When pro-gun blogger Eric at Gunmart Blog wrote that he does not care for the term “modern sporting rifle,” which NSSF has been promoting to describe AR-platform rifles for the last two years, well, he’s entitled to his opinion. However, when he wrote “perhaps we should just embrace the term ‘assault rifle,’ then he becomes an accessory to those who want to ban these sporting firearms. To underscore this point, the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center promoted Eric’s post on its social media outlets. Good exposure for a blogger; wrong audience, though.
And that’s the problem. Whenever someone in the gun-owning community mistakenly calls an AR-platform rifle an assault rifle or an automatic rifle, they are assisting anti-gun organizations and lawmakers who are eager to introduce legislation to restrict ownership of these and potentially other semiautomatic firearms. (By the way, the AR stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the rifle in the 1950s, and not assault rifle or automatic rifle. See other MSR facts.)
Incorrect labeling of AR-style firearms by gun owners, not to mention anti-gun groups, is what caused NSSF to launch its Modern Sporting Rifle education program. NSSF has driven a broad-based and expensive communications effort to encourage gun owners to better understand AR-platform rifles–that they are not assault rifles, that they are semiautomatics firing one round with each pull of the trigger just like other semiautomatic sporting rifles and that they are in common use for target shooting and hunting. Additionally and importantly, we’ve helped those who reacted to the MSR’s military look to understand how for more than a century civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors–such as the bolt-action Springfield 30-06 after World War I and semiautomatic rifle after World War II. The MSR follows in that tradition.
To date, NSSF has had a great response to its educational initiative. The term modern sporting rifle has been widely adopted by the firearms industry and by many leading media outlets.
NSSF continues to ask that media, gun owners and others use the term modern sporting rifle when describing AR-platform rifles, but if for some reason you cannot bring yourself to do so, then we ask you to refer to these firearms by their proper model name and number. Those from the gun-owning community who label them assault rifles are damaging an industry and potentially the right to own these popular semiautomatic rifles. They will also find that those individuals who like their columns best are not their friends.
The term assault rifle is an oxymoron anyway, and demonstrates a lack of capacity in understanding the English language. An inanimate object can do nothing but be used in the manner the individual wielding the object desires, whether for good or ill.
Not to be mean, but you sound like an apologist, and like you have accepted the gun-control crowds assertion that “assault weapons” should be banned. I propose that the AR platform is an assault weapon, and that this has no bearing on gun control at all. It is within my right to own an assault weapon. I feel that your position is actually the one that strengthens the gun control position because you implicitly accept that if the term “assault weapon” can be made to stick, then that weapon is to be controlled. Don’t you think that we’ve compromised enough?
I don’t like the term assault rifle for multiple reasons, but the two primary are that 1. it insights emotion in the anti-gun crowd and 2. it’s redundant (isn’t every rifle really made to assault in on form or another? I don’t refer to my blades as slicing knives). I also don’t care for the term modern sporting rifle. I don’t feel the AR-15 is terribly modern- it was developed half a century ago. Also, I feel like the adding the word “sporting” was done to kowtow to the “legitimate sporting use” crowd. Rifles need not have a “legitimate sporting use”; they all have a legitimate use- be it hunting, target shooting or self-defense.
The media uses the term “Assualt Weapon” to paint a picture for their audience of a gun that has no other uses other than on the battlefield. The average person usually has little knowledge of guns and therefore they only understand what they think they know. They do not know the difference between a semi automatic gun and a “machine gun” and the media puts the “assualt weapon” label on any tactical appearing gun, no matter what capabilities it really has. Adopting the “assualt weapon” label will do us gun enthusiasts a great disservice. Our best choice is to educate as many people as we can, so that they will know that they are being “handled” by the media.
An assault rifle has to have selective fire for full auto~ if you are shooting a semi-auto & calling your rifle anything else outside the manufactures nomenclature then your using incorrect terminoligy. I deal with it every day: Clip or magazine,bullets or cartridges,pistol/handgun or revolver there is a difference.
Yes Santa had a sleigh pulled by “caribou” or was it reindeer?
bpb
I feel what he’s talking about, and like him I also appreciate the desire to be at the steering wheel when it comes to discussion, however MSR sounds a wee bit contrived, and maybe that’s why few outside the firearms press industry use it. We already have terms which accurately describe this class of firearms: rifle or carbine. The military doesn’t call their long arms “assault rifles”, though due to their full-auto quality, they are arguably better suited to assaulting things any firearms we civilians are currently eligible to own. No, they call them…rifles!
I wish I had a great TLA to recommend, alas, I do not.
There are so many “modern sporting rifles” owned by average Americans that any ban attempt would be political suicide !!! Let them re-awake the Sleeping Giant of the electorate.
Sorry, Bill, but not all gun owners wish to go along with your lead. By coming up with an easily palatable name for “Ar platform” rifles, you are marginalizing the owners of other “semi-automatic versions of military battle rifles” (this is exactly what they are, and fits in well with the true meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment) What will you call the HK-91, semi-auto FN-Fal, M1A, and semi-auto Ak-47 and AK-74 rifles that many US citizens proudly and legally own? Why no glossy term for them?
Besides, not all owners of “AR-platform” rifles have them for “hunting or target shooting” either. You are doing these guys a major disservice with your campaign.
While I agree that embracing “assault rifle” is unnecessary, “Modern Sporting Rifle” is just a term that plays the same game our enemies do, using words to promote an agenda, neither which stays true to the intent of our God-given right.
Gary Marbut of MTSSA suggests “Homeland Defense Rifle”…..think you guys could ever stomach that?
I will have to agree with the crowd on this one, MSR seems like we are “handling” the public also. The media will use the term “assualt rifle” to embellish their stories for ratings. So why don’t we just call it a rifle and be done with it.
This is similar to the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” slogans. While many people own guns for sporting purposes, there are those of us who bought guns for things like defense. If we do have a “problem” with so called “assault rifles”, it is “blowback” from failed government policies such as the “Drug War”, our failed “mental health system”. How about people wacking out as side effects from various drugs such as “Prozac”. I would suggest rather than a “weak defense” of “evil looking semi auto rifles”, that you should consider going on a strong offense on failed big government policies that create problems in the first place.
You don’t have a constitutional right to own the sporting equipment of your choosing. You do, however, have a clearly stated constitutional right to keep (that means to own) and to bear (that means to carry) arms (that means [i]weapons, specifically military weapons[/i]).
If we allow our opponents to scare us into claiming our firearms are just another type of sports equipment, we’ll go where England, Australia, and Canada have gone, because that was exactly the grounds on which their gun ownership battles were fought and lost.
If we don’t want our modern sport rifles to become just as illegal as the lawn dart, we’ll stop trying to convince people that that’s what they are — and will instead frame the debate as the human rights issue that it truly is.
I recommend a different name – Sport Utility Rifle – to match what we do with cars. We all like the rugged ones. We like features we will rarely use (4WD). But we want them available in case we need them.