    I know you know that. We all know that. We all have our similar stories. Personally, I feel it is important to find out what the other person is thinking, and try to paint a picture that he can manage with. That is not sugar coating, that is smart communication.
    Never forget that every person we convert to a gun owner, or at least a person who is accepting of gun owners, is another person on our side.
    Again, thanks for sharing.
    Thank Rat (can I call you Rat for short?) for your comments. I agree with your sentiments. And I don't mean to be critical of the people making the argument that the military-style weapons essentially are no different than hunting rifles, and I know their heart is in the right place. But I think that one is much more likely to win over a fence-sitter or even a skeptic with bunt honesty than with something that is technically-correct, but either ovestates or understates something. And I think it's pretty clear that the semi-auto civilian versions of military rifles--with multiple hi-cap mags--can lay down maybe 5 to 8 times as much firepower in a minute than almost any conventional semi-auto hunting rifle.

  13. #13
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ak River Rat View Post
    I think people are swayed by rhetoric. Take our current President for example? When it comes to extremists, you are correct. Butting heads is about all that will be accomplished.
    But what about the majority of people that are not that committed? Those are the people that I want to be smart enough to utilize good information to sway to my side. Those are the folks that people like us need to talk to. We need to talk in a way that they can, or are willing, to understand.
    We can stand tall and proud and pound on our "bibles of righteousness", but that might not be how we pull the fence sitters over to a position to see our perspective. If you come at me yelling your indifference to my perspective, you'll turn off any hope that you have of me keeping an open mind as to your message.
    Good honest information presented in a non confrontational format, may go a long way to aid in neutral folks becoming better informed. The antithesis is that they listen to the other side, and believe them.
    The problem I see it is, the masses are too intelectually lazy to look into issues, and they are easily swayed by fear. The aren't going to be smart, because they don't want to be smart. All they want is 100 channels of tv, cold bear and pizza or hot wings. I don't see how kinder gentler terms will sway them when the opposition can post pictures of people being gunned down by "assault weapon armed killers"

    Tell me how the argument that, well the deranged killer didn't use an assault weapon, he used a "modern sporting rifle" to gun down those kids in the school yard is going to help??????

    The masses don't want the truth, they don't want to make any effort, they want things to be given to them without effort, including the "feeling of security" provided by those that would disarm us "for the children" or whatever phrase they choose.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    FAI
    Posts
    2,294

    Default Good morning Paul

    For a second it looked like you were describing me last night! That is except for the 100 channels, I can't afford em. Well, won't afford em.
    I can't argue with a single thing you said. All of us are pretty much the same except for a few exceptions.
    So I guess there is no answer. I guess we just don't do anything because our efforts will be futile. We might as well not say a word, because it will be for naught. Then when things turn out the way we expect them to, we can say that we were right all along.
    Hey, got to go. The chicken wings are getting cold.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •