5 ms·

The journalistic ignorance around firearms is staggering: 'assault-style rifles', 'fully semi automatic', etc etc.

CydeWeys 7y ago
What's wrong with "assault-style"? It correctly describes rifles that are designed to look like their actually select-fire military assault rifle counterparts, but that are just semi-automatic themselves. It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics, nothing more. What name would you recommend instead?
- axaxs 7y ago
  Not OP, but, 'assault-style' is meaningless. Who cares that it -looks- like a black rifle, it's just a semi automatic rifle. Many airsoft and paintball guns look similar, are they also 'assault-style'? A lot of damage was done with the Mini 14, which I'm guessing nobody classifies as 'assault-style', or do they? The only difference is that one is wooden, and the other is metal/plastic, really. So when you boil it down to those differences, it seems rather silly. If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics. However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
    - axaxs 7y ago
      I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        I mean, I agree, I think it would make more sense to repeal the Second Amendment, and then ban all autoloading firearms and all handguns, similar to what many other nations have done. I don't think it makes sense to go after guns based on aesthetics. However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
        oreo83 7y ago
        The terminology isn't actually accurate though. Did you read his response?
      - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
        So you're saying that the important thing is how they look, right? That they can have a big impact simply based on their appearance and that it signals a certain intent even though their appearance may have no direct bearing on their effectiveness?
    - kevas 7y ago
      Actually... "assault" has a completely different meaning than aesthetics. There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        Note that the phrase being discussed here is "assault-style", not merely "assault".
- avn2109 7y ago
  Not the OP, but obligatory and very relevant Popehat: Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers. You: So what do you propose? Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog. You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?" Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs. You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now. Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. You: What the fuck. Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own. You: Can we? From https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-abou...
  - klyrs 7y ago
    On one hand, large magazines are useful in a murderous rampage, especially in semi-autos. That's why they're banned in Canada. On the other hand, assault-styled weapons give kids that "video game feel" and there's a high incidence of their use in domestic terrorism. On another hand, dogs are living creatures, and it's not generally acceptable to throw them into a grinder. But popehat is written by lawyers who deliberately represent scum. False equivalence is their bread and butter
    - silversconfused 7y ago
      > large magazines already illegal > video game feel Have you shot a gun in real life or in a game? There's no similarity. > Something about popehat Way to shoot the messenger and ignore the message...
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    As someone who had a Rottweiler called Psycho (named after the nickname of a football player from the local team) as a child the most harm that dog would do to you was sit on you or lick you to death. (I have a vivid memory of lying on the carpet in the living room playing Mario on the NES on a Saturday morning and the dog coming over and falling asleep on me and I was pretty much stuck, but who cared I had Saturday morning Mario to play on the big TV in the living room.) We used to have a large front garden and a tiny back garden so as kids we would play in the front garden and obv play with the dog. I remember atleast 4 times the authorities of one form or another were sent out to pay us a visit simply because we were playing with such a vicious animal. As kids we were more of a threat to that dog than it was to us as we sit on the dogs back and get rides up and down the garden. He was an awesome dog :-) But in the UK we do have a few banned dog breeds - https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs - but personally I believe it’s down to the treatment of the animal from a puppy that matters, a well cared for and socialised pit bull terriers can be a loving family dog. Though I can not say I’ve had any interaction with any of the other dogs on the banned breed list.
- finnthehuman 7y ago
  >What name would you recommend instead? Tacti-cool >It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics No, not really. A lot of arguments against gun rights uses phrasing like “assault” or “assault style” to imply the difference between the scary gun they want to ban and a hunters gun are much bigger than cosmetics.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    "Tacticool" is more of an in-joke, and is not as widely understood as "assault-style". It's OK to use in some more narrow realms, but generally speaking, an average person won't understand what you're talking about when you say that. So it's not as good of a phrase to use in a news headline.

What's wrong with "assault-style"? It correctly describes rifles that are designed to look like their actually select-fire military assault rifle counterparts, but that are just semi-automatic themselves. It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics, nothing more. What name would you recommend instead?

axaxs 7y ago
Not OP, but, 'assault-style' is meaningless. Who cares that it -looks- like a black rifle, it's just a semi automatic rifle. Many airsoft and paintball guns look similar, are they also 'assault-style'? A lot of damage was done with the Mini 14, which I'm guessing nobody classifies as 'assault-style', or do they? The only difference is that one is wooden, and the other is metal/plastic, really. So when you boil it down to those differences, it seems rather silly. If you are taking the stance of banning something, then one should be well versed to know what they are seeking to ban. Banning 'assault-style' is useless (see Mini 14). If you want to ban semi automatic rifles, say that. If you want to ban high capacity magazines, say that.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics. However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?
  - axaxs 7y ago
    I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      I mean, I agree, I think it would make more sense to repeal the Second Amendment, and then ban all autoloading firearms and all handguns, similar to what many other nations have done. I don't think it makes sense to go after guns based on aesthetics. However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
      - oreo83 7y ago
        The terminology isn't actually accurate though. Did you read his response?
    - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
      So you're saying that the important thing is how they look, right? That they can have a big impact simply based on their appearance and that it signals a certain intent even though their appearance may have no direct bearing on their effectiveness?
  - kevas 7y ago
    Actually... "assault" has a completely different meaning than aesthetics. There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Note that the phrase being discussed here is "assault-style", not merely "assault".
avn2109 7y ago
Not the OP, but obligatory and very relevant Popehat: Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers. You: So what do you propose? Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog. You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?" Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs. You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now. Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. You: What the fuck. Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own. You: Can we? From https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-abou...
- klyrs 7y ago
  On one hand, large magazines are useful in a murderous rampage, especially in semi-autos. That's why they're banned in Canada. On the other hand, assault-styled weapons give kids that "video game feel" and there's a high incidence of their use in domestic terrorism. On another hand, dogs are living creatures, and it's not generally acceptable to throw them into a grinder. But popehat is written by lawyers who deliberately represent scum. False equivalence is their bread and butter
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    > large magazines already illegal > video game feel Have you shot a gun in real life or in a game? There's no similarity. > Something about popehat Way to shoot the messenger and ignore the message...
- Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
  As someone who had a Rottweiler called Psycho (named after the nickname of a football player from the local team) as a child the most harm that dog would do to you was sit on you or lick you to death. (I have a vivid memory of lying on the carpet in the living room playing Mario on the NES on a Saturday morning and the dog coming over and falling asleep on me and I was pretty much stuck, but who cared I had Saturday morning Mario to play on the big TV in the living room.) We used to have a large front garden and a tiny back garden so as kids we would play in the front garden and obv play with the dog. I remember atleast 4 times the authorities of one form or another were sent out to pay us a visit simply because we were playing with such a vicious animal. As kids we were more of a threat to that dog than it was to us as we sit on the dogs back and get rides up and down the garden. He was an awesome dog :-) But in the UK we do have a few banned dog breeds - https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs - but personally I believe it’s down to the treatment of the animal from a puppy that matters, a well cared for and socialised pit bull terriers can be a loving family dog. Though I can not say I’ve had any interaction with any of the other dogs on the banned breed list.
finnthehuman 7y ago
>What name would you recommend instead? Tacti-cool >It reflects that what's being talked about is the aesthetics No, not really. A lot of arguments against gun rights uses phrasing like “assault” or “assault style” to imply the difference between the scary gun they want to ban and a hunters gun are much bigger than cosmetics.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  "Tacticool" is more of an in-joke, and is not as widely understood as "assault-style". It's OK to use in some more narrow realms, but generally speaking, an average person won't understand what you're talking about when you say that. So it's not as good of a phrase to use in a news headline.