Active Users:638 Time:23/12/2024 06:40:50 AM
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? Cannoli Send a noteboard - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM
This is just a basic gun fact that absolutely no one with a microphone, tv camera or print column seems to have access to, but is not all that esoteric.

"Semiautomatic" means a gun shoots one bullet at a time.

I know this because I speak English, not because I work with a lot of gun nuts and hunters, nor because I read a lot of military history. It's just what the word means when applies to guns. That is every gun you have ever seen someone in the movies fire which did not have things moving outside the gun or was not shooting bullets like water from a hose. The latter is known as an automatic weapon, hence SEMIautomatic denoted a reduced function. Yet, judging by the way the term is repeatedly used, you'd think "semi" is some sort of superlative prefix, and semiautomatic weapons were just about the scariest things ever. By contrast, those huge rifles that look like hammerhead sharks and can explode your head a mile away are usually bolt action (you have to move a lever around before pulling a trigger, like the old cowboy guns, but more complex ), and the most powerful handgun on Earth, that can blow your head off, so do you feel lucky punk, is an old-fashioned revolver.

Semiautomatics are like the Apple of gun types - they do things themselves, for idiots, so they lack the power or capability of similar devices whose operator must do more of the work himself. And that might actually be a point against their use, or whatever, so it is hardly the sort of fact the more partisan vultures making a living talking about disasters might want to conceal. There is no rational motive for either side to want to hush up this tidbit, but they insist on using the term like it's the be-all and the end-all of dangerous objects.

Also, things I have learned from being a history/military buff.
- An AR-15 shoots a rather smaller bullet than most rifles, including deer rifles (and might be, IDK, knowing nothing about hunting and not owning or having ever fired any actual guns, too small to kill deer very effectively, them being so much bigger than people). It is the lame prototype version of the rifle most carried by US military forces, only theirs are made all military-sexy and ramped up. Yet, in the book Blackhawk Down, the soldiers were complaining that they were having problems with their beefed-up AR-15s (M-16 & M-4) because the bullets were going right through the drugged-up Somalis and doing little damage, so unless they hit a vital organ, they couldn't drop their attackers. The Delta Force soldiers (in the movie, those were William Fichtner's & Eric Bana's characters with the little hockey/bike helmets) were frustrated too, because they were having to use ordinary weapons, when as the US Army's premier elite soldiers, they had access to, and preferred, more powerful rifles that would actually put down their enemies.

- There is technically no such thing as an assault rifle: it is a casual use term, first coined by Adolf Hitler to describe a rather new type of weapon, that had DECREASED range and SMALLER bullets than the standard issue German rifles.

The Sturmgewehr 44, was so named, because it was intended for close-quarters fighting that had begun to characterize warfare in the 20th century. Prior to WW1, armies massed their soldiers and shot at one another in pitched battles, so range and power of the weapon and ammunition was a priority. When the 20th century rolled around and machine guns and really effective artillery made soldiers look into the ideas like "hiding" or "building a fort" you could no longer stand up and blast away from across an open field, and now you had to sneak up close and fight them at much shorter ranges, either to get around or past the things they built to keep away bullets, or else simply to be able to hit the much-reduced parts of their bodies that were exposed.

These new necessities required innovative tactics, called in German "Sturm" and in English "Assault". In other words, the big old guns were fine for standing on the defensive, or other purposes, but when you wanted to assault a position or a fortification, you were getting in close and didn't need the higher standards of range, stopping power or accuracy that had all been the goals of rifle development in previous eras. The troops the Germans trained to specifically carry out missions of this nature were named "Sturmtruppen" or stormtroopers. They were used to "storm" the enemy's trenches or bunkers or forts, and the implication of the term is speed and not a lot of concern for niceties like precision or finesse. There were mobile artillery guns in the second World War, meant to help soldiers with such tasks, known as Sturmgeschutz or Sturmhaubitze. They were not very useful in the standard role of artillery, since the armored vehicles had the guns pointed straight forward, rather than up in the air for a longer range. The trade-off was made so it could move safely and quickly to keep up with the foot soldiers and tanks. The sturmgewehr was so named, because it continued in the pattern of mobility and close combat specialties implied in other uses of the word.

It is largely a coincidence that the English equivalent term, "Assault" has an alternate meaning that refers to a crime of violence. In civilian life, assault weapons, in keeping with the military useage, would be superior for personal defense, due to the ease of use in close, emergent situations. No one keeps a high-powered sniper rifle or massive machine gun for self-defense, those being the weapons of someone engaging in premeditated mischief. The person who is not a highly-trained or dedicated marksman, also typically needs more bullets to thwart an attacker than the professional or psychotic with the time to build up a "one-shot, one-kill" level of proficiency, so the caterwauling about Jared Loughner's extended magazines was equally off-target.

Regardless of the sides or stances one takes on an issue, intelligent debate and policy cannot be formulated when no one has any idea what they are talking about. A frequently stated opinion by a lot of people is that while explicitly people-killing guns should be banned or restricted, hunting weapons are okay. I just want to throttle such people, because aside from the legal objections they don't seem to realize Deer and bears are bigger and tougher than human beings!. A weapon that will be effective against THEM will be equally effective against human beings, if not more so. Look at the aftermath of a car that rammed into a deer, versus one that only hit a person, and tell me that the devices built expressly to kill those animals are as safe as the compromising nitwits seem to think they are. If we don't know what we are talking about, people will nod along in approval as a ban is passed on weapons using terminology that strictly speaking, refers to the tradeoff of range and power in favor of the small size and easy portability and they'll smile with relief as weapons whose specific criterion is "overkill as relating to people" are exempted and protected.

The people who oppose firearms but are willing to make exceptions for hunting weapons are just as ignorantly mistaken as the people who are in favor of being able to buy just about any time of gun you want at the supermarket, but think "assault" weapons are a little over the top. Either way, attempts to base legislation on such ignorance is going to result in laws that completely miss the point.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1554 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1003 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 931 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 875 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1030 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1185 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 535 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 864 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 870 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 916 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 883 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 934 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 851 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 842 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 905 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 879 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 865 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 892 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 872 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 918 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1083 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 807 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 864 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 776 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 944 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 997 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 566 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 818 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 499 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 927 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 730 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 892 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 949 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 897 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 830 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 899 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 821 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 583 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 914 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 890 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 830 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 809 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 791 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 810 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 505 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 805 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 492 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1001 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 790 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 800 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 508 Views

Reply to Message