Link to my Roanoke Times column on Harrisburg show
Clearly this Smith and Wesson M&P 15 in .300 Whisper caliber is an assault rifle, right? Nope.
We’ve been talking for a few days on this blog about the Harrisburg show’s cancellation.
After spending some time at the Virginia Huntfest on Friday I felt the show’s cancellation was worth my writing about for my Sunday column in The Roanoke Times, which you can read HERE, with the added context of having talked about the development with some vendors who planned to be there.
I did get an email from a guy who took exception to the use of the term “assault weapon” in the headline. I am with him. Writers can suggest headlines, but we don’t write them. (Paper designers are better at it, generally, and also have to work with certain length requirements.)
In an email discussion with my editor and the copy editor who wrote the “hed,” the copy editor pulled up links to a bunch of other news stories that also included “assault weapon” in the headlines. This wasn’t an argument, just a case of someone using a term they assumed to be appropriate because, well, everyone else is using it, too.
I don’t dispute that the term is ubiquitous. What I do believe is that it is misused. It might not be technically incorrect. But it’s not technically correct, either. As we have discussed here, just what is an assault rifle? It is the camo gun pictured here, right? Well, the other gun and the camo gun function exactly the same way.
I actually am starting work on something like a Firearms FAQ. My goal won’t be to try to shape opinions, but rather simply to educate readers (who have an open mind and want to know) about the functions of and differences among various types of hunting, sporting and military firearms and accessories.
This isn’t an assault rifle. Or is it?
January 28, 2013 - 10:28 AM
Paint a gun any color you like Mark, but I guess technically anything that fires a projectile and is pointed at someone with the intent to do harm could be considered an “assault weapon” . Same could be said I guess for a knife, machete , ax baseball bat, a well sharpened stick or the first rock you could find handy and bash someone’s head in with it. Maybe Feinstein could pass a bill to ban those too. (Aren’t you proud of me that I didn’t use a hammer in my analogy, I know how that was starting to bug you)
Hello Mark. Were you responsible for the “Promoter pays a price….” slice of the heading? A month ago I had no knowledge of Reed Exhibitions. I am now a huge fan. Certainly there are now more admirers. I am not sure what price the promoter paid.
I like your use of “military-style” and “police-style” firearms. To me these descriptive terms provide even more rationality to a potential ban. If you are in the military or law enforcement, you will need these styles of weapons. Cletus and Claudette that live over on Crayfish Hollow Road, do they really need them?
Dianne Fienstein stated on Face the Nation yesterday that a gun with a collapsable stock makes it fully automatic. I was floored when she stated that. I know she mis-spoke, and if pressed about the fact compared to the statement, she would most likely conceed that just because it has a collapsable stock, it will not make the action completely fully automatic. Is there a problem though? Of course! How many people heard that statement, and know nothing about “assault styled weapons” and will take it for fact. This is how everything gets messy.
Stephen, I know you know the answer to your question and are just trying to make a point. But, to be on the safe side I will confirm that I was responsible for no part of the headline. Reed no doubt gained some new fans. Will those new fans now support their business endeavors such that the company’s losses from the Harrisburg show are rendered moot? I doubt it.
I appreciate your approval of the military- and police-style terms. The key word there is STYLE. Again, public opinion about these firearms is largely about looks, not capability. Do Cletus and Claudette NEED such a firearm? No more than my buddy NEEDS his Porsche Boxster S. It looks scary fast, and can attain criminally high speeds. Does that make it an inherently dangerous car? Nope. He likes the way it looks. He can afford it. So be it. That’s the free market way.
Whether it’s rivers or rifles it seems we just can’t get rid of the “King” these days. Once again I thought we had a Revolution to free us from British style rules.
Patriot — I was just thinking it would be interesting to see what good ol’ George III would have to say about all this!
Wake up boys. A gun is a gun, period. Quit getting wrapped around the axle on tangents. Considering every other issue that the Obama administration has used to try to divide the country, race, gender, abortion, health care, energy, taxes, or divert our attention from their criminal, unconstitutional maneuvering, we see now tens of millions of legal firearm owners standing up and saying “Enough”. This is the issue that will decide the fate of that administration. Reed Exhibitions is done, unless they host the next macrame conference. NSSF has already started looking for a new host organization to work the next SHOT show. Congress is paying attention too; Obama may not have to worry about another election, but those members do. What we are seeing in the gun owner response is a return to the constitution and common sense.
Actually, the definiton of the word “assault” shows the word itself is a NOUN and not an adjective. The use of the term “assault weapon” is an attempt to use the word assault as an adjective. Most of us hunters hope to “assault” a deer with one of our rifles or bows, every year.
So by grammatically making the term “aasult weapon” a noun in itself, the opposing side gets double use out of the word. The word assault though, clearly by its defintion, concerns the intent of the perpetrator, and therefore, since a weapon cannot have intent, does not really apply grammatically in the context used.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+assault&qpvt=assault+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
RidgeRunner, I caught some of Face the Nation too but missed that little slip of the tongue by Feinstein. Priceless. What a hypocrite. Can’t help but wonder what style of weapons protect the Congresswoman on a daily basis and just how many bullets she allows them to have. I’d bet the farm that its more than ten bullets in the weapons that are put to that use.
I think you people are sniffing something pretty strong. The notion that the libs are just going for those AR’s is exactly what they want you to believe. It is a plan that will also get a reasonable degree of support from the average Joe and Joan who really don’t care too much. BUT it’s not where it ends. You better wake up and see this gun grab for what it is. Here is an article which pretty much confirms that they can get all guns off the streets in “a generation”. But you think “off the streets” means just those in the hands of criminals? Well, watch out folks. You hunters and sport shooters are looking right down the barrel of the end of persoanlly owned firearms of any kind.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/27/San-Diego-Police-Chief-If-Obama-Plays-It-Right-We-Can-Disarm-Americans-Within-A-Generation
And if the PA show cancellation made your socks go up and down then read this:
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/25/new-york-gun-owners-plan-defiance-of-reg
I posted it over on the BRC blog yesterday but apparently the blog police over there don’t like such news.
Obviously you do know your audience, but seriously, “They can not expect all victories to comes so quickly and easily“? Where is the “victory” in cancelling a very popular family oriented event? Does it occur to you all that as many people are offended by this effort to control a show you do not sponsor as might be supportive of the bullying?
Sure you can cheer Ted Nugent on his malevolent rants too, but he offends as many people as he excites.
I can appreciate the sincere belief that guns matter so much and having any gun you like even moreso, but the massacre of innocent children by the son of a “doomsday prepper” who made it all possible has resonated with many Americans, and the belligerence of the gun culture is not assuaging that feeling it is confirming it.
I get it that you don’t care, but maybe you ought to.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2013/01/28/roanoke-college-poll-looks-at-what-virginians-think-about-guns/
Bubba Greene, do you REALLY think those people will be able to defy the law? Is that really the way you want to portray success?
Sandi — This was, at least at this point, a clear victory for those who took a stand against what they considered unfair judgement. Will Reed ultimately win by showing they gained support of those who appreciated what they did? That remains to be seen, but I sincerely doubt it. Unfortunately there were many others who “lost” as a result of the show’s cancellation. Who is to blame? Well, that’s what we are here to debate.
Sandi Saunders: Do you really believe those people who are hot on the trail of new gun regulations want to stop with just 30 round magazines and Armalite style rifles? Is that really all you think this gun control movement will portray as it objectives? That it will end there?
Did you know, or bother to check that Reed Exhibitions USA, the sponsor of the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show is based in Norwalk Connecticut? Why do you think the massacre and the display of these guns might be especially sensitive for this business, this year? No, I do not see this as “a stand against what they considered unfair judgement”, I see this as a unfair judgment of when to make a stand. I sure as life do not see any “victory”.
Absolutely AMAZING! “Where’s the victory”? Sporting people got together and said ENOUGH. It’s called standing up for a principal you believe in. The decision of the promoter was not viewed as favorable and vendors and participants said “go to hell, we won’t attend!” That’s the victory but it’s only a very small victory. It also shows that even if it results in a financial hardship for one who pulled out, IT’S THE PRINCIPAL. Even if some who might like to have attended now could not, IT’S THE PRINCIPAL. How totally offensive it is to suggest something like “bullying”. But not to be unexpected from you libs. I’m just waiting for you to come up with some racial inplication. Certainly you can use your disgusting imagination to play the race card.
As far as defying the law. Citizens who founded this nation defied the law of the king. We are now finding ourselves subject to more laws which are getting pretty close to needing to be defied AGAIN. Draft dodger defied the law in the 60′s and today they stand as “respected” patrotic Americans although not in my book. You can bet your pink bloomers defiance is potentially an appropriate next step.
Sandi: For an event of this magnitude to be cancelled as it was, I would say that the boycott was considered a victory by the families that the event was oriented towards. It was, after all, those families/attendees/vendors/celebrities who made that happen.
I did not (although i did not make an effort to) follow any literature or social media that showed anything but an overwhelming majority in support of a boycott of the ESOS due to Reed’s decision. If you can point me in the direction of evidence for the contrary, I would love to see it.
Also, something I thought of today: What about “airsoft” guns? There are many that are made to mimic ARs and other “black” guns. Seeing as they DO shoot a projectile and are, technically, called a “gun”, will they make a ban list? I would just find it interesting to ban the sale of “real” ARs and continue to allow kids to run around with “guns” that mimic them.
Just cannot seem to forget the phrase “defy the law”. So consider this. If I want to do it then “it’s a bad thing”. If on the other hand the government wants to do it, it’s OK, or a good thing. EXAMPLES
The administration halts deportation hearings on known admitted illegal aliens defying the law and the pledge to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States. That’s OK.
The Senate fails to pass a budget in 4 years although they are required to do so by law. That’s OK.
(But the Senate can produce an immigration reform bill in less than a month because that is deemed politically necessary!)
The administration fails to file quarterly spending reports as was required by law providing for stimulus spending. That’s OK.
The Justice Dept sells firearms illegally to organized drug rings in Mexico one of which is subsequently used to kill a federal agent. That’s OK.
A senator (Sharpton) claims citizens “do not have right to unregulated rights in this country” contrary to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that proclaims these rights are endowed by the creator not by government. That’s OK.
The EPA mandates the use of biofuels that do not yet exist (and their mandate must be overturned by a federal court). That’s OK.
A Georgetown professor says “Constitutional disobedience (aka disobeying the law) is as American as apple pie”. Unless when the act of defiance runs contrary to what liberals want. In that case, it’s NOT OK.
The head of the EPA can have employees create false identities (Richard Windsor) to avoid federal disclosure and recording requirements, which is a felony. That’s OK.
Hummm. And this is a list of only a few things that have surfaced in recent days which clearly prove the government can defy and disobey laws. But let a citizen attempt to do the same and it gets labeled as bullying (as soon to be proclaimed) racially biased, and worthy of corrective action courtesy of the government. No wonder they want our guns.
Well, on another matter, it looks like I successfully placed the winning bid on gunbroker.com for a “new” Colt AR which is reported to be “unfired” and includes all service related items that would have been issued when the gun went into military service. $3499. I NEVER thought I would have purchased one and dam sure never thought I would have paid that kind of money for it but this is a once in a lifetime buy and I was proded into doing it by comments from Casey’s most dedicated lib. Being sold by a PRIVATE SELLER in Northern Va so I’m taking a few days off to make the trip up and check it out and take personal delivery. Maybe more on the gun later. BTW, It comes with THREE…count ‘em…THREE 30 round magazines.
“I can appreciate the sincere belief that guns matter so much and having any you like even more so”
Sandi, can you also appreciate the sincere belief that I should have the right to choose for myself whether or not I own one of these weapons and a thirty round clip to put in it, without having some hypocrite like Feinstein wanting to make that choice for me? The death of all those innocent children resonates with me as much as anyone who has breath in their body, but that tragedy should not give the federal government a free pass to take away my rights, liberty and freedoms to make those choices for myself. And the proposed new gun control will do nothing to prevent the next Newtown even if it does pass into law. Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and they did nothing to stop this monster.
Another question. In your opinion, what would go further in preventing the next Sandy Hook….immediately placing trained, armed resource officers in every public elementary and high school in the nation, or fighting tooth and nail for legislation to ban high capacity magazines and all the weapons that are now being considered assault types which could take months or even years to accomplish? Which of these choices would stand a better chance of heading off the next mass school shooting?
I kind of see Sandi’s point here that there might not be many winners in this instance, definitely losers (small businesses who lost money and attendees who missed an awesome show). I am not so sure that Reed Enterprises is a loser here either (unless they get sued). They are a very big company with the majority of their business out of Europe without many if any other hunting/fishing shows in the U.S. Companies in Europe and probably some in the U.S. might actually want to work with them now, I guess time will tell on that if they are a loser, winner or neither.
Mark, just curious why you say the M&P is not an assault rifle? Isn’t it built on the AR15 platform? I am really just curious, but will wait anxiously for your article. I’ll take the bait though and say these two rifles are definitely more similar than different. The main difference is obvious looks, the second is the range they are capable of shooting accurately (Browning should be able to shoot farther distances), the third is the price (I would guess one is a bit pricier than the other), the fourth is the standard clip capacity (4 or 5-round for the Browning and 10-round for S&W), the fifth is one markets themselves as being suitable for home defense…one has a pistol grip. If they are in fact deemed very similar, the question is is there any justification to ban weapons on their “look” or if one should be banned should both?
Nino — I didn’t say the S&W wasn’t an assault rifle. My “nope” was the answer to the assertion that it CLEARLY is one. My point is there is nothing clear about it. Does that pistol grip on the S&W give that rifle a practical advantage over the Browning in certain situations? Probably. But, really, as you pointed out, the guns are more alike than not. The magazine capacity is the big difference. The Browning comes with a 4-round magazine; the S&W a 10-round. That particular S&W is in .300 Whisper/.300 AAC Blackout, a relatively short-range cartridge.
You astutely pointed out the marketing aspect. That’s actually a really big part of this whole equation. The truth is that gun manufacturers have helped strengthen the image of military- and police-style firearms as tough guy guns through marketing. It’s no different that RAM telling me that I will be tough if I buy one of their trucks, of Lexus telling me I will be suave if I buy one of their luxury sedans. I’m betting the marketing departments are working on new campaigns, and suspect we’ll see less of a focus on the “manliness” aspect of ARs and more of a focus on the Second Amendment and protection (of self and home).
Oh, the price. The S&W has an MSRP of $1,119; the Browning $1,299 to $1,359.99, depending on caliber. Of course you can buy the Browning, but good luck finding the S&W!
BTW, Bubba, re: your comment about bidding $3,499 on a new Colt AR. Really?
Good questions Bubba. I answer “yes” to all 3. I have absolutely no fear of the gun control movement. I have no panic that someone will take my firearms. I have no doubt that I will eventually be able to purchase that bolt action .22 squirrel gun I’ve wanted for years.
My hunting is not about the weapon. I enjoy the woods and water, and I enjoy eating game, which brings me to my tangible fears. Such things as climate change, mountain top removal, fracking, etc. scare the hell out of me.
I do not know the answers to my following questions. Perhaps they have been addressed earlier.
Machine guns were banned sometime in the 30s, I think. Was this ban detrimental to future ownership of firearms and our gun rights?
What is the sentiment among the military and law enforcement on all this?
And as far as Mark declaring victory for those standing against unfair judgment, I don’t think there were any champions. It is possible to engage in a tinkling match and both sides end up stained and wet. I am still trying to figure out our honored outdoor writer. Is he paranoid; is it a facade of paranoia/solidarity to preserve his following, and what exactly can be extracted from between his lines? I think he is a good egg but damned if I can get a handle on him.
Peace.
Bubba Greene, I really believe those people you claim “are hot on the trail of new gun regulations” have sold more guns than the NRA efforts. I also believe that no comprehensive gun control legislation will be passed, which means that whomever may not “want to stop with just 30 round magazines and Armalite style rifles” will have to do so. IMO, the objective here is to remove (or make it harder to get) the guns that seem to most appeal to the angry tyranny fighter and mass shooter. Everyone is well aware of the Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. Oddly enough, even us “gun control advocates” support that right, we just do not agree that it is or should be limitless and unregulated.
Huntersdad, I believe my comment “I can appreciate the sincere belief that guns matter so much and having any you like even more so”, clearly says that I “appreciate the sincere belief that I should have the right to choose for myself whether or not I own one of these weapons and a thirty round clip to put in it”. Do you have any idea how many people in this nation sincerely believe they should be allowed to smoke pot at their leisure without having some hypocrite wanting to make that choice for them?
Society makes the laws it wants the society to live by. YOU claim this “tragedy should not give the federal government a free pass to take away my rights, liberty and freedoms to make those choices for myself”, but in reality, the government and our laws always has done so, in many matters. The Patriot Act took away far, far more than this gun legislation does. Were you all this irate then? Did you fight to cancel those efforts?
You do not know that “the proposed new gun control will do nothing to prevent the next Newtown” any more than you know “immediately placing trained, armed resource officers in every public elementary and high school in the nation” will. This is an effort to curb what we see as a disturbing trend and a weapon that has mass potential for abuse going forward. I do not even think it will succeed but the irate rhetoric and IMO dishonesty many gun advocates argue with is truly telling.
Claiming this effort will “take away my rights, liberty and freedoms” is more than a little hyperbolic. There will still remain hundreds of guns available for personal self-defense, sport shooting and hunting. Not to mention the guns already in millions of homes. You know this.
Stephen – I’ve been called an egghead, but I think I prefer good egg! I’m not paranoid. I think of it more as a healthy combination of cynical and pragmatic based on an appreciation of (and higher education in) history, sociology and psychology. So, no worries about not being able to get a handle on me! I’m not easy to define!
Just a thought wasn’t the lever action rifle was te assault rifle of it’s day in 1873?
Sandi, I appreciate the lengthy response to my question of you, but you kinda sorta didn’t REALLY answer it. Do you have an opinion one way or the other which choice would have a better chance of preventing or at least lessening the carnage of the next Sandy Hook, the reinstatement of the old AWB with some new teeth, or armed guards at the schools? Even if the new/old legislation passes, there are still millions of guns available with high capacity clips that could be used in the next massacre, you pointed that out to me in your response. To me, nothing short of a total ban and collection of every weapon in the country will prevent such a thing from happening again and we both know that will never happen nor do I want it to.
. And besides, after the guns disappeared the nuts would turn to other means like fire bombs or explosives to commit mass murder.
Meanwhile, this debate goes on in the White House, in the halls of Congress, in the coffee shops, at the water coolers, right down to the humble bloggers like us and nothing is acually being done to protect the children of this country from the next nut with a gun. And to me that is truly sad…..we as a country are better than that, and these children deserve more than just empty arguments and meaningless legislation. At least that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Well Huntersdad, I appreciate that you want hard bricks to throw at me but I answered as honestly as I can. I do not think an armed guard in every school is practical (or going to happen) and I do not see it as any more safe or “foolproof” than the ban on these weapons (also not going to happen) and ending their carte blanche as the machismo “Rambo” choice for maniacs. Either could be equally effective IMO.
I do not believe that the Constitution (or Americans) would allow a gun ban or confiscation and while I support regulation, oversight, restrictions and limitations on some weapons, I cannot agree that people should be disarmed in their homes. (Or even in all cases, in public). I am well aware of the world we live in. I even believe felons should have the right to a gun in their home for self defense. I hold that as a right above the law if you need to know.
BTW, gun advocates, here is your chance to prove me wrong and stand up for the hunters who have so staunchly stood with you…
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2013/01/logic-and-continuing-the-sunday-hunting-ban/
Sandi we are in agreement that the armed guard thing is not very practical (and not likely to happen) ,but I am stuck on the idea as at least the quickest deterrent we could put in place to maybe prevent the next one. When I compare it to another piece of legislation that will do nothing of the sort as it is just more words written down on paper, said legislation pales in comparison in my opinion.
And thanks for standing up for the Sunday hunting issue, again we agree on something.
Mark- I’m sure it’s possible that George III, Hitlary, DiFi and BO could all be sippin’ tea together on his deck at this very moment. Hell, he probably even invited them all down for some “private” trout fishin’ on “his” river. And I’m sure they would all be surrounded and protected with REAL live “assault” weapons. A tool that they certainly don’t want any of their “subjects” to possess.
Yep, the “King” seems to have plenty of his town criers promoting his agenda these days. Let me clarify that for the “subjects” that refuse to acknowledge or don’t understand the term. The true definition of an “assault weapon” is one that is capable of FULL automatic fire. PERIOD. That’s all. Anything less is NOT an assault rifle, regardless of color, accessories, mag size or caliber. Use any acronym you like but DO NOT call it an assault weapon. I have fired both so don’t attempt to feed me a line of emotionally charged political BS. You can put mag wheels, a hood scoop and a Chevy emblem on a Hyundai but it will NOT perform like a Corvette. BTW, with the proper license you can also own a true fully automatic firearm. To demonize, criminalize or steal the rights of millions of law abiding citizens is no less a crime then those committed by a few murderous lunatics.
And please, don’t ask anymore stupid questions like; “We register cars don’t we?” “You need a license to drive don’t you?” “Your liable for your car aren’t you? NO, NO and NO. Thousands of hi-perf cars, motorcycles and boats are privately exchanged everyday with nothing more then a handshake to seal the deal. If I sell you a NASCAR and YOU choose to drive it on a public road and hurt or kill someone, YOU go to jail not me. You do not need a license to use a racing car/boat/bike on your property, some public property or any tracks. You don’t need a license to play football or skydive, but you can die doing any of this. Last year alone 700 Americans were killed by “illegal aliens” operating cars with no/ fraudulent drivers licenses. There are already more than 20,000 laws pertaining to firearms. Do we really need more? DO YOU THINK A CRIMINAL OF ANY TYPE WILL ABIDE BY ANY OF THEM?
On the sports show, they chose to make a purely political statement. Other Americans that still hold to our values, our Constitution and even our oath, made their statement. I believe rightfully so by boycotting such nonsense.
On school security, do as some states already have. Allow teachers/staff with hunting/firearm experience to carry undercover. That means everything from a personal sidearm to a 12 ga locked safely in a janitors closet. Ever wonder how many maintenance men, gym teachers or custodians are hunters, ex-military or retired LEO?
Finally, for all the “subjects” and like minded politicians, ask the right questions for a change. “Were any of these criminals on a psycho-active prescription drug?” (If accounts are correct I believe most of them were). Since there seems to be some conflicting reports, “Where is the school security video to verify the weapon(s) used?” Before we go on a witch hunt shouldn’t we have all the facts? Can it really be considered justice if we steal everyone’s rights because of the crimes of a few?” “Why isn’t the USAG being charged for all the “straw” purchases he allowed to happen”??
“When the law breaks the law, there is no law” Billy Jack 1972 I think
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” Ben Franklin
“The Patriot Act took away far, far more than this gun legislation does. Were you all this irate then?”
Good point Sandi, maybe this last hysterical rant about stealing even more of our rights was just, as they say, the last straw.