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

[Brit]

I like guns, always did.

In my safe I have a Steyr AUG, 16" Barrel. Sits with a 30 round mag in place, breach clear. And an AK47, 20 round mag in place, again breach clear.

In a minute I have a AUG for my Wife (she shoots it well) and an AK for me.

For what purpose? I watch the News, both here and in other Country's.

Whilst at home (like now) Glock 19 on person, plus 100% charged IPhone.

Why? Because I can. Love Florida.

 

[zxcvbob]

how about "Homeland Defense Rifle" (although to my ears the whole Homeland Security thing has a fascist ring to it)

 

[doofus47]

I don't like the crappy marketing term "MSR" nor do I like crappy reporting. However, a crappy opinion piece is acceptable, much like a rambling drunken rant is acceptable in a bar. It's unfortunate that a rambling drunken rant (no fact checking; skewed data) in a newspaper is a bit like a drunken rant in a courtroom: people tend to confuse it for evidence.

 

[rickyrick]

The MSR monicer and other sporting wordage is a tool that gun owners use to fall into the side of anti gunners.

The gun is a tool argument is believed by many people here, we've had numerous debates.

Our right is not based on "tool" or "sport"

My right to own a weapon predates civilization. As a living creature on this planet, I have the right to defend myself with whatever means I can.

The rules of nature allow defense of oneself, family unit, food and living space.

 

[zukiphile]

The MSR monicer and other sporting wordage is a tool that gun owners use to fall into the side of anti gunners.

Below is a link to Lancer's page on what they call MSRs. Lancer seems geared toward 3-gun people, and like lots of places they make some things I like as well as quite a few things that strike me as gimmicky.

How does their use of the term aid anti-gunners?

http://www.lancer-systems.com/advanced-weapons-components-2/products/l15-modern-sporting-rifles/

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

I respectfully disagree. It IS true that the primary purpose of firearms is to kill. Some people today may use them primarily for making holes in paper, but firearms were invented as weapons of war, for the purpose of killing enemies. Trying to claim that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill is like trying to claim that the primary purpose of hammers is not to drive nails.

The question is: Why is it important to pretend that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill? We use them for hunting. Hunting involves killing. We use them for self defense. Any time someone fires a shot at an assailant in self defense, the possibility exists that the assailant may be killed. To claim that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill is being disingenuous, and it's as transparently so as calling AR-15s "modern sporting rifles."

 

[buck460XVR]

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

As in "hunting rifle", "birdshot", "mousetraps" or "skinning knife"?

Folks get too worked up over the most trivial of things. "Modern Sporting Rifle", IMHO, could refer to any recent production firearm used for any of the shooting sports.

 

[zukiphile]

AB, I've addressed your points out of order for the flow of the answer rather than to diminish the force of your text. If the way I did this strikes you as unfair, let me know and I will remedy the unfairness.

The question is: Why is it important to pretend that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill?

Your question assumes that a thing can have purpose, the point on which we disagree. There isn't any pretense in noting that a firearm cannot itself possess purpose.

As a rhetorical matter, people opposed the right to possess and use arms often will argue that since the purpose of a firearm is to kill (often they will add that it is to kill another person) and that such a purpose is itself prohibited, then the object that has that purpose is to be prohibited as well. That's a poor argument in part because it attributed purpose to an object as if it were an actor.

(Let's observe here that when a firearm is used properly against another person, it is not with an intent to kill, but to quickly and effectively incapacitate)

Some people today may use them primarily for making holes in paper, but firearms were invented as weapons of war, for the purpose of killing enemies. Trying to claim that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill is like trying to claim that the primary purpose of hammers is not to drive nails.

Depends what you are using the hammer for, right? Cars were invented as playthings for the very well off. Are cars primarily playthings for the very well off today?

If you are a 3-gun fellow with three rifles all tuned on the ragged edge of reliability for the one specific load that gives you the best scores, do you have a "war weapon", as the NYT piece hysterically repeats, or do have an item with an almost exclusively sporting use?

We use them for hunting. Hunting involves killing. We use them for self defense. Any time someone fires a shot at an assailant in self defense, the possibility exists that the assailant may be killed.

I acknowledge that part of the morality of hunting involves a "clean" kill, a decisive event that reduces suffering.

While the possibility of death is always present when one uses deadly force against a person, it is not properly the actor's intent to kill, right?

To claim that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill is being disingenuous, and it's as transparently so as calling AR-15s "modern sporting rifles."

To what purpose are most ARs in civilian hands put?

 

[zukiphile]

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

As in "hunting rifle", "birdshot", "mousetraps" or "skinning knife"?

Or sporting rifle. Indeed.

 

[rickyrick]

Well, anti gunner's will only acknowledgement of a gun right is for sporting purposes. In other words, the only legitimate use to them is sports.

Many gun owners feel the same way. Sport only.

We have tried to satiate anti gunners by using words like MSR, hunting, recreation, tool, collectible and so on...

None of the excuses that we try to use to convince anti gunners are going to work. the intended purpose for the second amendment.

Governments of the past do not want citizens disarmed to limit their sporting activities.

My idea of a weapon does not involve sport.
I will admit that it can be used for a sport, but that's inconsequential to me

 

[Tom Servo]

Well, anti gunner's will only acknowledgement of a gun right is for sporting purposes.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed on two occasions. In fact, "sporting" purposes are considered to be outside the scope of the right.

We had an interesting 7th Circuit case (US v. Skoien) in which a man with a prior conviction for domestic violence was caught in possession of a shotgun. The defendant alleged that his disqualification was unconstitutional because it interfered with his 2nd Amendment right to hunt.

The court made an interesting counterargument:

He argued below and maintains here that prosecuting him under § 922(g)(9) for possessing the shotgun violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms for hunting. He has not, however, asserted a right to possess the gun for self-defense. As such, the government’s application of § 922(g)(9) in this case requires less rigorous justification than strict scrutiny because the core right of self-defense identified in Heller is not implicated.

The court found no right to "hunt" but they did acknowledge a right to self-defense.

We have tried to satiate anti gunners by using words like MSR, hunting, recreation, tool, collectible and so on.

Yep, and to what end? We already know what happens when we try to appease them.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Your question assumes that a thing can have purpose, the point on which we disagree. There isn't any pretense in noting that a firearm cannot itself possess purpose.

I think you are engaging in hair splitting. You are arguing that the purpose for which firearms were invented and developed is not the purpose of firearms. IMHO that's a very weak argument.

As a rhetorical matter, people opposed the right to possess and use arms often will argue that since the purpose of a firearm is to kill (often they will add that it is to kill another person) and that such a purpose is itself prohibited, then the object that has that purpose is to be prohibited as well. That's a poor argument in part because it attributed purpose to an object as if it were an actor.

But killing, even of another human being, is NOT prohibited. The laws of every state allow for the use of deadly (or "lethal") force in defense of the self or third parties. Likewise, the laws of every state provide for lawful hunting.

(Let's observe here that when a firearm is used properly against another person, it is not with an intent to kill, but to quickly and effectively incapacitate)

Shoot 'em in the knees? As a firearms instructor, I was taught and I pass on to my students that the purpose of using a firearm in self defense is to terminate the threat. That's the purpose. If that results in the incapacitation of the assailant, so be it. If that results in the death of the assailant, so be it. We don't shoot to incapacitate -- we shoot to stop the threat.

Some people today may use them primarily for making holes in paper, but firearms were invented as weapons of war, for the purpose of killing enemies. Trying to claim that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill is like trying to claim that the primary purpose of hammers is not to drive nails.

Depends what you are using the hammer for, right? Cars were invented as playthings for the very well off. Are cars primarily playthings for the very well off today?

No, it doesn't matter what I use the hammer for. I might use it as a pry bar, I might use it as a door stop, or I might use it as an objet d'art. None of that changes the fact that hammers were designed to drive nails, and driving nails is a hammer's primary purpose. I might even argue that driving nails is a hammer's ONLY "purpose," and that other uses are simply uses outside of the purpose of the item.

Cars were not invented as "playthings of the rich." Cars were invented as a logical progression from horse-drawn wagons -- as a means of transportation. The fact that initially only the rich could afford them doesn't mean they were invented solely as toys for the rich.

If you are a 3-gun fellow with three rifles all tuned on the ragged edge of reliability for the one specific load that gives you the best scores, do you have a "war weapon", as the NYT piece hysterically repeats, or do have an item with an almost exclusively sporting use?

I have a weapon of war. It is capable of taking lives.

We use them for hunting. Hunting involves killing. We use them for self defense. Any time someone fires a shot at an assailant in self defense, the possibility exists that the assailant may be killed.

I acknowledge that part of the morality of hunting involves a "clean" kill, a decisive event that reduces suffering.

I said nothing about the morality of hunting, or clean kills. You're evading the point. Hunting involves killing.

While the possibility of death is always present when one uses deadly force against a person, it is not properly the actor's intent to kill, right?

Correct. Your point?

To claim that the primary purpose of firearms is not to kill is being disingenuous, and it's as transparently so as calling AR-15s "modern sporting rifles."

To what purpose are most ARs in civilian hands put?

I have no idea. Mine and those of my friends who own them are for self defense. (And possibly national defense, in the hopefully unlikely event of a large-scale terrorist incident.)

 

[zukiphile]

I think you are engaging in hair splitting. You are arguing that the purpose for which firearms were invented and developed is not the purpose of firearms. IMHO that's a very weak argument.

Emphasis added. No, I am pointing out that people who have invented, developed and used various firearms have had all sorts of different intentions, but the items themselves cannot possess purpose because that is beyond the capacity of an inanimate object.

That matters as a gun control issue insofar as an item itself possessing an illicit purpose would be worthy of prohibition.

Fortunately, firearms don't have that. You might call that hair-splitting, but being precise and saying what we mean can pay a dividend of clarity.

But killing, even of another human being, is NOT prohibited. The laws of every state allow for the use of deadly (or "lethal") force in defense of the self or third parties. Likewise, the laws of every state provide for lawful hunting.

Acting with the purpose of killing another person is prohibited. Remember that we are discussing purpose rather than result. I might act justifiably in a way that results in death of another. If it is my intent or purpose to kill another, even in a defensive shooting, I may have problems.

(Let's observe here that when a firearm is used properly against another person, it is not with an intent to kill, but to quickly and effectively incapacitate)

Shoot 'em in the knees? As a firearms instructor, I was taught and I pass on to my students that the purpose of using a firearm in self defense is to terminate the threat. That's the purpose.

That's correct. Your purpose is to terminate the threat, not the life. The life may also end, but that isn't the purpose of the act.

If the purpose of the defensive action were to kill the person, we could do it slowly. But since quick incapacitation is the purpose, we often require more force than just to kill.

If that results in the death of the assailant, so be it. We don't shoot to incapacitate -- we shoot to stop the threat.

If you've eliminated the aggressor's capacity to threaten, then you've incapacitated him.

While the possibility of death is always present when one uses deadly force against a person, it is not properly the actor's intent to kill, right?

Correct. Your point?

If one's purpose isn't to kill another in using deadly force, the possibility of death doesn't transform the actor's purpose into a purpose to kill.

No, it doesn't matter what I use the hammer for. I might use it as a pry bar, I might use it as a door stop, or I might use it as an objet d'art.

Then each of those would be your purpose in using it, right?

I acknowledge that part of the morality of hunting involves a "clean" kill, a decisive event that reduces suffering.

I said nothing about the morality of hunting, or clean kills.

Right, I just did. Do you disagree?

You're evading the point. Hunting involves killing.

That is incorrect. I was in part conceding part of your point as it pertains to hunting. That isn't evasive; it is responsive.

Inasmuch as we eat animals dead, hunting involves killing. Arms are useful for that.

To what purpose are most ARs in civilian hands put?

I have no idea. Mine and those of my friends who own them are for self defense.

I have some idea.

It is likely that most of the many millions of ARs will be used by many people and very frequently for sport and recreation, far more frequently than for self-defense.

Thousands of people in my state visit ranges each week. We do not have thousands of defensive shootings.

I have a weapon of war. It is capable of taking lives.

I have a car. It is capable of taking a life. Cars are even used in wars. Yet, I do not consider it a "weapon of war", even on a bad traffic day.

I don't really have a problem with you calling your AR a "weapon of war". I also wouldn't have a problem with you calling a Remington 700 or a musket or a shovel a "weapon of war"; each filled that role.

If you read the overheated NYT article, note that the author's use of "weapon of war" is of a piece with the wider hysteria of the article, and doesn't actually reflect the use to which most people put their arms.

 

[rickyrick]

Again, the right to own an AR doesn't stem from it's recreational uses.

The MSR argument equates to the right to keep and bear pool cues

 

[zukiphile]

Again, the right to own an AR doesn't stem from it's recreational uses.

Has anyone here argued that it does?

The MSR argument equates to the right to keep and bear pool cues

That would only be so where the assertion is that a "modern sporting rifle" enjoys a particular constitutional protection flowing from its sporting use.


One point is constitutional and is somewhat at odds with a political point.

The constitutional point is that the right described is to keep and bear an instrument that is highly valued precisely because it can be used to great effect against people, and no free man would allow himself to be denied that instrument by another. The political point is that this right to such an instrument gives a free man with an ill motive real power (just like his better intentioned neighbor). The "assault weapon" pejorative serves the purpose of highlighting the destructive power of the instrument, while "modern sporting rifle" is generally more accurate and draws a listener's attention to the most often benign use of the instrument.

My question on the prior page arose from the hostility to the MSR term, a term that is on its face generally accurate and defensible.

The responses seem to indicate that there is an argument implied by the term that only a sporting purpose can be valid, even though we don't infer that argument from "trap gun", "hunting rifle" or "bullseye pistol".

 

[Oysterboy]

I have an S&W M&P15 Sports. Is that an oxymoron?

 

[rickyrick]

Yes the MSR term could be accurate, although, as many have stated, the rifles in question are no longer a modern design.

My only gripe is calling weapons other names to appease the anti gunners. My opinion is that the term was coined to make them seem as though they are not weapons.
It is the weapon aspect that makes them a constitutional right. A right that predates the constitution.

No one guarantees me the right to a golf club or an ATV; my right to own a weapon was guaranteed

 

[kilimanjaro]

Firearms are lethal weapons, to pretend they are not is asking for the bluff to be called. If they are not lethal weapons and intended for use as such, then making them safe for children to play with will follow. Get used to draconian storage requirements, lockups, smart grips, whatever. After all, you don't intend on using it to defend yourself, do you?

 

[rickyrick]

Kilimanjaro summed it all up...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

To what purpose are most ARs in civilian hands put?

I have no idea. Mine and those of my friends who own them are for self defense.

I have some idea.

It is likely that most of the many millions of ARs will be used by many people and very frequently for sport and recreation, far more frequently than for self-defense.

Thousands of people in my state visit ranges each week. We do not have thousands of defensive shootings.

That's a non-sequitur.

I have owned my AR-15 for approximately fifteen years. I have shot it only at organized shooting ranges, shooting only at paper targets. That said, my purpose is not "sporting." My purpose is practice -- training for the possibility that I may some day need to use the weapon for the purpose for which it was designed and intended. The fact that I have not needed to use it to defend myself -- yet -- doesn't negate the fact that my purpose in owning it is self defense.