It’s neither. It’s a sports rifle with a semi-automatic bolt. Not designed for military use, and that’s why no military’s use them, having more stringent requirements AND different rate of fire requirements (semi-auto, selective fire and full auto).
So, using that definition I’m totally good with banning all guns that meet that definition, since basically you can’t buy most of the weapons that DO meet the requirement for ‘intended for military use’. And the magazine capacity claim of ‘high’ is so mushy that it’s meaningless. What is ‘high capacity’? 5 rounds? 50? 500? 5000? Probably something in there somewhere. It’s really moot anyway, since as anyone knows who has actually fired a clip fed weapon it takes less than a second for even an amateur to change out a clip…someone who is REALLY good and has practiced can do it so fast that it might as well be a continuous feed weapon (there was a guy on Mythbusters who was able to fire and reload so fast from a clip fed pistol that they had to use slow motion filming to even see what he was doing).
And James Randi once found a guy that could identify classical music on a record by looking at the grooves, but both of those cases are extreme aberrations that have no relation to capabilities of the average person.
When you look at a Marlboro add, do you get the impression that you’ll be using an oxygen tank and have holes in your neck, or that you’ll be riding a horse in the clean mountain air? Seriously, this is a silly argument. Obviously, these guns are made to LOOK like they are military weapons…that’s the draw for some people. And, of course, it’s what scares others who don’t know what they are looking at and THINK they are for military use or used by the military.
‘Sports rifle’, of course, is the catch all for recreational (civilian) rifle use. You can use it for hunting, for target practice or just to think you are a bad ass at the shooting range. As with many things, you can abuse it as well, as this asshole in Orlando did. It’s all in how the user uses the tool.
That’s why I made the distinction between an amateur user and an expert…was adding some color, since a lot of folks here watch or used to watch Mythbusters and they might have seen the show.
Did you look at the link? If you had, you would see that their own advertising was not designed to attract hunters or those who need a rifle for target practice. Their own ad speaks of “military specs” over and over again-if there is any wrong idea that this is a military weapon, it is the company itself that is trying very hard to put that wrong idea across.
I did. Did you actually take a moment to think about my own point? Just a moment to think about advertising in general, and whether it always reflects reality, or instead reflects the impression they are trying to convey to get people to buy their products?
To get to your point, whether they SAY their product meets ‘military specs’ (which they might in some vertical areas…I mean, it’s a gun, and it fires a bullet, and one that is the civilian equivalent of the military round, and it has pistol grips and other do-dads that are similar or even exactly like the military do-dads wrt rail size and grip circumference, etc etc), they are playing with words and impressions, because if their weapons REALLY met (all) ‘military specs’ then they would be selling them to the military…which they aren’t. And they wouldn’t have separate lines that they DO sell to the military, since it’s more difficult to build different lines than just building one and sell it to both the civilian and military markets (which they can’t do in reality). This is like buying a sports car that the advertisers SAY meets ‘race specs’ but is still street legal and has an AC and stereo (and don’t have a host of features that real race cars actually have and are required to have).
What type of customer is the ad aimed at? Would you say the company has any responsibility whatsoever if their ads attract those who might use their products in an irresponsible manner? You speak of the Marlboro ad, but don’t mention that advertising for that product has many restrictions and must include warnings.
There are a lot of gun collectors and sports shooters who want weapons that look military. Surely (or Surly :p) you know this??
What kind of warning do you want to put on a gun or a guns package? I’m not opposed, just curious as to what you’d put on it and whether you’d require similar warnings for things like knives or hammers or whatever. I’m not trying to be snarky or score points here, really curious as to your thoughts. The warnings on the Marlboro ads are because the regular use of the product in its intended way can and does cause cancer (which is also why there are warning labels on alcohol and other things like that). The regular intended use of a gun is not to murder a bunch of kids in a school or a bar, and I’m pretty sure everyone understands that already.
That might be one indication. So might a statement or something by the company or designer, “Hey, we designed this gun to try and win the Polish Army contract for a new infantry rifle” or something similar. I don’t think the fact that it’s black and chambered in .223 and accepts magazines is some automatic indication that it was “intended for military use”. There is very clearly a civilian market for those sort of firearms. Why is it hard to envision a company making one, intending to sell it to civilians who find those features appealing?
Going by the advertising of this particular weapon, I’m not sure everyone understands it’s “regular intended use”, which is…fuck if I know. It doesn’t seem to have been created for hunting or home protection, and there isn’t any mention of it being a “collectable”. There is much talk of it’s many “functional” features and accessories, few of which seem to have been designed for use on a target range.
What kind of warning? I don’t know if any particular warning would suffice, but it seems that this unrestricted advertising is aimed at those most like to abuse the product.
Like I said, going by the advertising I’d think the intended use for a Marlboro is riding in the mountains or on the open range with my trusty horse and my cowboy boots…and most advertising is exactly the same. I rarely go play with other polar bears while enjoying a coke, for instance (YMMV of course), nor do I jump my car over gorges or through flaming hoops or spin it through patterns of other spinning and sliding cars.
Obviously, the advertisers of that gun are gearing towards the market of sports shooters who want guns that look like real military guns. I’m unsure of why this is surprising or has you so riled, since they AREN’T IN FACT REAL MILITARY GUNS NOR DO THEY HAVE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF REAL MILITARY GUNS. They merely look like them superficially.
Um…why? Are you saying that the military is abusive, so people who want military looking guns would naturally be abusive too? Or that because they look like military guns that opens the products to abuse because…military??
Um…If I mean to say things like that, I will say things like that. If you just read the words I actually say, it might not be so confusing. You say you see advertising that is aimed at those who want a gun that looks like a military weapon. What I see is advertising that is trying to go right to edge of saying “This is the assault weapon you’ve always wanted!” without going over the line.
I’m reading what you actually say…hell, you are supposedly tightening it up HERE…and it still looks the same. They are advertising (advertising for the sake of the gods) for a military look, and you seem to think that’s wrong or bad or abusive…or something. You are saying that in various ways. And then you snap back and me for asking why and say I need to read what you say and I’ll be less confused. Seriously, what exactly is your issue with them advertising their gun to be ‘the assault weapon you’ve always wanted’ and how does that substantially differ from pretty much all other advertising for every other imaginable product out there?
That ciggy advert comes with a big warning about the health risks. That car advert comes with the standard disclaimer that it is performed on a closed set with professional drivers(usually with a “Do not drive like these maniacs at home!” type of disclaimer also added).
Just because advertising is often unethical doesn’t mean that unethical advertising is acceptable. We could have a whole GD thread just about modern advertising; and when we’re talking about something as serious as firearms it does seem like some restraint and ethics would definitely be in order.
If someone advertised chainsaws with sly allusions to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre I’m pretty sure that there would be criticism and you, Czarcasm, and myself would likely all be on the same side.
Sly allusions? What if someone actually designed a chainsaw to make chopping up bodies easier, then advertised those capabilities by having people run around and swing said chainsaw in a threatening manner…but stopped short of saying “This is a great weapon for chopping up bodies!”
It’s really moot anyway, since as anyone knows who has actually fired a clip fed weapon it takes less than a second for even an amateur to change out a clip…someone who is REALLY good and has practiced can do it so fast that it might as well be a continuous feed weapon (there was a guy on Mythbusters who was able to fire and reload so fast from a clip fed pistol that they had to use slow motion filming to even see what he was doing).