13 ms·

By that same reasoning there's no such thing as anything, as we all define words to be whatever we want them to mean. Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submac

By that same reasoning there's no such thing as anything, as we all define words to be whatever we want them to mean. Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols + ... is too much to say. It's a meta-category, which we use all the time to describe things and is incredibly helpful.

analog31 10y ago
In my view, attacking terminology is a convenient way of making dialogue impossible. I suspect that "assault weapon" may have originated with the gun manufacturers themselves, as a marketing term, or within military / police circles.
- erichocean 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_term... > Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984. > In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.
- gozur88 10y ago
  The terminology is attacked because people are calling for restrictions when they don't even understand the subject well enough to know what restrictions they're supporting.
gozur88 10y ago
It's not a "meta category" at all - it's a category based on looks rather than functionality, so the term gives the illusion of a useful description without being much of a useful description. The way the term is used it does not include full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols at all - it just describes semi-automatic rifles that have plastic stocks instead of wood. There's no functional difference between a varmint rifle with a ten round magazine and a wooden stock and an "assault weapon" with a ten round magazine and a plastic stock. That's why gun manufacturers were able to make a few cosmetic changes to turn illegal guns into legal guns the last time we had a (completely useless) "assault weapons" ban. The California "assault weapons" ban was even dumber - they listed models in the ban, making it trivial for manufacturers to sell essentially the same weapons by changing the model number.
- nwienert 10y ago
  So the real problem you're saying is that we should never try and define things because definitions themselves can always be changed? This problem has already been solved in other areas. Look at drug laws. They cover designer drugs easily - which is the exact same problem as you describe here. And also - it can be a meta category, and it's helpful to have that. We can define semi-automatic pretty well, and the law has ways to cover "equivalents". Your scare quotes don't change that.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    No, what I'm saying is when you're reporting on, or worse making laws about, a subject you should understand the words you're using. It wouldn't kill the media (or people in Congress) to spend twenty minutes learning enough about firearms to avoid looking like complete idiots. And yes, you can define semiautomatics pretty well. But semiautomatics will not be banned. The problem is you can't define "assault weapons" in a way that they don't cover all semiautomatics. It's completely reasonable to put scare quotes around a nonsense term like "assault weapons". If you say that at your local range people will point at you and laugh.
mimo777 10y ago
That's like saying hacking language. OMGWTFBBQ He can use assembly! Its a hacking language. Hacker this, hacker that. Its all about making something sound scary. All guns are scary. Guess what? All humans are scary too. Especially full grown adult males. And you know what equalizes weaker humans with these scary full grown adult males? Firearms.
- nwienert 10y ago
  Do you support privatized consumer-owned nuclear weapons? What about tear gas and grenades? Automatic RPG's? You're arguing in black and white and our world doesn't work like that. Subtlety is what makes law. Me? I'd prefer most guns were illegal. You'd prefer we all could own subatomic weapons (it seems, since you're basically implying any discussion on "level of strength" is moot). It's not hacking language. It's subtlety. Once you throw that out the window you can't have a conversation.

analog31 10y ago

In my view, attacking terminology is a convenient way of making dialogue impossible. I suspect that "assault weapon" may have originated with the gun manufacturers themselves, as a marketing term, or within military / police circles.

erichocean 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_term... > Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984. > In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.
gozur88 10y ago
The terminology is attacked because people are calling for restrictions when they don't even understand the subject well enough to know what restrictions they're supporting.

gozur88 10y ago

It's not a "meta category" at all - it's a category based on looks rather than functionality, so the term gives the illusion of a useful description without being much of a useful description. The way the term is used it does not include full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols at all - it just describes semi-automatic rifles that have plastic stocks instead of wood. There's no functional difference between a varmint rifle with a ten round magazine and a wooden stock and an "assault weapon" with a ten round magazine and a plastic stock. That's why gun manufacturers were able to make a few cosmetic changes to turn illegal guns into legal guns the last time we had a (completely useless) "assault weapons" ban. The California "assault weapons" ban was even dumber - they listed models in the ban, making it trivial for manufacturers to sell essentially the same weapons by changing the model number.

nwienert 10y ago
So the real problem you're saying is that we should never try and define things because definitions themselves can always be changed? This problem has already been solved in other areas. Look at drug laws. They cover designer drugs easily - which is the exact same problem as you describe here. And also - it can be a meta category, and it's helpful to have that. We can define semi-automatic pretty well, and the law has ways to cover "equivalents". Your scare quotes don't change that.
- gozur88 10y ago
  No, what I'm saying is when you're reporting on, or worse making laws about, a subject you should understand the words you're using. It wouldn't kill the media (or people in Congress) to spend twenty minutes learning enough about firearms to avoid looking like complete idiots. And yes, you can define semiautomatics pretty well. But semiautomatics will not be banned. The problem is you can't define "assault weapons" in a way that they don't cover all semiautomatics. It's completely reasonable to put scare quotes around a nonsense term like "assault weapons". If you say that at your local range people will point at you and laugh.

mimo777 10y ago

That's like saying hacking language. OMGWTFBBQ He can use assembly! Its a hacking language. Hacker this, hacker that. Its all about making something sound scary. All guns are scary. Guess what? All humans are scary too. Especially full grown adult males. And you know what equalizes weaker humans with these scary full grown adult males? Firearms.

nwienert 10y ago
Do you support privatized consumer-owned nuclear weapons? What about tear gas and grenades? Automatic RPG's? You're arguing in black and white and our world doesn't work like that. Subtlety is what makes law. Me? I'd prefer most guns were illegal. You'd prefer we all could own subatomic weapons (it seems, since you're basically implying any discussion on "level of strength" is moot). It's not hacking language. It's subtlety. Once you throw that out the window you can't have a conversation.