See, he bought it
In this post highlighting how the comparison to machine guns and their semi-automatic counterparts from the Brady Campaign is hypocritical, Barry comments that:
And this is a big deal to anyone but you? It’s verbal shorthand, that’s all…
It is not verbal shorthand. It is intentionally misleading. The Violence Policy Center (an anti-gun group) even concluded:
Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
It is an intentional effort to mislead you. I guess it’s OK for someone to lie as long as it’s not something Barry cares about?
March 25th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
[…] r handgun which is approximately 9.5MM, IIRC. I’m sure this doesn’t matter to some folks because it doesn’t matter if the bullet is near 1.5 inches in dia […]
March 25th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Can you post a link to the Brady press release specifying what kind of guns they’re actually talking about?
Below you have a snippet from the campaign that quotes Don Rumsfeld and their commentary but no link (that I can see) to the actual article. How do I know the guns the Bradys are referring to just “look like AK-47’s” when the actual quote says “guns like AK-47’s”, which to me means multi-round firing machine guns.
This may just be a commuication breakdown.
March 25th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Oops, for got the link. Edited but just in case here it is:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44829
March 25th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Oh and how you would know that is because the machine gun versions are illegal to import.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
*sigh* Ok, you want to obfuscate. Fine.
But the point is, it doesn’t matter how many rounds a weapon shoots to be colloquially referred to as an “assault weapon” or an AK-47 in the public eye. I could care less – they’re all particularly lethal, or else they wouldn’t be in demand.
You have to step back from the intimate knowledge and familiarity you have with the inner workings of the guns and look at the point of view of a public that does NOT – does NOT – want these guns in circulation. But you can’t, or won’t, so what’s the point.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Barry,perhaps my definition of obfuscate is different from yours but I am doing no such thing. The bradies/VPC/MMM are. I am stating factually what these guns actually are.
And the public does not want ‘these guns’ in circulation because they don’t know what ‘these guns’ are and think ‘these guns’ are actually ‘those guns.’
March 25th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Sure it does. Many supporters of the “assault” weapon ban – most, I suspect – support the ban because they mistakenly believe these guns are capable of fully automatic fire. That’s the whole reason they are called “assault” weapons by gun rights opponents: to obfuscate the difference between scary looking guns, which are legal, and real assault rifles, which are not.
No, they’re not. The one thing that sets real assault rifles apart from ordinary rifles is their capability of firing off multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the finger – the familiar rat-a-tat. Take that away, and you’re left with the lethality of an ordinary, medium-power rifle with a detachable magazine – if that. The rest is cosmetics.
March 25th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
machine gun, fully automatic, semiautomatic, assualt rifle, rifle, shotgun, handgun, pistol, revolver…..can you match the terms.
i can, but the vpc and brady will not
March 25th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
For years, I have maintained that people who willfully misuse the language should be denounced as “word molesters”. Perhaps, in a form of shorthand, we should simply refer to them as “molesters”.
March 27th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Uncle:
Barry’s right about this much: I don’t think it would matter much if the public at large did understand the differences; they still wouldn’t want them in circulation.
Of course, the thing about the Bill of Rights is that it doesn’t matter whether or not the public at large wants them in circulation. Just like it doesn’t matter whether or not the public wants a giant crucifix in front of the White House. There are some things that are not (supposed to be) subject to public whim.