MY stance on the purpose of firearms are clear….
We use them primarily to defend ourselves against criminals who threaten our safety. Sport shooting is secondary in my book…
There are organizations, politicians, lobbyist, etc. who believe that they know what is best for us. Gun control does not solve crime, period. Your right to keep and bear arms are precious and should be protected at all cost. The safety of you and your family depends on it.
Recently an article was done on the MP7A1 (Recoil Magazine, Issue 4). The editor, Jerry Tsai, made a comment that incited much debate: “Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of…” ( http://www.recoilweb.com/recoil-statement-16159.html)
I wanted to make you aware of the situation.
Rob Pincus (I.C.E. Training Company), has been leading the charge on professional instructors holding each other and media accountable for what the say about the defensive use of firearms. As an Instructor I am clear on what I teach, I teach people to defend themselves and loves one with firearms. So in this case I applaud Rob's courage and integrity.
Here is Rob's statement:
In reference to: “Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of…”
People may find “sporting purposes” for them… but gun games aren't why they exist. If Wired or Maxim had said what you did, I wouldn't care. You should've known better.
Very Disappointing.Edited to Add: WOW… the attempt at Damage Control from Editor Jerry Tsai only makes it worse… Actually using the typical Gun Control justification that the gun would pose a threat to cops if it got into the “wrong hands”… kinda like: Any Gun.
Edited Again to Add: The second (rather scripted) apology and ‘retraction' reads like the editor was choking on the words that someone else made him write… after the firestorm and after advertisers started backing out. Apologizing for your position, doesn't change your position. And, it is the position that some guns are “too dangerous” for civilians to have (and being wrong about those guns being “more dangerous” in the first place…) is the real problem.
Added on 9/11:
Some people are asking, understandably, why I have been so involved in the Cry Out against Recoil Magazine's Editor's Statements over the last couple of days:
I labored under & against the “Sporting Purpose” concept since the '90s and have had to deal with several companies/organizations over the last 15 years that were slow to move out from under that politically correct marketing approach. When I taped my first DVDs for the PDN Series distributed by the NRA in the mid-2000's we weren't allowed to use human shaped targets. There was no “Tactical” section at the first several SHOT Shows I attended. Just recently, another instructor and friend was uninvited from teaching at a shooting range that claims now to be for ‘sport shooting' only. I've had trouble booking courses in certain areas for the same reasons.
Especially in an election year and especially from a magazine that has a growing influence on younger shooters new to our community, I won't tolerate the concept of guns needing a “sporting purpose” inside our own ranks… and Recoil Magazine has certainly put itself into the training community in a big way.
Do I have a dog in this fight? Yes… and the dog is long in the tooth with a good memory and a perspective on how far we have come in recent history. Let's not start slipping backwards.