A Modern Sporting Rifle Thought question and Boston

Sorry, LCpiper - I don't think videos of full vs. semi fire from similar looking guns will convince many. In fact, the negative animus of the full gun will probably spread to the semi. Why can't you just modify it to do that?

And, DAH dah - don't we argue for the right to have a full? Thus to demonize that is counterproductive.
 
GEM said:
Sorry, LCpiper - I don't think videos of full vs. semi fire from similar looking guns will convince many. In fact, the negative animus of the full gun will probably spread to the semi. Why can't you just modify it to do that?

And, DAH dah - don't we argue for the right to have a full? Thus to demonize that is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Glenn,

I could argue how a certain number of folks think a carbine such as an AR-15 is a great home defense weapon, but yet the same folks demonize LE using the same firearm for a defensive firearm. I think thats counterproductive as well.

SPEMack618 said:
I'm not afraid of their gear at all. It looks intimidating, yes. And it serves a purpose. Heck, there is even a tinge of jealousy too. When we deployed, we didn't get the shoulder protectors or the new cut down helmets, lighterweight helmets.

However, in an urban enviroment like Boston, I don't see the need for the police to don ACUs and look like Delta Force. I'm sorry. I just don't think it appropiate.
Click to expand...

So, LE going up against a bomber and murder shouldnt wear or have the same firearm or clothing/equipment as a civilian/military? If I quit my job in LE, went to the local army surplus store and purchased, then walked around wearing ACU's helment and carrying an AR-15, that would make you feel better?

Geez, I guess I need to toss that age old angle head flashlight that quit working which is still in my pick up before I get strung up cause Im LE with military equipment (a smiple flashlight for example)

(personally I dont agree with ACU's in Boston either, but hey, its just fabric afterall. I wonder what else beyond fabric we should leave to "special people"?)
 
Last edited:
I'm not afraid of their gear at all. It looks intimidating, yes. And it serves a purpose. Heck, there is even a tinge of jealousy too. When we deployed, we didn't get the shoulder protectors or the new cut down helmets, lighterweight helmets.

However, in an urban enviroment like Boston, I don't see the need for the police to don ACUs and look like Delta Force. I'm sorry. I just don't think it appropiate.
Click to expand...

We had shoulder protectors I did not feel privileged.

I was reading your post about wood furniture and outfitting like Delta Force and assumed you were talking about the equipment. The reason I assumed that (other than reading it in context) was that no special operator I saw in theater wore ACUs or similar at any time. Every single team wore whatever the local police or military unit they were supporting wore which was a miss match of different generations of camouflage patterns or simply khaki pants and whatever. A lot of times these were a step up from rags.


But since we are hung up on image and not functionality would it make you feel better if the police were running around carrying these?

KittyRifle.jpg


Because the rifle is just as deadly as the one the cop was carrying.
 
Alabama Shooter,

Can I borrow that pic? I want to show it to my Chief as an example of how I can be a kinder gentler officer! We all know how mean a black gun is! I really want a pink one so I can be such a kind person. Its the color that matters, right? I know it fires the same type of ammo, but it looks less dangerous because its pink and not black! (Im being facieious)
 
Appearance is the game. Somewhat related, I once watched a trial on TV. It was an officer who was charged because he shot an mentally impaired man who charged him with a garden tool.

Independent of that - his official department picture had him with the military sidewalls, glowering at the camera. On the stand - he wore a three piece suit and let his hair grow out to a conservative but stylish do. He wore reading glasses when he looked at the reports the the lawyers gave him.

I can find many city council reports where members denounce their departments getting ARs as military weapons. The Ruger 9mm, 40 carbines and the Remington pump 223s were all explict marketing attempts to capture a non AR market for the PC PD.

I suggest that besides carrying a Hello Kitty AR - you should dress like Sailor Moon - :D:D
 
Alabama Shooter, is that a real rifle? If so, where can I get one for my god daughter, she's a massive Hello Kitty fan, and I'm sure my best friends wife would get a laugh out of it.

On topic, honestly, in the end, I'd rather the LEO's get the gear they need to perform their duty, if it so happens that they need that M4 or extra body armor, have at it.

But I should be allowed to defend myself with whatever they use IMHO (with some restrictions of course to certain items, like grenades and stuff like that)
 
Sorry, LCpiper - I don't think videos of full vs. semi fire from similar looking guns will convince many. In fact, the negative animus of the full gun will probably spread to the semi.
Click to expand...

That's because you are looking at it from the view point of someone who already knows the difference and doesn't already know that the full-auto weapons are heavily restricted and prohibitively priced and so beyond reasonable for most people to want to own.

Take a person who doesn't know that most of us can't fire full-auto with our ARs and their first reaction is "What? Your's can't shoot like that?"

Then just a gentle nudge in the right direction makes them realize that they weren't just mistaken, they were deceived, lied to, and used. Most people don't appreciate being made a fool of, but don't directly suggest they were foolish, just that they were lied to. It's usually enough all by itself.

Only real antis are active, the rest of this is about motivating people to do the "reasonable" thing which requires someone to do something. But you get them to see they were lied too and used, they will either do nothing at all again, or they will cross to the other side of the street.
 
lcpiper said:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Sorry, LCpiper - I don't think videos of full vs. semi fire from similar looking guns will convince many. In fact, the negative animus of the full gun will probably spread to the semi.
Click to expand...

That's because you are looking at it from the view point of someone who already knows the difference and doesn't already know that the full-auto weapons are heavily restricted and prohibitively priced and so beyond reasonable for most people to want to own...
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think Glenn is looking at it from the perspective of someone who has considerable professional experience understanding how people perceive things.

But I'd also like to hear from Glenn on the question.

lcpiper said:
...Take a person who doesn't know that most of us can't fire full-auto with our ARs and their first reaction is "What? Your's can't shoot like that?"...
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that?

lcpiper said:
...Then just a gentle nudge in the right direction makes them realize that they weren't just mistaken, they were deceived, lied to, and used....
Click to expand...
Again, why do you believe that? I certainly haven't seen any great numbers of such epiphanies.
 
Have you tried it should the situation arise?


Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps a even the majority of people who are ignorant of the difference still do not care one way or another.

Of course I'd argue that such a person doesn't matter either way as they are just as unlikely to support the antis as they are ourselves. The won't call, vote, or even click a rigged poll because they just don't care about any of it.
 
I sorta agree with Glenn on that matter that a lot of antis-. and not necessarily anti-gun, just anti-AR-15, that I run into, seem to think that all it is needed to make an AR-15 run like an M-16A1 is a screw driver.

I tried explaining the concept of the auto sear, but it was a loosing propisition.

Further more, a lot of people seem to think that the AR-15 is an innacurate bullet hose. When I attempt to bring up the M-110, or the Colt HBAR that the Army Rifle Team uses, then I walk into the "oh my god sniper rifle" trap.

Talk about a lose/lose.
 
lcpiper said:
...Have you tried it should the situation arise?...
Click to expand...
I've certainly had a lot of interaction with non-gun folk, and nothing in my experience would lead me to believe that your conclusions are correct. But in any case, if you make the claim it's your responsibility to support it if you wish to be taken seriously.
 
Take me any way you want.

I am not going to run around trying to prove my beliefs. I'm done with that game.

Frequently the usefulness of a belief, (for influencing others), is not dependent on it's accuracy but on how many believe it.

We should be well aware of this by now right?

I'll just say what I think is correct. If someone wants to show me wrong and do so, fine, I'm not above admitting I am mistaken.

What I am done with is having people challenge me on whatever it is they don't agree with to make me do the running. If they don't agree and it matters so much to them, they can look it up.
 
lcpiper said:
...Frequently the usefulness of a belief, (for influencing others), is not dependent on it's accuracy but on how many believe it...
Click to expand...
I know that frequently people are influenced by beliefs whether true or not. But I've never known anything good to come from being influenced by beliefs that are false.

A good example of bad things coming from false beliefs would be a great deal of anti-gun sentiment.

If you want to be guided in the decisions you make by untruths or misinformation, go right ahead. I think it's a lousy way to go about things.

lcpiper said:
...We should be well aware of this by now right?
Click to expand...
Yes I am. I'm also aware that people often make terrible mistakes and hurt themselves and others when acting on ignorance or bad information.
 
lcpiper said:
...What I am done with is having people challenge me on whatever it is they don't agree with to make me do the running. If they don't agree and it matters so much to them, they can look it up.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, I have no intention of giving up challenging people who make claims without supporting those claims. And if you make a claim, it's still your responsibility to support it. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
 
lcpiper said:
What I am done with is having people challenge me on whatever it is they don't agree with to make me do the running. If they don't agree and it matters so much to them, they can look it up.
Click to expand...
lcpiper, if you are the one who makes a factual claim, then you are the one who should know where to find the evidence. You are, at the very least, the only one who can explain why you think the claim to be true.
 
GEM said:
Appearance is the game. Somewhat related, I once watched a trial on TV. It was an officer who was charged because he shot an mentally impaired man who charged him with a garden tool.

Independent of that - his official department picture had him with the military sidewalls, glowering at the camera. On the stand - he wore a three piece suit and let his hair grow out to a conservative but stylish do. He wore reading glasses when he looked at the reports the the lawyers gave him.
Click to expand...

I agree, the appearance is important, but also the perceptions that the appearance gives others.

GEM said:
I can find many city council reports where members denounce their departments getting ARs as military weapons. The Ruger 9mm, 40 carbines and the Remington pump 223s were all explict marketing attempts to capture a non AR market for the PC PD.
Click to expand...

Agree with this as well...Also, I seem to recall reading something wrote by the late Jeff Cooper about how europeans viewed a shotgun used for defense as something akin to inhumane. Forget the exact article or book. Will try to look it up. What I am saying is that, there are those that view what ever firearm used for defense as evil/wrong/dangerous/whatever term they choose to use at the moment.

GEM said:
I suggest that besides carrying a Hello Kitty AR - you should dress like Sailor Moon -
Click to expand...

Dang, I had to google this as well. Id have to shave for that look, so I guess its out.

All fun aside though. Going back to appearance, and perception for a moment. A topic that has been bounced around locally has been about workmens comp claims related to LE. Everything from footwear, duty belt and vest, can create workmens comp claims. One of the comments I supported on this was an external vest (not the typical solid black, but the type that looks similar to a shirt), and suspenders for the duty belt and its ever increasing number of things carried. The arguement against the majority of it was it could change the perception of an officer in uniform. Time will tell if there is a change. I have noticed that other departments are starting to allow it though from seeing other officers in the news, and comments on other forums.
 
Not to divert but having a daughter, I was acquainted with Sailor Moon and My Little Pony.

I asked a colleague, another psychologist, who has heard my research presentations if he thought the media portrayals of ARs and the attempts to make ARs nice (MSR rather than EBR) and the full vs. semi discussion. He thought the euphenism approach wouldn't work. He does jury work as I have studied. It's been found that for some folks if lawyer A says something outrageous and your lawyer objects - guess what it makes some jurors believe the outrage even more. The objection is seen as defensive and covering something up. Fascinating analysis.
 
A says something outrageous and your lawyer objects - guess what it makes some jurors believe the outrage even more. The objection is seen as defensive and covering something up.
Click to expand...

I have seen that in action. Sometimes the defense lawyer is covering something so the prosecutor will touch on the subject closely enough to get an emotional response from the defense attorney without hitting it head on. Say some type of inculpatory evidence that was somehow excluded. You would think that kind of stuff would not work but it does if the prosecutor is clever enough.

On the flip side if people are being driven by emotions instead of facts and evidence then making a weapon appear as a toy should have the opposite effect as making a toy appear as a deadly weapon even though people may know the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top