"Tactical" is going to give the antis everything they want

[expvideo]

I don't want this to be a footnote in the "assault weapon" thread. This is important. We need to stop calling things "tactical". You have your tactical rifles, tactical pistols, tactical shotguns, even tactical knives. The word tactical pretty much sums up as "it could be used by military or law enforcement" to the antis. They are going to love that we use this word. The next ban will not be on "assault weapons". That will fail because there is no clarity on what "assault weapons" are. However, the term "tactical weapons" covers almost every kind of gun that the antis want to take out of our hands. That means that your Glock, your AR, your AK, your 18" shotgun, in fact everything but your revolvers and hunting rifles/shotguns. That's right. All of it falls under "tactical".

We need to stop calling things "tactical". We used "assault" to market the cool stuff, and the antis used it against us. Now we are using "tactical" to market the cool stuff, but we've broadened the range of what it means, so that it covers nearly everything the antis could ever want to take away. I think the term "modern" would be better. Telling the people that you want to ban modern weapons does not sound good, even to the Oprah crowd. But convincing them that "only the police and military need tactical weapons" is going to be the next uphill battle that we have to fight to keep our modern weapons.

In the 20th century, we lost a lot to the term "assault". In the 21st century, we will lose everything to the term "tactical".

 

[Eric F]

tactical is just a generic term any more with little other meaning than fully loaded of short barrel or some sort of gadget attached.

 

[rhoggman]

tac⋅ti⋅cal   /ˈtæktɪkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military or naval tactics.


OBVIOUSLY THE WORD TACTICAL DEFINES MORE THAN [GUNS WITH SPECIAL PARTS].

I think the poster has a good point about discontinuing the use of the word when talking about commercially available firemarms.

It doesn't do anyone any good to be "tactical". By that I mean pronouncing to the world that you are "tactical". I think being tactically prepared is a great thing, but I think too many people are boisterous about it. All it does is give the impression that you want to be like the military or like law enforcement. Personally I don't see a problem with that, but then again I'm not trying to take away your weapons either.

Its kind of like hunting. I love to hunt, but there are some people who ride around with dead deer on top of their trucks, and throw empty beer cans all over the State Forest. They give hunters in general a bad name. There is a big crowd out there that want to paint hunters as drunken deer murderers, and it is so easy to do because that is how some hunters present themselves.

Then again this is America. As long as you are in the confines of the law you should be ok right? What happens when those confines become more restricting? There is a part of me that also says I wish all gun owners were the most vocal, most boisterous bunch of people on the face of the planet, but I still think they should do it with class.

 

[Shung]

Expvideo is right.. "tactical" relate to somthing military... and must be avoided.

 

[Davionmaximus]

I agree 100% The word tactical is scary to the antis...

Need to start using the terms that TACTICAL is used for in our world like BLACK or MODULAR.

I have a black computer mouse. In the firarms world it would be marked as tactical..lol

 

[chuckusaret]

You are correct> I had an experience at at local gun shop recently. I brought in a Mossberg 12ga 20" barrel with all the after market junk to have it ported. As I removed the gun from the case I overheard the salesman at next counter tell his customer "Thats what is going to get our weapons banned" or words to that effect. The only thing this shotgun is good for is an attentention getter at the range. In fact it has been stripped down, for the 3rd time, to the original confirguration to make it functional for HD.

NOTE: The porting did decrease barrel rise.

 

[expvideo]

The main problem with the word "tactical" is that we have allowed it to describe nearly everything short of most revolvers and hunting arms.

Try to think like a fence sitter who doesn't know anything about guns, short of what he reads in TIME. Now imagine that a politician says these two things:

"only the police and military need tactical weapons"

"only the police and military need modern weapons"

Now one of those statements makes the politician sound like any other brady goon (which you think is somewhat reasonable because you are a fence sitter, remember?). The other makes you sound like a nazi. I say, let's go ahead and let the antis sound like nazis.

 

[Kleanbore]

I agree completely.

 

[expvideo]

They are going to use Tactical against us, they just haven't realized it yet. Or they have and they are waiting for the right time to use it.

 

[Deanimator]

When you let the other side define the vocabulary of debate you have conceded defeat without a word being spoken.

 

[heron]

Maybe if we all try to use peer pressure, we can suppress the rail-crazed mall-ninjas, and avert the problem. See someone with fifteen pieces of stuff clustered on their rifle and make mildly snarky comments about it, like, "Say, I'll bet you use more batteries than ammunition in that thing." Or, "Hey, where's your extension cord?"

This could be a good time for the older shooters to speak up about how they did -- and still do -- just fine with clean, simple rifles, and that it's not about toys, but about marksmanship.

 

[carlrodd]

i understand where you're coming from, but here's my suggestion, and i'm sure there will be those who vehemently disagree, but......

how about we stop worrying about what people think? see, i try to pay very close attention to public perception, as well as to slithery movements and subterfuge of our government, and this is what i see happening: while many in the gun community essentially try to mask who we are, and present ourselves as innocuous, un-frightening, hunter/sporting types, who don't use 'scary' terminology or own weapons that make people afraid, those who would gladly take our rights do not burden themselves with any such identity struggle. they are quite clear in their intent. while we try to appear harmless, they proceed full-throttle with their agenda. the public will side with whoever wins the battle of wills.....reference the american revolution.

i predict that if we remain on this path, we will turn around one day, having been stripped of most of our rights, and only then realize that we stumbled in our efforts to win over public perception by being so passive. the public does not respond to passive.

i am not a hunter/sporter type. i think firearms are gorgeous, often artful pieces of technology. i'm enamoured of them. they are a passion. but that's hardly why i own them. i own them because it's my birthright to, and what's more, it's my obligation. i am an american citizen, a soldier, and a patriot. i own these weapons as a check against the possibility of tyranny in our own government. i shoot them because i am determined to be proficient in using them to that end. these are killing tools, and very efficient ones. if some of the most efficient of them happen to be black, 'tactical', or tend to frighten people, i really don't care. the people in this country that traditionally own these weapons are not the ones who commit the crimes that bring anti-gun legislation into debate. more people need to hear this message, and understand the truth of who we are and the threats that we DO NOT pose. how do we do this? own our 'tactical' weapons openly and proudly, while continuing to not commit crimes with them. the publis is not going to get used to these weapons that i am not going to stop owning and using by me pretending that i don't own them and use them.

so in the end, i don't really care what the antis want, because they are...well...wrong. and what's more, the nature of the very tools which they seek to remove from the hands of the public makes said removal a very dangerous endeavor in the cases of gun owners with determined, patriotic spirits. we do exist, and we aren't all bloviating armchair operators.

things are coming to a head, and i suspect that soon, the battle for public perception is going to prove to be inneffective in the greater war to ensure that our rights are respected.

 

[MikePGS]

I agree 100% The word tactical is scary to the antis...

Which is ironic, since to many people its hillarious. I don't know about the rest of you but when I hear the word tactical (or operator) being thrown around I immediately conjure up images of Mall Ninjas and tubby guys brandishing thousand dollar shotguns. The truth is, whatever word we use will be turned against us. If we started calling AR-15's "Puppy snugglers" they would still use the term against us. These are sad people who have a broad logical disconnect.

 

[Walkalong]

Agreed, but it won't go away anymore than "Assualt Rifle" will. It is ingrained in the public mind already, and half the folks using the term are frickin' gun owners.

 

[expvideo]

...The truth is, whatever word we use will be turned against us....

Granted, but the issue is how the fence sitters and congress critters will react to it. The antis will always be antis, but they will have a much harder time converting others with "modern weapons" than they will with "tactical weapons".

 

[Hostile Amish]

I agree: people need to use the words 'modular' and 'modern' more.

 

[Gungnir]

Actually CarlRodd raises a good point.

I think the non-gun owning public perception of gun owners in the US consists of two main stereotypes. Criminals, and Redneck republican militants, who are as likely to shoot you as the criminals. The second stereotype might be a little extreme, but you get the picture.

So this leads the non-gun owning public to think that guns (that they really have no real understanding of) in the hands of these people is a bad thing. We have the press to blame a lot for these perceptions, who seem to thrive on death and destruction of innocent victims being killed with criminally owned weapons, or Militants owning arsenals of questionable origin and legality.

We've all seen it, we all know it happens, the propaganda shows the 4 year old child taken from a murder scene of their mother. It never shows the 4 year old sitting by their parents who successfully defended their home from invasion with a shotgun.

Knowledge they say is power, and fear of the unknown is natural. Who as gun owners do we expect to educate people? The government? their motives are known. Law enforcement? Perhaps, but a lot would prefer disarmament, especially at the higher more political ranks where their positions have been sold for to the current Legislature. The NRA? they're are viewed as the supporter of the Militants.

We law abiding rational supporters of the 2nd amendment need to educate people, there are enough of us for grassroots eduction. I try to educate as many people as possible, by asking questions like. What's an assault weapon, where does it say in the 2nd amendment for hunting, why does it say the people? Then discuss the actual gun functionality most people I've spoken to think an assault weapon is a selective fire "machine gun", and 50 Cal BMG's are used all the time in armed robberies. It only takes a minute to listen to people to know most non-gun owners "the silent majority" do not understand the first thing about guns, crime, the 2nd amendment, or most constitutional law.

How many times have you corrected someone who said, that right was given in the nth amendment. When in fact the amendment only confirmed that the right existed before and shouldn't in law be infringed or abridged?

Tactical is not the issue, nor is Assault Weapon, Hi-Cap, AK, AR, 50 Cal, or anything. Education is.

 

[USSR]

Oh, No, not another semantics thread. Would you guys feel better if I called this rifle my "sniper rifle"?

Sorry, but I'm gonna call 'em as I see 'em, and not worry about what you "warm and feelly" guys think.

Don

 

[BHP FAN]

If we're afraid of the word then we're doomed already.You can't let other folks define you.Take somebody shooting.Letting newbies burn some powder makes more 'firearms enthusiasts'.

 

[BHP FAN]

USSR,that is tacticool!

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I think the OP makes a very good point.

 

[Rush]

That's right and while we're at it we need to stop using the word "gun" too, or before we know it they'll be banning anything connected with that word too.

 

[scottgun]

The antis want to take everything away. It doesn't' matter what it's called, or which flavor of terminology is used.

 

[benEzra]

Maybe if we all try to use peer pressure, we can suppress the rail-crazed mall-ninjas, and avert the problem. See someone with fifteen pieces of stuff clustered on their rifle and make mildly snarky comments about it, like, "Say, I'll bet you use more batteries than ammunition in that thing." Or, "Hey, where's your extension cord?"

This could be a good time for the older shooters to speak up about how they did -- and still do -- just fine with clean, simple rifles, and that it's not about toys, but about marksmanship.

Trash-talking your fellow gun owners for putting useful accessories on their rifle that you wouldn't want on yours is hardly going to foster unity among gun owners.

I have a rail, light, and optic on my carbine, because they are functional. And anyone who calls me a mall ninja at the range for having those accessories, I am going to dismiss as an idiot.

The "guns are for sport" meme did far more damage to the RKBA in the United States than "tactical" could ever do. And I'd point out that the gun-ban lobby created the "assault weapon" fraud long before the word "tactical" became a fad.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

The antigun movement already refers to them as "military style assault weapons". Even if we stopped using the word "tactical" and scrubbed it from the common usage in the firearms community, how would stop them from continuing to refer to such firearms as "military style assault weapons"?

It wouldn't.

Perhaps it would be more effective to stop making firearms that look like "military style assault weapons". If we moved away from plastic stocks with pistol grips, ditched those long detachable magazines, removed the military style flash hiders, and got rid of those scary bayonet lugs, then the antigun movement wouldn't have any comparison to those tactical military rifles. If we only bought bolt guns with nice walnut stocks and a reasonable four round magazine, that would remove much of the ammunition those antigun folks would like to use.

While the thought is nice, it doesn't matter what you call them. You could call it the "Super Friendly Puppy Freedom Rifle", but as long as it looked like "military style assault weapon" it would be treated as such. As long as it has the same looks, all it takes is a picture of each to convince people who don't know any better that it is the same damn thing.

There are much more useful things one can do that try to scrub tactical from common use. It's as silly as when someone said we shouldn't say "gun porn" because they would then remove gun magazines from the shelves. Eliminating the word "tactical" isn't going to remove the stigma of such rifles. Educating people about them will. That's where our efforts should be focused.

That said, I think running around saying "EBR! EBR!" is pretty silly.