Unfair association with guns

[Charleo0192]

I was having a chat with a friend of mine about going to the range. He had never been but I asked of he'd be interested in going sometime. He said sure and asked what kind of guns I had. I got through the "traditional" rifles when I got to my ar-15. This was "un-traditional" to him.

Now there are differences between an ar-15 and that of a Remington 700, but they are both still guns. Each are used in war, but both earn different
associations.

I realize the media has a part in this as guns similar to an ar-15 are called "dangerous automatic assault rifles. "sniper" rifles are given a similar image; "silent weapon that could kill from miles away".

So why is it that I can own a "traditional" rifle without being questioned for owning it, but once I go to the "untraditional" I'm interrogated. If yu ask me they both get a bad portrayal and both are deadly but one seems to get the spotlight (not the good kind).

This is mainly a discussion as to why certain guns are singled out.

 

[hermannr]

I own a 700 that I purchased new in 1964. I love it, and shoot it well.

Our oldest daughter (who is over 40) has an AR 15, loves it, and shoots it well.

I own a 90 year old .38 Colt Officers Model. I love it and shoot it well.

Oldest daughter owns a FiveseveN...and shoots it well.

different strokes for different folks, even within the same family.

Probably the real difference is, I like Her weapons, too...she does not like mine. (they kick too much)

 

[rocky branch]

Part of the arsenal of the antis is "military style." Equals no justification for civilian ownership.

It helps them and potential allies in part to justify their fuzzy logic.

Even some NRA backers and sportsmen have supported this thinking.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Dat's one of dem assault rifles!

 

[ShroomFish]

I deal with the same thing with my grandfather....

Me: AR-15
Him: M1 Carbine

Me: Mossberg 500
Him: Iver Johnson

Etc etc

He has the old, I have the new... Now I do have a lot of old guns also and I love his old guns, but he don't like my new ones...

Each to his own I guess..

 

[henschman]

Something like a Remington 700, with its traditional wood stock, might as well be a flintlock musket to somebody who doesn't know anything about guns. The AR on the other hand is high tech and mean looking (even though its design is 50-some years old).

The Remington may have a longer maximum effective range, better accuracy, better penetration, more ability to defeat body armor, and could be at least as effective of a killing machine in the right hands, but it just isn't as scary looking.

Plus like others have said, the AR looks like a military rifle (even though it's not), and the Remington doesn't (even though it is).

You have to look at things from the perspective of a total noob. When I didn't know anything about guns, I figured AKs and ARs must be the most bad ass because the look the most bad ass, and similar variants are used by militaries.

 

[jiminhobesound]

I agree with the unfair press association of military style weapons being the problem. I do not hink I would ever try to relate the fun of shooting a military style gun to a non gunner. To me the fun part of shooting nonhunting guns can be categorized into, target shooting. rapid fire and shooting big booming kicking guns. Target shooting may be the best way to introduce folks to shooting.

 

[klutchless]

And the old mausers and enfield that have actually killed somebody sit quietly in the corner.

 

[Mule]

Every family around here has their "Civil War" rifle. So.....

is a three band Enfield evil?

is a trapdoor Springfield evil?

is a 03A3 evil?

is a Garand evil?

What makes that black rifle evil?

The Second Amendment doesn't say a darn thing about "sporting purpose".

Them that don't like it better stock up on Depends.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Just make them explain WHY
WHY don't they like it, most won't have a reason and try to tell you it's
"evil"

They you ask why the insist on 'Humanize' the gun by assigning an impossible attribute to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy

 

[Owen Sparks]

I prefer the term modern rifles.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Its just human nature to make associations.

Owen, I wouldn't call a car designed in the 60's modern...so why a gun?. JK dude, I hear ya.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Just think, in 50 years guys on the high road will be asking the same questions with different rifles..."He's fine with my old traditional rifles like my AR-15, AK-47, or P90, but as soon as I mention my phased plasma rifles he gets all bent outta shape and doesn't see the need for something with a 40-watt range"

 

[relentlessknives.com]

Well: I don't think it's the gun it's self that is being singled out.
I believe the gun in that configuration is the easiest target for those who would have
the American public disarm them selves.....way easier than dis arming them.
Your friend is 1/2 way there.

For instance......we need to get those evil guns off the streets.
Nothing new here, the tactic has been used throughout history to dis arm a populace, and, then destroy them.
Seem a bit harsh. Well yes because it is harsh, and so is human nature.

How often do you see tigers eating other tigers, or wolves eating other wolves.
Nope it just doesn't happen.....yet, both of the above eat all kinds of weaker creatures.
Why....because it's quick easy and fun rather than a great risk to their own health and safety.

The politically correct attitude is a fallacy that has been perpetrated by rather cowardly
people with criminal intent and long range plans.

For example.....England......supposedly a free country.

During WWll when they were attacked and as a result, the USA was nice enough to drop large amounts of personal firearms
via air into the country so that the people could defend themselves.
Why....because they had been disarmed.....supposedly by their own volition....but really.
The country was ruled by often viscous monarchs for a thousand years until the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta was imposed on the Monarchs by force of arms taken up by the rank and file demanding freedom.
The crafty monarchs agreed.......yet today......weapons are extremely hard to get and their use is highly restricted.
There are cameras watching all these free men's every move....and, check out some of their knife forums....the word "Combat knife" is un allowed......the owners of knives and swords live in fear that their possessions will be confiscated.

So yeah......who is kidding who. Your AR15 is a weapon, and you should have it to protect your self.

When the founders of the USA started this country, they were armed with the most modern weapons of the day,
and took steps to insure the the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Define "Infringe".....it's mostly employed by stealth.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. By: William Pitt

So when your friend dislikes your AR15....let him know that YES it is a modern weapon, and great equalizer designed to do damage to human beings. It is safely in your hands to protect you both from predatory human beings.
And, if he doubts the need for such things, invite him to a tour of places on earth where people with ill intent through the use of arms, have decided that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a privilege under their exclusive control and afforded to only those who do the will of the armed.

Of course it has other uses, like target shooting, and hunting, and is not all that different from a sharp stick under the correct circumstances.

Check this movie. It is a real good illistration
http://74.6.238.254/quickapps/netfl...pi.netflix.com/catalog/titles/movies/70067841

 

[armoredman]

And they shoot the exact same caliber...

 

[12131]

Part of the arsenal of the antis is "military style." Equals no justification for civilian ownership.

It helps them and potential allies in part to justify their fuzzy logic.

Even some NRA backers and sportsmen have supported this thinking.

Sadly.

 

[Heretic]

Just explain to them that you've taken your "evil" black rifle to a priest to have it exorcised, and it's not "evil" anymore. That, or you could say "I'm not a racist, I don't care what color my rifle is."

 

[leadcounsel]

It's actually a clever "divide and conquer" tactic of slowly eroding gun rights, from the least common to the most common. In the 1990s, the gun community was asleep at the wheel when those "uncommon assault rifles" were banned. Who needed a bayonet lug, anyway? NObody but up much a fuss. Now we are wiser.

 

[Ignition Override]

klutchless:
Maybe most owners' Enfields sit in the corner for months on end.
One of my Enfield "Jungle Carbine"s went out today.

These types helped to defeat an evil empire, and being bolt-action, they are not evil, like ARs etc.

 

[1911Tuner]

The mindset is more prevalent than you think.

As we move further and further from our rural roots, the more we think like people of the the European nations. The British, for example, can't understand our "Gun Culture" any more than we can understand their almost sheep-like acceptance of subjugation because they're so far removed from the days that they had a similar culture.

Case in point:

My brother in-law. Career Navy vet...West Virginia born and raised until age 12...avid deer hunter...raised by a father who believes strongly in RKBA...was mortified when he discovered that I keep a pistol on my person or close at hand, even at home. When I say that he was visibly shaken when he saw me remove it and place it on top of the refrigerator before we all settled down for a rousing night of Gin Rummy...I'm not exaggerating. His eyes were actually wide with fear. Up to that point, I'd spent very little time in his company because when he left the Navy, he lived in the Charleston/Goose Creek area for many years before relocating to NC.

He said that it just seemed "wrong" to him for anybody to be armed without a defined reason. When I asked him why he felt that it was inherently wrong, he didn't have a plausible answer...other than:

I don't know. It just doesn't seem right to me for anybody to carry a pistol unless they're a cop."

So, yeah. It's there.

 

[RX-178]

My response to that? Offer to let them shoot it.

I get reactions so good I wish I were videotaping (and will in the future!)... sometimes they get this deer-in-the-headlights look, and go 'Are you sure? Is that okay?'

Then gingerly shoulder it as if the thing could rear up and chomp their head off.

Then they start shooting. Some of them can't resist and start blasting off as fast as they can without even trying to hit anything. Others start hitting things and look surprised when I tell them they just shot off 30 rounds from an 'evil assault clip'..

 

[lizziedog1]

Part of this is the anti's strategy of divide and conquer. Sadly, this often times works all too well for them.

I was in California when their EBR ban was going through. I knew shooters that actually were in favor of it. Some were trap shooters that felt that EBR's don't have a place in civilian hands. Besides, their Perazzi's and Browning's were safe. Many deer hunters felt that there bolt actions and lever actions were also safe.

Then when they went after high-capacity magazines, some revolver guys were not all that concerned. Their six-shooters were not on the chopping block.

Now the Golden State has a "approved gun" list. They have a one handgun per month limit. It ain't going to get better.

When us shooters bicker about each others choices of weapons, guess who wins?

 

[HGUNHNTR]

s we move further and further from our rural roots, the more we think like people of the the European nations. The British, for example, can't understand our "Gun Culture" any more than we can understand their almost sheep-like acceptance of subjugation because they're so far removed from the days that they had a similar culture.

I grew up in very rural Nebraska, and I can tell you that anything other than a levergun or bolt action was looked at with suspicion as well. As for European countries, it is unfair to make such sweeping generalizations, I encountered a vibrant and accepting gun culture in France and Switzerland during my year there. GB is another thing all together.

And the truth is: If some maniac really wanted to harm large numbers of folks, there are MUCH more effective means that a rifle with a 30 round mag for accomplishing such a heinous task.

 

[relentlessknives.com]

As we move further and further from our rural roots, the more we think like people of the the European nations. The British, for example, can't understand our "Gun Culture" any more than we can understand their almost sheep-like acceptance of subjugation because they're so far removed from the days that they had a similar culture.

I honestly believe we are being PROMPTED further from our rural roots with the goal,
the acceptance of subjugation.

the more we think like people of the the European nations.

Prompted might be better.....possibly through the power of suggestion.

Figure this......there are as many types of criminals as there are human beings.
Stupid criminals end up in jail etc. The more intelligent i.e. Bernie Madeoff types
usually don't.
The "European nations" have never acknowledged the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as
an inherent right of all people born on earth. Throughout history the strong and aggressive have taken what they wanted from the weak. The only difference, is that now, strength and aggressiveness is not necessarily physical strength, or even strength of arms.
Psychology can easily be used to get even large groups of people to destroy themselves.
It has nothing to do with rural roots but everything to do with basic human nature.
A phased approach to accomplish the same subjugation, with never a shot fired or an arm raised.

The perpetrators are never identified as deviant, they are much to intelligent for that.
They move in gentle ways so as not to upset or aggravate. They use the strength of their opponent to their advantage, much like a Judo move were the larger is tripped and his own weight causes his demise.
In a free country were the rule of law is absolute, if one can gain the minds of a few to make laws that subjugate. The rest will obey out of respect for the law.

The founding fathers identified vigilance the price of freedom. In todays world perhaps a microscope
should be added to the toolbox of those who wish to maintain their God given rights.

 

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

>As for European countries, it is unfair to make such sweeping generalizations, I encountered a vibrant and accepting gun culture in France and Switzerland during my year there. GB is another thing all together.<

True enough, but from all I can gather, their gun culture is mainly sport centered...while ours is more diverse and overlapping. While we have our share of "Fudds" here, there are many more who keep an eye on what 2A really means even though most of their reasons for owning firearms is for sporting purpose.

A friend that I had several years ago spent a good amount of time abroad...and mostly in Europe. He reported that they were very much interested in our guns, but he definitely got the impression that they considered us as cowboys...and much of our country as depicted in westerns...gangster flicks...and things like the completely lame Charles Bronson "Vigilante" movies. The British especially tended to make little snide remarks disguised as humor.

Along the lines of:

"That bloke bloody well cut us off at that roundabout! Good thing for him that he didn't do that to us in Montana, or you'd have whipped out the old trusty .45 and set him straight, eh?