Is there a difference...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...between the pro-control folks that want portray guns as innately evil and the industry that capitalizes on build a rifle like an AR to look as military as possible to market to those who want an "evil" looking gun?

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Sure, marketing is marketing and pro-control is sending a different message
	4 (80%)
	Nope, they're both sending the same message for different reasons
	1 (20%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[petronius]

1. I think "evil" is a mistaken framing in this question

It's more correct perhaps from the manufacturers' perspective, where tough, badass, scary appearances may be a selling point. 'Evil' is somewhat synonymous in that. However, I don't see anything particularly disreputable from that end; marketing something that looks a certain way--however strange it may seem to desire that look--is just marketing.

I see a somewhat larger issue on the pro-control side in this context, but it's not about 'evil.' Rather, there seems to be a deliberate effort to blur the meaning of a military appearance, and to pretend that a military-looking firearm is somehow more dangerous and deadly than one without that appearance. From that end, it veers into propaganda, which I think is a bit more disreputable than marketing...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Agreed

I completely see that manufactures follow a 'form follows function' dictate. There's even a function to making them in evil black. I also agree that there's nothing at all disreputable about making a car, gun, boat... badass looking.

I see some on the pro-control equating civilian possession of military-looking firearms as evil. The entire AWB campaign, IMHO, is completely aimed that way. (no pub intended) Disreputable, dishonest, disinformation should be called out for the pack of lies that it is.

[Eleanors38]

3. I've had 5 beers & a bowl full, 'stoo philosophical.

[Starboard Tack]

4. "Deadly" would be a better word than "evil"

Inanimate objects are not evil, though they may have been designed and made by those with evil intent.

There is no doubt that the appearance of a gun is relative to the reaction of those who see it. We were driving along a country road a couple of days ago, came round a bend and saw two young kids (12 or 13 yrs old), both carrying what appeared, at first glance, to be automatic weapons. Both my wife and our friend had an immediate reaction of "shock". As we passed close by the kids, I could see that they were either air guns, or toys. But from beyond 20 feet they looked pretty real.
When I was a kid I played with guns like that. It wasn't a problem, because nobody had real guns, not even the cops.
I wouldn't advise letting kids play with them today, especially outside the home, and especially in the US, where there are too many trigger happy people carrying real guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. re: "Inanimate objects are not evil..."

Agreed; I thought the words "portray" and "look" made that clear.

[benEzra]

6. Define "look military".

Is this rifle "military looking"?



How about this one?



Or this one?



All of the above are military rifles, as opposed to my non-automatic Rock River AR (a configuration that to my knowledge has never been issued by any military on this planet).

Honestly, I believe a lot of people confuse "looks military" with "looks modern", and would probably consider a Tubb 2000 or a Remington R25 to be more military-looking than a Remington M700, Mossberg 500, or Colt M1911.

But given that rifles are the least misused of all weapons in the United States (not only accounting for fewer murders than handguns and shotguns, but fewer than knives, clubs, and shoes/bare hands), the push for rifle bans made no sense in the '80s-'90s and makes far less sense now, IMO.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. With a few rather distinct exceptions...

...they all look a bit military don't they?

[benEzra]

8. There's a reason for that...

in that most civilian guns since the invention of guns are civilianized military weapons, going all the way back to matchlocks and flintlocks. The irony is that AR's and such are functionally less similar to their military ancestors than a Winchester Model 70 is to a Mauser infantry rifle, or a Winchester lever-action is to a Henry military carbine.

I think it's also interesting how the AR market has evolved away from the original military look, as carry handles largely disappeared in favor of optic mounts and civilian-profile barrels replaced the military-style barrels with M203 cutouts, and how a fair number of military and LE-restricted weapons now mount civilian optics and accessories developed for IPSC/USPSA and 3-gun matches. Today's AR is a far cry from the Colts of the 1960s and 1970s or even the M4gerys of the late '90s.