Page 91 of 97 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 966

Thread: Advice on weaponry

  1. #901
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    4,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/07/...rn-the-basics/

    If You’re Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics
    In a debate imbued with emotion, gun-control advocates rely on ignorance

    By David Harsanyi
    MARCH 7, 2018

    Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

    The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”

    How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

    “If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

    Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.

    Like with any contemporary disputes over public policy, there will always be those who attempt to dismiss opponents who possess less expertise. It’s certainly not unique to this debate. And no, simply because a person refers to a “bullet” rather than a “cartridge” or “clip” rather than a “magazine” should not mean exclusion from conversation.

    Then again, much of gun-control policy is driven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

    So, for instance, Michael Bloomberg.

    In a debate imbued with emotion, gun-control advocates rely on this ignorance. When Barack Obama tells a crowd that a mass shooter used a “fully automatic weapon,” he’s not concerned with the finest taxonomic distinctions of a gun, he’s depending on the yawning obliviousness of a cheering crowd. When CNN featured an alleged gun expert explaining that the AR-15 he’s about to fire is “full semi-automatic,” he’s making the functionality of firearm sound scarier to those who are ignorant about guns.

    “Jargon” are words and expressions that are difficult for a layman to understand or use. Rather than use jargon, Second Amendment advocates are usually mocking those who use jargon-y sounding words in efforts to fearmonger viewers and constituents. When you claim that the streets are rife with “high-capacity, rapid-fire magazines” or “jumbo clips” you’re trying to fool your audience with a veneer of expertise you don’t possess. When you claim that we need to ban “gas-assisted, receiver firearms” you’re trying to make a semi-automatic weapon sound like a machine gun for a reason.

    It’s not always the mechanics, either. When Joe Scarborough misrepresents the Heller decision, he’s preying on policy ignorance that has little to do with gun culture. When Steve Schmidt goes on television and passionately tells an audience that it’s more difficult to buy cough medicine than an “AK-47 – or 50 of them,” he’s either lying or he has absolutely no grasp of how gun policy works. Either way, he shouldn’t be talking to grownups about firearms.

    All these people use a moralistic fallacy, which is often predicated on the ignorance Weinstein rationalizes. Not that it stops him from embracing the appeal to authority he condemns elsewhere.

    For example, Weinstein takes Fox News personality Tomi Lahren to task for failing to mention that “the family” of Eugene Stoner, the AR-15’s designer and champion, claimed in 2016 that the inventor would be “horrified and sickened to see his military rifle pattern become so common in civilian households and school shootings.” You’ll notice the conflation. Of course Stoner would be horrified that his gun was used in school shootings. But Weinstein fails to note that there’s no evidence anywhere on the record that Stoner was “horrified and sickened” by the notion of civilians owning his gun. Since he was selling proto AR-15s to civilians a decade before his military model was adopted by the United States, we have no reason to believe he would be.

    Perhaps that kind of discussion spurns conversation in favor of condescension. But at least it’s a debate that revolves around the veracity of facts. Which is a lot more I can say for the rest of the “gunsplaining” grievance.

    David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the forthcoming book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

  2. Likes Uwe, D-Dub liked this post
  3. #902
    Administrator Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    2,578
    Post Thanks / Like

  4. Likes Uwe, Eric liked this post
  5. #903
    Administrator Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    2,578
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not the Onion:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9c88e23f105f

    The NRA and its allies use jargon to bully gun-control supporters
    If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk.
    By Adam Weinstein March 6

    The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between a “clip” and a “magazine.”

    Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.

    It can be infuriating, being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions among our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons. I know this feeling acutely, having covered gun violence critically for the better part of a decade and having just buried an old mentor, killed in the Parkland massacre.

    Pointing out terminological firearms faux pas has its place. As a lifelong shooter and a third-generation gun collector, I grew up watching pundits and politicos regularly betray their ignorance of these hazardous tools and the culture that surrounds them. Advocates of tighter gun laws have bandied the phrase “assault weapon” around as if it were a static category of insidious killers; they defined an assault weapon, in law, by its cosmetic add-ons — pistol grips, collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs — while overstating the role these weapons play in overall gun crime in America. (According to 2010-2014 FBI data, rifles of all types, including assault weapons, caused less than 4 percent of all firearms deaths in the U.S. Handguns caused 70 percent.) Gun-control advocates have even acknowledged at times that assault weapons are hard to define, and thus easy to vilify among the uninitiated.

    If only these adversaries were a little more honest, I’ve often thought, and more precise in their language on the subject, we could have a serious debate on the finer points of gun violence policy, instead of a bad-faith propaganda race.

    Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact. (If gunsplaining had a motto, it might be Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s macabre old saw: “Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”)

    For an example, look to Dana Loesch, the conservative shock jock turned paid spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, who represented the gun lobby’s perspective at a live televised town hall last month with survivors of the Parkland shooting.

    There, the mother of a teacher who died protecting his students from gunfire asked Loesch: How could she possibly believe the Founding Fathers, who ratified the Second Amendment in 1791, anticipated legal AR-15s?

    “At the time,” Loesch replied, “there were fully automatic weapons that were available — the Belton gun and Puckle gun.”

    I’m writing a book on the Belton gun and can safely say her argument is bunk: Both the Belton and the Puckle required an operator to fire each shot with an individual pull of the trigger, then manually cock the gun’s action to fire each successive shot. This is known as “single action,” and it’s about as far from “fully automatic” as a firearm gets. Modern automatic arms can fire upward of 100 rounds per minute with a single, sustained trigger pull — sometimes more; the Puckle and the Belton “repeaters,” with an adept operator cycling their actions under the best conditions, could perhaps fire a shot every five to 10 seconds.

    But here was the NRA’s top voice in a time of tragedy, defending AR-15 ownership as a bedrock constitutional right by name-checking two 18th-century manually operated flintlocks — quite incorrectly — as “fully automatic weapons.”

    If, in the course of advocating for stricter gun laws, a Democrat, cable-news personality or Hollywood activist had called a flintlock a machine gun, the NRA would have hustled out a fundraising appeal to its members that same day with a video clip of the offending remark prominently embedded in the email. Instead, it’s given its own spokeswoman a pass. Loesch is gunsplaining even though she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

    More recently, Tomi Lahren, a Fox News personality with no obvious qualifications, preemptively tweet-lectured “Lefties” that the “AR” in AR-15 doesn’t stand for “assault rifle” but for the name of the gun’s original manufacturer, Armalite. She failed to note that the family of Eugene Stoner, Armalite’s onetime chief engineer and the brains behind the AR-15, insisted in 2016 that he would be “horrified and sickened” to see his military rifle pattern become so common in civilian households and school shootings.

    Lahren’s tweet is bad-faith gunsplaining par excellence. Its point is not to foster deeper understanding of these weapons, but to further a group identity of firearms owners as beset by a dumb or dishonest adversary, to flatter their insecurities and tell them they don’t need to take gun controllers seriously because you can’t reason with ignorance.

    In this kind of war over words, both sides probably need to give a little. But the pro-gun side needs to give a lot more — not just because it’s been disingenuously gunsplaining to shut down discussions and close minds for years — but because the onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed. That’s a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms.

    There are truly meaningful gun-terminology discussions we could be having right now. Civil libertarians who worry about excessive force and police-involved shootings, for example, have a huge stake in understanding how seemingly technical options in police handguns — single action vs. double action, or hammer- vs. striker-fired — affect gun-discharge rates.

    And yes, a growing number of American gun owners, including me, find “assault weapons” easier to define, and harder to defend, with time. I know that an AR-15 is not a machine gun or an assault rifle, that its rounds are not high-powered, that it accepts magazines, not clips — any law that seeks to ban them should be written with precision. But I also know that it, or a weapon patterned after it, was used in Aurora, Colo.; Newtown, Conn.; Las Vegas; San Bernardino, Calif.; Orlando; Sutherland Springs, Tex.; and Parkland. Whatever the causes — media sensationalism, marketing, “tacticool” military mimicry, easy availability — this rifle and its relatives are clearly go-tos for a certain kind of American-bred killer. That’s worth at least addressing in a public policy forum, even if the pro-gun camp continues to suppress debate with heavy rhetorical firepower, instead of just shooting straight.
    Newest comment:

    Disambiguation
    3/20/2018 11:15 PM EDT
    This is brilliant! If someone demands that I stick to the facts I can accuse them of Truthsplaining! If they claim I used a semicolon incorrectly I can complain that they are Punctuationsplaining! Should they point out that a term I use doesn't mean what I think it does then they are Wordsplaining! I never have to worry about being correct, concise, or convincing again! Just toss the suffix -splaining at the end of whatever I'm accused of and bang (so to speak), that'll show them!
    Truthsplaining!
    Last edited by Andy; 03-27-2018 at 09:09 AM.

  6. Likes Eric, D-Dub, Uwe, vreihen liked this post
  7. #904
    Verified VCDS User
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Norristown, PA
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    What defines a "high-powered" round? I always thought a .222 round was high powered. A .222 is not high power compared to other rounds but it is lethal for a long ways.

  8. #905
    Verified VCDS User
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    US 2014 GTI Drivers Edition/DSG
    Posts
    617
    Post Thanks / Like
    do you mean .223 ? which is (essentially) equivalent to 5.56mm?

    see also @ http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/223-...mmo-in-my-gun/ for the actual differences.

    for anti-gunners, everything is 'high-powered'.

    personally I consider 7.62mm and similar to be high powered, but really its like asking what vehicles do you consider high powered?

    is a 2.0 turbo high powered?

    or what about a bi-turbo v12 ?

    what about a tesla's electric motors, are they high powered?

  9. #906
    Verified VCDS User
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Norristown, PA
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    The .223 round is a .222 to me. I know they are different. I don't when it rounded up but when I started shooting them, it was .222 (triple deuce); so, for me it will always be a .222.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington...look to the right Parent Case: .222 Remington.

    I think the term "high-powered" has probably been defined by some regulatory body. My guess is, it is related to kinetic energy at some distance. I'll have to look it up at home since this kind of information query is blocked at work.

  10. #907
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    4,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dafrazi View Post
    What defines a "high-powered" round?

  11. #908
    Benevolent Dictator Uwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    27,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    ^^^ Kinda hard to carry around though.

    Lock-down of sick people: Quarantine
    Lock-down of healthy people: Tyranny

  12. #909
    Verified VCDS User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dafrazi View Post
    The .223 round is a .222 to me. I know they are different. I don't when it rounded up but when I started shooting them, it was .222 (triple deuce); so, for me it will always be a .222.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington...look to the right Parent Case: .222 Remington.

    I think the term "high-powered" has probably been defined by some regulatory body. My guess is, it is related to kinetic energy at some distance. I'll have to look it up at home since this kind of information query is blocked at work.
    The only difference is case length. I'm sure you'll be shocked to know the .221 "fireball" is just a tad shorter than .222

    My old man had a Sako in .222 and it was superbly accurate in stock form. Plus, a kid could shoot it all day.

  13. Likes Uwe, Boki Ar liked this post
  14. #910
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    4,604
    Post Thanks / Like

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •