I may be wrong ... it may just be my perception from my own life experience. But that being said, I've always found that a good proportion of anti-gun type folks change their attitudes once they've actually tried it. When properly introduced they begin to see the fun that enthusiasts have, if that makes sense. Then they begin to see firearms and gun ownership in a different light ... that of a sport no different than any other. This isn't one hundred percent true, nothing ever is, but again, in my experience I've seen it often.
I may be wrong ... it may just be my perception from my own life experience. But that being said, I've always found that a good proportion of anti-gun type folks change their attitudes once they've actually tried it. When properly introduced they begin to see the fun that enthusiasts have, if that makes sense. Then they begin to see firearms and gun ownership in a different light ... that of a sport no different than any other. This isn't one hundred percent true, nothing ever is, but again, in my experience I've seen it often.
I think he tried to just sidestep the 'image' aspect entirely. It is based off a military rifle.
The perception that anything that looks bad-ass, or has a military history equates to evil is a social issue.
You're right that he doesn't clear up that misconception. But I think that's because he's trying to avoid the social elements and just give the engineering facts.
My rifle when I was young was a surplus military rifle (Lee–Enfield). The fact that it was manufactured for the military did not change anything about my usage, or the acceptability of it.
Maybe I'm out of touch with the anti-gun crowd, but in my experience, the more they learn, the less the fear.
A rifle is a rifle. The part that changes is what it gets used for.