Why do gun control advocates so often get their nomenclature wrong? (illegal, weapons)

[wutitiz]

An initiative (ballot measure) 1639 has been filed here in Washington state. Voters will decide in November whether to enact it as law. Purportedly it would restrict ownership of 'assault rifles.' "Assault rifle" has a well-accepted definition. The U.S. Army's definition is "a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. " Per this, assault rifles are already illegal in WA.


"Assault rifle" has been re-defined in various ways; Initiative 1639 goes hog-wild; it redefines "assault rifle" as any semi-automatic rifle. So even a .22LR with a fixed 2 shot magazine is now called an 'assault rifle.'

Originally Posted by Initiative 1639

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

Time and time again, gun controllers seem to bollix nomenclature. The very term "gun violence" is a kind of malapropism. "Violence" is a kind of behavior, not the use of a particular device. It would seem silly to speak of, say, hand-violence (throwing a punch), or bomb-violence. "Gun violence" is actually equally silly.


The latest trend is to speak of "safety" when what is really meant is "restriction." "Safety" properly refers to rules and procedures intended to prevent accidents. Cooper's four rules of safety are 1)finger off trigger until ready to shoot; 2)always point muzzle in a safe direction; 3)treat all guns as loaded; 4) be sure of your target, and what lies beyond. So the next time you hear a politician speak of 'gun safety,' it is very likely in error. Restriction of ownership and "safety" are two entirely different things.


Many other examples of bollixed nomenclature could be cited, but this is enough for now.

[wutitiz]

Some other obvious examples of errant nomenclature are the use of "clip" and "magazine." Technically a magazine has a spring, while a clip does not. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D,CA) has been involved in regulation of guns for probably 30+ years, yet still does not know the difference. She often uses "clip" where she means "magazine."

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Some other obvious examples of errant nomenclature are the use of "clip" and "magazine." Technically a magazine has a spring, while a clip does not. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D,CA) has been involved in regulation of guns for probably 30+ years, yet still does not know the difference. She often uses "clip" where she means "magazine."

A lot of gun owners say clip instead of magazine..... even when they know the difference between the two.

It's become common slang even if not technically correct.

The rest of your OP is spot on though.

The conflating of semi auto and Assault Rifle is done on purpose to confuse the garden variety anti-gunners into thinking that the AR-15 and similar guns are machine guns.

[woxyroxme]

Most (((liberals))) have never fired a gun in their lives.

Pencils misspell words and should be banned too.

[wutitiz]

There has been some evidence of mendacity (dishonesty) in the past. There was a famous memo written by a leading gun-control guy named Josh Sugarmann, who proposed taking advantage of the "public's confusion" in order to ram through bans and restrictions:

Originally Posted by Sugarmann

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

This clearly is an example where the impetus was mendacity, not simple stupidity.

[wutitiz]

BTW, I meant to mention that there is another ballot measure coming in Oregon. I-43 uses yet another definition of "assault weapon." It is a mix of Dianne Feinstein's 'Feinstein Amendment,' which was very convoluted and demonstrably very stupidly conceived (Joe Biden has claimed credit for it as being his brainchild).

I have not read I-43 so I'm not sure, but it appears that it would ban any semi-auto capable of accepting a magazine with capacity greater than 10 rounds. This would in effect ban almost all semi-autos, since almost all of them have this capability. The only exceptions would be older guns such as the Mauser C96, the SKS, and the M1 Garand, all of which were made with non-detachable mags. Even a .22LR with a tube mag I think would be banned, since usually the tube mag can be removed, and an extended (over 10) tube installed.

In this case there is perhaps no way to know whether the impetus is stupidity or mendacity.

[Weichert]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

BTW, I meant to mention that there is another ballot measure coming in Oregon. I-43 uses yet another definition of "assault weapon." It is a mix of Dianne Feinstein's 'Feinstein Amendment,' which was very convoluted and demonstrably very stupidly conceived (Joe Biden has claimed credit for it as being his brainchild).

I have not read I-43 so I'm not sure, but it appears that it would ban any semi-auto capable of accepting a magazine with capacity greater than 10 rounds. This would in effect ban almost all semi-autos, since almost all of them have this capability. The only exceptions would be older guns such as the Mauser C96, the SKS, and the M1 Garand, all of which were made with non-detachable mags. Even a .22LR with a tube mag I think would be banned, since usually the tube mag can be removed, and an extended (over 10) tube installed.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Mr. In-Between]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

BTW, I meant to mention that there is another ballot measure coming in Oregon. I-43 uses yet another definition of "assault weapon." It is a mix of Dianne Feinstein's 'Feinstein Amendment,' which was very convoluted and demonstrably very stupidly conceived (Joe Biden has claimed credit for it as being his brainchild).

I have not read I-43 so I'm not sure, but it appears that it would ban any semi-auto capable of accepting a magazine with capacity greater than 10 rounds. This would in effect ban almost all semi-autos, since almost all of them have this capability. The only exceptions would be older guns such as the Mauser C96, the SKS, and the M1 Garand, all of which were made with non-detachable mags. Even a .22LR with a tube mag I think would be banned, since usually the tube mag can be removed, and an extended (over 10) tube installed.

In this case there is perhaps no way to know whether the impetus is stupidity or mendacity.

I voted for "some of both," partly because in many ways it really doesn't make a substantive difference, does it? If you're a public figure - or even a private citizen trying to insert yourself into a public debate on a genuine change-making level - you have an obligation to make sure that you are informed. If you don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, or if you truly believe that having a bayonet mount or a carry handle on top of the upper makes a rifle more lethal, then you need to shut up and educate yourself before inserting yourself into the public debate.

If you don't know what you're talking about... shut up until you do.

Accuracy would be nice, but I'm having a hard time condemning the gun control advocates over it when the opposition will call something an assault rifle one minute when they're trying to sell it and insist that it's not the next minute when someone suggests we shouldn't let civilians buy assault rifles.

[swilliamsny]

The law-makers? Mendacity.


The general public? I wouldn't call it stupidity, rather a willful ignorance. Similar to the way my brain shuts off when my husband starts going on and on about some automotive project he's working on. The big difference is that most gun control advocates are more than willing to start spouting off, regardless of their working knowledge.