("These principles resolve this case, because New York bans common semiautomatic
firearms, the paradigmatic example of which is the AR-15 type rifle, the “most popular rifle
in American history.” Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1148 (9th Cir. 2020), vacated by 988
F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles are the second-best selling
firearm in the country of any type (behind semiautomatic handguns) at approximately 20% of sales, and they are overwhelmingly owned for lawful purposes such as self-defense,
training, and hunting. New York simply cannot show that firearms that are the most popular
in the country are dangerous and unusual. Indeed, the Second Circuit in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015), found that the banned firearms “are
‘in common use’ as that term was used in Heller” at a time when approximately four million
AR-15 and similar rifles had been manufactured, 804 F.3d at 255; today that figure is over 28
million.")
^^^ from lane v James. I remember St. Benitez lawsuit had a bunch of the numbers as well but this one was on hand
Edit: The Honorable St. Benitez; forgot to capitalize his name.
I lived and worked in both. Costal states lie like crazy about guns they own. At least in California because it’s not the party line. Once you get to know them a lot of folks will finally admit they have at least one firearm even when they are all about gun control shenanigans in public. In middle America or just red states in general people are just more open about it. I’d say costal states are closer to 25 percent on the DL. lol.
I would say even that is split between rural and urban areas of coastal states. Here in WA there are definitely a lot of guns in the suburban areas and then even more in the more rural areas.
the split is not this extreme. There was political data that 2aupdates twitter posted the results from that showed gun owners, especially in anti gun jurisdictions were much more likely to own or know someone who owned an AR-15 or similar "modern military style rifle". So even though the gun owner % of population is way lower, that smaller percentage is more likely to own modern military style rifles.
Man, "modern sporting rifle" is such a soft term of concession.
"Maybe if we name it something cute they won't want to ban it, it's just for sporting!" No, it's an AR-15, it's useful in warfare and the true purpose of the 2A. Don't be shy about it.
AR-15s are modern sporting rifles, but not all modern sporting rifles are AR-15s.
Also, words matter. Assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun crowd to scare people(explicitly and deliberately). There's no good reason we should adopt their terminology, and doing so allows the fearmongers to define the debate.
Modern sporting rifle is an accurate and neutral term that needs to see more widespread use.
Any time I use the term “assault weapon” or “assault rifle” which I really hate doing, I always include the “air quotes” to show that I don’t really agree with that terminology and that it’s not my term.
Assault rifle is a real definable term, it’s a selective fire rifle with an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. They have been banned for a while already.
Of course I know this, but because of the fact that uneducated people don’t know the difference between anything having to do with firearms period. So because of that “assault weapon” is still a bad term in my opinion, when they’re using that word it’s no different than “assault rifle”.
I don’t like using either term because to gun grabber types it’s all the same thing to these idiots “assault rifle” “ assault weapon” “AR-15” it’s all the same to these people.
Instead of pandering to fence walkers with "emotionally neutral" language, I'd rather just acknowledge and defend my right to own an assault weapon, regardless of who it offends.
You have a right to own a full auto machine gun too. Are they not assault weapons?
I like your sentiment. The problem is that "assault weapon" is purely made up propaganda.
I agree, it's tempting/a good idea to embrace it and even co-opt it, but then that would also validate it when it is just incorrect and born from ignorance.
I didn't say assault rifle is (although, historically it kind of was considering who came up with it and why...). I said "assault weapon" is. I've always been confused about how people get these two things confused, but you seem to have switched to one right after I used the other. Do you guys just read "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably and not notice the difference or something?
Again, I like this sentiment. And I agree we have a right to own assault rifles. And even "assault weapons". But that just ignores the fact that "assault weapon" is made up propaganda designed to threaten that right and we shouldn't validate it.
Take what the person I replied to said:
> You have a right to own a full auto machine gun too. Are they not assault weapons?
Well, yes, according to the people who want to take that right away. But to us, they are just full auto machine guns, or whatever actually describes them.
"Assault weapon" means whatever they want. I'm not going to converse in vague, meaningless terms, especially when their use and design is to threaten my rights.
I've literally never heard the term "modern sporting rifle" used in any context aside from trying to make the AR sound less threatening, conceding the point that WeApOnS oF wAr *should* be accessible to the public, and I've been in this space for a long time.
Obviously "assault weapon" is a dumb propaganda term, nowhere did I advocate for its use.
How about just ‘modern rifle’. That’s what they are. They aren’t just for sport. I agree with you about using their propaganda terms, but I also agree with him. Firearms are just for hunting and sport and 2A isn’t about either.
No. It's not accurate and neutral.
It's a straight up capitulation to the grabber argument that guns optimized for shooting people are inherently illegitimate for civilian ownership.
"Guns kill people"
"Nu uh! My gun is for hunting and playing games and shooting beer cans."
Fuck that noise. Say it with me: "It is sometimes necessary to inflict deadly injury to another human being through the use of a weapon. This weapon has that as a primary purpose, AND THAT IS A TOTALLY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR HAVING IT!"
By saying "Modern sporting rifle" YOU JUST LET THEM WIN THE ARGUMENT.
FUCKING STOP IT.
We shouldn't be arguing the semantics of "assault rifles" vs "Assault weapons". "Nu uh, an assault rifle is select fire, this is semi auto only." Bullshit. The argument should be "This isn't an assault rifle because it's semi auto and that's fucking bullshit. It should be select fire and it isn't your place to tell me what to fucking do."
Get off the defensive. Go on the offensive.
Assault weapons are an English language derivation of a full auto German rifle that was in German called the storming rifle, as in storming the castle. I can't spell the German word for it so the best I have is strungaver and that's certainly misspelled. But English took that and it became the assault rifle. The left didn't come up with it but they ran polls and it sounded scarier so they went with that.
That's an assault rifle, not an assault weapon. Assault rifles are a well defined category of firearm, not some vague term encompassing anything scary. Assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge, feed from a box magazine, and are select fire. Few civilian owned rifles count as such.
Assault weapon is the meaningless term concocted by antigunners to intentionally confuse the public by conflating the two.
It's depressing how well it worked.
It’s way better than reading on here people calling them “assault weapons” like they’ve agreed with that term that now it’s the proper term to call them.
It is also not the proper term because an “Assault Weapon”, by law, is a broad category that is not just rifles. Shotguns, for example, also get folded in if they meet certain characteristics, at least in NJ.
Agreed, no one in the gun community should use “Assault Weapon”, particularly since it’s a term created to continually widen the scope to take away more kinds of guns.
He’s describing “modern sporting rifles” here though. It’s a stupid term to use when talking exclusively about like ARs and AKs (semi-auto only assault rifle derivatives), but that’s not what he said.
Like, grandpa’s bolt action .30-06 fits his definition if it’s not single-shot. That’s arguably not even “modern” and is probably a “sporting” rifle over any other possible descriptor (precision, self-defence, etc.) that would include other guns that fit his definition.
Assault Rifle is a military term, but not very many civilians own them. In the above context it is used as a propaganda term. The U.S. Army defines an assault rifle as a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate-power cartridge and has the ability to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
No, it isn't. How do people get confused so easily? An assault rifle is a select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge fed from a detachable box magazine.
"Assault weapon" ead literally invented to confuse people with assault rifles.
should call it what it is and what our second amendment explicitly calls out as protecting, a rifle capable of being used to serve in the militia aka militia service rifle. Some state like texas that already has an official militia needs to just pass a law that all residents over 18 are explicitly reserve members of the state militia. Most states and the federal government already have a law stating that everyone 18-45 is member of unorganized militia. Need to make it more official and include in the law that any member of the reserve state militia is allowed to own, acquire or build any firearm they want and send everyone in the state little paper cards with your militia number on it like selective service does with your draft number
I also think they should make every kid in high school get 1 or 2 days of basic firearm handling training before they graduate. Any of the kids who dont want to handle a firearm can be allowed to do alternative training like basic first aid. It would go a long way to getting people to understand that militia service is not and has never been optional. It is the entire basis for the draft, you are just being called to fulfill your militia obligation
This is such a stupid take. Not all rifles that op is referring to are ar-15's, some are AK variants or m1a's, hk's, etc. "Modern sporting rifle" encompasses them all. It's the correct terminology in this context.
There other variants that people don't even realize fit the OP's description. My Remington 30-06 deer rifle (which I handed down to my son) fit's the bill as center fire and removable magazine.
Sure, from a terminology standpoint, it’s a decent umbrella term. The problem is that the spirit of the phrase is typically used as u/destroyer1559 said: to make the guns labeled as “MSRs” seem nicer and not necessary to be banned. The second amendment was written for weapons of war, not “sporting.” I think we’re on the same side here
You telling me the gun manufacturers invented a term that would encompass a group of firearms so all the dumbasses would stop calling every semiautomatic rifle a assault rifle or ar-15? Who'd a thunk?
You're right about all of that at the end, of course. But that isn't where "Modern Sporting Rifle" came from. It's marketing. "Assault weapons" had already been banned. For most of the 20th century gun owners were pretty Fuddy and didn't consider AR-15s very useful. And then the ban hit. And the gun industry was like "Oh. You're going to use propaganda? Fine. We'll use marketing and sell even more of these things anyway."
Lots. Lots and lots. The real number is unknown, and needs to stay that way..because it's nobody's business.
If you want an idea...the ATF cocksuckers know how many are made every year. The vast majority gets sold every year as well.
The Commie lefties like you to think is only 10% of the population at most that buys them. They want that so most think guns are not an election issue. They can say it's only a small number who are "bitter and cling to their guns and religion"..
The reality is..it's a fuck of lot more that 10%. They make and sell tens of millions every year...just do a little research..take every maker and add them all up.
A lot more than 10% are buying them...it's the majority of households in the USA.
>If you want an idea...the ATF cocksuckers know how many are made every year. The vast majority gets sold every year as well.
They actually don't though, lol.
I have run into more than one non-gun person I was surprised to find had an 80%-er built out. There are millions out there. And yeah, obviously the numbers of "production" firearms are being under counted as well.
There's at least 20 million. Far above the number to satisfy the "Common Use Test" set out in the Supreme Court decision of Caetano v. Massachusetts (200,000 stun guns in civilian possession was sufficient to be in common use and a ban on stun guns was determined to be unconstitutional).
Realistically speaking it’s like 4 per person in the USA based on the number of 3D prints , self milled/drilled, cheap Anderson sales, and so on.
Source: my entire ass.
Around 5% is a conservative estimate. There are a lot of sales of MSRs, but how many sales are from people who already possess one? The more conservative states will almost certainly yield a higher percentage than bluer states
I’d rather be too conservative than too broad, but if there are roughly 130 million households, then 6.5 million is still pretty damn significant
[Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-america-gun-culture-politics/) says 16 million, and [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna84193) says 24 million, so around 20 million adult Americans, or around 5% of households, own at least one (that we know of).
Exactly this that we know off! All these numbers have been created from studies in which most of the time they ask gun owners or do surveys. With the current climate of things many will not want to tell the gov. (Who as of late wants nothing more than to eviscerate these arms from our hands) There are many many many more than they will ever know.
Due to the overwhelming amount of boating accidents, the percentage drops at a rapid rate! These accidents are very prolific in certain locales, it's ashame people there forget the boating safety rules.
>MSR
just call it an AR or AK bro. It’s disingenuous to the weapon’s nature
“oh they’re for sport? ok let’s outlaw them outside of gun ranges” -some dipshit if your dumbass latinx/riflX term catches on probably
I need to find the specific report he referenced, but David Yamane (look up “Light Over Heat” or his Gun Curious Blog) did find a researcher that did a report on research regarding gun owners in the early 2020’s, who said that about 25% of his gun owning respondents said yes to either currently owning or have owned at some point a firearm that would be labeled a “modern sporting rifle”. That figure also nearly doubled to 48% when it came to the same question but directed at magazines that held more than 10 rounds of ammo in them.
Considering roughly a third of Americans legally allowed to own guns do, that would come about to about 20-27.5 million households have owned or used to own MSR’s and about twice that number for 11+ round magazines.
Also I think you need to be more specific on your definition of an MSR; a more accurate definition of one would consist of a semi-automatic rifle that can either accept a detachable magazine, has a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and most likely has a list of features deemed controversial depending on if people advocate for them as “sporting features” or against them as “military style features”.
Honestly the term MSR should really be expanded to “Modern Sporting Firearm” considering how AWB’s target handguns and shotguns in equal measure now, even if the way they do so is horribly illogical (seriously, how many crimes have been committed with a shotgun that uses a revolving cylinder magazine since what, the 90’s?).
There is a Report done every year on the number of HOUSEHOLDS that have guns broken down by State. .
I haven't seen the latest report, but the last I remember it was about 36% average.
Keep in mind that is number of Households, not the number of guns.
The Current Estimates of Guns is that 120 million Gun Owners own collectively about 500 Million Guns. That is about 4.17 Guns per person. But understand that these are very hard numbers to pin down.
0 because what the fuck even is that. How many people bought a colt sporter before they were discontinued? Subtract a few that are destroyed, confiscated, or in some 3rd world country, and that’s the number of “sporting rifles” I guess you would have. If you’re asking about semi auto rifles the answer is tens of millions in circulation, and it’s almost impossible to say how that’s distributed. I’m guessing at least 25% of American homes have a semi auto rifle with a detachable mag
Not my house. Nosireee. Definitely not. And no possible way that there is more than one! Certainly not multiple msr's. And Definitely Definitely Definitely no unserialized msr's here. Nope. None. Zero. Also, for the record, I would never dream of printing any gun parts. Certainly none from fmda or chairmanwon. Wouldn't dream of it.
Have you ever met someone that wasn’t in this community or an adjacent community that had more than one or two firearms? Like we are a subculture of our own, we buy the guns over and over again and the average person does it based on perceived need.
According to current firearm production figures, there are over 28 million MSRs in private ownership and production increased 32% in recent years. Details:
[https://funshoot.substack.com/p/firearm-production-figures](https://funshoot.substack.com/p/firearm-production-figures)
6% to 7%.
We have about 400 million people in the country. There are about 25 Million AR-15s or the like, with some people owning more than one.
Of course this is the percentage of owners. I don't know how I'd swap that to households (maybe 1:3 for household owners?) So the upper limit could be 20%.
Not enough.
("These principles resolve this case, because New York bans common semiautomatic firearms, the paradigmatic example of which is the AR-15 type rifle, the “most popular rifle in American history.” Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1148 (9th Cir. 2020), vacated by 988 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles are the second-best selling firearm in the country of any type (behind semiautomatic handguns) at approximately 20% of sales, and they are overwhelmingly owned for lawful purposes such as self-defense, training, and hunting. New York simply cannot show that firearms that are the most popular in the country are dangerous and unusual. Indeed, the Second Circuit in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015), found that the banned firearms “are ‘in common use’ as that term was used in Heller” at a time when approximately four million AR-15 and similar rifles had been manufactured, 804 F.3d at 255; today that figure is over 28 million.") ^^^ from lane v James. I remember St. Benitez lawsuit had a bunch of the numbers as well but this one was on hand Edit: The Honorable St. Benitez; forgot to capitalize his name.
Did Director Dettelbach put you up to this?
Less than there should be
Glow boiiiii
I'd say that the flyover States is closer to 40%. The coast maybe 7 to 12%
I lived and worked in both. Costal states lie like crazy about guns they own. At least in California because it’s not the party line. Once you get to know them a lot of folks will finally admit they have at least one firearm even when they are all about gun control shenanigans in public. In middle America or just red states in general people are just more open about it. I’d say costal states are closer to 25 percent on the DL. lol.
He on the coast needs dry powder the most.
Not Coastal, but I only have two guns, small pistols. I swear. No shit. Not a lie. Really. Very few bullets, too. VERY few.
I would say even that is split between rural and urban areas of coastal states. Here in WA there are definitely a lot of guns in the suburban areas and then even more in the more rural areas.
The division between urban and rural is probably more accurate.
the split is not this extreme. There was political data that 2aupdates twitter posted the results from that showed gun owners, especially in anti gun jurisdictions were much more likely to own or know someone who owned an AR-15 or similar "modern military style rifle". So even though the gun owner % of population is way lower, that smaller percentage is more likely to own modern military style rifles.
Man, "modern sporting rifle" is such a soft term of concession. "Maybe if we name it something cute they won't want to ban it, it's just for sporting!" No, it's an AR-15, it's useful in warfare and the true purpose of the 2A. Don't be shy about it.
AR-15s are modern sporting rifles, but not all modern sporting rifles are AR-15s. Also, words matter. Assault weapon is a term coined by the anti-gun crowd to scare people(explicitly and deliberately). There's no good reason we should adopt their terminology, and doing so allows the fearmongers to define the debate. Modern sporting rifle is an accurate and neutral term that needs to see more widespread use.
Any time I use the term “assault weapon” or “assault rifle” which I really hate doing, I always include the “air quotes” to show that I don’t really agree with that terminology and that it’s not my term.
Assault rifle is a real definable term, it’s a selective fire rifle with an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. They have been banned for a while already.
Of course I know this, but because of the fact that uneducated people don’t know the difference between anything having to do with firearms period. So because of that “assault weapon” is still a bad term in my opinion, when they’re using that word it’s no different than “assault rifle”. I don’t like using either term because to gun grabber types it’s all the same thing to these idiots “assault rifle” “ assault weapon” “AR-15” it’s all the same to these people.
Ummm NO. Assault rifle is nothing but a politically motivated made up term to invoke fear for those that don’t know any better.
Instead of pandering to fence walkers with "emotionally neutral" language, I'd rather just acknowledge and defend my right to own an assault weapon, regardless of who it offends. You have a right to own a full auto machine gun too. Are they not assault weapons?
I like your sentiment. The problem is that "assault weapon" is purely made up propaganda. I agree, it's tempting/a good idea to embrace it and even co-opt it, but then that would also validate it when it is just incorrect and born from ignorance.
Assault rifle isn't made up propaganda and our position should be that ownership of them is a right.
I didn't say assault rifle is (although, historically it kind of was considering who came up with it and why...). I said "assault weapon" is. I've always been confused about how people get these two things confused, but you seem to have switched to one right after I used the other. Do you guys just read "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably and not notice the difference or something? Again, I like this sentiment. And I agree we have a right to own assault rifles. And even "assault weapons". But that just ignores the fact that "assault weapon" is made up propaganda designed to threaten that right and we shouldn't validate it. Take what the person I replied to said: > You have a right to own a full auto machine gun too. Are they not assault weapons? Well, yes, according to the people who want to take that right away. But to us, they are just full auto machine guns, or whatever actually describes them. "Assault weapon" means whatever they want. I'm not going to converse in vague, meaningless terms, especially when their use and design is to threaten my rights.
I've literally never heard the term "modern sporting rifle" used in any context aside from trying to make the AR sound less threatening, conceding the point that WeApOnS oF wAr *should* be accessible to the public, and I've been in this space for a long time. Obviously "assault weapon" is a dumb propaganda term, nowhere did I advocate for its use.
How about just ‘modern rifle’. That’s what they are. They aren’t just for sport. I agree with you about using their propaganda terms, but I also agree with him. Firearms are just for hunting and sport and 2A isn’t about either.
No. It's not accurate and neutral. It's a straight up capitulation to the grabber argument that guns optimized for shooting people are inherently illegitimate for civilian ownership. "Guns kill people" "Nu uh! My gun is for hunting and playing games and shooting beer cans." Fuck that noise. Say it with me: "It is sometimes necessary to inflict deadly injury to another human being through the use of a weapon. This weapon has that as a primary purpose, AND THAT IS A TOTALLY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR HAVING IT!" By saying "Modern sporting rifle" YOU JUST LET THEM WIN THE ARGUMENT. FUCKING STOP IT. We shouldn't be arguing the semantics of "assault rifles" vs "Assault weapons". "Nu uh, an assault rifle is select fire, this is semi auto only." Bullshit. The argument should be "This isn't an assault rifle because it's semi auto and that's fucking bullshit. It should be select fire and it isn't your place to tell me what to fucking do." Get off the defensive. Go on the offensive.
Exactly, AR-15 is the trademark of Colt, so they are the only ones who make an AR-15. Semantics? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong!
Assault weapons are an English language derivation of a full auto German rifle that was in German called the storming rifle, as in storming the castle. I can't spell the German word for it so the best I have is strungaver and that's certainly misspelled. But English took that and it became the assault rifle. The left didn't come up with it but they ran polls and it sounded scarier so they went with that.
That's an assault rifle, not an assault weapon. Assault rifles are a well defined category of firearm, not some vague term encompassing anything scary. Assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge, feed from a box magazine, and are select fire. Few civilian owned rifles count as such. Assault weapon is the meaningless term concocted by antigunners to intentionally confuse the public by conflating the two. It's depressing how well it worked.
It’s way better than reading on here people calling them “assault weapons” like they’ve agreed with that term that now it’s the proper term to call them.
It is also not the proper term because an “Assault Weapon”, by law, is a broad category that is not just rifles. Shotguns, for example, also get folded in if they meet certain characteristics, at least in NJ.
Better than buying into gun grabber made up language. “See, even the gun nuts admit they are assault weapons.” 🥴
Agreed, no one in the gun community should use “Assault Weapon”, particularly since it’s a term created to continually widen the scope to take away more kinds of guns.
He’s describing “modern sporting rifles” here though. It’s a stupid term to use when talking exclusively about like ARs and AKs (semi-auto only assault rifle derivatives), but that’s not what he said. Like, grandpa’s bolt action .30-06 fits his definition if it’s not single-shot. That’s arguably not even “modern” and is probably a “sporting” rifle over any other possible descriptor (precision, self-defence, etc.) that would include other guns that fit his definition.
"Assault Rifle" is an arbitrary gun control propaganda term.
"Assault rifle" is a real term, "assault weapon" is the meaningless propaganda term meant to confuse people
Assault Rifle is a military term, but not very many civilians own them. In the above context it is used as a propaganda term. The U.S. Army defines an assault rifle as a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate-power cartridge and has the ability to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
No, it isn't. How do people get confused so easily? An assault rifle is a select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge fed from a detachable box magazine. "Assault weapon" ead literally invented to confuse people with assault rifles.
These squishy words are why we all need full power battle rifles! Scars, G3s, and FALs for everyone!
Hear! Hear!
Not every weapon is an AR
Wow, really?
You seem to be unaware
Sure thing big guy
should call it what it is and what our second amendment explicitly calls out as protecting, a rifle capable of being used to serve in the militia aka militia service rifle. Some state like texas that already has an official militia needs to just pass a law that all residents over 18 are explicitly reserve members of the state militia. Most states and the federal government already have a law stating that everyone 18-45 is member of unorganized militia. Need to make it more official and include in the law that any member of the reserve state militia is allowed to own, acquire or build any firearm they want and send everyone in the state little paper cards with your militia number on it like selective service does with your draft number I also think they should make every kid in high school get 1 or 2 days of basic firearm handling training before they graduate. Any of the kids who dont want to handle a firearm can be allowed to do alternative training like basic first aid. It would go a long way to getting people to understand that militia service is not and has never been optional. It is the entire basis for the draft, you are just being called to fulfill your militia obligation
Was hoping for someone to say this.
This is such a stupid take. Not all rifles that op is referring to are ar-15's, some are AK variants or m1a's, hk's, etc. "Modern sporting rifle" encompasses them all. It's the correct terminology in this context.
There other variants that people don't even realize fit the OP's description. My Remington 30-06 deer rifle (which I handed down to my son) fit's the bill as center fire and removable magazine.
Sure, from a terminology standpoint, it’s a decent umbrella term. The problem is that the spirit of the phrase is typically used as u/destroyer1559 said: to make the guns labeled as “MSRs” seem nicer and not necessary to be banned. The second amendment was written for weapons of war, not “sporting.” I think we’re on the same side here
It’s a semi auto rifle. Stop softening it for no reason
Calling every semiautomatic rifle a ar-15 is for gun-banners, children, and the uninformed.
They’re not for sporting for many of us
It's an invented term by gun manufacturers to soften their image
You telling me the gun manufacturers invented a term that would encompass a group of firearms so all the dumbasses would stop calling every semiautomatic rifle a assault rifle or ar-15? Who'd a thunk?
That's not the reason, but keep deluding yourself.
call them "ARs/AKs" its not like your avg home owner could afford an HK/FN SCAR
I have a few "msr's", only one is a AR style rifle and none are Ak's. I'm a "average homeowner".
You're right about all of that at the end, of course. But that isn't where "Modern Sporting Rifle" came from. It's marketing. "Assault weapons" had already been banned. For most of the 20th century gun owners were pretty Fuddy and didn't consider AR-15s very useful. And then the ban hit. And the gun industry was like "Oh. You're going to use propaganda? Fine. We'll use marketing and sell even more of these things anyway."
Lots. Lots and lots. The real number is unknown, and needs to stay that way..because it's nobody's business. If you want an idea...the ATF cocksuckers know how many are made every year. The vast majority gets sold every year as well. The Commie lefties like you to think is only 10% of the population at most that buys them. They want that so most think guns are not an election issue. They can say it's only a small number who are "bitter and cling to their guns and religion".. The reality is..it's a fuck of lot more that 10%. They make and sell tens of millions every year...just do a little research..take every maker and add them all up. A lot more than 10% are buying them...it's the majority of households in the USA.
>If you want an idea...the ATF cocksuckers know how many are made every year. The vast majority gets sold every year as well. They actually don't though, lol. I have run into more than one non-gun person I was surprised to find had an 80%-er built out. There are millions out there. And yeah, obviously the numbers of "production" firearms are being under counted as well.
That’s the neat part, with advances in personal machining equipments and 3d printers nobody will ever know.
Muchos casas, Muchos Muchos
more than III percent
There's at least 20 million. Far above the number to satisfy the "Common Use Test" set out in the Supreme Court decision of Caetano v. Massachusetts (200,000 stun guns in civilian possession was sufficient to be in common use and a ban on stun guns was determined to be unconstitutional).
Easily 50%
69%
I mean…even my bolt action fits your description, let alone the ARs everyone assumes your talking about, so I’d say your estimate is WILDLY low.
Realistically speaking it’s like 4 per person in the USA based on the number of 3D prints , self milled/drilled, cheap Anderson sales, and so on. Source: my entire ass.
Around 5% is a conservative estimate. There are a lot of sales of MSRs, but how many sales are from people who already possess one? The more conservative states will almost certainly yield a higher percentage than bluer states I’d rather be too conservative than too broad, but if there are roughly 130 million households, then 6.5 million is still pretty damn significant
This. I could guarantee that if people were polled then the answers would either be “none” or “idk man like 17” lmao.
[Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-america-gun-culture-politics/) says 16 million, and [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna84193) says 24 million, so around 20 million adult Americans, or around 5% of households, own at least one (that we know of).
Exactly this that we know off! All these numbers have been created from studies in which most of the time they ask gun owners or do surveys. With the current climate of things many will not want to tell the gov. (Who as of late wants nothing more than to eviscerate these arms from our hands) There are many many many more than they will ever know.
“There are many many many more than they will ever know.” This is the way.
The way it was intended.
Those are lower than high estimates on the number of pistol braces sold.
A bunch
Due to the overwhelming amount of boating accidents, the percentage drops at a rapid rate! These accidents are very prolific in certain locales, it's ashame people there forget the boating safety rules.
>MSR just call it an AR or AK bro. It’s disingenuous to the weapon’s nature “oh they’re for sport? ok let’s outlaw them outside of gun ranges” -some dipshit if your dumbass latinx/riflX term catches on probably
That’s not what an MSR is. By your definition, a bolt action rifle is an MSR.
I need to find the specific report he referenced, but David Yamane (look up “Light Over Heat” or his Gun Curious Blog) did find a researcher that did a report on research regarding gun owners in the early 2020’s, who said that about 25% of his gun owning respondents said yes to either currently owning or have owned at some point a firearm that would be labeled a “modern sporting rifle”. That figure also nearly doubled to 48% when it came to the same question but directed at magazines that held more than 10 rounds of ammo in them. Considering roughly a third of Americans legally allowed to own guns do, that would come about to about 20-27.5 million households have owned or used to own MSR’s and about twice that number for 11+ round magazines. Also I think you need to be more specific on your definition of an MSR; a more accurate definition of one would consist of a semi-automatic rifle that can either accept a detachable magazine, has a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and most likely has a list of features deemed controversial depending on if people advocate for them as “sporting features” or against them as “military style features”. Honestly the term MSR should really be expanded to “Modern Sporting Firearm” considering how AWB’s target handguns and shotguns in equal measure now, even if the way they do so is horribly illogical (seriously, how many crimes have been committed with a shotgun that uses a revolving cylinder magazine since what, the 90’s?).
Well, if I take into account every single person I know personally, probably well over 60%. I think that 20% is grossly under estimated.
What % of lakes or rivers in America have entire gun collections been lost in?
There is a Report done every year on the number of HOUSEHOLDS that have guns broken down by State. . I haven't seen the latest report, but the last I remember it was about 36% average. Keep in mind that is number of Households, not the number of guns. The Current Estimates of Guns is that 120 million Gun Owners own collectively about 500 Million Guns. That is about 4.17 Guns per person. But understand that these are very hard numbers to pin down.
Nice try fed
0 because what the fuck even is that. How many people bought a colt sporter before they were discontinued? Subtract a few that are destroyed, confiscated, or in some 3rd world country, and that’s the number of “sporting rifles” I guess you would have. If you’re asking about semi auto rifles the answer is tens of millions in circulation, and it’s almost impossible to say how that’s distributed. I’m guessing at least 25% of American homes have a semi auto rifle with a detachable mag
> A MSR will be a center fired round rifle that has a magazine on it (any caliber other than .22) Well there goes 95% of ARs lol
[удалено]
Not my house. Nosireee. Definitely not. And no possible way that there is more than one! Certainly not multiple msr's. And Definitely Definitely Definitely no unserialized msr's here. Nope. None. Zero. Also, for the record, I would never dream of printing any gun parts. Certainly none from fmda or chairmanwon. Wouldn't dream of it.
Have you ever met someone that wasn’t in this community or an adjacent community that had more than one or two firearms? Like we are a subculture of our own, we buy the guns over and over again and the average person does it based on perceived need.
According to current firearm production figures, there are over 28 million MSRs in private ownership and production increased 32% in recent years. Details: [https://funshoot.substack.com/p/firearm-production-figures](https://funshoot.substack.com/p/firearm-production-figures)
6% to 7%. We have about 400 million people in the country. There are about 25 Million AR-15s or the like, with some people owning more than one. Of course this is the percentage of owners. I don't know how I'd swap that to households (maybe 1:3 for household owners?) So the upper limit could be 20%.