Or will it even matter, since MSRs are still the “scary looking black rifles”?
While American movie-goers are making “American Sniper” a box office record-breaker, critics are sniping back, taking all manner of shots at the film, and one might wonder whether some of this distaste is perhaps due to a subconscious reaction to the central core of the film: the story of a man who was remarkably proficient with a rifle.
How long before anti-gunners start pushing to regulate “sniper rifles,” which might be that bolt-action deer hunting rifle in the gun cabinet, the one with the black or camouflage composite synthetic stock and a scope sight? Such rifles fire cartridges that are far more powerful, and certainly more lethal to big game animals, at greater distances than the so-called “high power assault rifles” panned at every opportunity by the mainstream press.
The film has already drawn heat from anti-gunner Michael Moore, and other critics have been weighing in as well. There was a piece in the Washington Post about the film’s “missing element: The man behind the gun.” The Guardian ran a piece that asserted the film “illustrates the west’s morality blind spots.”
Even in the trailer, one gets to look at people through the crosshairs. It’s an unnerving view for some people who dislike firearms and “the gun culture.”
At the very least, I hope the movie educates the public on what it takes to become, and be a Sniper; A public that until now, usually only hears the term when the lazy, drive-by media is reporting on some idiot criminal with a rifle.
Brought to you by a former, and humble Army Sniper.