Understanding Laymen's Firearms Terminology

[MineralMan]

For experienced firearms owners and RKBA supporters, the way many people talk about firearms is a point of annoyance. All too often, the discussion breaks down when someone who doesn't know as much about firearms as others uses incorrect terminology when discussing their concerns. The knowledgeable person often criticizes or ridicules the less knowledgeable person and considers the discussion over, without ever discussing the actual issues involved. This doesn't advance the discussion and may even make the less knowledgeable person more convince than ever of their position.

There's nothing wrong with educating people, but it should be done politely and in combination with a discussion of the actual issue at hand. Sarcasm, ridicule, and other negative rhetoric that focuses only on the words used accomplished nothing. So, here are some commonly-misused terms having to do with firearms, with explanations of what the person actually means:

Bullet - A complete cartridge or round of ammunition. They aren't talking about the projectile or actual bullet. In many cases, they may even be referring to a shotgun shell. The plural form means any number of these items.

Clip - A removable or detachable magazine for a firearm. This error comes from hearing even knowledgeable people refer to "Changing clips" in movies and other places. This term is misused often by firearms users, as well. Yes, there is a distinction, but it doesn't matter. They mean removable or detachable magazine.

Gun - Any firearm. Nobody really cares about the distinctions. Quoting "This is my rifle. This is my gun" does nothing to advance the discussion.

Pistol - Any handgun. Single-shot, revolver or semi-auto. The distinction is irrelevant to the lay person. If the firearm is a handgun, it is a pistol. The distinction between types of pistols is generally not the issue at hand.

Loaded - A firearm that has ammunition in it. There is no distinction between only having the magazine loaded or a round in the chamber.

Automatic - A semi-automatic firearm. Lay people do not know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearms, and they don't care. So few fully-automatic firearms are in private hands that the distinction is irrelevant to them.

Assault Weapon - Any firearm that has a military appearance, is semi-automatic, and has removable magazines. That is all that is meant. It's a description of appearance, not a functional description. This one is very annoying, but that is what they mean by it. The concept of selective-fire is irrelevant to the lay person, who generally will never see a selective-fire firearm.

These are some of the most common words misused by people who know little about firearms. While their lack of knowledge may be annoying, the argument is not in their use of improper nomenclature. The argument is about issues. Argue the issues, not the words. You know what they mean, and if you don't, this list of definitions will tell you. Leave that part of it alone, unless you're willing to explain politely. Get on with the discussion of the issues. That's my advice.

[Gman]

1. I still would like to know why someone needs a 30 round magazine

to hunt Bambi. Because they can was never a good reason to me.

[MineralMan]

2. Need is not really the issue when it comes to RKBA.

Right is the issue. Anytime you discuss bring up "need" you will hear "right." This is not relevant to the discussion, and hunting is not the issue at all. Hunting is one use of firearms. There are many others. Discuss the actual issue and you'll get a better response. There are many reasons to own firearms and hunting is just one of them. Many firearms owners never hunt.

[LARED]

3. I would like to know why

someone needs a 8 cylinder gas guzzling four wheel drive when you can just as easily ride a bike.

[shadowrider]

6. Show me how I can pull my 6,500 lb. travel trailer with a bike and I'll

no longer "need" my 8 cylinder gas guzzling four wheel drive.

If you can't do that, I'll "need" it, with or without your permission or pre-determination of my "needs".

[LARED]

12. I guess I should have put a little sarcam thingy on the end of my post

I don't need a travel trailer or a car, but it's your and mine right to decide what we need.

[shadowrider]

18. Oops. My bad n/t

[PavePusher]

9. Your statement demontrates the issue exactly.

You can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who is ignorant on the topic at hand.

There are at least 3 errors of assumption-of-fact in your two sentances. Not a record by any means, but nothing to dismiss lightly either.

[Gman]

11. I've owned guns all my life

Pistols, shotguns and deer rifles. I don't need some fanatic to give me what they think it's all about.

[MineralMan]

14. So have I. What's your point?

If I know what someone means by something, I'll discuss it based on my understanding. Making the discussion about the thing, rather than the issue is just not the way to make a point.

[PavePusher]

24. Then why the silly question? n/t

[Callisto32]

77. I'm not a racist, I have black friends.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. The U.S does not have a Dep. of Needs, and you are not the Needs Czar. N/T

[MineralMan]

58. Very nice. Way to send someone off as an enemy.

This is just what I'm talking about.

[spin]

61. Most states limit the amount of rounds you can have in a magzine while hunting deer ...

In Florida the limit is five.

[May Hamm]

85. Most states? Really?

Guess I'm out of touch cause I've never heard of that.

[DonP]

87. 3 in Illinois N/T

[rl6214]

69. Actually to hunt anything, not just bambi

you are limited to a five round magazine. That dosen't mean that a 30 rnd mag might not be usefull, such as on a crowded fireing line at the range where you have to step off the line to reload, which takes away from your shooting time.

[NewMoonTherian]

71. I would not use a 30 round mag to hunt...

in any case I can think of. Maybe hog hunting, but I've never been and don't know the rules.

I need 30(or more) round mags in case I ever have to fight against a large number of people.

[benEzra]

74. The guns used to hunt Bambi trade away capacity for very high power, 4-6 kJ/round

while keeping the rifle as light and slim as is practical. Rifles with 30-round magazines trade away most of that power for better capacity; a 16" barreled AR-15 is a centerfire .22 and delivers only 1.5 kJ/round, but more of the small rounds will fit in a magazine of reasonable size and weight.

Since most gun owners don't hunt, and the primary drivers for civilian rifle/carbine ownership are target shooting and defensive standby, small-caliber guns with good capacity make a lot more sense for most of us.

You see the same tradeoff with 9mm pistols; standard capacity of a full-size 9mm is 15 to 19 rounds, but it gets that capacity by shooting cartridges that are only half as powerful as .357 magnum and much smaller than .45 ACP.

[Callisto32]

78. They are sure as heck helpful for prarie dog hunts,

Though honestly 20's facilitate prone shooting far better.

[Gman]

79. Hmmm... Good point!

[Katya Mullethov]

80. Feral hog

Less reloads = less chances of dropping them off the manlift or out of the helicopter .

[shadowrider]

4. Jeez - Definition of a clip

<img src="" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br/>Shot at 2011-01-21

[MineralMan]

5. As I said, if you focus on the nomenclature instead of the issue,

you'll lose, every time. The definitions I gave are those of the lay person, and are what the lay person understands the terms to mean. It's important to know that. Arguing about that is worthless.

[shadowrider]

7. And I say, you can't focus on the issue if you don't know the nomenclature n/t

[MineralMan]

13. You're wrong. You can focus on the issue, as long as you understand

what the person is saying. If I had $5 for every time I heard someone familiar with firearms use the word "clip" when he or she meant detachable magazine, I could retire in a warmer place than Minnesota.

It's what is meant by the person using the word that is important, not the precise definition.

If you go to the doctor and say my "stomach" hurts, the doctor knows you are referring to your abdomen and have some pain in that area. He will then try to determine what particular organ hurts. He will not engage you in a useless discussion about anatomy.

If you go to the auto mechanic and say, "My transmission's slipping," the mechanic will not tell you that transmissions don't slip, but clutches or torque converters do. It's irrelevant to the conversation. Instead, he will determine what is actually wrong, repair it, and give you a bill.

If you take an insect you can't identify to the local university and show it to an entomologist, you might say, "Can you tell me what this bug is?" the entomologist will not begin by explaining that bugs are just one group of insects and that your insect isn't a bug at all. He'll look at the thing you brought in and tell you what it is. The distinction is irrelevant.

It is the issue that is important, not the precision of the language. Different groups of people use different terms to say things. Often, one person doesn't know as much about the subject as another. That's not the issue. You can help the person understand the distinction, but not as a substitute for discussing the issue.

[PavePusher]

22. And we do that on this issue as well.

But all too often, by the time you can drill down to real meaning, the pro-restriction person has left in a huff, or has devolved into incoherent ramblings of anger and invented accusations. And it's wearying as all hell to have to repeat this process about 20 times a day here.

Can you blame us for gradually becoming terse and impatient with folks who literally don't know what they are talking about? Especially when the issue usually starts out with veiled accusations of pro-RKBA people as being "merchants of death" (hat-tip to Laurence O'Donell, that conceited, bigoted, maliciously patronising fuck-stick) and enablers of child-killers.

[MineralMan]

25. My point, exactly. If you waste time trying to explain firearms

terminology to the person, they leave the discussion without every hearing your argument on the issues. If you insist that people who don't understand the correct usage of firearms nomenclature use only the correct words before you will discuss issue with them, you will not have a chance to make your point. If you further annoy the person with ridicule or contempt, you have lost all chance of convincing that person of anything.

[YllwFvr]

27. ive seen a poster right here in DU

get corrected on terminology, ask to be informed, and walk away with a better understanding of firearms and better equipped to argue the subject. Rare I know!

[MineralMan]

29. Yes, it's rare. It's good when that happens. I've seen far more

cases where a person who uses firearms terminology incorrectly is simply ridiculed without an answer to the question that was raised. That's not helpful.

[YllwFvr]

37. I prefer the term "correcting"

rather than ridicule. Sounds more helpful. I "correct" then answer the question :)

[PavePusher]

32. I can't very well have a reasonable discussion about "shoulder-things that go up"...

without taking the time to explain the inherent fallacies in the issue.

If knowledge is going to get in the way of the discussion, there really isn't a place to start.

[MineralMan]

35. You're stretching the discussion to the breaking point.

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use the terminology you give as an example.

If it's clear in the discussion that the poster is talking about rifles, then a discussion of the difference between a rifle and a carbine is irrelevant.

If the discussion is about long guns in general, and the poster is confusing shotguns with rifles, then the distinction can be made quickly and politely.

It's all a matter of relevance to the actual subject of the discussion, which generally is not nomenclature.

[shadowrider]

38. If you've never seen anyone using that terminology

You're not looking very hard

Carolyn McCarthy who wants a ban but doesn't know what a barrel shroud is and wants to ban rifles that have the shoulder thing that goes up. SHE is the face of the anti-gun movement.

Video at link

http://theultimateanswertokings.blogspot.com/2011/01/surprise-congresswoman-shoulder-thing.html

[PavePusher]

42. I don't think I'm stretching at all.

Here is some of the terminology we see frequently here:

1. cop-killer bullets
2. teflon bullets (implying armor-penetrating capability)
3. semi-automatic machine guns
4. automatic fire (relating to semi-auto firearms, hat tip again to Low-Do who quoted the phrase on his show Thursday night)
5. spray fire from the hip
6. weapons of war (relating to firearms that patently are not)
7. merchants of death
8. 30 round clips for hunting Bambi
9. high-powered assault weapons
10. assault rifles (applied to civilial-legal firearms that aren't)

Just a quick list between cups of coffee.

[beevul]

63. You forgot "plastic undetectable handguns" N/T

[PavePusher]

65. Aargh! I was thinking it and forgot to send the thought to my fingers...!! n/t

[beevul]

67. Your fingers simply...

Your fingers simply realized they do not exist and wrote words that do not exist to describe it. :rofl:

[PavePusher]

68. Tag, I'm it...

Well played, sentient entity! :toast:

[MineralMan]

44. Actually, you can. How you do that is to tell the person

the name of the thing, then discuss it. Obviously, the speaker did not know the name of the item they were talking about. It's simple enough to say, "That is properly called a whatever," then go on with your discussion. A simple statement, naming the object, followed by the point you wish to make, educates the other person, without offending that person. That's useful.

Saying, "You don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not even going to discuss this with you." doesn't work. No discussion takes place, and no point is made, except that you're unwilling to discuss the issue.

No doubt you are ignorant of some fields. You may come into a conversation about something and want to say something or ask a question, but you don't know the name of the thing you are talking about. For example, if you have a defective tie rod end on your car, you may not know what to call it, or even that it exists. So, you'll say to the mechanic, "My steering feels loose." You don't expect the mechanic to launch into a detailed description of the steering mechanism for your car. You expect the mechanic to identify the problem, tell you what part is defective, then fix the problem. Your not knowing the name of the problem, or even exactly what the problem is is not relevant to the solution. If the mechanic said, "Your steering feels loose? You don't even know what you're talking about. What do you mean your steering feels loose? What part are you talking about? I don't have time for this nonsense." you're not going to be a happy person.

Of course you may know the names of the parts of the steering system, but that's not my point. Many people do not. Most people do not. They still need their steering repaired, and will describe the problem the best way they can. The name of the part is irrelevant. The problem is the issue, and fixing it is the answer.

[PavePusher]

66. You have a valid point....

but at the same time, jumping into a conversation when one doesn't have at least a beginners grasp of the subject is pretty foolish and, in my opinion, quite rude. Politicians, who are supposed to be held to a much higher standard (hey, that's part of the job, if they don't like it, they can leave), should know better (ahem, Ms. McCarthy....?).

I certainly don't mind if someone comes into the conversation something like this: "Hey, I don't know much about this topic, but I've heard/been told X/Y/Z, how real/practical/factual is that?". And I, and most folks here, are willing to spend a considerable amount of time explaining the differences as we see them.

But jumping in and making blatently false/erroneous pronouncements, then getting cross and surly when corrected, as stated before, gets old fast. And I think we put up with a lot of it here, perhaps more so than any other forum on D.U. Just my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong.

But I'll try to keep your points in mind in the future.

[mvccd1000]

72. I disagree...

When people are talking about restricting constitutionally protected rights, I believe precision IS important.

To use your doctor scenario, for example: While you might go in complaining of stomach pain, if the doctor decides immediate surgery is called for, he's not going to operate on your stomach. He's going to know EXACTLY which part of your anatomy he's going to be cutting on, and he's going to have a specific plan on how to do it.

To use your transmission scenario, for another: If you feel that asbestos-lined clutch plates need to be banned, you don't get to just say you want to ban transmissions, or those parts of them that go around in a circle. You would have to be a bit more precise.

I feel it's the same way with the right to keep and bear arms. If you hope to find a reason to enact a ban or restriction on a right of the people, you should probably have a specific plan with specific language and a way to show that it will accomplish specific goals. THEN (and probably only then) will you possibly get some of America's 80 million gun owners to agree with your proposal.

Saying something like, "nobody needs a 30-round clip in their automatic," is not going to do much more than show that you probably don't know what kind of gun you're discussing, or what parts it can use, or how to use it.

With that display of ignorance on the subject at hand, why would a reader give any weight to the rest of your opinion?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Heaven forfend we actually educate someone.

[flamin lib]

8. Thanks for that. You're one of my favorite people here.

What the fervent RKBA aficionados are missing is that regulations get passed and quite often by those who aren't experts on the subject.

If there are 22,000 laws on the books and people still call for more perhaps there's a flaw in that conglomeration. If the entire system were scrapped and replaced who would be more suited to design it than experts on the topic?

I would suggest first coming to agreement on what kind of person should not have access to firearms. Violent felons, minors, mentally impaired come to mind fairly quickly. Next design a system that would minimize their access to firearms without being overly onerous on the rest of us realizing that it will take at least two generations for any benefits to materialize.

Who would be powerful enough to force through a national framework on gun legislation? The NRA. They have the expertise, they have credibility with gun owners and they already own Congress, so it would be simple.

edit to fix typo because if there is the tiniest flaw in your post someone here will use it as an excuse to call you ignorant and the comment completely without merit.

[PavePusher]

10. "...and quite often by those who aren't experts on the subject."

Yeah, but only when it comes to the issue of restricting the RKBA is such ignorance willfully demonstrated, celebrated and encouraged.

[flamin lib]

17. So get involved on the other side of the issue. If you are a member

of the NRA float the idea of being proactive in the arena of legislation.

[PavePusher]

23. The only legislation I think we need...

is a reduction in the current restrictions on types of firearms, locations of carry and licencing.

And we're working on that.

[flamin lib]

26. So you're content to be passive while people who don't share your

knowledge pass legislation so you can take the next ten years working to reverse it?

The NRA doesn't exist to protect your RKBA, it exists to raise money by stoking fear among gun owners to pay exorbitant salaries to it's executives. Like the Right to Life and Pro Choice movements can't afford to to settle the abortion issue, the NRA needs gun legislation.

The NRA is not your friend . . .

[PavePusher]

31. I never said I was passive.

I am a member of six different pro-RKBA organisations. I have donated time and money to my local one, AzCDL. My physical activism is limited by my being in the U.S. military and the rules we have on such things, as well as actual job time demands.

The NRA is the premier national organisation for skills and safety training in relation to firearms. Does the political wing have some issues to improve on? Sure, who doesn't. But they won't improve if people like me don't join and become voting members (I should get voting status this year).

I also do a lot of informal gun training with friends, family and anyone who looks interested. One of these days I should get certified, see "time demands" above. Maybe when I'm retired.

[flamin lib]

40. Good for you! Other than what I said about the NRA above,

that they really don't want real gun regulation that does what is intended, it is still the premier organization with a lot of equity in Congress. The only way for anything of functional use to happen is for them to take the lead instead of using legislation, fear and religious fervor to raise money.

[MineralMan]

16. Thanks. That's kind of you to say.

[rl6214]

70. And here is the problem

"What the fervent RKBA aficionados are missing is that regulations get passed and quite often by those who aren't experts on the subject. "

This is exactly why the AWB was a HUGE failure. They passed a law because they didn't know the termonology and the firearms manufacturers were able to go right around it, thank God.

[shadowrider]

15. Also, a bullet is NOT a complete cartridge or round of ammunition

A cartridge, also called a round, packages the bullet, gunpowder and primer into a single metallic case precisely made to fit the firing chamber of a firearm. The primer is a small charge of impact-sensitive chemical that may be located at the center of the case head (centerfire ammunition) or at its rim (rimfire ammunition). Electrically-fired cartridges have also been made. Caseless ammunition has been made as well. A cartridge without a bullet is called a blank; one that is completely inert is called a dummy.

In popular use, the term "bullet" is often misused to refer to complete cartridges. This is incorrect; "bullet" refers specifically to the projectile itself, not the entire cartridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29

[MineralMan]

19. Yes, I know that. My definitions are what people who don't know

that mean when they use these words. I made that pretty clear in my opening paragraph. It's not a guide to correct definitions. It's a guide to what people who are not intimately familiar with firearms mean when they use these terms.

[shadowrider]

20. Then you should take the opportunity to educate rather than reinforce

A lot of the problem when discussing firearms, as you point out, is divergent views on what is what. If I know the correct definition, I'll argue from that viewpoint. If you know what you mean, but use the wrong term, we ain't gonna agree.

[MineralMan]

28. That's what I'm trying to do - educate.

I'm trying to education RKBA advocates about what the lay person means when he or she uses some terms. If you understand that, then you can skip the sarcastic comments about their ignorance and get on to the discussion of issues.

The lay person or person who does not own or enjoy firearms has no need for the detailed knowledge about them. You waste your time in trying to make them learn that terminology. They're interested in discussion issues regarding firearms. Why piss them off further by ridiculing their lack of knowledge.

I'm sure there are many technical fields where your knowledge of the specialized terminology of that field is lacking. Yet, you might want to discuss issues having to do with those areas. Should you have to learn all of the terminology of that field before entering into a discussion about the impact of that field on people's lives? Really?

Firearms issues do not just affect those who own firearms. It is the issues that are important.

[shadowrider]

30. Huh? Where on this thread did I make a sarcastic comment regarding ignorance?

[MineralMan]

33. I'm not talking about this thread or about you.

I'm talking about the whole topic of firearms issues and the discussions that happen around them. This is not about you. It is about discussion in general.

[shadowrider]

34. ok n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

53. If you do not understand an issue, you are unqualified to propose legislation about it.

Otherwise, they won't get what they wanted anyway.

[flamin lib]

21. You are doing an excellent job of making mineralman's point. Thanks! nt

[jeepnstein]

36. You make a point, but I think it's misguided.

When I hear people spouting off about clips, automatics, shooting down airliners, and other topics about which they haven't got the slightest clue that tells me they haven't put much effort into the issue. Why should I even listen to someone who can't be bothered to understand the topic? If I were to stumble into the GLBT forums and start ranting about how marriage means this and not that I'd be roasted over hot coals. Especially if I clearly hadn't taken the time to even know enough about the issue beyond the old "Adam and Steve" joke. Yet you are telling us we not only need to tolerate ignorance but embrace it?

Dumbing down an issue just makes us all dumb. There are people who come into the Gungeon displaying willful ignorance and they expect to be taken seriously. I say they should take the time to understand the issue and the nomenclature of the devices they seek to ban. Is that too much to ask since they are talking about my Constitutional Rights?

[DissedByBush]

39. You can't argue the issues with inaccurate definitions

I refuse to drop to the lowest common denominator in ignorance.

[MineralMan]

45. OK, but you won't be able to discuss the issues with people

who may be making the decisions. So, how do you get anything done?

[DissedByBush]

54. Educate them, supposedly

But that won't work, because they don't want a rational discussion of the issues.

Ignorance of the facts plays into their favor.

[MineralMan]

56. Actually both sides often shun rationality in these discussion.

Education is good, but it must be done in a way that doesn't alienate the ones being taught and send them off to call you names elsewhere. "You're a moron" is rarely a good start when trying to educate someone, it seems, no matter how you say it.

[shadowrider]

59. In all honesty

pro-gun advocates are rarely the ones to say "you're a moron" (Not to say it doesn't happen, just that it usually happens after repeated attempts to educate). That comes mostly from the anti side since they argue on emotion.

You can't educate those that don't wish to be educated and instead do nothing but flame on.

[Abq_Sarah]

84. Personally

I would insist that anyone "making the decisions" show they understand what they're talking about.

[gravity556]

81. re:You can't argue the issues with inaccurate definitions

Exactly. Particularly when one side of the argument is driven by emotion. Being able to nail down exact terms makes sure that both parties are arguing the same issue. A good analogy would be arguing evolution with a young earth creationist. Quite often the reason you find yourself pulling your hair out is because (and this is going to seem a bit harsh) it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion about evolution with someone who demands to see a transitional fossil, defined as "a horse giving birth to a kangaroo". Toss in emotion on top of a lack of understanding of the topic at hand (you evolutionists can't show me a horse giving birth to a kangaroo because you hate Jesus and America!) and the desire to smack an idiot with a newspaper while rubbing their nose in the puddle of stupid they left in the living room becomes overwhelming.

"Where in the Constitution does it say you need a 30 round clip in your semi-automatic machine gun to hunt bambi?"

*loud noise as critical mass of stupidity goes supercritical*

"You're an idiot"

"What? Can't you have a civil debate? I just think that we need some "reasonable" gun control....derp"

Now repeat that exchange over and over again every time someone thinks that they've somehow come up with an original argument against some firearm that they think is scary, and you can see how the pro-RKBA side might become a little bit less than patient.

[Straw Man]

41. Some of the terminology is VERY significant.

I agree that the "clip vs. magazine" is irrelevant to the issues. But when I see news reports showing footage of full-auto AK-47's blazing away when the report is about the assault weapons ban, I realize that public opinion is being manipulated by falsehoods and deliberate misinformation. The "auto vs. semi-auto," "select-fire," and "assault weapon" terminology is VERY signicant. The layman on the whole does NOT understand the distinctions, and votes/opines accordingly.

[MineralMan]

43. Where it is actually significant, then it should be explained.

However, the expectation that everyone entering into a discussion of firearms issues must understand the details of firearms nomenclature before their concerns are taken seriously is a real mistake. It's possible to make the explanation of terminology quickly, and without any asides, then go on to the discussion.

However, someone will soon be along who doesn't have the information again. The point is to recognize when nomenclature is important and when it is not. For example, the number of rounds in a handgun magazine is certainly part of a discussion regarding potential for mass shootings. Whether the magazine is called a clip or not is pretty irrelevant to the issue. Explaining that many semi-auto handguns come with a standard magazine holding over 10 rounds is pertinent to the discussion, though. Simply referring to what the uninformed person calls a clip as a magazine in your own response is probably enough to make the distinction. Calling the uninformed person out for his or her stupidity isn't required. Both sides understand what is being discussed.

With regard to the whole "assault weapon" thing, the difficulty is now that the term has two definitions. One, which has been used in legislation, actually refers to some semi-auto weapons as assault weapons. This has complicated the issue considerably, and finally. The definition now depends on whether you're discussing actual military assault weapons or assault weapons as defined by enacted law.

The passage of the AWB permanently changed the civilian definition, and it's never going to change back, I'm afraid. That's a done deal, and is no longer worth arguing about, in my opinion. When a lay person refers to an "assault rifle," you can be sure they mean the definition in law, not the technical definition.

Same is true with "automatic" versus "semi-automatic." The use of "automatic" to refer to autoloading firearms has been prevalent in the popular media for a long, long time. That's not going to change. It's a word that means different things in different environments, just like the word "bug." To the lay person, a bug is any small critter with multiple legs. To an entomologist, it is a specific class of insects. Both definitions are accepted, depending on the usage. Almost all of us use the word "bug" to describe insects, spiders, and even crawdads in some places. That will never change.

As far as the proper nomenclature for firearms is concerned, it is in the wording of the legislation that it matters. In casual discussion, it's generally a matter of whether the legislation should be passed or not, rather than the word usage. The distinction is important to those who are interested in firearms and own them, but of no interest to anyone else, really, when the issue is whether something should have a special classification. It's worth explaining, but in simple, objective terms, before resuming the discussion. Sarcasm and ridicule are not appropriate, but are often used.

If the object is to convince people of a position, it's important to engage them in a civil way and be as clear as possible. Sometimes, frustration gets the better of people, though, and they dismiss people for ignorance and refuse to discuss issues at all. That's a terrible mistake, since those people will leave with an even stronger opinion against whatever point you wished to make.

Firearms issues aren't the only place this occurs, of course, but it's almost universal in firearms discussions that someone attacks the person asking the questions or taking an opposition viewpoint. And the easiest way to attack is to use the person's lack of detailed knowledge of firearms as the entry point for the attack. It's a very bad idea to do that, and harms the very cause of RKBA support.

[Euromutt]

73. I have to take issue with a few details there

With regard to the whole "assault weapon" thing, the difficulty is now that the term has two definitions. One, which has been used in legislation, actually refers to some semi-auto weapons as assault weapons. This has complicated the issue considerably, and finally. The definition now depends on whether you're discussing actual military assault weapons or assault weapons as defined by enacted law.

The passage of the AWB permanently changed the civilian definition, and it's never going to change back, I'm afraid. That's a done deal, and is no longer worth arguing about, in my opinion. When a lay person refers to an "assault rifle," you can be sure they mean the definition in law, not the technical definition.

Now you're falling prey to the same problem, namely conflating the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle."

"Assault weapon" is a term that has been defined by law--albeit inconsistently--but "assault rifle" is not. The latter term, when used to refer to a rifle type "assault weapon" is an invention of the news media, and a development of the term "assault pistol" (to indicate "assault weapons" that are legally pistols, such as Uzi pistols and TEC-9s) coined by the anti-gun lobby.

In military terminology, an assault weapon is a weapon used by infantry to breach enemy fortifications, such as satchel charges, bangalore torpedoes, flamethrowers and some rocket launchers (such as the Mk-153 Mod O http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/smaw.htm). Fine, we can dispense with pedantry about that definition when we're talking about privately owned firearms, but "assault rifle" is a different story, since there are actual assault rifles in private ownership, albeit a very limited number.

Another problem with the term "assault weapon" is that it has been defined and used extremely inconsistently. In the past few weeks, we've seen Jared Loughner's Glock 19 referred to as an "assault weapon," which it isn't by any legal definition, not even that of California's Roberti-Roos act, and there has even been an instance of the Chicago Tribune referring to an antique Mauser as a "bolt-action assault weapon"! There is a definite tendency to use the term for any weapon used in an assault and, conversely, to imply (or assert explicitly) that the label "assault weapon" means the firearm is only suitable for conducting an unlawful assault.

Frankly, the term was garbage to begin with, and it's been misused ever further since Josh Sugarmann coined it to the point that in the vernacular it now means just about anything, and therefore nothing.

I will agree with you that use of the term is, by itself, no justification for heaping ridicule on the user, but if the user appears to be wielding the term as prejudicial language (e.g. "why have an assault weapon, except to assault someone? huh? huh? huh?") I don't think there's any particular need to be considerate of their feelings.

[oneshooter]

46. WOW!!

Clip - A removable or detachable magazine for a firearm. This error comes from hearing even knowledgeable people refer to "Changing clips" in movies and other places. This term is misused often by firearms users, as well. Yes, there is a distinction, but it doesn't matter. They mean removable or detachable magazine.


That means both my M1 Garand and mt Broomhandle Mauser don't use a "Clip" to fill the "Magazine". Damn glad thats all figured out.

How about a rifle that is semi-auto, more powerfull than an AR and uses a clip to load it. Would that be a "assault Weapon"?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[shadowrider]

48. Self delete, wrong place

[MineralMan]

51. Read the whole post, please. Those are how the average

lay person understands the terms. I know what the actual definitions are. These definitions are what the person who doesn't really know much about firearms thinks the words mean. If you understand that, you'll understand what they're talking about. My point is that arguing about definitions often takes the place of discussing the actual issues, you see.

[oneshooter]

62. Well part of the problem is

"This error comes from hearing even knowledgeable people refer to "Changing clips" in movies"

The majority of writers and producers of movies don't know shit about firearms. The best comedy I have seen in YEARS is "CSI". The ignorance and just pure BULLSHIT about firearms on that program is amazing.

THIS is were most "laymen" get their knowledge from these type of shows.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[shadowrider]

49. In all honesty, I misread the OP

I thought these were YOUR definitions, not the definitions as understood by non-firearm people. It's kinda confusing.

A better way to have done it, IMO, would have been to define the terms twice:

Lay Person: Bullet yada yada

Actual definition Bullet: yada yada

Looking at it in this new light, I think I owe you an apology, so, I apologize for my comments.

[MineralMan]

50. No problem.

[jody]

55. Excellent post. Sadly those who don't know such things but are easily misled by

Pied Pipers from Scary Brady and VPC (aka Vigorously Protecting Criminals) are afraid to visit DU's Guns forum where pro-RKBA Dems speak truth backed up with irrefutable facts supporting the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense that pre-existed our Constitution and in no way depends upon that document for legitimacy.

[MineralMan]

57. Sometimes, it's all in how you do it. Personally, I think many

RKBA supporters have done it an ineffective way for a long time. I'm suggesting a change in approach.

[jody]

60. Hope you are correct. Go for it! n/t

[beevul]

64. Its been said many a time...

That we need a sticky which contains information pertinent to the discussion of guns.

Such would be a help, in that people who were interested could use it as a referrence resource.

We really do need one.

[benEzra]

75. "Gats" use "clips". Pistols use magazines.

And while I agree that being snobbish and pedantic isn't helpful, it is a big mistake to allow the gun control lobby to assign loaded terms to some civilian guns in order to shut down rational thought ("why would anyone need to own an 'assault weapon' instead of a regular rifle"), or to intentionally play on the public's confusion about the legal status of automatic weapons.

The use of "automatic" to refer to civilian non-automatic weapons is an anachronism from the early 20th century that has no place in modern terminology, and one that is intentionally played upon by those on the pro-bans side who do know better.

So, no, I don't think it is wise to adopt the gun control lobby's terminology. That would be as foolish as supporters of health care reform adopting Limbaugh-esque "death panel" and "rationing" verbage, or supporters of more rational cannabis laws adopting the "reefer madness" scare-vocabulary of the prohibitionists. Not a good idea.

[Callisto32]

76. We know what you mean.

We are trying to educate the ignorant as to proper terms.

Of the ones you list, the only two that really matter from a policy point, as far as I can see, is automatic and assault weapon.

THESE definitions matter, as they seem to be definitions that people want included in legislation. Definitions are extremely important in legislation and it is not unreasonable for the firearms cognoscenti to expect that accurate definitions be used in legislation. Not doing so leads to craziness, like 12 gauge shotguns being labeled "not a firearm" by halfwits at the BATFE-I-E-I-O.

[kudzu22]

82. You forgot some

Silencer -- Suppressor

Arsenal -- More than two guns

Stockpile -- More than two boxes of ammunition

Hoard -- see stockpile

Sniper rifle -- Any rifle with a telescopic sight

Armor-piercing hollow points -- WTF?

[oneshooter]

83. Armor-piercing hollow points -- WTF?.......

Armor-piercing hollow point heat seeking bullets that have a "shoulder thing that goes up"


There I fixed it for ya.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Spoonman]

86. A few more

Cop killer bullets - they are non-lethal on criminals
"Reasonable gun control" - Registration, confiscation, licensing, insurance, outright bans

Neocon, Freeper, NRA shill - Anyone who supports RKBA

I use to frequent this board quite a bit, but the hard core antis are simply to closed minded to allow the penetration of any facts.