4 ms·

>> "...gun powder contained in the bullet..." Don't mean to be a pedant, but this bothers firearms people to no end, and we're on a technical site. A "bullet"

by avn2109 11y ago

>> "...gun powder contained in the bullet..." Don't mean to be a pedant, but this bothers firearms people to no end, and we're on a technical site. A "bullet" is just a projectile - a dumb chunk of material. The "cartridge" contains the bullet, propellant (likely gunpowder in this context), and some other stuff. So the gunpowder is emphatically not contained in the bullet; rather, both the bullet and the gunpowder are contained in another thing, called the cartridge. [0] [0] http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/9-misused-gun-terms/ http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/9-misused-gun-terms/

sandworm101 11y ago
Dude. He was talking about "gun powder", which I gather is created by grinding up old guns in some sort of mill. Ripping into the technical jargon isn't worth the effort.
- mirimir 11y ago
  :) Propellant.
- pluma 11y ago
  Technically gun powder is accurate for black powder. But I doubt he was talking about Napoleonic firearms.
mturmon 11y ago
My impression is that this pedantry -- see also terminology disputes about rifles, assault rifles, long guns, magazines, clips, etc. -- is often gun enthusiasts finding a pretext for mocking anyone outside the group who expresses an opinion. In many cases, as in this one, the meaning was perfectly clear and raising the terminology issue is just a distraction.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  Not entirely. It's like someone calling RAM a "hard drive" - while we could infer what they mean perfectly, I think there's benefit in using correct terminology.
- olympus 11y ago
  This issue is easy to blow off as "you know what I mean" but it's an important signal that someone has formed an opinion without being fully educated on the topic. Climate scientists would prefer to debate global warming with people who have actually read a few papers and know the actual implications of global warming (as opposed to uneducated people on either side of the argument that say that it either doesn't matter or that it will be the end of humanity). Doctors would prefer to debate vaccinations with people who have read up and learned that the chance of a negative reaction to a vaccine is very tiny compared to the chance of people dying from a disease in an unvaccinated society (see polio) as opposed to listening to people who swear that their child got paralyzed because of a flu shot (maybe they did, but they don't make a convincing argument). And gun owners would prefer to debate gun control with people who actually understand guns as opposed to people who have only seen their children firing 900 rounds/min death machines in video games. Using the proper terminology is an easy way to say, "I've done enough homework to understand how guns work in a general sense and have at least considered that I should know about something before I make a decision on it."
  - jellicle 11y ago
    Way to illustrate the comment you are responding to.
    - mturmon 11y ago
      Shorter version of GP comment: use all proper terminology or I will consider that you don't know enough to comment on the matter.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    No, people often use less-formal language when addressing an audience containing subject matter lay-persons and non-experts. Other people also just prefer informal prose; it's less intimidating. Everyone's favorite faux pas, clip vs magazine, is a mostly useless distinction. Both items offer a similar functionality to decrease the reloading time of their respective guns^W firearms; and there is rarely a case where both a magazine and a clip exist for a particular gun^W firearm so it shouldn't be a cause for much confusion. It doesn't help the gun-nomenclature pedant's case that magazines are commonly marketed by gun/shooting retailers as "clips". Another one is bullet vs cartridge vs round but depending upon context bullet is the only one that is unambiguously connected to guns^W firearms. I'm a gun^W firearm owner, and TBH I don't see a lot of diversity of opinion among firearm-rights activists; so while it might be easy in some cases to debate only those who share my interests, it isn't particularly productive. It's up to firearm-rights activists to accommodate debate from laypersons (and politely educate them if needed), just as doctors, scientists, and other experts must do so for respective laypersons they encounter in each of their fields.
- pluma 11y ago
  Only in so far as the same can be said about "computer enthusiasts" being pedantic about people calling programs "codes" or calling hash algorithms "encryption". But at least "bullet" is not entirely wrong as it is merely labelling the whole by one of its parts ("pars pro toto" is even a stylistic device).
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    > But at least "bullet" is not entirely wrong as it is merely labelling the whole by one of its parts I think we all know someone who calls their entire computer tower a CPU
    - pluma 11y ago
      Must be a language thing. I never heard it in Germany and the people I talk to online seem to be too competent to make that mistake.

by avn2109 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

Dude. He was talking about "gun powder", which I gather is created by grinding up old guns in some sort of mill. Ripping into the technical jargon isn't worth the effort.

mirimir 11y ago
:) Propellant.
pluma 11y ago
Technically gun powder is accurate for black powder. But I doubt he was talking about Napoleonic firearms.

mturmon 11y ago

My impression is that this pedantry -- see also terminology disputes about rifles, assault rifles, long guns, magazines, clips, etc. -- is often gun enthusiasts finding a pretext for mocking anyone outside the group who expresses an opinion. In many cases, as in this one, the meaning was perfectly clear and raising the terminology issue is just a distraction.

HappyTypist 11y ago
Not entirely. It's like someone calling RAM a "hard drive" - while we could infer what they mean perfectly, I think there's benefit in using correct terminology.
olympus 11y ago
This issue is easy to blow off as "you know what I mean" but it's an important signal that someone has formed an opinion without being fully educated on the topic. Climate scientists would prefer to debate global warming with people who have actually read a few papers and know the actual implications of global warming (as opposed to uneducated people on either side of the argument that say that it either doesn't matter or that it will be the end of humanity). Doctors would prefer to debate vaccinations with people who have read up and learned that the chance of a negative reaction to a vaccine is very tiny compared to the chance of people dying from a disease in an unvaccinated society (see polio) as opposed to listening to people who swear that their child got paralyzed because of a flu shot (maybe they did, but they don't make a convincing argument). And gun owners would prefer to debate gun control with people who actually understand guns as opposed to people who have only seen their children firing 900 rounds/min death machines in video games. Using the proper terminology is an easy way to say, "I've done enough homework to understand how guns work in a general sense and have at least considered that I should know about something before I make a decision on it."
- jellicle 11y ago
  Way to illustrate the comment you are responding to.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    Shorter version of GP comment: use all proper terminology or I will consider that you don't know enough to comment on the matter.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  No, people often use less-formal language when addressing an audience containing subject matter lay-persons and non-experts. Other people also just prefer informal prose; it's less intimidating. Everyone's favorite faux pas, clip vs magazine, is a mostly useless distinction. Both items offer a similar functionality to decrease the reloading time of their respective guns^W firearms; and there is rarely a case where both a magazine and a clip exist for a particular gun^W firearm so it shouldn't be a cause for much confusion. It doesn't help the gun-nomenclature pedant's case that magazines are commonly marketed by gun/shooting retailers as "clips". Another one is bullet vs cartridge vs round but depending upon context bullet is the only one that is unambiguously connected to guns^W firearms. I'm a gun^W firearm owner, and TBH I don't see a lot of diversity of opinion among firearm-rights activists; so while it might be easy in some cases to debate only those who share my interests, it isn't particularly productive. It's up to firearm-rights activists to accommodate debate from laypersons (and politely educate them if needed), just as doctors, scientists, and other experts must do so for respective laypersons they encounter in each of their fields.
pluma 11y ago
Only in so far as the same can be said about "computer enthusiasts" being pedantic about people calling programs "codes" or calling hash algorithms "encryption". But at least "bullet" is not entirely wrong as it is merely labelling the whole by one of its parts ("pars pro toto" is even a stylistic device).
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  > But at least "bullet" is not entirely wrong as it is merely labelling the whole by one of its parts I think we all know someone who calls their entire computer tower a CPU
  - pluma 11y ago
    Must be a language thing. I never heard it in Germany and the people I talk to online seem to be too competent to make that mistake.