OMFG! Assault Rifles For Really Young Kids

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a major tourist thing in Nevada. Taking kids to gun ranges. The whole point is to have "fun" with toys that are banned in your home country. Fun for the whole family.

Huh? I've never seen anything from them promoting towards children. The ads typically are about being able to shoot NFA guns. I am aware of the tourist aspect but I've never seen anything that appears directed at a foreign tourist.

Have you ever been to one? They absolutely market to families.

I've never been there, just seen the ads around town.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

 

[bilby]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

I consider a definition incorrect when it's being deliberately applied to something else to change the perception of that something else.

 

[bilby]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

I consider a definition incorrect when it's being deliberately applied to something else to change the perception of that something else.

I see.

So you consider pretty much all definitions, of anything, in any context, to be incorrect.

That must be horribly confusing.

The deliberate application of novel definitions, in order to change people's perceptions, is basically the entire history of language.

 

[mattsidedish]

Being honest, they've been making AR's in .22 cal forever. And as far as I can remember, they've been making compact versions for jr. shooters and smaller women shooters as well. The fact that a company is targeting this market isn't surprising. But I still feel like <16 shooting age is a little funky. And even 16-18 without supervision is scary. I grew up shooting guns and have a few myself but kids+guns=problems in my book.

 

[bilby]

The whole definition thing is a huge red herring anyway.

It's perfectly possible for legislation and/or regulations to include a detailed definition of what weapons are permitted or prohibited in given circumstances, and such definitions are a feature of almost every legislative bill these days, in any area of law.

You could prohibit the general availability without a license of any given kind of firearm. US law already prohibits ownership of newly manufactured machine guns, which the law defines as any firearm which can fire repeatedly, without manual reloading, "by a single function of the trigger", or which can be "readily converted" to do so.

It would be perfectly possible to add a similar restriction on self loading guns; Or on self loading guns with removable magazines, or magazines capacities in excess of a given number of rounds; Or on rifles below a given overall length, or given barrel length, or given cartridge dimension, or any number of other specified criteria.

And the law could, if the legislature wished, incorporate any of these criteria into a new definition of "assault rifle" and subsequently apply restrictions to "assault rifles" as defined in the law itself.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The whole definition thing is a huge red herring anyway.

It's perfectly possible for legislation and/or regulations to include a detailed definition of what weapons are permitted or prohibited in given circumstances, and such definitions are a feature of almost every legislative bill these days, in any area of law.

You could prohibit the general availability without a license of any given kind of firearm. US law already prohibits ownership of newly manufactured machine guns, which the law defines as any firearm which can fire repeatedly, without manual reloading, "by a single function of the trigger", or which can be "readily converted" to do so.

It would be perfectly possible to add a similar restriction on self loading guns; Or on self loading guns with removable magazines, or magazines capacities in excess of a given number of rounds; Or on rifles below a given overall length, or given barrel length, or given cartridge dimension, or any number of other specified criteria.

And the law could, if the legislature wished, incorporate any of these criteria into a new definition of "assault rifle" and subsequently apply restrictions to "assault rifles" as defined in the law itself.

Indeed. It is possible by competent legislators. Guns could be classified by sensible characteristics like ammunition size, muzzle velocity, fire rates and magazine sizes.

Unfortunately we would likely end up with a law kind of like the abortion bans that leave doctors so confused about what medical emergencies qualify for abortion care that women are left to risk their lives, travel to other states, or give birth to dead or soon to be dead children, lest the doctors themselves risk jail time for properly caring for their patients.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Coming Soon to Stores: The AR-15 for Kids

Next month, an assault-style rifle could wind up in the hands of children unless regulators step in.

nymag.com

At a gun expo in Las Vegas last January, Eric Schmid, the founder of WEE1 Tactical, demonstrated his company’s first offering: the JR-15, a play on the popular AR-15 assault rifle designed to look just like its deadly cousin, but 20 percent smaller. “It fits the kids really well,” he told a visitor to his booth. “That’ll give them the confidence to hold this thing the way they should have confidence holding it — no drop down in the front trying to manage a weight that’s not right for them. It just fits ’em, fits ’em really well.”

Long guns for kids have been around for years, typically shotguns or single-shot rifles scaled down for a child. But what has attracted so much attention to the JR-15 is its semiautomatic action, firing with each pull of the trigger — along with the image of putting a mini assault rifle in the hands of children in a country where a 6-year-old just shot a teacher in the chest with a handgun legally purchased by his mother. With the JR-15 in production this year and a limited first run of 1,000 rifles being sent to distributors in February, the attention is only going to grow.

Fucking groomers.

I'm sorry you have such a Freudian complex about firearms.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

What do you think of Kent Hovind's definition of "theory" or his definition of "evolution" with it's "six types of evolution"?

 

[ZiprHead]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

What do you think of Kent Hovind's definition of "theory" or his definition of "evolution" with it's "six types of evolution"?

Do not start a derail.

 

[ZiprHead]

Coming Soon to Stores: The AR-15 for Kids

Next month, an assault-style rifle could wind up in the hands of children unless regulators step in.

nymag.com

At a gun expo in Las Vegas last January, Eric Schmid, the founder of WEE1 Tactical, demonstrated his company’s first offering: the JR-15, a play on the popular AR-15 assault rifle designed to look just like its deadly cousin, but 20 percent smaller. “It fits the kids really well,” he told a visitor to his booth. “That’ll give them the confidence to hold this thing the way they should have confidence holding it — no drop down in the front trying to manage a weight that’s not right for them. It just fits ’em, fits ’em really well.”

Long guns for kids have been around for years, typically shotguns or single-shot rifles scaled down for a child. But what has attracted so much attention to the JR-15 is its semiautomatic action, firing with each pull of the trigger — along with the image of putting a mini assault rifle in the hands of children in a country where a 6-year-old just shot a teacher in the chest with a handgun legally purchased by his mother. With the JR-15 in production this year and a limited first run of 1,000 rifles being sent to distributors in February, the attention is only going to grow.

Fucking groomers.

I'm sorry you have such a Freudian complex about firearms.

You think it's okay to arm toddlers?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

What do you think of Kent Hovind's definition of "theory" or his definition of "evolution" with it's "six types of evolution"?

Do not start a derail.

Given his publicly stated position on accurate definitions, it is a relevant question.

 

[ZiprHead]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

What do you think of Kent Hovind's definition of "theory" or his definition of "evolution" with it's "six types of evolution"?

Do not start a derail.

Given his publicly stated position on accurate definitions, it is a relevant question.

No, it's not.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He is using the correct definition. The other "definition" was created in order to demonize the civilian guns as if they were the military guns that the name correctly applies to. This is a propaganda effort that has been successful enough you don't realize what it is.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a "correct definition".

The reasons why any definition was adopted have absolutely no bearing on whether that definition is "correct"; A definition of any word or phrase is "correct" if it represents the understanding of the audience.

Given the success of your opponents' propaganda, you should probably stop using the phrase at all, or resign yourself to constantly being misunderstood.

Railing against the fates because the hoi polloi have adopted a definition you dislike is an exercise in futility.

What do you think of Kent Hovind's definition of "theory" or his definition of "evolution" with it's "six types of evolution"?

Do not start a derail.

Given his publicly stated position on accurate definitions, it is a relevant question.

No, it's not.

Cool story bro. I'm asking him if he is consistent in his disregard for definitions or it only applies to the gun discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cool story bro. I'm asking him if he is consistent in his disregard for definitions or it only applies to the gun discussion.

Definitions are not the subject of this thread.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Cool story bro. I'm asking him if he is consistent in his disregard for definitions or it only applies to the gun discussion.

Definitions are not the subject of this thread.

Cool story bro. The definition of "assault rifle" is part of this thread.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cool story bro. I'm asking him if he is consistent in his disregard for definitions or it only applies to the gun discussion.

Definitions are not the subject of this thread.

Cool story bro. The definition of "assault rifle" is part of this thread.

Not the way you're asking it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Cool story bro. I'm asking him if he is consistent in his disregard for definitions or it only applies to the gun discussion.

Definitions are not the subject of this thread.

Cool story bro. The definition of "assault rifle" is part of this thread.

Not the way you're asking it.

So we have a difference of aesthetics. Good for you.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cool story bro. I'm asking him if he is consistent in his disregard for definitions or it only applies to the gun discussion.

Definitions are not the subject of this thread.

Cool story bro. The definition of "assault rifle" is part of this thread.

Not the way you're asking it.

So we have a difference of aesthetics. Good for you.

Are you asking to be banned?