The Modern Sporting Rifle! Doesn't fool the NY Times

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/o...o-drop-sale-of-ar-15-assault-rifles.html?_r=0

Recently, the move by Walmart not to sell ARs has been seen as not political but just business.

However, a piece on Gunsamerica - http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/why...stop-selling-ar-15s-is-unavoidably-political/ - speaks to the mantra of the modern sporting rifle. If the gun is sporting, Walmart's action denies its majority sporting use.

The Times (a rabid antigun hater) clearly points out, as I have said here many times, that the modern sporting rifle mantra was a PR attempt to make the AR platform a nice gun. Please don't ban it because it is nice. I recall a Guns and Ammo TV show where the hosts had a fall auto M4 vs an AR and were adamant the AR was 'nice' as it was not fully auto.

The NYTimes hit it correctly. The AR can be used for sport but it is an effective combat/tactical/whatever firearm as its core concept. They use that to suggest a confiscatory ban but that use is core to its 2nd Amend. protection. They don't buy it, nor does the 'hunting' or 'sports' only subsection of the gun world. Once you say sports - it is a bowling ball and qualifications and bans are ok for bowling balls.

Funny that you can agree on the silly PR attempt but totally disagree on what that means for the 2nd Amend.

There are other inaccuracies and stupid things in the article, someone else can point them out (sniper rifles with armor piercing - blah, blah). Oh, aren't most sporting rifles capable of that? I know - sigh.

 

[ligonierbill]

I have always thought the "modern sporting rifle" was a euphemism. In truth, the last US service rifle that qualifies as a sporting rifle is the '03 Springfield (OK, throw in the Enfield too). The only hunting I have heard of with an M1 was from my cousin in Germany. After the war, with the population disarmed, wild boar were running rampant, at least in northern Bavaria. So, the US Army issued some M1's to German hunters to thin them out. According to my cousin, one guy clipped 6 of them in one evening at a crossing.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting! If we try to justify a weapon on that basis, we support our adversaries. I might shoot game with my AR, but that is not its primary purpose. It's the militia weapon of today - militia being an armed citizenry. Let's tell it like it is, no apologies.

 

[jmr40]

Call it whatever you want, the fact that AR rifles have become mainstream will make it harder to justify banning them. FWIW, I don't care for the "Modern Sporting Rifle" tag either.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I've always just called 'em AR-15s. That "modern sporting rifle" nomenclature never fooled anybody. IMHO, it was a dumb way to attempt an end run around the oppositions "assault weapon" categorization. Instead of going on the offense and making it clear to the world that an AR-15 is NOT an "assault" rifle but a semi-automatic, the same as grandpa's .22 Winchester or Marlin, some genius decided it would be better to create yet another meaningless term.

Massive fail followed then.

 

[dakota.potts]

I was always against calling them Modern Sporting Rifles. If a rifle doesn't become an assault rifle until you assault somebody with it, a rifle doesn't become a sporting rifle until you sport with it.

Sure, I target shoot with my AR-15 and shoot competitions with it. It's not a sporting rifle. It's an arm, a thing meant to destroy something and be good at doing so. The second amendment specifically protects arms, not sporting implements. Any sporting or hunting use is incidental to that purpose.

I do have a couple of sporting implements. My CZ 452, for example, a very nice bolt action .22. It's got a nice blue laminated stock on it and a 5 round magazine. It doesn't scary anybody. I keep it in the safe with the bolt and magazine removed and no ammo around, because it's a sporting implement and the only reason I intend to use it. It doesn't mean that couldn't change if necessary though

 

[TXAZ]

I'd be willing to bet that no one on TFL or NYT for that matter has every seen an actual "Assault Rifle" at Walmart.

That doesn't seem to stop ignorant writers with a prejudicial bent from spewing c#@% in an venue where truth is the first casualty.

 

[rickyrick]

I quit worrying about the assault part of it.

As long as I can legally own something, I will.

The function that they think it has, it doesn't

They really just don't like petrusions on a rifle

 

[CowTowner]

They really just don't like petrusions on a rifle

Almost. What they really don't like are firearms in the hands of the public.

 

[Tom Servo]

A generation ago, the American gun industry came up with a devilish new campaign to bolster declining sales — militarizing the civilian firearms market with lightly adapted versions of potent battlefield weapons like the M-16 rifle.

The AR-15 was introduced to the public in 1963. That's a bit more than "a generation ago."

Renamed the AR-15, this semiautomatic assault rifle has come to haunt society in the hands of criminals and the deranged, who regularly kill innocent people in high-powered mass shootings.

It was never renamed the AR-15. That was the name of the original design.

A classic study of the militarization of the civilian gun market was published four years ago by the Violence Policy Center, a gun-safety research and advocacy group. It documented the industry’s campaign to rebrand remodeled war weapons, which are designed for firepower volume, as “modern sporting rifles.”

Oh, I'm sure they did. The VPC had a hand in defining the concept of an "assault weapon." There was no shortage of deception involved with that:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. 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.

As far as its use in "mass shootings," it hasn't been too prevalent. If I take the hopelessly biased, rabidly anti-gun Mother Jones at face value, 118 people have been killed or injured with AR-15 rifles since 2000. However, they selectively excluded statistics on "gang" shootings from earlier years to make it look as if mass shootings are on the rise.

In fact, mass shootings are not on the rise. It takes some creative accounting to imply they are. Mother Jones uses a source that considers any incident in which 4 or more people injured to be a mass shooting.

Sadly, this partisan, op-ed magazine is where gun-control writers are getting their "data."

So, let's talk about "gang" shootings. This is something that doesn't make headlines. 357 people were injured by gunfire in Chicago last month. 46 died. Why isn't that all over the anti-gun press? Where is "society’s growing revulsion at this carnage," as the NY Times so eloquently puts it? Poor people getting shot in the ghetto with pistols and shotguns doesn't fit the message.

On the scale of murder, the AR-15 simply isn't all that common. It's expense, need for maintenance, and sheer size make it impractical as a close-range crime gun.

They're grasping at straws so desperately that they need WalMart's decision to be political.

 

[mete]

How times change !! During the Civil War draft riots in NYC , the NYT then pro-gun , bought some Gatling guns to protect their offices from possible attack by rioters.
For me , years ago the NYT ceased to be a meaningful news source .For example , a long time practice was to describe wanted suspects in every detail.But if the person was black his race was not mentioned !!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In fact, mass shootings are not on the rise. It takes some creative accounting to imply they are. Mother Jones uses a source that considers any incident in which 4 or more people injured to be a mass shooting.

The FBI defines mass murder as the killing of 4 or more individuals in a single event (versus spree killings in multiple locations over a period of time), not including the killer(s), making no distinction of the event being in a public location, private, of strangers or loved ones. "Mass shootings" have been extrapolated (but not defined by the FBI as such) as 4 or more people shot, not including the shooter in a single event. Including injuries of folks not actually shot in "mass shooting" to qualify them as a mass shooting is pretty ridiculous.

With that said, "mass shootings" as used in statistics on both sides are hugely wanting for appropriate definition and stipulated data. If you look at the shootings put into those studies, what they indicate as "mass shootings" are really a pretty limited sort of data as compared to what qualifies for mass murder. These are generally shootings in a public location (including private businesses) involving 4 or more people other than the shooter(s) in a single event, that are not familicide, not gang-related (drive-bys are not tallied even when in public locations), not crime-related (e.g., St. Valentine's Day murders not tallied, robberies gone wrong not tallied, gun battles with cops not tallied). What you are basically left with are shootings involving 4 or more people other than the shooter that are school shootings, church shootings, mall shootings, theater shootings, restaurant shootings, disgruntled employee workplace shootings, and other types of less common events such as shootings on mass transit, at public gatherings, etc.

Whether or not "mass shootings" are on the rise depends on who tallies the data and what sorts of shootings they decide to include as data points. There is no actual agreed upon or stipulated definition for "mass shooting" and it seems to be as badly abused as "assault weapon" is. Even the rabidly anti-gun Mother Jones does not include all of the shootings of 4 or more people in a single event in their data such as familicides, gang drive-bys, etc., even though such events actually fit their parameters.

In fact, mass shootings are not on the rise.

Tom, I am afraid you were misled by a propaganda switcharoo. The title of the article and graph used says that "mass shootings" are not on the rise, but the data used to prove this people were mass murders. The implied statement is that mass shootings are not on the rise because the number of deaths in mass murders is not on the rise.

For example, stated in the article...

Based on data extracted from official police reports to the FBI, the figure below shows annual incident, offender and victim tallies for gun homicides in which at least four people were murdered.

So what is the title of that figure that is below?

Mass Shootings in the United States, 1980-2010

The text clearly states that the data are mass murder events ONLY.

This is nothing but doublespeak meant to confuse the reader. Whether or not the number of people that have died in these events has increased has ZERO bearing on how man of these events that may have actually occurred. After all, some shooters are just poor shots and sometimes the victims receive prompt medical care that saves their lives.

With that said, the AR15 is only used in a small percentage of them and when the cases have gone to court, I can't recall the firearm ever being referred to as a modern sporting rifle by the prosecution or the defense.

 

[zukiphile]

Bill, you have expressed a number of sentiments that are repeated in this thread. Please allow me to quote you for convenience. This isn't a critique particular to your post.

I have always thought the "modern sporting rifle" was a euphemism.

I understand the resistance to both euphemism (MSR) and pejorative (AW).

Is the AR15 the most numerous rifle model in the US? Or is it the Remington 700? There are millions of these things in the US by now, and they are mostly used for sport, not militia duty. (You may not think that poking holes in paper is much of a sport, but it is a fairly popular activity.) A fellow in Dallas or Columbus who buys an AR is likely buying it for some sort of sport, not as an assault "weapon" or ersatz assault rifle.

I don't find "modern sporting rifle" in my own speech much, and it is something of a neologism, but it isn't inaccurate.

I might shoot game with my AR, but that is not its primary purpose.

I think it is an error to ascribe purpose to an inanimate object. A person may have a purpose (to poke holes in paper or teach marksmanship or annoy a neighbor), but to attribute a purpose to an object mirrors an anti-2d Am. argument -- that the purpose of a firearm is to kill. Not only is it literally untrue, it accepts an axiom of a lot of people who would like you to have nothing more than a black powder musket.

Let's tell it like it is, no apologies.

Candor is a great virtue.

The AR marks a sort of generational shift in firearms away from lots of wood and steel lovingly crafted into a rifle so sturdy it can double as a club. For many of us, it is the most modern design we own, and we never use it as a tool in the tactical doctrine involved in assaulting an enemy position. It's just our rifle.

Isn't that a modern sporting rifle?

 

[mehavey]

"Sporting" is an irrelevant red herring in context of legitimate possession of firearms. Period.
Don't even let the speaker get past this word without interrupting to stop the conversation.

 

[zukiphile]

"Sporting" is an irrelevant red herring in context of legitimate possession of firearms. Period.
Don't even let the speaker get past this word without interrupting to stop the conversation.

Why? Is the implication that only the sporting use is legitimate?

You and I can likely agree that the non-criminal use to which one puts an item doesn't bear on the legitimacy of possession, but when a reference is made to a use (trap gun, bullseye pistol) is there a claim present that other activities aren't legitimate?

I have seen people in specific sports actually make such an argument -- "Well, biathlon, skeet, deer hunting with a slug gun are grand sports, but no one needs a machine gun" -- and it is an awful argument. Is that why the word "sporting" is resisted?

 

[mehavey]

The phrase "legitimate sporting purposes" is a trap.
Once you accept it in any argument, you're dead.

The "sporting" purpose of a firearm is (again) totally
irrelevant to its rightful purpose/possession under the
2A's security of a free State clause.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think it is an error to ascribe purpose to an inanimate object.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what people do. Objects have a core concept about their usage. The core concept of the AR is has a weapon. To deny that, falls into the hands of antigunners. If it is not a weapon but a tool or sporting implement, it is way too dangerous not to be controlled.

If I could kill 30 people in a movie with a bowling ball, I'd certainly ban them. However, it is the ability of the AR to act as a weapon that gives it 2nd Amend. protection.

The gun was made with a purpose in mind. One cannot ignore that.

 

[Tom Servo]

Tom, I am afraid you were misled by a propaganda switcharoo. The title of the article and graph used says that "mass shootings" are not on the rise, but the data used to prove this people were mass murders. The implied statement is that mass shootings are not on the rise because the number of deaths in mass murders is not on the rise.

Well, jeepers. On further review, you're right.

I'm going to leave my post unedited so others can see the goofup.

 

[zukiphile]

The phrase "legitimate sporting purposes" is a trap.

I don't disagree, but the term under discussion is "modern sporting rifle", not "legitimate sporting purposes".

The "sporting" purpose of a firearm is (again) totally
irrelevant to its rightful purpose/possession ...

As between us, that isn't disputed, but it also doesn't address an affirmative antipathy for the term "sporting".

... its rightful purpose/possession under the
2A's security of a free State clause.

That's a bit of a trap too, for what it is worth. The prefatory clause wouldn't restrict or define the right described any more than a sporting purpose.

 

[tirod]

First, "modern" is poorly defined and no kind of language to insert into law.

If it's only guns that have been in use during the last XX number of years - the M16 has been around for 55. Early version are now coming under C&R definitions and can be legally shipped to those license holders. Same with a lot of other "MSR's" coming up in the next 15 years.

What is modern in one era is antique in another. The weapons specifically manufactured for military use in past times sold to the public were "MSR's" too.

Buy a "03" Springfield in post WWII surplus sales? It was barely 45 years old. In comparison to the AR15 - it was an MSR then, too. And it was celebrated because of it. Same for the Garand, still is. It's desired and wanted because it IS a MILITARY arm used for sporting purposes, ie, the owner doesn't intend to take it on deployment.

The whole MSR argument is bogus. The 2A is clear - the right to keep and bear arms. Define "arms." It's not only firearms, it's also edged weapons, which were MUCH more prolific in the day. What kind of arms isn't limited or defined. That was done when privileged people in offices of power attempted to limit the rights of the common man.

It's still going on, and it's the #1 indicator we have a working republic - we can elect representatives to prevent encroachments on our rights. We can, have, and do beat back those who would disarm us for what they think are very "nice" reasons. The problem is most of them don't deal with that 2% of the population who create issues. They deliberately refuse to get close to the issues, and pontificate from lofty pillars to the masses about the wisdom they have attained.

"Arms" means what I can carry as a weapon - read it with it's fullest intent, the right to keep and bear weapons. Firearms aren't the only and singular item under the banner of arms, and we need to fight back by expanding the definition.

Then maybe we will stop arresting people for having a pocket knife under extremist interpretations of the law, and the citizens will see their police force acting with some understanding and restraint.

Here's an example of how skewed are laws are now - In MO with CCW permit you can carry an AR pistol concealed or openly in public. But a two inch double edged knife with a handle mounted 90 degrees to the blade is illegal if concealed. And it must be carried openly but only if it's a CCW permit holder. The average citizen cannot.

It's legislating privilege, not establishing that all men are created equal. Instead of limiting the discussion to what kind of subset of firearms we are trying to support - expand the definition. We have the right to keep and bear weapons.

Let the anti gunners deal with that. It exposes exactly how and why legislation makes things worse.

 

[zukiphile]

I think it is an error to ascribe purpose to an inanimate object.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what people do.

I would hope we would not embrace an error simply because some people do it.

Objects have a core concept about their usage. The core concept of the AR is has a weapon. To deny that, falls into the hands of antigunners.

Not at all.

Objects don't have concepts. Minds do. If in the mind of a user a baseball bat is a dangerous weapon, he has grasped the utility of using it as a weapon. That isn't a quality inherent in the bat itself.

The AR was designed according to criteria, like other firearms. The best utility of an AR, or a little Kel-tec 380 or a trap gun will differ according to their design, but the purpose will stay with the user. If all I have is a trap gun and I hear a noise downstairs, I may recognize its utility for self defense.

The recognition that it is a user whose purpose may be laudable, hedonic or illicit doesn't argue against the validity of the right described in the 2d. Am.

If it is not a weapon but a tool or sporting implement, it is way too dangerous not to be controlled.

Do we need to choose? Can't it be a weapon and a sporting tool?

However, it is the ability of the AR to act as a weapon that gives it 2nd Amend. protection.

I agree that it is the utility of an AR as an arm that gives (or should give) its possession and use constitutional protection. However, owning an arm for a sporting activity doesn't (and shouldn't) argue against its other utility.