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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kreyzhorse

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.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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/201...ns-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]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

I am really unclear on where you get your made up definitions, especially of assault weapon. These were clearly defined by law in 1994 and don't mention anything about killing people.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds...0of%201994.htm

Under Assault Weapons are descriptions of various configurations that constitute being an assault weapon. These include rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

I am not sure how you can claim something does not exist when it is codified into law at the federal level and for several states. You are going to have a very tough argument to make with the NRA given the obvious evidence against your claim.

Funny how you can claim "assault rifle" is only a technical term but that "assault weapon" is just a term that came into use by the population and then defined it without reference to its legal definition.

However, you seem to be concerned with the validity of terminology based on its etymology and ascribing more validity to prescriptive definitions over descriptive definitions. While I would tend to believe that prescriptive definitions are generally more precise than descriptive definitions (i.e., common language usage), you would be hard pressed to justify a claim of a lack of existence because you don't like a descriptive definition or that a descriptive definition is necessarily wrong because it is a descriptive definition and not a prescriptive definition.

[44 AMP]

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.

Yes, the term is "plastic", dependent on changes to the law. But that is the same for everything the law does. The meaning of everything covered in law is whatever "any legislature anywhere" says it is, in the law they pass.

You want a single, precise definition of assault weapon? Just READ THE LAW they wrote. They define it there. Legally. If your gun meets whatever absurd definition they wrote in the law, the the law says it is an assault weapon.

Those of us who know and understand how the various terms are used in our sport and industry know what it "right". What is written in the law is what is legally binding. Until/unless the law is removed from the books, then no matter what we know they are, they are what the law says they are, for any purpose involving the law.

One example: The law says that any semi auto handguns that uses a detatchable magazine and does not accept that magazine through the grip of the firearm is an assault weapon. That is a definition, and when in law, a legal definition.

This makes the Tec 9 (as an example) an assault weapon. This particular gun looks like (in general) a submachine gun, fitting the intended image of an assault weapon, and so now, this handgun is now an assault weapon.

But some models of Walther and other brands of Olympic target pistols also are legally turned into assault weapons by the definition in this law. (note that the newest versions of the proposed law, and I believe the law passed in NY, specifically exempt the Olympic target pistols from being assault weapons under the law. Nice of them to do that, huh?

The current assault weapon laws list a lot of guns specificly by maker, name, and model number. These guns are assault weapons in the law. Then the laws go on the define any other semiautomatics with....whatever particular combination of features they list. Guns meeting that written standard ARE legally assault weapons.

No amount of reasoned argument, explanation, or industry standard usage can, or will change that. The only way to change it is to do it through changes to the law. Our Legislators have spoken, and until we can get them to say different, that is the way it is.

Ok, maybe a court, or THE court can strike the law, effectively going back to square one, but until/unless one of those things happens, the law is what it is, and we have to live with it.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

I am really unclear on where you get your made up definitions, especially of assault weapon. These were clearly defined by law in 1994 and don't mention anything about killing people.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds...0of%201994.htm

It being defined in law doesn't make it a legitimate term.

Under Assault Weapons are descriptions of various configurations that constitute being an assault weapon. These include rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

I am not sure how you can claim something does not exist when it is codified into law at the federal level and for several states. You are going to have a very tough argument to make with the NRA given the obvious evidence against your claim.

Because again, a legal definition that has nothing to do with the technicals is meaningless. That's like if a legislator creates a term "assault speech" and says they just want to ban "assault speech" when assault speech can be whatever they want it to be. There are forms of speech that legitimately are harmful to people, and thus which we regulate, and then there can be political definitions of speech that are whatever the legislator wants it to be.

Funny how you can claim "assault rifle" is only a technical term but that "assault weapon" is just a term that came into use by the population and then defined it without reference to its legal definition.

Not sure I understand your argument here. "Assault weapon" was created by gun control proponents. It solely deals with the cosmetics of the gun and the definition can be changed. It can be a weapon with a detachable magazine and two "military-style" features or a weapon with a detachable magazine and one "military-style feature." They can define it to be what they want it to be.

However, you seem to be concerned with the validity of terminology based on its etymology and ascribing more validity to prescriptive definitions over descriptive definitions. While I would tend to believe that prescriptive definitions are generally more precise than descriptive definitions (i.e., common language usage), you would be hard pressed to justify a claim of a lack of existence because you don't like a descriptive definition or that a descriptive definition is necessarily wrong because it is a descriptive definition and not a prescriptive definition.

You could point out it is wrong by the fact that it doesn't deal with the function of the weapon, no explanation is given as to how the so-called "military-style features" make the weapon more lethal supposedly, and the fact that the legislators can constantly modify the definition to be whatever gun they want it to be.

By this standard, you could create the term "assault speech" and outlaw almost every form of speech in existence by simply expanding or rewriting the definition to constantly encompass more forms of speech, and so long as you let people engage in some limited forms of speech, you claim you are still protecting their right of free speech.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by me

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.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Yes, the term is "plastic", dependent on changes to the law. But that is the same for everything the law does. The meaning of everything covered in law is whatever "any legislature anywhere" says it is, in the law they pass.

Let me suggest to you that your clause bolded above does not reflect ordinary grammar and use. While legal terms of art and statutory definition may be determined or influenced by legislative action, the meaning of ordinary language is determined by the agreement of the users. Where participants in a conversation do not agree that a term so broad as to have no meaning, "assault weapons", has a single specific meaning, it is fair to question the validity of the term.

Certainly, if your state legislature determined that it would call your horse a unicorn, you would not feel compelled to admit the validity of the term unicorn has applied to your horse.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

You want a single, precise definition of assault weapon? Just READ THE LAW they wrote. They define it there. Legally. If your gun meets whatever absurd definition they wrote in the law, the the law says it is an assault weapon.

I would prefer a coherent definition. Which law should I read? Who are they above? And what is the law?

Congress? The Ohio General Assembly? The Connecticut state legislature? California? New Jersey? Cleveland city Council?

Many legislatures have had their own statutory definition of the term "assault weapon".

When Sen. Feinstein uses the term "assault weapon", is she referring to the statutory definition set forth in 1994, or in an outline of a bill she proposes currently, or in the California statutory scheme? She does not specify because she is not using a legal term of art or a statutory definition; she is using a word she knows is ambiguous and that conveys her disapproval. That is in no reasonable sense a valid definition of a class of firearms.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Those of us who know and understand how the various terms are used in our sport and industry know what it "right". What is written in the law is what is legally binding. Until/unless the law is removed from the books, then no matter what we know they are, they are what the law says they are, for any purpose involving the law.

I don't believe anyone has contested that. This is not a matter of an ability to read statute, but whether the use of statutory jargon beyond the context of reference to a specific legislative act is a valid use of a term in ordinary political discourse.

Where the common thread that runs through the various definitions of "assault weapon" is not much more than "items most of one legislature or another would rather people not have", it seems fair to question whether the use of such a loose term is validly employed.

I would just urge anyone making this point not to imagine that it is a persuasive argument to a person who cannot wrap his head around private ownership of a shotgun that holds more than five shells.

[eodinert]

Arguing semantics will not win the debate.

[JRH6856]

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.

Wow. So EBR = Evil Black Rifle? And all this time I thought it meant Enhanced Battle Rifle as in Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (Mk14 EBR).

[44 AMP]

The fact is that perception creates its own reality. And so does the law. As to whether or not assault weapon is a valid term, I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

You and I may not agee with the validity of the term, or the accuracy of its definitions, but in each jurisdiction where such a law exists, and assault weapon is what the law says it is.

And yes, it can be different in each different jurisdiction. And yes, it can be changed at the whim of the legislatures & governors.

No, it shouldn't be different in different places, but it is. No, it shouldn't be in use at all, but it is.

And some version of a definition exists in the minds of the general public already. And yes, most of them are incorrect.

But we have to deal with what is, not what we wish, or what should have been, and isn't.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The fact is that perception creates its own reality.

Then if we perceive the law to be an ass, isn't that also real?

Mr. Brownlow: The law assumes that your wife acts under your direction.

Mr. Bumble: If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.

-Oliver Twist

[Andrew Wiggin]

Because it's a specious, semantic argument. The only value it has is to unbalance your opponent in a debate by demanding they define "assault weapon" so you can hit them with a more substantive point in the few short seconds that they stammer. Joe Sixpack doesn't care about what he perceives as a minor technical point. He'll just roll his eyes and say "You know what we mean: those scary black guns with big *clips*."

The important parts in this battle are to remind people that:

1: Guns save lives
2: Civilian possession of military weapons is the cornerstone of a free nation

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Because it's a specious, semantic argument. The only value it has is to unbalance your opponent in a debate by demanding they define "assault weapon" so you can hit them with a more substantive point in the few short seconds that they stammer. Joe Sixpack doesn't care about what he perceives as a minor technical point. He'll just roll his eyes and say "You know what we mean: those scary black guns with big *clips*."

I don't see it this way. I think the semantics that would make people roll their eyes would be if a gun rights person gets bent-out-of-shape perhaps over for example the exact term for an automatic fire weapon. For example, if someone says, "assault weapon" regarding an automatic fire rifle and the gun rights person says, "Assault weapon is a political term, ASSAULT RIFLE is the appropriate term," I mean yes but THAT'S were many people might roll their eyes and say, "You know what we mean, the weapons that have automatic fire capability."

Pointing out that assault weapon is determined solely by the cosmetic features, and not by function, I think really scores points with a lot of people. It opens up eyes of people who otherwise didn't know that. It says to them that you are not against banning automative fire weapons, that your point is that "assault weapons" are nothing of the sort, they just look frightening is all.