OMFG! Assault Rifles For Really Young Kids

[Derec]

And another thing about the article. Matt Stieb incorrectly calls AR-15 an "assault rifle", when assault rifles are specifically military rifles with selective fire. He also call the JR-15 an "assault rifle" even though it fires .22LR cartridges that are far less powerful

"Intelligencer" my ass! And it shows yet again that to the "ban assault weapons" crowd, it's about how a weapon looks, not about firepower or performance.

 

[ZiprHead]

And another thing about the article. Matt Stieb incorrectly calls AR-15 an "assault rifle", when assault rifles are specifically military rifles with selective fire. He also call the JR-15 an "assault rifle" even though it fires .22LR cartridges that are far less powerful

"Intelligencer" my ass! And it shows yet again that to the "ban assault weapons" crowd, it's about how a weapon looks, not about firepower or performance.

I just knew you would show up with that crap. You're really going to defend this bullshit?

 

[Shadowy Man]

And another thing about the article. Matt Stieb incorrectly calls AR-15 an "assault rifle", when assault rifles are specifically military rifles with selective fire. He also call the JR-15 an "assault rifle" even though it fires .22LR cartridges that are far less powerful

"Intelligencer" my ass! And it shows yet again that to the "ban assault weapons" crowd, it's about how a weapon looks, not about firepower or performance.

My understanding was that the term “assualt rifle” is ill-defined; at least that’s what I tend to hear from the pro-gun crowd. But you seem to have a specific definition. Can you elaborate on that definition?

 

[TomC]

Matt Stieb incorrectly calls AR-15 an "assault rifle", when assault rifles are specifically military rifles with selective fire.

Why does the pro-violence crowd keep going on with this kind of semantic bullshit?

I don't care what word you prefer to use to refer to the weapons we're talking about. I really don't. I just want them gone, or so heavily restricted that little kids aren't in danger from them like they are now.

How about that? I'll agree not to call anything an assault rifle without your approval. And you'll agree to ban any weapon I consider more dangerous than its worth.
How about that?
Tom

 

[Derec]

I just knew you would show up with that crap.

Correcting (possibly deliberate) factual errors in an article is not "crap".
NYM has really dropped in quality in recent years.

 

[TomC]

I just knew you would show up with that crap.

Correcting (possibly deliberate) factual errors in an article is not "crap".
NYM has really dropped in quality in recent years.

Factual?

It's your semantic nonsense that you're referring to.
Tom

 

[Derec]

My understanding was that the term “assualt rifle” is ill-defined; at least that’s what I tend to hear from the pro-gun crowd.

The term "assault rifle" is actually well-defined and limited to selective fire military rifles.
It is the term "assault weapon" that is ill defined and it includes whatever gun grabbers want to ban at that particular time.

But you seem to have a specific definition. Can you elaborate on that definition?

Read the wiki page for starters.

It is the anglicization of the German word "Sturmgewehr", after StG44, considered the first practical assault rifle.

 

[Elixir]

"When the facts aren't on your side, baffle them with bullshit!"
- RW SOP

 

[Shadowy Man]

My understanding was that the term “assualt rifle” is ill-defined; at least that’s what I tend to hear from the pro-gun crowd.

The term "assault rifle" is actually well-defined and limited to selective fire military rifles.
It is the term "assault weapon" that is ill defined and it includes whatever gun grabbers want to ban at that particular time.

But you seem to have a specific definition. Can you elaborate on that definition?

It is the anglicization of the German word "Sturmgewehr", after Stg44, considered the first practical assault rifle.

“Selective fire” does seem to have a concrete definition but what exactly do you mean by “military”. If an assault rifle is used by a non-military person is it no longer an “assault rifle” or is it that selective fire weapons are only made for the military? What I mean is: In what way is the word “military” here refining the definition of the item?

 

[Derec]

Factual?

Yes. Calling a semiautomatic rifle "assault rifle" is a factual error. As is pretending that JR-15 is just a smaller version of AR-15 when they fire different cartridges.

It's your semantic nonsense that you're referring to.

Semantics is about meaning of words. This Stieb guy is misusing words, either out of ignorance or deliberately.
Using correct terminology is not "nonsense".

 

[Derec]

"When the facts aren't on your side, baffle them with bullshit!"

NY Mag's new motto? Or just Matt Stieb's?

Because he is the one playing it fast and loose with facts.

 

[Derec]

“Selective fire” does seem to have a concrete definition but what exactly do you mean by “military”. If an assault rifle is used by a non-military person is it no longer an “assault rifle” or is it that selective fire weapons are only made for the military? What I mean is: In what way is the word “military” here refining the definition of the item?

If a criminal steals some M16s or XM7s from an army depot and uses them in a robbery they are still assault rifles. It's that these weapons are designed for use by militaries and not for civilian use like semiauto AR15s or MCX Spear. I.e. I used the qualifier "military" to emphasize that there are military and civilian versions of a similar rifle design, and only the selective-fire military version is called "assault rifle". The other one is "semiauto rifle", but politicians introduced the fuzzy term "assault weapon" when they wanted to ban certian semiauto rifles.

 

[Derec]

I just knew you would show up with that crap.

What crap? It is your source that is peddling crap instead of informing himself before writing an article.

You're really going to defend this bullshit?

Kids have been using firearms under adult supervision since forever. Should we all of a sudden go full Helen Lovejoy just because of what the weapon looks like?

 

[Derec]

Why does the pro-violence crowd keep going on with this kind of semantic bullshit?

I am against unjustified violence (I am in favor of self defense). I am even pro more strict gun laws.
I am against uninformed hacks writing articles and people here defending their ignorance because they happen to agree with the writer's politics.

I don't care what word you prefer to use to refer to the weapons we're talking about. I really don't. I just want them gone, or so heavily restricted that little kids aren't in danger from them like they are now.

And what weapons would those be? 22LR rifles have not been part of any enacted or proposed "assault weapons" ban that I know of.
In fact, 22LR rifles aimed at kids have been around a long time.
Crickett Youth Rifles

How about that? I'll agree not to call anything an assault rifle without your approval. And you'll agree to ban any weapon I consider more dangerous than its worth.

No deal. You are welcome to demonstrate your ignorance by misusing terms. And I will continue to disagree with the weapons you want to ban.

I think laws should focus on people, not so much the types of guns. A lot more people are killed with handguns than rifles of any type anyway.

 

[James Brown]

So, ban handguns?

 

[Derec]

So, ban handguns?

DC tried, but alas ...

I still think it should be about people. Why restrict freedoms of regular people because some people commit crimes? Might as well be banning knives (would save more lives than banning "assault weapons").

 

[Shadowy Man]

“Selective fire” does seem to have a concrete definition but what exactly do you mean by “military”. If an assault rifle is used by a non-military person is it no longer an “assault rifle” or is it that selective fire weapons are only made for the military? What I mean is: In what way is the word “military” here refining the definition of the item?

If a criminal steals some M16s or XM7s from an army depot and uses them in a robbery they are still assault rifles. It's that these weapons are designed for use by militaries and not for civilian use like semiauto AR15s or MCX Spear. I.e. I used the qualifier "military" to emphasize that there are military and civilian versions of a similar rifle design, and only the selective-fire military version is called "assault rifle". The other one is "semiauto rifle", but politicians introduced the fuzzy term "assault weapon" when they wanted to ban certian semiauto rifles.

So, technically, an “assault rifle” is the same thing as “selective fire rifle”? There are no selective fire rifles that are not assault rifles and vice versa?

 

[TomC]

Why restrict freedoms of regular people because some people commit crimes?

What do you mean by "regular people"?

Dylan Roof was "regular people", until he shot up a bible study group. The guy in Highland Park was "regular people" until he shot up the crowd.

What do you mean by "regular people"?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

So, ban handguns?

DC tried, but alas ...

I still think it should be about people. Why restrict freedoms of regular people because some people commit crimes? Might as well be banning knives (would save more lives than banning "assault weapons").

That would make perfect sense if one ignores the basic reality that knives have plenty of non-violent uses (against people) while assault weapons do not.

 

[bilby]

The term "assault rifle" is actually well-defined and limited to selective fire military rifles.

Nonsense. All linguistic terms are defined by usage.

The term "assault rifle" is used to mean any rifle with a particular appearance, characterised by the presence of an external magazine.

It is also used to refer specifically to selective fire military rifles, often with shorter barrels than other rifles, and typically shorter than them overall, as well.

You prefer one of these definitions. That's your prerogative. But if others prefer a different definition, and it is comprehensible to the majority of their audience, then they're not "wrong" to use it. And if their definition is the most commonly understood one to a given audience, then it's you, not they, who is using a misleading and "incorrect" definition.