In some respects, we don't help our own cause with terminology in common use amongst shooters such as "It's a Tactical rifle" or "Tactical Scope". Perhaps language like "Practical" is more fitting, but to coin phrases from what were originally USA police or military inspired uses does us no favours, despite a majority of such firearms being used at ranges for fun or for competition. It fuels public misunderstanding and debate. Having a scope graduated in Mils and with turrets in Mils, does not make it "Tactical", it makes it "practical". Having a rifle with a 10 shot mag and larger picatinny rail, useful for things like NV, and blacked out does not make it "Tactical" but if vermin control at distance or at night is considered, makes it "practical". I have some empathy with the avoidance of misogynistic influences in society, and our hardening of attitudes and hearts towards things that only a generation or so ago were considered shocking or unacceptable. It shows a gradual decline in society, NOT improved tolerance. That's a false premise for these sorts of things and its media and communications that have fuelled this secularised intolerance of standards. We, as a shooting community, I do think have some responsibility to hold our standards above such things instead of using common society standards as a yardstick to be measured.
Personally, I have no problem with firearms in use with add on bits of plastic, blacked out, Ceracoated, "flat Earth" coloured or whatever and clearly can see their appeal, practicality and uses be that practical competition, target, or vermin control etc. I do have a problem when some start referring to their rifles as a "tactical rig" when the nearest that they'll ever get to using it as such is punching paper at their 100yd range. Their good reason and use partly describes the rifle and no-one in the UK, holding an FAC has a rifle with "Tactical use" as their good reason. Paid up mercs in Iraq, yes; HM forces soldiers, yes. We shouldn't restrict the use of such firearms but simply avoid controversy by avoiding labels which in the public mind pigeon hole firearms in the public imagination to be designed for and used for one purpose which in their minds eye is military or "S.W.A.T." related. Possibly a different debate to the one above, but closely related.
I do agree with Alberta boy and others that the ground is always shifting and those seeking control or bans aren't daft, and for that reason, the term "stand together or hang together" rings true. Part of our responsibility, both individual and collectively is to do more to educate. Only recently, I was asked on a variation why I wanted "that weapon". I almost banged my head off the wall, since I do have a problem with the terminology adopted by the police, instead of the term "firearm". It was, apparently, down to me to explain the ballistic advantages in laymans terms, so if the very people vetting our "good use" aren't clued up, how the heck do we expect the rest of society being clued up? Our defence and reasoning has to lay in our own understanding, which has to be methodical, logical and expert when we explain and defend these things. Good reason means just that, with the emphasis on "Good". It's about swinging public perception, not getting defensive and throwing walls up or toys out of prams.
