12gaugeTim
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 293
+1
IMHO it's ridiculous to even consider calling a rifle something that it's not. I just call them rifles. A Remington 700 is a rifle, a Saiga 7.62 is a rifle. Just call them rifles.
A Motion - re: The Term "Assault Rifle"
- Thread starter HoosierQ
- Start date
- Status
+1
IMHO it's ridiculous to even consider calling a rifle something that it's not. I just call them rifles. A Remington 700 is a rifle, a Saiga 7.62 is a rifle. Just call them rifles.
JustinJ
Member
As much time as we spend complaining about terms such as "assault rifle", "high capacity", "gun violence","arsenal" etc. its no wander we get accused of avoiding the real issues associated with firearms.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's a very odd statement. While I cringe to ask, just what "real issues" do we routinely avoid?
As much time as the VPC/Brady Campaign/CSGV spend hyperventilating about terms such as "assault weapons", "sniper rifles", "high capacity", "Saturday Night Special", "Cop Killer Bullets", "gun violence", etc. its no wonder they get accused of avoiding the real issues affecting our homicide rate. 
The selector switch is not what makes or breaks it from being an assult rifle. So what if colt MARKETED the thing as a door stop, it does not take away from what it is. When I was in the USMC my weapon was switched over to burst 3 times. Once in boot camp to prove I knew the functions test. Twice during a range shoot which called for burst fire. Nobody every used burst fire because it was worthless, you were 3 times more lethal with single fire selected rather burst.
In all these stupid SHTF threads on here everyone talks about grabbing ether an AK or AR. The majority of people pick those weapons for a reason. Not because of those rifles being great hunting rifles. Because they are great at killing people end of story. If I had to assult a fortified enemy, and the 4 weapons I had to choose from were the following M1A, R700, AR-15, 870. Which one would you choose, I know which one I am. The one made for that sort of action. The others fill different roles, the AR-15 fills the role of assult and patrol.
Call them what you wish, black rifles, green rifles, utility rifles, kick stands, mans best friend, or hunting rifle. This rifle was made to be light weight, rapid firing, low recoil, air cooled, and fast to reload. While those are nice things to have on any rifle they are essential for any rifle used in a assult situation.
In all these stupid SHTF threads on here everyone talks about grabbing ether an AK or AR. The majority of people pick those weapons for a reason. Not because of those rifles being great hunting rifles. Because they are great at killing people end of story. If I had to assult a fortified enemy, and the 4 weapons I had to choose from were the following M1A, R700, AR-15, 870. Which one would you choose, I know which one I am. The one made for that sort of action. The others fill different roles, the AR-15 fills the role of assult and patrol.
Call them what you wish, black rifles, green rifles, utility rifles, kick stands, mans best friend, or hunting rifle. This rifle was made to be light weight, rapid firing, low recoil, air cooled, and fast to reload. While those are nice things to have on any rifle they are essential for any rifle used in a assult situation.
Agreed. "Avoiding the real issues" as was mentioned, I see as trying to convince the antis and general public that our AKs and ARs are harmless hunting and sporting tools. Can they be? Yes. Hunting is stalking and killing things. And a coyote rifle AR will kill a man just as well... And most any AR/AK sports are designed to improve and test the shooter's ability to use their gun in a battle scenario.
We need to attack the real issues, IE get the message across that guns are not evil, gun owners aren't crazy, guns in good hands save lives, 2A guarantees our rights to own such guns, and people with ARs/AKs will be happy to have them if someone breaks into their home and tries to run off with their kid. Or something insane happens 20 years from now and a foreign power tries to attack our country. Our 30 round semi automatics aren't just toys. Sure they're fun, sure they can be used for hunting and sporting, bu to a lot of us, that is not their primary purpose.
JustinJ
Member
Seriously? A few recent mass shootings such as the Aurora shooting, temple shooting, etc. come to mind. That in addition to the relatively high number of daily gun related murders, suicides, and accidental deaths all seem like important issues to me. Acknowledging there are issues does not equate to advocating further gun restrictions. Whether or not we like to admit it guns do facilitate some very heinous acts. Complaining about terminology on the other hand is trivial and evasive.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not sure how those are "issues" nor how they are avoided. To the limited extent that we can get into discussing "people control" policy here, we have explored what it would take to screen dangerous people out of society and what liberties we'd have to give up to do so.
But those aren't gun control problems with gun control solutions.
And the numbers of gun accidents, and criminal acts as well, seem to go down further every year, so whatever we're doing there (LESS gun control law, generally) seems to be working.
But those aren't gun control problems with gun control solutions.
And the numbers of gun accidents, and criminal acts as well, seem to go down further every year, so whatever we're doing there (LESS gun control law, generally) seems to be working.
JustinJ
Member
Okay, but saying gun control is not the solution to said issues is still admitting there are issues, which i believe is a good thing. Another argument could be that yes, gun control could possibly reduce gun related crimes and deaths but the cost to liberties, not just the 2nd amendment, of such implementation would not be worth the price. My point is these are valid discussions that could possibly sway people. Semantics is not.
"Gun related deaths" are not necessarily a bad thing. This kind of word usage is what the antis do. Please don't fall into the trap of using terms like "gun related deaths" as that includes legitimate, necessary, justified uses of self defense.
Also, even IF 'gun related crimes' are reduced by gun control, and even IF you completely ignore the loss of liberties and pretend the government doesn't take advantage of their then-greater force monopoly, you still must account for all of the victims that were unable to adequately defend themselves because they didn't have a gun.
There is a reason that, among many other factors, less gun control in the US is generally coming along with reduced violent crime rates.
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
I give up.
You aren't the first. I've been playing this game/having these types of discussions with a lot of people for a long time. I recognize key terms like that very quickly and knowing what I will say in response comes without even having to think about it.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
No. Acknowledging that there are "issues" is not "admitting" anything. There are issues. Just not gun issues. There are social issues (out of scope here), educational issues (out of scope here), political issues (out of scope here) . . . I see a pattern.
The issues in question are out of scope in discussions of firearms, except to the degree that control freaks want to use mislabeling to deprive gun owners of their rights. Depriving gun owners of their rights IS in scope here. Dealing with the misinformation from the control freaks IS in scope here.
Attempting to frame such a discussion as pertinent to a straw man like "gun violence" (or "gun related violence" if one prefers) is an exercise in misdirection.
The relationship of guns to crime has been studied, re-studied, and subjected to all manner of interpretations and distortions. Honest review of the stats makes it clear that gun control does not, per se, reduce violence. It does, however provide opportunities for thuggery and tyranny.
And yet "semantics" is one of the weapons used against gun owners to commit distortions and disinformation to frame regulation and legislation to deprive them of their rights.
While I appreciate your concern for the sensibilities our perception in the eyes of those who would disarm us, perhaps instead of encouraging us to conform to their standards of civility, discussion, and articulation, it would be more productive to educate them in the proper framing, context, and realities of firearms ownership and responsible use.
Now that's a real issue whose discussion I'd like to see.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Saying gun control is not the solution is one thing, proving it is another. And we have proved it, over and over and over.
How do you propose we address the "real issues" when thousands of anti-gunners are running around with their hair on fire, doing their best to drum up anti-gun hysteria -- which we know will not have any affect on the problem?
Before anything meaningful can be done, they have to get off the gun-control kick.
Exactly.
The pattern is laughable predictable. A term like "gun related deaths" gets used. Somebody knowledgeable says "well, now, those are not all bad". Anti either leaves argument, turns to ad hominems, or radically changes the subject. Anti then uses the same "logic" regarding "gun related deaths" in next discussion, showing either an inability or unwillingness to learn and/or accept reality.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If we must talk about "Gun Control," let me offer a position:
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL
The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.
Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.
That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable violent crime control, based on three principles:
• Targeting. The purpose of crime control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.
• Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.
• Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.
We target the violent criminal through two laws;
1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal
We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.
We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.
A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.
If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.
We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.
They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.
They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.
And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL
The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right. It is as much a civil right as the right to vote or the right to trial by jury. Attempts to infringe on this right damage ALL our rights, since the methods used to undermine the 2nd Amendment can be used against all other Amendments.
Further, the bearing of arms by responsible citizens is not the problem – in fact, in state after state, liberalized concealed carry laws have resulted in reduced violent crime. The right to bear arms is therefore a solution, not a problem.
That said, we must recognize that some people will use weapons for criminal purposes. This paper sets forth a concept for reasonable violent crime control, based on three principles:
• Targeting. The purpose of crime control is to prevent violence. Violent acts are committed by only a small fraction of the population. The biggest payoff therefore comes in targeting anti-violence legislation on those who commit violent acts, not on applying broad-brush restrictions to everyone.
• Incapacitation. Experience has shown that incapacitation (through incarceration) reduces the number of crimes committed by violent felons over their criminal careers.
• Enforcement. Many attempts at controlling violence have failed in the past due to lack of enforcement. There are many reasons for this, from simple non-feasance of officials to structural defects that reward non-enforcement.
We target the violent criminal through two laws;
1. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
2. Possession of a firearm by a previously convicted violent criminal
We must carefully word these laws to ensure we don’t target the wrong people – we’re not after kids who hunt squirrels out of season. We do this by making the gun crime dependent on another crime – a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, rape, and so on.
We incapacitate the violent criminal through mandatory sentencing. Although politically incorrect, mandatory sentencing is proven to work in incapacitating criminals. In this case the sentence is 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive with any other sentence. And additional 10 years, mandatory, and consecutive, is added for each subsequent offense.
A holdup of a local 7-11, for example, would net the criminal 5 years on the state, and he would typically serve two. But before being released, he would serve an additional 10 years for using a firearm in a violent crime.
If he did it again after release, this time he would get 20 years for use of a firearm in a violent crime, second offense, and 10 years for possession of a firearm by a previously-convicted violent criminal, for a total of 30 years. A third stickup would net fifty years.
We get enforcement by reserving prosecution of these to a specialized office in the Justice Department. They would prosecute ONLY these two crimes. If they fail to prosecute, they go out of business. If they prosecute vigorously, they will build up a backlog of work, and according to the natural law that governs bureaucracies, will get more funding, more personnel, and more promotions.
They cannot plea bargain away anything – because they have no jurisdiction over any other crimes and nothing to gain from a plea bargain. They cannot be persuaded not to prosecute, because that would go against their interests.
They can be counted on to be vigilant of crimes committed in the various states, because state prosecution for the basic crime will facilitate federal prosecution of the firearms charges.
And finally, they can be given jurisdiction over one other crime – accessory to the first two crimes – so they can prosecute local officials who, knowing of crimes that fall under their jurisdiction, fail to inform them. Any police officer or prosecuting attorney who knows of, or who reasonably should know of a violation of these two laws, and who fails to charge the suspect, or forward charges for prosecution, shall receive the same penalty as the criminal.
JustinJ
Member
That is actually a very broad statement. Which specific gun control and how was it proven or disproven?
Data has definitely been distorted but certainly not by just one side. And i really don't feel like debating again how silly it is to think privately owned arms will slow a modern military. Its all beside the point.
Guns are a variable in gun related crimes. Guns may not be the cause of crimes but they certainly do facilitate a large number. If removing the gun variables is not the answer, fine, but arguing against the validity of the term "gun related crimes" or others is an absolute waste of time. People who believe guns should be further regulated, for whatever reason, DO NOT CARE ABOUT THESE TERMS and arguing their meaning will change nobody's mind. Nobody complains about the terms "drug related crime" or "vehicular deaths" or claims them to be propaganda.
Ahh, so thy started it?
And has anybody here had their mind swayed by the term "gun violence" or "assault rifle"?
I couldn't care less what we call things. What i find absurd is this idea that using or avoiding certain commonly understood terms will convince anybody that gun rights shoud or shouldn't be protected.
I've actually introduced quite a number of people to firearms and found it to be very fruitful in gaining their support for 2nd amendment rights or at least in changing their perception of firearms. What i haven't done or ever witnessed is a person change their view on an issue after somebody argued semantics with them.
Warp:
And this "game" has convinced how many people to change their views? I easily could play the game back by saying "are not all deaths a bad thing" or altering my terminology to "gun related unjustifiable homicides"? See how nothing has been accomplished?
No. Not all deaths are a bad thing...and certainly not all scenarios where somebody is shot and killed would be better if no gun was present.
Yes, you could alter your terminology to say "gun related unjustifiable homicides", but then any numbers associated with that would necessarily change. Generally these terms (such as "gun deaths") are used to create statistics that knowingly and intentionally mislead the unaware. Changing the term changes the numbers, which is why the term isn't changed...the numbers would not longer appear the way the person creating the "statistic" wants them to appear.
JustinJ
Member
Suppose "I" am using total gun related deaths and you subtract the "good" ones. Do you really think that number will change that much? Enough for somebody to now believe, "oh well that is an acceptable number"? Yeah, right.
The number will change, and I think it is dishonest and deceitful (to say the least) to intentionally skew the statistics by including the justified shoots.
While we are on the topic, can you define "gun related deaths"? What is required for a death to be "gun related"?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Given that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, the burden of proof falls on those who wish to violate the Constitution.
Having said that, let me refer you to the work of John Lott and Gary Kleck as a starter -- they clearly show that gun control has no beneficial effect on crime. You can even refer to Handgun Control, who publicly admitted the Assault Weapon Ban had no effect on crime.
Having said that, let me refer you to the work of John Lott and Gary Kleck as a starter -- they clearly show that gun control has no beneficial effect on crime. You can even refer to Handgun Control, who publicly admitted the Assault Weapon Ban had no effect on crime.
JustinJ
Member
Depends again one how one defines a death as not being bad? In my state i can legally shoot somebody to prevent them from fleeing with my property at night. If i do so there would likely be no murder conviction but was that also not a "bad" death? And the term "gun related deaths" is not only used when discussing statistics. Again, how much are the statistics skewed by inclusion of "good" deaths? 1% if that?
Like many terms the exact meaning can change based on context. In common usage most are referring to gun related homicides, accidents and suicides.
What i recall of John Lott is he made a very questionable and controversial model of how concealed carry affect on crime reduction which even Gary Kleck had issues with. Just because you agree with their findings does not make them gospel.
Again, the question still remains what gun control? Which country? Which time?
I agree. The Assault Weapons ban was absurd. But that does not equate to all gun control has no effect. Another commonly stated argument is that gun related crimes are extremely high in states with strict gun control. Okay, but where are those guns coming from? Of course the gun control will fail when the next state over guns are readily available. Also, those areas with high incidence of crime also tend to have much more gang and drug activity. Those things are there regardless of gun control. Again, i'm not arguing in favor of gun control but not because i believe it can't reduce gun related crimes.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
