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

[ATN082268]

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?

A firearm can be used as a lethal weapon but so can a lot of other things like a hammer, a car, etc. but, like a firearm, they may also have non-lethal uses. I might use a knife for eating, for example, but if I need to, I may also want to use it for self defense, just as someone may use their shotgun for skeet shooting but may also want to use it for self defense.

 

[Pond James Pond]

but the items themselves cannot possess purpose because that is beyond the capacity of an inanimate object.

This particular strand of the thread seems to centre around the interpretation of purpose. Purpose is the reason for. That logic can be applied to people or objects depending on definition of the word.

A person's purpose can be described as their driving force. A goal that motivates them to act in a particular way, typically in life not just a particular task. A person may decide their purpose is to heal others so they become a doctor. It may be to protect so they become a policeman etc. Some people decide they want to improve society, others to enrich themselves with money and power. In both those cases, politician seems to be the means. A shame it is hard to tell which did it for which...

An object can have a purpose although that purpose is ascribed to it by the designer. However, if designed well that purpose will remain applied to the object whomever uses it. One cannot say that the purpose of a vacuum cleaner is not to suck dust-laden air out of the environment and through a filter where the dust is removed from said air. That is the reason for a vacuum cleaner. The reason the gun was invented was to put holes in people so that they might die and stop attacking us/our resources or defending themselves/their resources (or for animals so that we might eat them/use their body parts).

Seems to me that Aguila Blanca is arguing application of the latter and Zukiphile that of the former. Inevitably, there will be disagreement.

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

Oxymoron perhaps not, but needlessly inaccurate. My rifle reads M400 Sport. It annoys me. M400 would have sufficed.

 

[zukiphile]

Firearms are lethal weapons, to pretend they are not...

Who pretends that any rifle isn't potentially lethal?

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.

I don't see the MSR term appeasing an anti-gunner. On the contrary, it appears to leave them with a case of the vapors. I believe the term was used to reflect a common use to which the item is put.

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

That's a non-sequitur.

No, it's an observation. It can't be a non-seq.

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.

Why choose? Paper target shooting is a great sport. That you see a utility other than the one to which you have put it for the last 15 years doesn't suggest that the sporting element is absent.

An object can have a purpose although that purpose is ascribed to it by the designer.

That's a fair use of the word "purpose", but note that the reference is to the purpose of the designer.

I can say that "the purpose of my car is to get me to and from work", but I am not describing anything inherent in my car. I am really describing the use to which I see putting my car.

The reason the gun was invented was to put holes in people so that they might die and stop attacking us/our resources or defending themselves/their resources (or for animals so that we might eat them/use their body parts).

The reason a lot of ARs are manufactured and sold is essentially recreational. Those Lancer rifles appear to my eye marketed to those who seek something other than a quasi-assault rifle.

Is there a harm in use of MSR?

 

[rickyrick]

Is there a harm in use of MSR?

Yes, when you attempt to equate it to a constitutional right. We have the right to own a weapon not a sporting implement.

The reason we are opposed to the use of the word; some have attempted to make an AR seem more appropriate to own by calling it a sporting rifle. Indeed most people buy them for sporting purposees. The term is technically correct. The term "assault weapon" is technically correct also.

Both terms "assault weapon" and "modern sporting rifle" were invented for political purposes, I refuse to use either of them.

Using the term MSR is like submitting to the anti gunners.

 

[zukiphile]

Yes, when you attempt to equate it to a constitutional right.

So, in the absence of an argument that only sporting arms are the subject of a constitutional right, use of "modern sporting rifle" is harmless?

Both terms "assault weapon" and "modern sporting rifle" were invented for political purposes, I refuse to use either of them.

It isn't so much that I refuse to use them as "rifle" seems sufficient. I dislike the "assault weapon" term because it seems calculated to sow confusion and inaccuracy through close mimickry of a technical term. MSR doesn't appear to have the same shortcoming.

Using the term MSR is like submitting to the anti gunners.

Lancer uses the term in its marketing. How is mere use of the term the submission you assert?

 

[JimPage]

Isn't the purpose of anything I buy, firearm or ice cream cone, what I buy it for? If I buy an ice cream cone to hurt someone, it is a weapon. If I buy a gun to decorate my study, it is a decoration.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Lancer uses the term in its marketing. How is mere use of the term the submission you assert?

I don't think it is a matter of submitting, but rather a matter of trying to make them feel more comfortable with the concept. It is sort of like when the City tells you that they are putting in a "water reclamation plant" next door to you. That is to make it sound less threatening to you, but doesn't change the fact that it will be a sewage treatment plant. The city isn't submitting to you in the least, just applying some creative marketing.

 

[rickyrick]

So if a guy buys a Ferrari and drives it like a Ford Focus, what is it? He can pick up butter and a sack of potatoes on his way home from work all the same.

 

[rickyrick]

To add.

One guy says I don't like you driving that Indy car around town (incorrect term)

Reply, "it's a modern efficiency car."

Is the guy calling it a race car gonna be fooled by the term you coined?

 

[zukiphile]

I don't think it is a matter of submitting, but rather a matter of trying to make them feel more comfortable with the concept. It is sort of like when the City tells you that they are putting in a "water reclamation plant" next door to you. That is to make it sound less threatening to you, but doesn't change the fact that it will be a sewage treatment plant. The city isn't submitting to you in the least, just applying some creative marketing.

That seems accurate. As with the term "assault weapon", perhaps no one reasonably expects it to sway an opposing advocate, but to influence the great majority in the middle who don't have strong opinions on the value of the right.

If I am convincing my wife that we should buy a Ferrari 250 LM, should I call it a "race car" or "an investment in an automotive classic"?

Reply, "it's a modern efficiency car."

Is the guy calling it a race car gonna be fooled by the term you coined?

Why imagine that the purpose of the MSR term is to fool anyone? It is relatively modern in design. It is a rifle. Many are designed and marketed for sporting purposes (if memory serves, Remington has a line of "hunter" ARs).

Since a car that gets between 1 and 3 mpg isn't plausibly described as an "efficiency" car, the example appears distinguishable.

 

[rickyrick]

This is all my personal opinion, right or wrong.
The first time I heard the term "Modern sporting rifle" was meant to make an AR type rifle sound more politically correct.
I suspect many others view it as an attempt to be politically correct.

It works in many ways in our society, I see gun owners call their 16" AR15 carbine an M4. Many call their mini14s assault rifles.

Modern sporting rifle may be the most appropriate term for civilian ownership of semi-auto rifles. The role the owner chooses to employ the device doesn't change what it is.

A spoon can be used in egg races, if it is used in that fashion, it's still a spoon.

Let's call semi auto rifles whatever we wish, but let's not try to use a name to justify owning it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

Why choose? Paper target shooting is a great sport. That you see a utility other than the one to which you have put it for the last 15 years doesn't suggest that the sporting element is absent.

It was you who took the position that an object cannot have a purpose, that purpose is defined entirely by the use to which one puts an object.

I do not shoot my AR-15 for sport. I don't shoot it because I enjoy it, I don't shoot it to see if I can hit higher scores than other people, I shoot it to practice hitting what I aim at. The purpose behind doing that is to prepare for the possibility that I may some day need to shoot for effect against either a marauding varmint or a marauding human.

I am not seeing a "utility other than the one to which have put it for the last 15 years." I am training to use the weapon for the purpose for which it was originally designed and intended -- to kill things (or people). "Why choose?" Why choose, indeed. I know why I shoot my AR-15. Why would I choose to waste ammunition using it for some purpose other than the one for which it is intended, and for which I bought it?

 

[zukiphile]

I do not shoot my AR-15 for sport. I don't shoot it because I enjoy it, I don't shoot it to see if I can hit higher scores than other people, I shoot it to practice hitting what I aim at. The purpose behind doing that is to prepare for the possibility that I may some day need to shoot for effect against either a marauding varmint or a marauding human.

I am not seeing a "utility other than the one to which have put it for the last 15 years." I am training to use the weapon for the purpose for which it was originally designed and intended -- to kill things (or people).

So it's sort of a training rifle? That might be an even better euphemism -- "Modern Training Rifle" ("MTR").

If it takes off, I will be sure to give you partial attribution.

You are correct though. Only you know why you shoot or buy a rifle. If you still go to the range even though you don't enjoy it, you are a better person than I am, which is very slight praise.

 

[Tom Servo]

There's a good thread on Reddit in which a member dismantles the NYT article, using Chivers as a source.

(Reddit doesn't have profanity filters, so I can't guarantee anything past the original post is relevant or mature.)

 

[KyJim]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what prompted the use of the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" --- the 1989 assault weapons ban which banned imports of certain types of foreign semi-automatic rifles which did not have a "legitimate sporting use." Some states like California followed suit and placed restrictions to make sure the rifles were "sporting" rifles. Now, they generally don't bother to use the "sporting" moniker. They simply try to restrict or ban.

 

[Brit]

The New York Times suffers from location sickness.

The State/City, is a place I can not legally carry a Pistol, I ain't going there.

So trying to get interested in what some Reporter thinks/writes. Requires more patience than I have. Reference self-defense, my Glock 19 is good to go for that purpose, if the AUG or AK comes out of the safe to take on that purpose?

We have a big problem, and I have shot both of those rifles enough, to know I can place hits on a human. Deployment of a Rifle, in our streets, is fraught with many problems. The average neighborhood is not a good place for a single person to set up defensively.

So whatever you call a rifle is immaterial. The good news is, the marauding gangs from the places they live and operate from, are just as handicapped.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

The reason we have to react and come up with stupid term like " modern Sporting rifle"
Is because we are behind the curve and constantly reacting and letting the enemy set the terms of debate.
We need to find a way to take the initiative.

Maybe make it illegal to enact new laws with a potential Constitutional impact. with our prior litigation.
Make the constitution proactive instead of reactive.

Or if thats too tough a row to hoe. Maybe use the same tactics they use on us.
Start a constant policy of incremental out ward pushes. A little here a little there a lot every were.
Get them on the defensive for a few decades.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Maybe make it illegal to enact new laws with a potential Constitutional impact. with our prior litigation.
Make the constitution proactive instead of reactive.

So much doublespeak. So you want to unconsitutionally enact a new law with Constitutional impact that would make it illegal to enact new laws with a potential Constitutional impact?

Making the Constitution proactive would require a change by law which would be illegal by your proposal to make it illegal to enact new laws with potential Constitutional impact.

 

[buck460XVR]

Again, I think folks are making way too much over the moniker. My first experiences 20+ years ago with hearing the name "Modern Sporting Rifle" was not that it was being used to patronize anti's into thinking it was a hunting rifle, but by the manufacturers themselves, aficionados of the firearm and gunrag writers to try and convince hunters to accept them in the field as legitimate hunting weapons. Anyone who was in the field when the first EBRs started to show up in deer camp know it wasn't just anti's that did not accept them as hunting weapons, but old codgers used to seeing wood below the barrel and hearing only 5 shots at a time in the distance.

 

[rickyrick]

Yes, when the black guns started showing up in hunting, some hunters were in quite a tizzie. I guess they imagined people spraying deer on full auto.


While you may only ever get off one or two shots anyway, the AR still is a nice gun to hunt with. It has all features needed in a hunting rifle. Lightweight, rugged (most), ergonomic and accurate. They have way more scope mounting options than traditional hunting rifle and they are fun to shoot recreationally as well.

Just because you can load one with a box and a half of ammo doesn't mean that a hunter does so.

I've hunted with 30rd mags, that means that you'd have a mag ready for months. Not that you're gonna use all 30 on one animal lol.