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

[carbine85]

The is where the term all started: The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered to be the first modern assault rifle.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

So therefore it has to be a short, select-fire, mid power cartridge rifle to an assault rifle.

 

[BSA1]

As far as calling it a "Patrol Rifle": I'll ask the following question: What are you "Patrolling" for? and under what authority are you on patrol?

SO...what are you patrolling for? Are you patrolling my neighborhood after a winter storm to assert your own authority? And for what purpose? If you are patrolling to protect me, who or hat is going to protect me from you?

I agree. The use of the word "patrol" suggests usage by a official Government Agency such as the Police or by the military.

Merriam-Webster defines Patrol as "the act of walking or going around or through an area, building, etc., in order to make sure that it is safe : the act of patrolling an area

: a group of people, vehicles, etc., that go through an area to make sure that it is safe : a group that patrols an area"

Use of the "Patrol" does not described usage of rifle kept for home defense.

"Patrol" also eliminates the concept of sporting use of rifles. For example during hunting season do you patrol for deer or are you hunting for deer?

Rather than trying to come up with a new catchy name how about just calling them what they are...a rifle.




________________________________________________________________________

Just call me Elmer.

 

[Theohazard]

The term "assault rifle" just plain irks me.

I've always disagreed with the term "assault rifle" and don't use it. I typically correct people when they use it.

As gun owners, we need to fully understand the terminology before we can criticize other people for using it. The term "assault rifle" is a completely valid technical term, it's just used incorrectly much of the time. The term both of you are probably thinking of is "assault weapon", which is a made-up political term for firearms that are regulated based on cosmetic features.

 

[P5 Guy]

Mine are SURs Sport Utility Rifles

 

[76shuvlinoff]

If someone is assaulting me the odds are I will assault them right back regardless of tool.

Now, I don't go looking for trouble, I don't waltz it into Starbucks or Dollar General but I don't give a fat baby's butt if my AR15 offends a handwringer. It's a rifle that I enjoy shooting, that's my business and I'm not obligated to explain or define it. If that bothers the walnut and blue crowd (of which I own my share of) then they have some soul searching of their own to do. Jeeze Louise, hike your skirt up and quit sweating about a configuration.

 

[Balrog]

Yes, a federal law that has been defunct for over a decade that listed cosmetic features but had nothing to do with firearms themselves. What difference is there between an AR-15 manufactured in 1993 for the civilian market, and one manufactured in 1995 for the same market (or to be much more specific, one made a day prior to the AWB and one made the day after)?

It's entirely cosmetic, with the exception of magazine capacity, that applied not just to rifles, but to pistols, shotguns, and other semi-auto rifles as well.

But since the law sunset, the "codified into federal law" aspect is irrelevant. Slavery was once codified into federal law, as well.

I disagree that its irrelevant, and was pointing out that although yall want to act like "assault weapon" as a term is meaningless, it is not. According to previous federal law, it was defined as a weapon with certain number of distinct features, such as collapsible stock, pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, and flash hider.

Was the assault weapon ban stupid? Yes. But its not ambiguous what guns the law applied to.

We didnt forget the meaning of the word slavery after it became illegal.

 

[Panzerschwein]

... or, just call it a rifle. There really is no winning against an opponent determined to misuse labels in an attempt to gain advantage in the absence of facts.

+1

My AR-15 is not a "patrol rifle", no more so than it is an "assault rifle".

Frankly, you're coming up with your own stupid term to combat the use of the anti's own stupid term. In the end, there is no winner, it's all semantics, and it's all pointless.

It is just a rifle.

 

[Theohazard]

Was the assault weapon ban stupid? Yes. But its not ambiguous what guns the law applied to.

We didnt forget the meaning of the word slavery after it became illegal.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but comparing "assault weapons" to slavery is a terrible comparison.

Until the 1980s, the term "assault weapon" didn't exist. The term was invented by anti-gun activists in order to deliberately cause people to confuse actual assault rifles and other machine guns with semi-auto rifles that simply look like full-auto rifles. Here's a quote by famed anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

There is no consistent definition of an "assault weapon". The 1994 Crime Bill gave one definition, but that law expired over a decade ago. Numerous state laws each have their own definition, and various proposed federal laws all each have different definitions. "Assault weapons" don't exist as a separate technical class of firearm in places where there are no laws regulating them, which is currently the majority of the US.

As a contrast, would you make the claim that -- like assault weapons -- slavery is a concept that was recently invented and has no consistent definition? If you can't make that claim, your comparison doesn't work.

 

[Jackal]

I must have the laziest AR's ever, they've never assaulted anyone...

The way I look at it, it isnt an assault weapon until its used in an assault. A person isnt a rapist until they've committed rape. A killer isnt a murderer until he's murdered someone. It should be no different with objects like guns.

 

[TruthTellers]

I must have the laziest AR's ever, they've never assaulted anyone...

The way I look at it, it isnt an assault weapon until its used in an assault. A person isnt a rapist until they've committed rape. A killer isnt a murderer until he's murdered someone. It should be no different with objects like guns.

Doesn't matter. Today we're all criminals until proven innocent in a court of law.

 

[HammsBeer]

I'm still waiting for a particular member to specifically tell me what is so dangerous about the AR15 compared to all the other semi-auto rifles I listed in my previous post.

Cosmetics don't mean squat if all semi-auto's function the exact same way. The only leg anybody against AR's has to stand on is the magazine capacity, and again I have to ask what arbitrary number do they feel compelled to be restricted to?

 

[manithree]

I agree with Taurus 617. I call my AR's Modern Defense Rifles.

"Assault Rifle" gives me a rash, but I can't stand MSR, either, because of ATF's unconstitutional and irrational policy requiring a "sporting" purpose for some firearms. Ok, it was marketing genius for the company that came up with it, because they had to deal with the ATF, but the 2A has nothing to do with sporting, and I HATE, HATE, HATE anything to do with "sporting purposes."

 

[jamesjames]

No, I'm not missing the point. I think some of you guys are missing the point a little bit. But that's o.k. I 've done more thinking on this and see this is more than a "distinction without a difference".

After my original post I googled "patrol rifle" and found many links to law enforcement and chiefs of police articles, training manuals and guidelines. Its pretty interesting to read them talking about bad guys with assault rifles and having an adequate LE response with "patrol rifles"---when they are exactly the same thing. The articles go on and on using those different characterizations back and forth. An AR in the hands of a bad guy is an assault rifle according to some of these articles, while the same platform in the hands of LE is a patrol rifle. The "assault rifle" is characterized as a dangerous, menacing threat to law enforcement and the public, while the "patrol rifle" is praised as a flexible, all-purpose rifle that has longer range capability, is easier to aim and control with greater magazine capacity than a "patrol shotgun", and is less prone to over-penetration due to how the round "fragments and is easily stopped when penetrating building materials".

The use of language matters. Semantics are everything. Law enforcement has successfully embraced the "patrol rifle" while the public is not convinced that responsible gun owners should be able to own the "asssault rifle". Law enforcement enjoys the short, lightweight, high capacity, multiple optics and night vision modular capabilities of the "patrol rifle". In the hands of criminals and mass shooters, the threat posed by the "assault rifle" confirms the fears of the urban population that (1)assault rifles are bad and (2)what does anybody need that thing for? and (3)that because we fear the horrors visited upon us time and again by mass shooters nobody should own assault weapons or any guns, really.


The reason I like the phrase "patrol rifle" is that it is short, rolls off the tongue, carries a connotation of safety, competence, good guy, acceptance. Sport Utility Rifle and Modern Sporting Rifle are a bit more cumbersome, and don't carry as much positive, warm, paternalistic meaning. To be on patrol is to be a responsible person, a guardian, a minute man, a patriot, in the defense of life, liberty, and the American way.

To have an assault rifle is to be a nazi, a criminal, anti-government, a slaughterer of babies and innocents, a craven threatening enemy on the offensive.

To my ears, law enforcement has figured out a way to better win the publicity, public relations, and spin game by adopting the term "patrol rifle" for exactly the same rifle that is so hated and misunderstood by the antis.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Has anyone actually ever been murdered by a person with a lawfully possessed assault rifle? I know there are a couple instances on record where someone was killed by a murderer wielding a lawfully possessed machine gun, I believe it was a pistol caliber machine gun like an Uzi or M-11, which don't meet the definition of assault rifle.

James, I agree that semantics matter, and words mean everything. To quote one of my favorite Sci-Fi authors, Philip K. Dick, “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.”

So when definitive terms like "assault rifle" are used out side of their definition, we alter the definition. By definition, a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of features, simply can not be an assault rifle. When we manipulate, or allow others to manipulate, the words we thereby change the definition. "assault weapon" is a media term. Is a Remington 870, the best selling shotgun worldwide, an assault weapon? If words matter, then it either is, or it isn't, by definition. Altering cosmetics does not fundamentally change what the firearm is, but doing so does place it into the definition of assault weapon. So a few twists and turns of knobs and screws, a perfectly acceptable shotgun magically becomes an evil assault weapon. Terms such as these should not be fluid, they need to be clear and concise, ESPECIALLY when coded into federal and state law.

Balrog,

We didnt forget the meaning of the word slavery after it became illegal.

That's debatable. But that would be an off topic tangential discussion outside the scope of THR.

 

[Balrog]

Balrog,
Quote:
We didnt forget the meaning of the word slavery after it became illegal.
That's debatable. But that would be an off topic tangential discussion outside the scope of THR.

You were the one who brought up slavery, my friend. I agree that it was a poor point to make, but you brought it into discussion.

 

[Balrog]

Until the 1980s, the term "assault weapon" didn't exist. The term was invented by anti-gun activists in order to deliberately cause people to confuse actual assault rifles and other machine guns with semi-auto rifles that simply look like full-auto rifles. Here's a quote by famed anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

It was a term also used by gun writers in the gunrags to describe that class of weapons. It was a very well defined term at the time, based on the number of certain features the gun had. It was a stupid term, but it was not ambiguous as to what was and was not considered an assault weapon under federal law.

 

[Deanimator]

1. If it doesn't fire full auto (or three round burst) it isn't an "assault rifle". I hammer that EVERY chance I get.
2. "Assault weapon" has no fixed meaning. It's whatever some sociopath in the anti-gun cult wants to ban at any given moment. I hammer THAT every chance I get.
3. Just call it a damned "RIFLE" and be done with it.

As much as I loathe non-shooting sports for the most part, let me use a baseball metaphor: The anti-gun cult inevitably charges in full of piss and vinegar, thinking they can dominate the debate. You've got to brush them back by shooting down EVERY lie, misstatement, and intentionally misused term they come at you with, and you've got to do it IMMEDIATELY. Set them back on their heels out of the gate and they start out at a disadvantage and stay there.

When you let the other side set the terms of debate, you've lost the argument before it starts.

 

[jerkface11]

I patrol with my rifle as often as I assault with it.

 

[Bigdog57]

I use the more accurate term, "Modern Sporting Rifle". Arms technology is constantly progressing, with 'military' guns quickly becoming the basis for civilian sporting guns. Happened with the musket, the muzzle loading rifle, the lever action rifle, the bolt action rifle, and now the semiauto rifles. If the antis had their way, we'd be allowed only matchlocks, and they would be heavily regulated and registered.

 

[Theohazard]

it was not ambiguous as to what was and was not considered an assault weapon under federal law.

Of course, because that law clearly defined what it was. But that was just one specific law; a law that lasted only ten years and has been expired for over a decade.

You're missing my point here: The term in general is not clearly defined at all. Every state law defines it differently, and each new proposed federal law defines it differently still. And therefore, it's entirely ambiguous and arbitrary what is considered an "assault weapon" and what's not; the definition depends on who's writing the most recent law.

New Jersey even defined the old Marlin Model 60 tube-fed .22 rifle as an "assault weapon" at one point. Does that mean you're going to claim that the Marlin Model 60 is clearly an "assault weapon" because there was once a law that defined it as such?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

^ New Jersey defined the original Marlin Model 60 18 shot version (with tube magazine length = length of the barrel) as an assault weapon. That's why Marlin introduced the 14 shot version with the magazine shorter than the barrel. Later production the barrel length was reduced to equal the magazine length because look of the .22 rifle with a short tube magazine just doesn't appeal to a lot of buyers, whether it's semi auto, lever or pump action.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Some people patrol their fence lines with a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle in their truck. So I could call the Ranch Rifle a patrol rifle.

Local law enforcement call their M4s patrol rifles, so if I carry my M1 Carbine again ATVing or woods walking on the mountain, I'll call it my coyote gun.

"Assault weapon" is an ambiguous term that always expands after you accept it. Back in the day I accepted banning "easily convertable" open bolt semi-autos then following that it was my M1 carbine next to be labeled an "assault weapon".

As I recall, there was a period where military style rifles were imported without cleaning rods under the barrels because that deemed a non-sporting military feature.

As issued military rifles are essential for civilian marksmanship practice under long established programs; they are desirable for lawful traditional uses recognized by Tennessee court rulings, attorney general opinions and statements of legislative intent: self protection, protection of livestock from predators, and collection as curio, ornament or keepsake. As well as military preparedness training.

On expanding definitions: supporters of the UN arms treaty have put out calls for international restrictions on police vehicles identical to military scout cars, civilian deerslayer shotguns identical to military trench guns or police riot guns, and civilian target rifles identical to military/police sniper rifles. Even if the civilian guns have walnut stocks and blue finish, they are identical in function and therefore should be restricted the same.

 

[Theohazard]

New Jersey defined the original Marlin Model 60 18 shot version (with tube magazine length = length of the barrel) as an assault weapon. That's why Marlin introduced the 14 shot version with the magazine shorter than the barrel.

Oh, so that law is still in effect? I thought I read somewhere that they exempted that specific rifle. Thanks for the info. So that makes my point even more strongly: The original Model 60 is clearly defined as an "assault weapon" in one current assault weapons law.

Balrog, you've decided to base your definition of "assault weapon" on one expired federal law. But wouldn't it make even more sense to use a law currently on the books? So if someone decides to base their definition on New Jersey's law, would you agree with them that this is an assault weapon?

 

[Old Dog]

This comment ...

Frankly, you're coming up with your own stupid term to combat the use of the anti's own stupid term.

So, are you saying that it's pointless to even attempt to counter the "anti's own stupid term?"

The label "assault rifle" has become so engrained in our culture (thanks, media) and is rife with so many negative connotations, that I think it may actually be worthwhile to "combat the use of the anti's own stupid term."

Modern sporting rifle is good. Sport utility rifle is good. I don't agree with simply calling black rifles "rifles." At this point, that's simply not going be widely accepted by those not in the gun culture, like it or not. Silly as it is, to most Americans, a rifle is wood and blue steel with a bolt or lever action. So, as the OP suggests, there's nothing wrong with us trying to re-frame the debate ...

Me, I just call mine "American Rifles."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The Winchester leveraction started life as the Henry rifle used by the Union Army in the Civil War.

The Mauser 1898 bolt action began life a military rifle.

Both were adopted for sporting purposes because they were technologically superior to what preceded them. Plus government arsenals and proving grounds and use in adverse circumstances do a remarkable job of working out the bugs in firearms design, producing designs that are reliable, safe, durable and easy to maintain.

The fact a design started as a military design should not be a bar to civilian use.