PDA

View Full Version : Military-Style Weapons vs Police-Style Weapons


senorpeligro
08-01-2012, 7:46 AM
I believe we concede some of the battlefield when we let the anti's use the term "military-style" to describe semi-automatic rifles. I've noticed such debates tend to then focus on semi-automatic vs full (or burst) automatic but the point being made is that military weapons don't belong in the hands of civilians.

Perhaps there is value in referring to AR-15 pattern, semi-automatic rifles as a "police-style" weapons? Aren't "patrol carbines" commonly issued equipment in patrol cars?

While military-style weapons are pretty much off the table thanks to the NFA, are we are fighting for our right to be self-equipped to the same level as the police? Is an anti really arguing that the police should be able to "keep and bear" weapons that law abiding members of the public should not?

Just some random thoughts, feel free to fill in the blanks. :thumbsup:

jwkincal
08-01-2012, 7:53 AM
Is an anti really arguing that the police should be able to "keep and bear" weapons that law abiding members of the public should not?

Yes they are. An anti will happily make this argument and feel that it is completely reasonable.

senorpeligro
08-01-2012, 7:55 AM
Yes they are. An anti will happily make this argument and feel that it is completely reasonable.

Maybe some will, maybe some won't. The wont's interest me. Maybe there's a loose thread to pull...

vantec08
08-01-2012, 8:05 AM
The protected class wants nothing better than a heavily armed police and an umarmed populace.

nicoroshi
08-01-2012, 8:05 AM
I agree that the words are important.
Catch phrases like 'military style', and 'assault weapon' should never be used to describe a centerfire semi automatic firearm regardless of how it may 'look' on the outside.

Military style, and assault weapons can fire in burst or full auto.

We cannot let it be broke down into 'goodthink and crimethink'

senorpeligro
08-01-2012, 8:06 AM
The protected class wants nothing better than a heavily armed police and an umarmed populace.

Isn't that a great argument to use with members of the unprotected class?

dustoff31
08-01-2012, 8:12 AM
The term "military style", like "assault weapon" is just another invented term that the anti's use to demonize inanimate objects and confuse people.

Inasmuch as it is largely based on the Mauser design, a Remington 700 is a "military style" rifle. So do they also propose banning the average hunting rifles? (Of course they do but at least make them say that)

Since the Mini-14 has been used at one time or another by the US Military, police, and civililians, what "style" rifle would that be?

We need to ignore all that noise and insist that a gun is a gun is a gun. When one is used improperly it has nothing to do with the "style" of gun, but rather with the "style" of the operator.

Sgt Raven
08-01-2012, 8:41 AM
I agree that the words are important.
Catch phrases like 'military style', and 'assault weapon' should never be used to describe a centerfire semi automatic firearm regardless of how it may 'look' on the outside.

Military style, and assault weapons can fire in burst or full auto.

We cannot let it be broke down into 'goodthink and crimethink'

No they can't! Assault Weapon is a term originally coined by gunnies to describe a firearm that looks like a modern Military firearm.

You've got it just as wrong as the antis when you wrote this. You are thinking of a Assault Rifle, which is a class of Military firearms. A Assault Rifle is a selective fire Rifle that uses a intermediary cartridge, compared to a Battle Rifle which uses a full power cartridge, or a Sub Machine Gun which uses a pistol cartridge.

cdtx2001
08-01-2012, 8:45 AM
Everytime I hear "military style" I think of people dressing up in military clothes and going out in public.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i95/tjs305/00d903e4.jpg

Or other clothing that is "styled" after military stuff...

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o209/cuuuuu/REAL-MILITARY-STYLE-BLAZER1copy.jpg



If the anti's want to ban "military style" stuff, hope that includes clothing too. Some of it really looks lame.

selfshrevident
08-01-2012, 8:54 AM
I agree that the words are important.
Catch phrases like 'military style', and 'assault weapon' should never be used to describe a centerfire semi automatic firearm regardless of how it may 'look' on the outside.

Military style, and assault weapons can fire in burst or full auto.

We cannot let it be broke down into 'goodthink and crimethink'

True that. It is so annoying to hear a lot of guys at the range ask me where I got my "assault rifle" or when other gun owners talk about how they want to buy their first "assault weapon" soon. FAIL.

tuolumnejim
08-01-2012, 9:02 AM
When anyone say's "military style" just tell them there's a lot more to than they think.
And it might shut a few up when you say here's some actual Military weapons. :43:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n104/tuolumnejim/colt_model_1873_single_action_army_cavalry_revolve r_44.jpg

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n104/tuolumnejim/case_20.jpg

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n104/tuolumnejim/case_55_1.jpg

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n104/tuolumnejim/M40_A1.jpg

pointedstick
08-01-2012, 9:06 AM
The protected class wants nothing better than a heavily armed police and an umarmed populace.

In my experience, this isn't quite true. They're suspicious and fearful of armed police officers too, especially the scary black-clad SWAT troopers. They'd prefer those folks to have the guns to us, of course, but at their core what they really want is a world where nobody at all has any guns and we all live in peace and harmony with a bunch of brotherly love because nobody hurts anybody else. It's not a bad thing to dream about, but it's a fantasy that in no way could the real world ever resemble.

I love bringing up militarized police, scary masked SWAT troopers, and no-knock raids to hardcore anti-gunners. I find that these topics make them very uncomfortable. Forcing them to confront the kind of society their policies are actually creating can cause extreme cognitive dissonance in their minds.

senorpeligro
08-01-2012, 9:14 AM
I love bringing up militarized police, scary masked SWAT troopers, and no-knock raids to hardcore anti-gunners. I find that these topics make them very uncomfortable. Forcing them to confront the kind of society their policies are actually creating can cause extreme cognitive dissonance in their minds.

^^This

Psy Crow
08-01-2012, 9:47 AM
When anyone say's "military style" just tell them there's a lot more to than they think.
And it might shut a few up when you say here's some actual Military weapons. :43:

Recently I read a discussion following the Aurora shooting where one comment was (paraphrasing from memory, caveat lector):

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had flintlocks and muskets. If the Founding Fathers knew about semi-automatic rifles they would have written a much different 2nd Amendment."

I disagree completely with the above statement and in the spirit of "changing the debate", would reword the first sentence as:

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had state-of-the-art military small arms in private hands."

$0.02.

Mikeb
08-01-2012, 10:50 AM
I think of them as 20th century style rifles and bolt guns as 19th century style.

donw
08-01-2012, 10:52 AM
showing pictures of an CA approved AR/AK doesn't really accomplish a lot.

most people, and legislators, too...do NOT know and understand the differences.

show a picture of an CA approved AR/AK and full on military M16/M4/AK47/74, few can tell the differences. yet...show the same a picture of an CA approved AR/AK compared to a semi-auto carbine such as the Ruger P9, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand and even the M14...they have no where near the fear of them as they do of the AR/AK yet all four have the same capabilities...in fact, they have the advantage of NOT having to have a BB.

we live in a time where there are a large percentage of the population living in such fear and paranoia of firearms that just a PICTURE of a firearm will cause them to panic! it's mostly due to the public schools and LEGISLATORS.

folks....it's legislators who are the enemy...NOT firearms.

fear, panic and paranoia may win this battle. it's going to get even tougher in the very near future if obama is re-elected.

senorpeligro
08-01-2012, 10:54 AM
I think of them as 20th century style rifles and bolt guns as 19th century style.

More accurately, mid-to-late 20th Century style rifles.

The primary personal rifles of the early 20th Century were bolt-action.

Mikeb
08-01-2012, 11:07 AM
More accurately, mid-to-late 20th Century style rifles.

The primary personal rifles of the early 20th Century were bolt-action.

I stand corrected ...though I think of bolt guns as the offspring of the Mauser.

Nick Justice
08-01-2012, 11:08 AM
Recently I read a discussion following the Aurora shooting where one comment was (paraphrasing from memory, caveat lector):

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had flintlocks and muskets. If the Founding Fathers knew about semi-automatic rifles they would have written a much different 2nd Amendment."

I disagree completely with the above statement and in the spirit of "changing the debate", would reword the first sentence as:

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had state-of-the-art military small arms in private hands."

$0.02.

They also had incendiary loads, explosive and fragmentary loads, grapeshot, hand grenades, biological weapons.

senorpeligro
08-01-2012, 11:08 AM
I stand corrected ...though I think of bolt guns as the offspring of the Mauser.

Don't forget the Mosin Nagant!

HBrebel
08-01-2012, 11:11 AM
The protected class wants nothing better than a heavily armed police and an umarmed populace.

you got that right. They would have us all totally disarmed or have each household allowed a musket or single shot .22

walmart_ar15
08-01-2012, 4:21 PM
Military-Style Weapons vs Police-Style Weapons? Assuming you are comparing only small arms, then the answer is the Police-Style Weapons are deadlier and kills more efficiently than your average Military-Style small arms. Why? Because even though the weapons are the same (Police can and have FA weapons), police uses hollow points, where the military are FMJ only.

As for:
"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had flintlocks and muskets. If the Founding Fathers knew about semi-automatic rifles they would have written a much different 2nd Amendment."

It would have been written "the right to keep and bear military arms shall not be....." The Founding Father of the Bill of Rights will not want the "People" to have semi-automatic rifles only, at a disadvantage, when the military has FA.

mag360
08-01-2012, 4:31 PM
I think the fact that they call them "military style" just needs to be exploited. I might live in a house that is "victorian style" it doesn't mean it is a victorian. What is wrong with something that is "military style"? you clearly just said that it is not an actual military gun right??

walmart_ar15
08-01-2012, 4:37 PM
The protected class wants nothing better than a heavily armed police they control and an umarmed populace.

Fixed it for ya.

And my definition of a heavily armed police officer is a cop with extra ammo clipped to his belt. Depending on the city, any patrol car now are equipped with a 5.56mm rifle (M4), pistol caliber carbine (MP5), and a 12 gauge shottie. Pop the truck you'll have load bearing vest, Kevlar helmets, flash bangs, etc, etc... In other countries, we would label them as "Para-Military".

Just 0.02

Librarian
08-01-2012, 4:38 PM
See also http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312452/military-style-weapons-john-r-lott-jr

rromeo
08-01-2012, 4:43 PM
I just call them "my style."

m03
08-01-2012, 5:04 PM
I believe we concede some of the battlefield when we let the anti's use the term "military-style" to describe semi-automatic rifles. I've noticed such debates tend to then focus on semi-automatic vs full (or burst) automatic but the point being made is that military weapons don't belong in the hands of civilians.

As mentioned by others, it's always great to point out that style == physical appearance, not function. Sort of like describing an Invicta as a "Rolex-style" watch...which is exceptionally effective if the person you are debating with happens to be a watch aficionado.

stix213
08-02-2012, 12:36 AM
Is an anti really arguing that the police should be able to "keep and bear" weapons that law abiding members of the public should not?


Actually one of the most common arguments I hear from anti's is that "guns should be in the hands of the police only." So yeah that is exactly what they are really arguing.

Something I've done though is I refer to gun rights as "self defense rights" and the anti's as the "anti-self defense crowd" in all my conversations with people on the fence. Seems to be effective word play and I've yet to have anyone call me out on it or disagree that that is not what the anti's are about.

Lugiahua
08-02-2012, 2:31 AM
it's just a term antis use for emotion appealing, just like "Assault Rifle"
(Not a legal definition of weapons nor applying to general AR-15s since they are not full auto))

If a "military style weapon" means weapon adopted by military, is a Garand or 1903 a "military style weapon"? How about 1911? M9? M590?

Based on same logic, a M700 or P226 must be a "Special forces style weapon" since SEALs use them...

cdtx2001
08-02-2012, 7:16 AM
Next time an anti says only the police should have guns ask them this scenario :

There's an intruder that just broke into their house and is standing in front of their bed with a large knife. They can have one of two things, and only one..
A phone to call the police that are at least 5 minutes away or
A gun.

Everyone I've ever put that scenario towards wants the gun.

Back on topic:

Whenever "military style firearms" is discussed, that should only be reserved for military weapons. Full auto, rockets, grenades, aircraft carriers jets, etc. But hey, what do you expect from unenlightened half wits that think criminals follow the law?

cdtx2001
08-02-2012, 7:24 AM
it's just a term antis use for emotion appealing, just like "Assault Rifle"
(Not a legal definition of weapons nor applying to general AR-15s since they are not full auto))

If a "military style weapon" means weapon adopted by military, is a Garand or 1903 a "military style weapon"? How about 1911? M9? M590?

Based on same logic, a M700 or P226 must be a "Special forces style weapon" since SEALs use them...

You also forgot spears, bows and arrows, swords, slings, axes, the mace, boiling oil, catapults, clubs, rocks........ Militaries have used lots of weapons over the years.

Untamed1972
08-02-2012, 7:48 AM
Either definition poses a problem because to the anti's agents of the state (Police and military) are the only ones who should have guns...period. So even calling them "police-style weapons" to them is still classifying them as something they think a civilian shouldn't have.

They shouldn't be classified as anything except constitutionally protected firearms.

CBruce
08-02-2012, 9:33 AM
Yes they are. An anti will happily make this argument and feel that it is completely reasonable.

In fairness, it's because there's the assumption of a more robust level of training and qualification required of law enforcement and military. Stricter guidelines for behavior, more stringent background and mental health checks, etc.

It's not an unreasonable arguement to make.

Isn't that a great argument to use with members of the unprotected class?

No, because it makes you sound like a zealot itching for the day the 'proletariat can rise up and overthrow the ruling plutocracy'.

Recently I read a discussion following the Aurora shooting where one comment was (paraphrasing from memory, caveat lector):

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had flintlocks and muskets. If the Founding Fathers knew about semi-automatic rifles they would have written a much different 2nd Amendment."

I disagree completely with the above statement and in the spirit of "changing the debate", would reword the first sentence as:

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had state-of-the-art military small arms in private hands."

$0.02.

And then, the newly formed armed forces made up of former civilian citizens of the newly independant United States, proceeded to steamroll over the Native American population who was armed with the more primitive bows and arrows.


One of the major problems about the gun-rights/gun-control discussion from my point of view is that no one is using the correct terminology. Not even the gun enthusiasts are consistent (I have misused these terms myself up until very recently):

Assault Rifle is a select-fire, intermediate caliber rifle capable of firing in burst or fully automatic
"Assault" refers to the tactical role supported by the weapons design: Lightweight, maneverability, accuracy. It does not refer to the weapons capability or imply that it's more deadly than other type of weapons (it's not)
"Assault Weapon" is a legally defined classification for a group of weapons that have certain combination of cosmetic and mechanical features.
Semi-Automatic simply means the spent casing/shell is automatically ejected and the next round chambered. Otherwise, one trigger pull = one shot; no different than a bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action weapon.


I have no idea what 'military-style' means. I assume it means it looks like something the military uses and therefore the implication is that it must be more deadly. Not sure why that doesn't apply to military-style clothing, vehicles, backpacks, or water bottles.

My rifle is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle.
It is not an "assault weapon" because 1) that legal classification and restriction is no longer valid on the federal level and 2) it doesn't meet the criteria as defined at the state (CA) level. It's simply a semi-automatic rifle. What it looks like is irrelevant.

erik
08-03-2012, 3:04 PM
"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had state-of-the-art military small arms in private hands."


They had cannons, too. :)

Dreaded Claymore
08-03-2012, 3:37 PM
They had cannons, too. :)

State-of-the-art military small arms AND crew-served heavy weapons. In private hands. :gunsmilie:

SVT-40
08-03-2012, 6:55 PM
Military-Style Weapons vs Police-Style Weapons? Assuming you are comparing only small arms, then the answer is the Police-Style Weapons are deadlier and kills more efficiently than your average Military-Style small arms. Why? Because even though the weapons are the same (Police can and have FA weapons), police uses hollow points, where the military are FMJ only.

Except the police only really started issuing any sort of rifle since the North Hollywood shoot out in 1997. Sure SWAT teams had rifles, however SWAT rarely if ever actually fires their weapons in any deployment.


Hollow point and soft point ammunition was available to the shooting public long before any police organization adopted them. The police were armed with .38 revolvers shooting solid lead ammo up until the late 1960's and 70's.

So a better term would be "Semi automatic sporting rifles". Because that truly describes what they are. Which is exactly the same in function to any sporting semi-auto shotgun or rifle.


Don't drag the police into this argument.

coq
08-03-2012, 7:53 PM
Recently I read a discussion following the Aurora shooting where one comment was (paraphrasing from memory, caveat lector):

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had flintlocks and muskets. If the Founding Fathers knew about semi-automatic rifles they would have written a much different 2nd Amendment."

I disagree completely with the above statement and in the spirit of "changing the debate", would reword the first sentence as:

"When the 2nd Amendment was written, the colonists had state-of-the-art military small arms in private hands."

$0.02.

You just saved me 3 minutes of typing.

Rider1k
08-03-2012, 8:04 PM
You just saved me 3 minutes of typing.

Well said

77bawls
08-03-2012, 11:47 PM
So my M&P15, M&P9c, and M&P45 must all be double evil because they're military and police. :D

wash
08-03-2012, 11:55 PM
Instead of saying military or police style, why not just say what they really are:

COMMON and POPULAR