U.S Massacre Thread

[Ors Might]

Attempting to understand what someone means by a specific term isn't a grammar argument, it's kind of integral to having a discussion.

Oh I suspect you understand what they are trying to say.

No I don't. I genuinely have no idea what they mean by assault weapon. Different people have used it in different ways in the past.

[The Black Forrest]

Oh I suspect you understand what they are trying to say.

No I don't. I genuinely have no idea what they mean by assault weapon. Different people have used it in different ways in the past.

Ah. Well. Your response over the use and abuse implied you did. Never mind then…..

[Ors Might]

No I don't. I genuinely have no idea what they mean by assault weapon. Different people have used it in different ways in the past.

Ah. Well. Your response over the use and abuse implied you did. Never mind then…..

It's a vague term that has been used to include everything from actual, specific functions of a weapon to aesthetic properties that have little to no impact on how a weapon fires. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion involving the term unless it's clearly defined.

[Kowani]

Gun Safety Bill passes House (234-193)

[Forsher]

Ah. Well. Your response over the use and abuse implied you did. Never mind then…..

It's a vague term that has been used to include everything from actual, specific functions of a weapon to aesthetic properties that have little to no impact on how a weapon fires. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion involving the term unless it's clearly defined.

Having failed several times to generate an answer, perhaps you should start providing pictures or whatever of what you want to talk about and seeing if they call it an assault weapon.

You don't because you'd rather spend dozens of pages (edit: it was only five, actually) in a pointless back and forth where you argue that a term the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about is insufficiently precise to provide clarity of meaning for gun geeks.

Here this might help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Pick a definition, see if it's right. You don't even actually have to describe what's included.

[Ors Might]

It's a vague term that has been used to include everything from actual, specific functions of a weapon to aesthetic properties that have little to no impact on how a weapon fires. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion involving the term unless it's clearly defined.

Having failed several times to generate an answer, perhaps you should start providing pictures or whatever of what you want to talk about and seeing if they call it an assault weapon.

You don't because you'd rather spend dozens of pages (edit: it was only five, actually) in a pointless back and forth where you argue that a term the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about is insufficiently precise to provide clarity of meaning for gun geeks.

Here this might help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Pick a definition, see if it's right. You don't even actually have to describe what's included.

Its a term that the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about and yet they can't give a simple definition? How does that work? Could you just tell me what it means in this context instead of being an ass about it?

[Forsher]

Having failed several times to generate an answer, perhaps you should start providing pictures or whatever of what you want to talk about and seeing if they call it an assault weapon.

You don't because you'd rather spend dozens of pages (edit: it was only five, actually) in a pointless back and forth where you argue that a term the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about is insufficiently precise to provide clarity of meaning for gun geeks.

Here this might help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Pick a definition, see if it's right. You don't even actually have to describe what's included.

Its a term that the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about and yet they can't give a simple definition? How does that work??

And now you reveal that you have no interest whatsoever in a discussion.

The sheer balls to say this after reading an article that begins:

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features, such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud.[1][2]

and includes a photo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... arbine.JPG

You could also turn to a dictionary:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/assault_weapon

Your point (that only gun geeks are capable of having a reasoned basis for classifying a gun one way or another) is completely untenable and the ridiculous lengths you've gone to in order to continue dancing around the issue initially raised (i.e. that all jargon is coined), really make it very plain what your purposes here are.

Now, if you want to continue insisting that you're trying to have a conversation about something other than either rhetoric or linguistics (which was the nature of the conversation you intruded upon), I repeat... having failed to obtain a definition*, it would be the easiest thing in the world to provide a definition you think they might agree with. For example, I've already given you links to three. If they continue to give you the run around (and, again, it's really beside the point they set out to make), you did your best and it's entirely on them.

Could you just tell me what it means in this context instead of being an ass about it

You made your bed, now lie in it.

*And, by the by, if writing definitions were easy, it wouldn't be a literal job (with, yes, a jargon name, i.e. lexicographer).

[Ors Might]

Its a term that the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about and yet they can't give a simple definition? How does that work??

And now you reveal that you have no interest whatsoever in a discussion.

The sheer balls to say this after reading an article that begins:

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features, such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud.[1][2]

and includes a photo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... arbine.JPG

You could also turn to a dictionary:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/assault_weapon

Your point (that only gun geeks are capable of having a reasoned basis for classifying a gun one way or another) is completely untenable and the ridiculous lengths you've gone to in order to continue dancing around the issue initially raised (i.e. that all jargon is coined), really make it very plain what your purposes here are.

Now, if you want to continue insisting that you're trying to have a conversation about something other than either rhetoric or linguistics (which was the nature of the conversation you intruded upon), I repeat... having failed to obtain a definition*, it would be the easiest thing in the world to provide a definition you think they might agree with. For example, I've already given you links to three. If they continue to give you the run around (and, again, it's really beside the point they set out to make), you did your best and it's entirely on them.

Could you just tell me what it means in this context instead of being an ass about it

You made your bed, now lie in it.

*And, by the by, if writing definitions were easy, it wouldn't be a literal job (with, yes, a jargon name, i.e. lexicographer).

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns. You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

[The Alma Mater]

And now you reveal that you have no interest whatsoever in a discussion.

The sheer balls to say this after reading an article that begins:

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features, such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud.[1][2]

and includes a photo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... arbine.JPG

You could also turn to a dictionary:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/assault_weapon

Your point (that only gun geeks are capable of having a reasoned basis for classifying a gun one way or another) is completely untenable and the ridiculous lengths you've gone to in order to continue dancing around the issue initially raised (i.e. that all jargon is coined), really make it very plain what your purposes here are.

Now, if you want to continue insisting that you're trying to have a conversation about something other than either rhetoric or linguistics (which was the nature of the conversation you intruded upon), I repeat... having failed to obtain a definition*, it would be the easiest thing in the world to provide a definition you think they might agree with. For example, I've already given you links to three. If they continue to give you the run around (and, again, it's really beside the point they set out to make), you did your best and it's entirely on them.



You made your bed, now lie in it.

*And, by the by, if writing definitions were easy, it wouldn't be a literal job (with, yes, a jargon name, i.e. lexicographer).

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns. You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what the definition of "arms" is first. Perhaps that would make the whole discussion moot.

[Ors Might]

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns. You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what the definition of "arms" is first. Perhaps that would make the whole discussion moot.

Arms are tools that can be used as weaponry, as I understand it, of which firearms are only one kind of arms. Understood this way, the 2A also applies to things such as swords and axes.

[Fartsniffage]

Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what the definition of "arms" is first. Perhaps that would make the whole discussion moot.

Arms are tools that can be used as weaponry, as I understand it, of which firearms are only one kind of arms. Understood this way, the 2A also applies to things such as swords and axes.

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

[Ors Might]

Arms are tools that can be used as weaponry, as I understand it, of which firearms are only one kind of arms. Understood this way, the 2A also applies to things such as swords and axes.

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

I'll give it a 6.5

[Grinning Dragon]

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns. You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what the definition of "arms" is first. Perhaps that would make the whole discussion moot.

Arms refer collectively to offensive and defensive weapons.

[American Legionaries]

Arms are tools that can be used as weaponry, as I understand it, of which firearms are only one kind of arms. Understood this way, the 2A also applies to things such as swords and axes.

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

Bullshit, tank-top fatigues would be all sorts of snazzy

[Thermodolia]

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

Bullshit, tank-top fatigues would be all sorts of snazzy

But my rolled sleeves!

[Fartsniffage]

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

I'll give it a 6.5

You giggled at the mental image. Admit it.

[Adamede]

Its a term that the vast majority of people have a consistent idea about and yet they can't give a simple definition? How does that work??

And now you reveal that you have no interest whatsoever in a discussion.

The sheer balls to say this after reading an article that begins:

The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features, such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor, or barrel shroud.[1][2]

and includes a photo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_w ... arbine.JPG

You could also turn to a dictionary:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/assault_weapon

Your point (that only gun geeks are capable of having a reasoned basis for classifying a gun one way or another) is completely untenable and the ridiculous lengths you've gone to in order to continue dancing around the issue initially raised (i.e. that all jargon is coined), really make it very plain what your purposes here are.

Now, if you want to continue insisting that you're trying to have a conversation about something other than either rhetoric or linguistics (which was the nature of the conversation you intruded upon), I repeat... having failed to obtain a definition*, it would be the easiest thing in the world to provide a definition you think they might agree with. For example, I've already given you links to three. If they continue to give you the run around (and, again, it's really beside the point they set out to make), you did your best and it's entirely on them.

Could you just tell me what it means in this context instead of being an ass about it

You made your bed, now lie in it.

*And, by the by, if writing definitions were easy, it wouldn't be a literal job (with, yes, a jargon name, i.e. lexicographer).

Literally every word or phrase is a made up term coined to describe something or other.

It is a word with no real practical meaning. For example, per the state of California these are all not Assault Weapons.

[Ors Might]

I'll give it a 6.5

You giggled at the mental image. Admit it.

I'm going to invoke the fifth on this one.

[Bear Stearns]

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

Bullshit, tank-top fatigues would be all sorts of snazzy

my militia will be business casual

[Tarsonis]

I understand it as the bits the connect your shoulders to your wrists.

A militia with their hands attached at their shoulders would look very silly indeed and it would be a nightmare for the uniform designers.

Bullshit, tank-top fatigues would be all sorts of snazzy

2001's Destiny's Child would like a word

[Forsher]

*And, by the by, if writing definitions were easy, it wouldn't be a literal job (with, yes, a jargon name, i.e. lexicographer).

It is a word with no real practical meaning. For example, per the state of California these are all not Assault Weapons.

Should they be?

I feel like the first two have analogues of a "pistol grip" and could be used the same way, but that last one doesn't. And why does an assault weapon need a long range scope? Or can you practically use a scope during an urban gun battle at close range? My inclination is no but I'm not a gun geek.

However, this is rather like saying murder has no meaning because three different ways of killing someone don't count as murder per a particular legal code. Or that rape has no meaning because a particular jurisdiction doesn't have rape as a crime at all...

What you need to show is that there's no meaningful common ground between at least three jurisdictional definitions that should have the same understanding, and that none of these definitions were subject to policy capture by groups that want the legal definition to be pedantic as fuck (if it's written strictly to exclude many things). Obviously even just two would be a massive point but I think it needs to be three because you can kind of believe one set of people are idiots but if you've got two sets of idiots, well that this stretches credulity, no?

I get what you and Ors Might are saying. It's not a particularly difficult point to understand. The thing is that, to use a different example*, that your lines of evidence don't show that when people say "light rail" they don't mean "a thing that looks like a train but which runs in a road for some of its journey".

Ors Might only establishes that he, a gun geek, is aware of multiple definitions and can't keep track of which one people are using, but this is a strawman because lay people don't use technical definitions. How I just defined light rail is, to my view, immensely practical but it's not a technical definition at all, and nor would you expect a technical definition to look like that. For one thing, how does that definition explain why light rail can handle steeper gradients than heavy rail? And your line of reasoning begs a similar question... you assume that you can only have one technical operationalisation of the same concept. But that's not really true at all, either. Light rail doesn't have to run in roads, for example, but if you were designing policy you might actually find that very important to focus on. Yet, in a city that has only (and only intends to build) grade separated light rail, why would that be the case?

To co-opt a really old thought experiment... suppose three people view a shadow on a wall cast by firelight. Each of these three people see this flickering image from very different angles and none of them can see the original object. When you hear the people describe what is that they think they're seeing, you find that you can't understand how they're all looking at the same thing. That does not, however, demonstrate either that they're not describing the same shadow (disputing Ors Might's approach) or that there isn't a shared root to each of their descriptions (disputing yours).

*i.e. one where I can comment on the disagreeing definitions myself

[Forsher]

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns.

You did, you just don't think you did.

You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

And having not managed to obtain such a definition, what is stopping you from providing one? Nothing. If they reject it, who gives a fuck? They didn't clarify so you decided to advance the conversation yourself. And if they still don't specify why your definition doesn't work for them, you clearly can't have a conversation about that.

Whining that they're not explaining anything and continuing to talk to them in exactly the same way anyway doesn't reflect well on you, either (though, again, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the point that was raised... you're asking for a definition, but to provide a definition is just allowing you to define the terms of a completely different conversation to the one they were trying to have... you don't get to do that: if their point is only linguistic, it is allowed to be only linguistic).

[Ifreann]

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns. You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

Perhaps we should take a step back and ask what the definition of "arms" is first. Perhaps that would make the whole discussion moot.

Perhaps we should ask what it means to keep and bear arms.

A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

[Ors Might]

I've never said that one needs to be a "gun geek" to correctly have classifications for guns.

You did, you just don't think you did.

You're either making that interpretation up completely or you've severely misunderstood something, somehow. None of this changes that fact that different people have used this term in different ways in different contexts. In order to have a discussion, one needs to understand what the other person is attempting to say.

I'm not asking anyway to write a god damn thesis on the topic. I'm asking them what they themselves mean when they use the term. It doesn't have to be the word for word dictionary definition, I just need to understand what they're trying to communicate.

And having not managed to obtain such a definition, what is stopping you from providing one? Nothing. If they reject it, who gives a fuck? They didn't clarify so you decided to advance the conversation yourself. And if they still don't specify why your definition doesn't work for them, you clearly can't have a conversation about that.

Whining that they're not explaining anything and continuing to talk to them in exactly the same way anyway doesn't reflect well on you, either (though, again, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the point that was raised... you're asking for a definition, but to provide a definition is just allowing you to define the terms of a completely different conversation to the one they were trying to have... you don't get to do that: if their point is only linguistic, it is allowed to be only linguistic).

I promise you, me saying that words and classifications aren't made up out of thin air is not me saying that you have to be an expert on guns to have opinions on them. I'm far from an expert myself.

Who here is whining? You're getting far too heated over what's essentially a request for clarification.

[Forsher]

I promise you, me saying that words and classifications aren't made up out of thin air is not me saying that you have to be an expert on guns to have opinions on them. I'm far from an expert myself.

What you may intend to say, isn't what you've actually said. And nor did I say your meaning was "you have to be an expert on guns to have opinions on them". You really can't help yourself from this stuff, can you? (See my third, fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs.)

The reason you're saying only "gun geeks" get to define it is because of the rest of the conversation... the start of which you did not write. I repeat myself yet again... your argument begs multiple questions, such as proof that there is no rational, coherent and consistent basis for the term "assault weapon" as created by "AGs".

Who here is whining? You're getting far too heated over what's essentially a request for clarification.

What you call "essentially a request for clarification" is more honestly entitled "Heloin doesn't want to talk about what I, Ors Might, do and I'm trying to force the burden of the conversation to change to what's convenient to me, Ors Might".

It's funny, really, a conversation that started with a poster (neither you nor Heloin) claiming "assault weapons" is a term created in order to achieve a rhetorical advantage in the fight for gun control (they even made that more explicit for anyone who may have been confused on this point) has ended up with someone from the pro-gun side engaging in the exact same trickery.

This post is particularly choice:

No I don't. I genuinely have no idea what they mean by assault weapon. Different people have used it in different ways in the past.

Your conversation was not and never had been about what Heloin means by assault weapon. Your conversation was about whether or not the term "assault weapon" was conceived without reference to any kind of predictable characteristics, i.e. "made up" in the sense of "fictional" rather than (as Heloin read it) "constructed". Yes, on second thoughts, Heloin did misconstrue what Paddy said, but how Heloin took "made up" was obvious from the beginning.

As I said, you've made your bed, now lie in it.