Why Hasn't the NRA Emphasized that Assault Weapons Do Not Really Exist?

[UtopiaTexasG19]

"Well they are already outlawing driving while holding a cell phone,"

I am glad they are making laws against this now, everyone will obey, and there will no longer be any wrecks or deaths due to texting while driving. Same as no one ever driving over the speed limit or running a red light. These laws are wonderful reasons for a ever expanding government.

 

[LogicMan]

I've said this many times. You will not make a case by trying to convince folks the semi versions of EBRs (like that term?) are somehow less dangerous than some other weapon.

Why wouldn't you? Why do you think people would not take to such facts? Not saying you are wrong, but I am curious as to why you believe this so much.

That the gist of the OP. The sheer appearance of the gun overrides complaining about the correct definition and semantics on an emotional level.

If you are dealing with ideologues who do not care about facts, then sure, but not all Americans are ideologues.

The cognitive approach is that we have the right to own these weapons because of their lethal nature - not because they are nicer than a full auto M-16.

Modern sporting rifle:

1. It's for sport - well, then you don't need 30 round clips full of cop killer bullets (Joe Scarborough quote). Oh, you have to be inconvenienced at a match by reloading - wah, wah. Don't the cowboy guys have to reload SAA revolvers.

2. It's for sport and what other sporting instruments are so intrinsically dangerous - racing cars it seems today - are they constitutionally protected? Why no.

Here's a note - if you have Wayne waving an AR saying it ain't that bad - it's nice, except for the choir - most folks will see a bad gun and the ad will be counterproductive.

The debate has quickly passed by the auto vs. semi argument.

These opinions come from my knowledge of such attitudinal things.

Doesn't need to be Wayne himself doing it, but regardless, if you explain in the ad that the cosmetic appearance of the weapon has nothing to do with its function, I think it could work. You'd have to focus group test it and so forth.

 

[Tom Servo]

Why do you think people would not take to such facts? Not saying you are wrong, but I am curious as to why you believe this so much.

I can throw my $.02 in on this, having debated antis on stage before. To convince someone of the difference, I need two things:

1. A receptive audience that wants to hear me out, and
2. one that's got the time to hear me out.

We live in a world where proper debate behavior and tactics no longer apply. It's about scoring points, getting zingers, and quick soundbites.

Mr. Anti says, "these machine guns of mass destruction belong in the military!"

I say, "well, the AR-15 is actually a semi-automatic rifle, which means..."

Mr. Anti points at a picture of an M-16 (or a bunch of dead kids), and the crowd reacts better to that. I'm not even into my third sentence by the time I've lost them.

The NRA gets a limited amount of face-time in the mainstream media (and boy, has LaPierre screwed it up at a pivotal moment). They can't get embroiled in what the layman is going to perceive as a dry technical quibble.

 

[seeker_two]

I notice that when used by the police they are called Patrol Rifles. Much less terrifying name.

I find it useful to point out that, for their own personal defense, police officers choose semiautomatic rifles and pistols for their effectiveness against multiple attackers.

Why should a police officer's life be worth defending with these guns?.......but your life is not worth defending with these guns?

Make it personal......

 

[SPEMack618]

And that leads to cries of "The police are paid to do it" and "The President's daughter could be a terrorist target."

The term "assualt weapons" angers me to no end, and I railed against it to all who would listen. In fifth grade. No one cared.

And then the ban sunseted, and no one cared.

And now there is talk of a ban again.

The term assualt weapon is a lost fight.

 

[TDL]

there are two kinds of communications needs.
- Internal ones you use to get your own audience to be motivated
- public faces you use to target the key audiences outside your sector.

Lapierre is well suited for the first function and absolutely the worst choice for the second.

Chris Cox and David Keene do so well in the second function.

As to the OP's question on assault rifles not existing, that isn't going to fly in the second audience. the meme that gun owners and especially the NRA are paranoid is actually pretty sticky. We should say it is a misnomer at every opportunity, but the most import observation on that topic is the prior ban did nothing and assault riles are not tat the root of the real problem: criminal gun violence. the root of that problem is the number of criminals on the streets.

 

[44 AMP]

We did point it out, repeatedly, back then, about how the cosmetic features had nothing to do with the function of the firearm. They refused to listen then, and they refuse to listen now. Our eyes got all teary from the brick dust, we beat our heads against the wall of their bias so often.

Unfortunately, all that pointing out that the military features don't do anything but look like military features only gives the antis the determination to also ban those guns without military features.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has been killed by being bayonetted in this nation in a long, long time. But a bayonet lug was deemed an "evil"feature. The flash suppressor was banned because it fit the bottom of certain rifle grenades (not used by our military, but used in some other nations) ignoring the fact that not only have there been no crimes committed with rifle grenades, but also the small fact that there is virtually no way to legally own them in the US. (it can be legally done, but it is neither cheap nor easy, and generally falls under the same rules a owning a legal machinegun)

Our problem is that while we try to deal in logic and reason, the other side disdains it for emotional sound bytes, and sadly, that's all the majority of the uninvolved public hear. Just like the "gunshow loophole" BS. There is no loophole, just people following the law as it exists today.

They tell outrageous lies, over and over, and get believed. We tell the truth, and outside of "the choir" we get ignored. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with trying to be nice, civil and reasonable.

I can remember the days when the anti gunners were focused on handguns, not assault weapons. Saturday Night Special was the buzz word then. AR were around then, and FALs, and many other military style rifles. The antis ignored them back then. Why are they their main focus today? Drama. Pure and simple, they are dramatic looking.

Hollywood has been "teaching" us for nearly 80 years that only bad guys use guns like these. And the hero only uses one against the bad guys, because, obviously, he has to....

The argument about the 2nd amendment being written so we, as citizens have the ability to resist tyranny is true, but it doesn't fly with most of the people today. Bring it up, and you are automatically considered a nut job, if not openly rediculed.

Anyone notice how the antigunners lost nearly all their support after 9/11? They only got it back after a decade of us feeling safe again.

Most of the anti's don't really hate guns. They hate guns in the hands of people they do not control. They are fine with assault weapons in the hands of the police. Or their paid private security. Just not in the hands of other people. Police and private guards aren't plaster saints, either. A tiny percentage of them go rogue too. Look at what just happened in SoCal. Ex cop run amok. Should we ban police because of that? Hardly.

Worst of all, in my opinion,is the fact that the antis are so smug and convinced of their rectitude that they even publically admit that the laws they pass and want passed will not solve the problem. But they have to DO something!

 

[kilimanjaro]

Because it's a term of semantics and the law, it doesn't matter. Waste of time and breath. The battle is for the right to own firearms of any type.

 

[scrubcedar]

This has been rattling around in my head for a couple of weeks now. The most productive line of attack is an emotional one. I sway peoples minds for a living, trust me.
Try this on for size. We start a campaign to turn the semi-auto into the HD weapon of choice.
Set up scenario's like a normal match at pistol/rifle ranges. Put convincing looking helpless children cutouts at the starting point. The shooter has to engage multiple targets quickly while protecting them. Invite complete novice media members to shoot. 30 mins instruction with the EBR and 30 mins instruction with a SxS 12 gauge loaded with 00 buck. First pop up not engaged within say 2sec. counts as the shooter being "killed" by the BG.
We all know which weapon they would do better with. Wasn't the M4 developed for urban room to room fighting? Ask them at the end which weapon meant the kids survived. That is the emotional counter punch we need. The children die if you don't use the semi auto.

 

[LogicMan]

there are two kinds of communications needs.
- Internal ones you use to get your own audience to be motivated
- public faces you use to target the key audiences outside your sector.

Lapierre is well suited for the first function and absolutely the worst choice for the second.

Chris Cox and David Keene do so well in the second function.

I agree, so why has LaPierre been out there doing the second function!?! Why is the NRA so stupid in that sense?

As to the OP's question on assault rifles not existing, that isn't going to fly in the second audience. the meme that gun owners and especially the NRA are paranoid is actually pretty sticky.

"Assault rifles" do exist. Assault weapon is the fictional term. And I think the meme of the paranoid gun owner could be destroyed if the NRA had the right people out there doing the debating. Remember how all the negative ads about Mitt Romney were destroyed after that first debate when he shot up in the polls? People will perceive gun owners as paranoid if the NRA comes across as paranoid.

 

[seeker_two]

Maybe we need to redefine the word "tyranny".....

Tyranny is a mugger with a knife demanding your wallet & cell phone....

Tyranny is a rapist tearing your clothes off and penetrating you....

Tyranny is a child abductor climbing into your child's window in the dark of night....

Tyranny is when ANYONE, be it a criminal or a government, uses threat of force or death to exert control over you body, your property, or your loved ones.

The Second Amendment exists so we can resist tyranny in all forms.....and anyone who wants to neuter it is just as much a tyrant as those mentioned before.....

Make it personal.....

 

[Kreyzhorse]

So this really has confused me. The NRA in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, via Mr. Pierre, has had ample opportunity to point out the nonsense that the term "assault weapon" is, but hasn't done so. I find this really amazing. Even in his first press conference after the shooting, all he said in reference to claims made about such weapons is that such claims "are not true," but otherwise did not elaborate any further.

If you keep up with the NRA, they have mentioned repeatedly that "assault weapon" is a term made up buy the anti gun types to demonize a gun based solely on the way it looks.

They have also pointed out that the guns function no differently than any other semi automatic shotguns, rifles and pistols.

With that said, even a blizzard of national commercials explaining the difference wouldn't really convince non gun owners of the difference between the two.

Keep in mind, this isn't about banning guns based on function, it is about banning guns.

 

[LogicMan]

If you keep up with the NRA, they have mentioned repeatedly that "assault weapon" is a term made up buy the anti gun types to demonize a gun based solely on the way it looks.

They have also pointed out that the guns function no differently than any other semi automatic shotguns, rifles and pistols.

Unfortunately they didn't at the most opportune moment though (IMO).

With that said, even a blizzard of national commercials explaining the difference wouldn't really convince non gun owners of the difference between the two.

Keep in mind, this isn't about banning guns based on function, it is about banning guns.

Non-gun owners aren't all bent on banning guns. Plenty of people do not own guns but believe in the Second Amendment. Pointing out that so-called assault weapons are not machine guns and that machine guns have already been banned for years, could change a lot of minds I'd think.

 

[Wahoo95]

Kinda silly to reduce the argument to one if what antis see as semantics. Semi Auto or full auto doesn't matter to them since its still essentially the same gun. I can fire my rifle on semi as fast as many full autos so what's the difference in their eyes. Its like making a big deal out of Clips vs. Magazines.....everyone knows what you're referring to when either term is used in conversation so why waste breath arguing the difference in terms with a person who doesn't care enough about the subject to give a darn.

 

[zukiphile]

Being precise in one's language is generally a virtue, but that virtue by itself is rarely persuasive to someone of a contrary opinion. One can certainly point out that "assault weapon" is empty invective, but that is not an argument.

Man, I understand, and respect you logic. But there are some things you need to understand. First, and foremost, Assault Weapon is not a nonsense term. It is (sadly) a valid term, codified in law, and has been since the AWB of 94. And even though the Fed law sunset, several state laws saying the same thing did not.

Yes, Assault Weapon is a made up term. But they made it up, and got it into law, so it is now a valid term.

I do not believe it is in fact a single valid term. It is a phrase, enormously plastic, that has as its meaning whatever any legislature anywhere sees fit to give it as a meaning. Since no one can give you a single, reasonably precise definition of the term, I think we have ample basis to doubt its validity.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Assault rifles" do exist. Assault weapon is the fictional term.

Holy cow, for a person so interested in semantics, I fail to see how you can claim either term that is in common usage is "fictional." No, they are very real terms.

Yes, they are "made up" terms. All terms are made up. It is the nature of language. Language is made up as well.

Glenn touched on a good point. While "assault" anything sounds bad, should we use the commonly accepted and descriptive phrase so many owners proudly proclaim their guns to be, and do so quite frequently in places like gun forums? They should be called "Evil Black Rifles" because that conveys a much more public-friendly perspective on the firearm, right?

Yes, the NRA missed the boat early on, but if you want to complain about the NRA not doing their job, why are you debating folks here? Why aren't you on the phone with the NRA. Most of us don't like the phrase "assault ____ " either, but none of us are the NRA higher ups setting NRA policy and strategy. If you searched this forum, you would see numerous prior complaints about assault phrases and some related to the NRA and their handling of the issue.

However, if you want to pick something to complain about with forum members, how about complaining about their promotion of the phrase "evil black rifle" that Glenn mentioned above. Far too many gun owners proudly refer to their ARs, AKs, and other models as EBRs and when "EBR" starts to become mainstream in the media and the media starts emphasizing the moniker "evil," "assault ____ " will sound like a kind phrase. The sad part is that we will be our own worst enemy on this.

Some less than astute gun owner has already proclaimed his ownership to the media and it is not flattering.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/09/hundreds-rally-for-guns-in-olympia/

Fred Sittmann, of Stanwood, Wash., said the 9 mm carbine he built from parts and uses for target practice would probably be covered by any proposed ban, as would some of his high-capacity magazines at home. “Most likely on looks alone,” he said of the carbine. “It’s an evil black rifle.”

BTW, "evil black rifle" is a made up term, one that too many pro-gun people are seemingly happy to promote.

Now, I have to go sight in my "virtuous, chromatically distinctive rifle" today. Of course, this is a made up term as well, but if I am going to ascribe an value laden emotional characterization to a class of firearm with the hopes of it not being used against me, "virtuous" seems like a much better term to promote than "evil."

 

[Father Time]

Worst of all, in my opinion,is the fact that the antis are so smug and convinced of their rectitude that they even publically admit that the laws they pass and want passed will not solve the problem. But they have to DO something!

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Winner right here.

This is exactly the problem. And the true root of why facts and logic fail to sway the anti's.
They don't care about facts or the realitiy of gun control. They just want "feel good" laws passed.

 

[DaleA]

Guess I'd side with LogicMan here.

I'd like to see them take on the phrase 'assault weapon' just to show how ignorant the anti-gun side is and hopefully discredit them in the eyes of the general public.

 

[LogicMan]

Holy cow, for a person so interested in semantics, I fail to see how you can claim either term that is in common usage is "fictional." No, they are very real terms.

Yes, they are "made up" terms. All terms are made up. It is the nature of language. Language is made up as well.

Yes, but there are differing types of language. There's technical terms and then terms that just come into usage by the population. The term "assault rifle" is a specific term referring to a weapon that fires an intermediate power cartridge and has automatic fire capability. The term "assault weapon" supposedly means a weapon that is specifically designed to let one kill a large number of people very quickly (how this is so is never explained of course). The term "assault weapon" doesn't deal with anything technical, it deals with the cosmetics solely of the weapon, as it was made up by the gun control people.

It's like the difference between the terms "armor-piercing ammunition" and "assault ammunition." Armor-piercing ammo is a specific type of ammunition designed, engineered, and manufactured a specific way. "Assault ammunition" is just another made up term that could mean anything.

As for me not talking to the NRA, you are right, I should. I just wanted to discuss the issue with some like-minded folks was all and here some opinions on the matter.

 

[SPEMack618]

My opinion on the matter, which I tried so valiantly to spred in the 5th grade, is that it is nothing but a made up term that gives good sound-bites and fights preconcieved notions of what kind of guns are bad.

The term "assualt weapon" has been codified by several states and was once defined by the Fed. government. it can and will be altered to ban whatever the various anti- folks deem scary.

I've just really come to hate the word assualt.

Assualt weapons, assualt pistols, assualt vests, assualt clips, and assualt ammunition.

Damn German language/English translation. If we could have called the thing a Storm Rifle, we wouldn't have this problem.