The next time someone says assault rifle, say patrol rifle instead

[MAKster]

Assault weapon and assault rifle were common terms used by gun owners. They weren't created by antis. This Gun Digest is from 1986.

 

[HammsBeer]

As Sam1911 pointed out, the anti's are perfectly fine with gov agents and LE holding all the power. In the anti's mindset the gov and LE are there to do the dirty work for them out of sight so they themselves are not inconvenienced by life's unpleasantries.

And labeling a semi-auto AR as an "assault rifle" is about as ignorant as calling them "high power rifles". There is nothing high power about a typical 5.56 caliber rifle, regardless of cosmetic configuration or capacity. I don't think "Patrol Rifle" is the right term either, signifying some sort of military action. Neither is "Modern Sporting Rifle" given that the AR is over 50 years old and the name bitterly clings to the sporting purpose clause. While "Evil Black Rifle" is endearingly used within gun groups, that also sends the wrong message.

Frankly I can't come up with any kind of catchy name that doesn't have some misconstrued meaning. I mean you've got hunting rifles, target rifles, competition rifles, sniper rifles, plinking rifles, but AR's are so versatile they can be used in any of those roles. Adaptive Platform Weapon (APW)? Modular Role Carbine (MRC)? Multi Purpose Weapon (MPW)? Adaptive Modular Rifle (AMR)? Lego Rifle? Barbie Gun? Swiss Army Knife Firearm? These are all starting to sound like the latest Army replacement weapon trial acronyms.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

My Fudd neighbor constantly refers to AR's as "assault weapons". I just keep my mouth shut, its not worth the argument.

 

[jamesjames]

I guess it was too much to hope that I would convince everyone here about something. I do hope that someone has noticed the conversation. Someone who is connected to and understands the connections between power, politics and messaging.

Somebody in one of the threads today said that there is no power except for political power. That holds true all the way to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, too. We complain and make fun of "feel-good" gun laws, and we say they have no power, they don't do anything. When laws aren't (or can't be) enforced they do not, by themselves, have any power. But really none of our laws have any power including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Laws don't come with any guarantees or built-in power of enforcement. They don't have any power...except when there is political power to enforce them. We have to believe in them as a society for them to have power. Belief is a rallying point around core concepts. Words that have meaning, that are meaningful to us, that unite us as a people.

I don't care what you call your rifle. Call it your Black Rifle of Death. Call it a Killing Machine. Call it anything you want and don't care about what anybody else thinks. Pick up you ball and go home. But don't think it doesn't matter. There are hearts and minds to be won or lost out there and indifference and belligerence does not help the cause.

It ultimately does matter what people call the rifle, because it shapes how they think about it and what they believe about it.

Some of the manufacturers get it and some don't. Some people at the NRA get it and some don't. Some of you guys get it... and some don't. A mod told me to let it go... to give it a rest.. but he didn't close the thread. So maybe there's hope.

 

[HammsBeer]

Jamesjames, I agree that names matter. Especially in the public perception of the AR, probably one of the most popular rifle/carbine/pistol/whatever configuration it's in, being sold in America today. And I wish I had a better answer for you, but the "assault rifle" moniker has got some long teeth and they have sunk deep into the image of the AR and into my frustrations of people's ignorance about the AR. The MSR is no better in my opinion. I keep trying to think of a fitting catchy name or acronym, but they all sound like stock market shares or tv stations or food additives.

People's Black Rifle? PBR, the rifle of cheap beer, umm no...

 

[Theohazard]

I guess it was too much to hope that I would convince everyone here about something.

I think the reason is this: Nobody thinks the term "patrol rifle" is any improvement over what many anti-gun folks currently call it.

It ultimately does matter what people call the rifle, because it shapes how they think about it and what they believe about it.

I agree. And for that reason, "patrol rifle" is an absolutely terrible name for it from a PR standpoint. Think about it: In an anti's mind, "patrol rifle" conjures up images of heavily-armed vigilante "gun nuts" patrolling the streets. It brings to mind images of people open-carrying rifles in Starbucks and Chipotle, or the Oath Keepers patrolling the streets with chest rigs and ARs during the Ferguson riots. Those images helped anti-gun groups mobilize their base, so why would we want to pick a name like "patrol rifle" that just falls right into their hands?

If gun owners start referring to these rifles as "patrol rifles", they will be helping to shape public opinion like these guys did:



[resize=700] [/resize]

 

[USAF_Vet]

Now I have a dilemma with my rifles. I have a Ruger which I can call the Ruger, an Ithaca which I can call Ithaca, and a couple of Anderson based ARs. Should I refer to them as Andersons?

I keep one of the Andersons in my car which is a Mini Cooper.

So I will define them further by call ing the one on the bedroom the House Anderson. That means the one in the car I can call Anderson Cooper.

I'm all set.

I'd refer to one as "Mr. Anderson" in a menacing tone, and the other as "Neo."

 

[The Alaskan]

There are hearts and minds to be won or lost out there

Actually, no there isn't. No one is going to change their mind about their beliefs or opinions, no matter what "evidence" you offer. For you to think that people will "see the light" and start liking assault weapons is like thinking you'll "see the light" and realize that assault weapons belong only on the battlefield.

It ultimately does matter what people call the rifle, because it shapes how they think about it and what they believe about it.

Um no, what you call it has little effect, compared to what people see. And as long as people see guys like theohazard's post, as long as people see AR's as the first choice of school shooters, they will continue to see AR's in a negative light. Actions speak a lot louder than words.

So you can call it a rainbow sherbert lolli-pop dispenser if you want, as long as the body count keeps adding up, and as long as the Oath Keepers keep making offers to use their AR15's to defend rogue county clerks agains the US Marshals, to act as unofficial avenging police forces, then yeah, your gun is going to get demonized.

Dog fighters choose pitbulls for a reason and mass shooters and anti-government militia choose AR15s for the same reason: their damn good at what they do.

 

[Sam1911]

I guess it was too much to hope that I would convince everyone here about something.

You've tried to convince the group to use a term that is NOT GOOD. The problem isn't with your basic idea of re-framing the debate through nomenclature. That's fine, though of questionable impact.

The fact that the term you decided to use sends entirely the wrong message is why you've received so much resistance.

I do hope that someone has noticed the conversation. Someone who is connected to and understands the connections between power, politics and messaging.

While you clearly have an idea of what the connection is between naming and messaging and political effects, somehow you seem unable to hear what the entire group is saying, which is that WE DON'T want to send the particular message carried by the term you chose. It is 95% as damaging to our intended goals as "assault weapon" is.

Understand that one point. Please.

Some of the manufacturers get it and some don't. Some people at the NRA get it and some don't. Some of you guys get it... and some don't. A mod told me to let it go... to give it a rest.. but he didn't close the thread. So maybe there's hope.

This isn't a new idea. Some "get it"... actually almost everyone "gets it", as in understands the problem with the A.W. name and wanting to convince society to use something less prejudicial.

But the choices floated by the industry are very flawed in that they shove the concept back into "Sporting" uses, which is fundamentally wrong-headed and trivializes the right and the reason for our RKBA. And the NRA gets all quixotic over "weapon" which makes them/us seem stupid at best, and like we're lying to everyone at worst.

And your "patrol rifle" name is similarly flawed, if not worse, for reasons you don't seem to be able to even hear, let alone accept.

If you want to do something, bravo, we "get it." But don't push this bad choice for a name. That's what I meant by drop it. Your basic idea is fine, but that particular name is death. Go in another direction.

 

[basicblur]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the term MSR was put forward by the NSSF?

I remember hearing Tom Gresham discuss the term and the NSSF a few years ago on some of his podcasts.

Maybe MSR isn't the perfect term (patrol rifle certainly isn't), but as no one has proffered anything better, should we let the quest for the perfect term get in the way of the good / better MSF?

Just reading this thread reminds me of the old saw...we have met the enemy and he is us.
And in case you haven't been paying attention, folks like Hillary will continue to exploit the differences within the gun community in their attempt to weaken / destroy it - have you not seen her recent speeches about hunters taking back the NRA?

Time to wise up folks...

 

[Warp]

What? I don't go on patrol and I don't own any patrol rifles.

I do own semi automatic rifles.

I object to calling them MSR's as well, because they need not be for sporting purposes and the reason the Second Amendment protects them from infringement (well, loaded statement there) has precisely zero to do with any kind of sport or sporting anything.

I still prefer to simply call them what they actually are...semi automatic rifles. The least objectionable alternative name I've seen is probably 'homeland defense rifle' or 'Liberty rifle' some such.

 

[Robert]

After 4 pages we are pretty much just going in circles at this point. OP, it was an interesting topic and it inspired some good conversation. Doesn't get much better than that.

 

[Sam1911]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the term MSR was put forward by the NSSF?

I remember hearing Tom Gresham discuss the term and the NSSF a few years ago on some of his podcasts.

Maybe MSR isn't the perfect term (patrol rifle certainly isn't), but as no one has proffered anything better, should we let the quest for the perfect term get in the way of the good / better MSF?

Probably not. MSR is flawed, but whatever. It seems to have achieved some tiny level of acceptance in the shooting community (and, predictably, none in the broader world) and nothing else we deliberately try to adopt is going to supersede it. So let it be what it is and get on with more important things.

Just reading this thread reminds me of the old saw...we have met the enemy and he is us.
And in case you haven't been paying attention, folks like Hillary will continue to exploit the differences within the gun community in their attempt to weaken / destroy it - have you not seen her recent speeches about hunters taking back the NRA?

We hear this a lot: Get together, don't argue, everyone on the same team, divided we fall, etc.

But what does that mean? Don't debate? Accept whatever one of "us" stands up and says, no matter how flawed the idea might be? Just because we debate and argue over points doesn't mean any of us is giving aid and comfort to Hillary and the evil ones. I don't think that just because jamesjames has this idea I don't like that he's going to go vote for Hillary or another anti-gunner.

Time to wise up folks...

And that means... what?


[EDIT: Sorry, hit send after thread was closed. Apologies, Robert.]