yhtomit
Member
This started out as a reply to another thread, but it started getting long, and perhaps would have constituted hijacking the thread, and since we all know what (conventional wisdom) says would happen to modern hijackers, I've decided to start a few thread with it instead. (Here's the original thread, titled "Define 'Assault Weapon'": http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=255400)
That's the way I understand the term, and though I may slip up occasionally or figure the better part of valor in some conversations is to not fight this particular definitional battle, I have to know: by *whom* is that conception of "assault rife" so defined? (I know the original thread is about "assault weapons" but this is a necessary part of the discussion.)
The Online Webster's definition quoted in the same thread certainly doesn't take this view of things -- that one seems to be written by the Brady Campaign
Or, not necessarily -- while I don't have the time or stamina for a stubborn battle over definitions, it's understandable (even if objectionable) that dictionaries offer definitions based on *common* usage, and the "any of various firearms perceived as menacing" version is sadly very common.
Here's the Webster-Channeling-Michael-Moore definition quoted by
MDig of "Assault Weapon" (and at the end, Assault Rifle)
So is there a dictionary of military terms, or (let's say) a U.S. gov't sanctioned definition of assault rifles as "select-fire, intermediate cartridge, medium-length longarms" or something similar that I could point out as (an. errrrr, "definitive") definition?
Again, understand, I know that conception of assault rifle and *agree* with it But in arguing with someone who thinks a semi-auto lookalike is an "assault rifle," remember that it really does come down to semantics, legitimacy, shared understandings -- pretty much like any other word or phrase. My religious beliefs are absent, but I think we can all agree that a particular definition of "assault rifle" (and esp. a particular definition of "assault weapon") did not come down with Moses from Mt. Sinai. (If the StG44 had been semi-auto only, would the tune be different about just what constitutes an "assault rifle"?)
Why this matters (to me): I find it a sticking point sometimes that gun-haters don't want to agree about what ingredients make up an "assault weapon" (but let's stick with "assault rifle" for some slightly easier discussion for now). A conversation (with a moderately well informed Anti) might go like this:
[We find this conversation already in progress; the Anti and I are discussing a particular semi-auto military style rifle.]
Hypothetical Me: "That's not an assault rifle. It's semiautomatic."
Hypothetical Anti: "It's still an AK-47 (or M-16) at heart, the only difference is that it is semiautomatic."
Me: "RIght -- but that's part of what would make it an 'assault rifle' -- a necessary part of it, in fact."
Anti: "If you're assaulted with this gun, no matter how semi-auto, you'd be just as dead as if you were assaulted with the select-fire version."
Me: "Or with a hammer."
Anti: "Granted. But, since we're talking more narrowly about firearms, that seems like a cheap shot."
Me: "It was an opening you left wide open, sorry -- but my point was serious; namely, that the 'deadliness' of any implement, whether it's mostly and originally designed as a weapon or as some other sort of tool, is not an excuse for tagging it with a term being used as a pejorative, which is what I think you're doing by calling a semi-auto gun an 'assault rifle.'"
Anti: "Eh, words can retain meaning while our understanding of what they cover shifts with common use or new technology. Would an assault rifle that was automatic but based on caseless ammo not be an assault rifle, just because it used other than the usual conception of an intermediate cartridge?"
Me: "Sure; That would still be an intermediate cartridge. But a semi-automatic version of the same gun would not be an 'assault rilfe' even if it was cosmetically similar."
Anti: "That definition seems awfully persnickety -- something you always accuse me of, what with the piecemeal and haphazard "assault weapon" definitions you say are found in legislation like the 1994 AWB. Did God whisper it in your ear, or are you just echoing the sentiments of gun-nuts who pass the "assault-rilfe=full-auto" paradigm back and forth? Can you tell me why I should accept your definition -- which is just as convenient to 'your side' of this issue as it is to 'my side' -- rather than call a weapon of the same general appearance and function part of the same class? If I told you that a 'sports car' had to have an engine of a certain power rating in relation to its weight, you'd say I was trying to define away legitimate possibilities. I don't insist that the word "computer" apply only to people doing calculations manually, but that's what the term meant once."
Me: "You know, I most agree with you on this issue. It's in fact a strange semantic argument to say that 'assault rifle' has to hinge on automatic fire capability. But it becomes important -- and I think this is why we fight over this term so much -- because of legislation which attempts to limit even further our right to keep and bear arms. Without getting into a larger argument about this (such as whether the various Amendments in the Bill of Rights are actually conferred primarily on states rather than The People), we can agree that the current state of the law is that automatic fire weapons are heavily regulated. No matter what the Brady campaign says, you can't simply walk into a Wal-Mart (or any gun shop in the U.S. operating within the law) and buy "an assault rifle," in the traditional, conventional sense in which I've been using it and trying to persuade you is correct."
Anti: "Well, I don't see why you have a better claim on convenient definitions than I do. The gun we're arguing about is certainly semi-automatic, but it's shaped for convenient manipulation in close quarters, is "military style" (which may be a cosmetic issue, but it's not ONLY a cosmetic issue -- military style presumably is based on considerations of durability, ergonomics, and function), fires the same rounds as the select-fire version, gets the same kind of cleaning. Heck, with a few parts differences, it could probably be spitting ammo in full-auto like a champ. Would you say a car is not a car if you're carrying the distributor cap in your pocket, so it doesn't function quite as a car should? Seems like this rifle we're looking at is charitably a *crippled* assault rifle, whether by design or intervention."
Me: "Again, I'd agree with you in a parallel universe where the term isn't often the linchpin of misguided --"
Anti: "I sense I'm being slandered, but do go on."
Me: "-- misguided legislation to ban certain guns based on features that boil down to looks rather than function."
Anti: "Would you be ok with ever more guns being banned based on function, then? Because I have a list of functional features I'd like to see banned, starting with 'fires metallic projectiles' ..."
Me: "No, it's not quite that. We disagree about the importance and reason for the right to bear arms -- I think we can at least agree that this is something we disagree about, vociferously even. But by imposing an ever-expanding, amorphous definition of 'assault rifle' (and more to the point, assault *weapon*), you make it hard to even discuss things with a common understanding of terms. I know you don't like handguns, but if we call them 'handguns' we can at least share an idea of what we're talking about. If you call them only 'deadly assault pistols' and I call them 'woman-protecting equalizers,' we'll probably never even get to much of a discussion at all. Why *do* you hate women, anyhow?"
Anti: "You still haven't given me any strong reason other than convention why I shouldn't call an AK-47 an assault rifle (or weapon!) just because it requires multiple pulls of the trigger to fire multiple rounds. I'm looking at it, and it still looks like an assault weapon to me. Should victims of gun violence be required to fill out a waiver that says 'getting shot is fine, as long as it's aimed fire?' If I pulled an Uzi on you right now, you'd be scared -- I'd have assaulted you with a deadly weapon. Right? And if there's any category of firearms that looks the same and operates very similarly (with the obvious exception you keep harping on), are you sure you wouldn't believe I had an 'assault weapon'? Let's not stretch things too much by saying a pipe is 'an assault weapon' in anything like the same sense."
Me: "First, I take issue with 'gun violence' as category meaningfully separate from 'violence' generally. If guns start attacking people violently all by themselves, I might eat my hat and start agreeing with you, but I think I'm safeo on those counts. But I can't follow your rule. You pull a pipe, and therefore assault me? Assault pipe! Why not?"
Anti: "Oops, late for work. You're hopeless. But 'Because the pro-gun crowd lets automatic v. semi-automatic trump all the other obvious characteristics of an "assault rifle"' is no reason that I have to agree. That's a bit like 'I'm your father, that's why.' Show me one convincing source that says I'm not only wrong but inarguably wrong."
Me: "You're hopeless, too. I doubt that you can show me an 'inarguably correct' source for your mishmash, ever-changing definition. Are you saying it's like pornography, and you'll know it when you see it? Why, that makes you no better than Justice Steward, and a filthy pervert, too! Why not come shoot some semi-automatic non-assault weapons at the range this weekend?"
Anti: "That sounds fun, as long as there are no bullets around."
-------------------------
Frankly, I hate getting dragged into the definition game (because it's rigged by both sides, so far as I can tell, even though again I agree with the functional definition that requires select fire capability. Or are some assault rifles full-auto only? Durnit ...), and only fight the loosey-goosey definitions because of the reason they're employed. Barring the politics, I think the "pro-gun" (or, let's face it, "pro-choice") side of the usual argument could have some more colorful and interesting discussions about whether a semi-automatic weapon could be fact be "an assault rifle", but because of the adversarial definition, we're forced to at least point out the historical understanding of that term as a party line.
Ah, well! Perhaps someone can provide the definitive, convincing source I'm looking for, and prove me wrong in the above paragraph
timothy
That's the way I understand the term, and though I may slip up occasionally or figure the better part of valor in some conversations is to not fight this particular definitional battle, I have to know: by *whom* is that conception of "assault rife" so defined? (I know the original thread is about "assault weapons" but this is a necessary part of the discussion.)
The Online Webster's definition quoted in the same thread certainly doesn't take this view of things -- that one seems to be written by the Brady Campaign
Or, not necessarily -- while I don't have the time or stamina for a stubborn battle over definitions, it's understandable (even if objectionable) that dictionaries offer definitions based on *common* usage, and the "any of various firearms perceived as menacing" version is sadly very common. Here's the Webster-Channeling-Michael-Moore definition quoted by
MDig of "Assault Weapon" (and at the end, Assault Rifle)
So is there a dictionary of military terms, or (let's say) a U.S. gov't sanctioned definition of assault rifles as "select-fire, intermediate cartridge, medium-length longarms" or something similar that I could point out as (an. errrrr, "definitive") definition?
Again, understand, I know that conception of assault rifle and *agree* with it
But in arguing with someone who thinks a semi-auto lookalike is an "assault rifle," remember that it really does come down to semantics, legitimacy, shared understandings -- pretty much like any other word or phrase. My religious beliefs are absent, but I think we can all agree that a particular definition of "assault rifle" (and esp. a particular definition of "assault weapon") did not come down with Moses from Mt. Sinai. (If the StG44 had been semi-auto only, would the tune be different about just what constitutes an "assault rifle"?)Why this matters (to me): I find it a sticking point sometimes that gun-haters don't want to agree about what ingredients make up an "assault weapon" (but let's stick with "assault rifle" for some slightly easier discussion for now). A conversation (with a moderately well informed Anti) might go like this:
[We find this conversation already in progress; the Anti and I are discussing a particular semi-auto military style rifle.]
Hypothetical Me: "That's not an assault rifle. It's semiautomatic."
Hypothetical Anti: "It's still an AK-47 (or M-16) at heart, the only difference is that it is semiautomatic."
Me: "RIght -- but that's part of what would make it an 'assault rifle' -- a necessary part of it, in fact."
Anti: "If you're assaulted with this gun, no matter how semi-auto, you'd be just as dead as if you were assaulted with the select-fire version."
Me: "Or with a hammer."
Anti: "Granted. But, since we're talking more narrowly about firearms, that seems like a cheap shot."
Me: "It was an opening you left wide open, sorry -- but my point was serious; namely, that the 'deadliness' of any implement, whether it's mostly and originally designed as a weapon or as some other sort of tool, is not an excuse for tagging it with a term being used as a pejorative, which is what I think you're doing by calling a semi-auto gun an 'assault rifle.'"
Anti: "Eh, words can retain meaning while our understanding of what they cover shifts with common use or new technology. Would an assault rifle that was automatic but based on caseless ammo not be an assault rifle, just because it used other than the usual conception of an intermediate cartridge?"
Me: "Sure; That would still be an intermediate cartridge. But a semi-automatic version of the same gun would not be an 'assault rilfe' even if it was cosmetically similar."
Anti: "That definition seems awfully persnickety -- something you always accuse me of, what with the piecemeal and haphazard "assault weapon" definitions you say are found in legislation like the 1994 AWB. Did God whisper it in your ear, or are you just echoing the sentiments of gun-nuts who pass the "assault-rilfe=full-auto" paradigm back and forth? Can you tell me why I should accept your definition -- which is just as convenient to 'your side' of this issue as it is to 'my side' -- rather than call a weapon of the same general appearance and function part of the same class? If I told you that a 'sports car' had to have an engine of a certain power rating in relation to its weight, you'd say I was trying to define away legitimate possibilities. I don't insist that the word "computer" apply only to people doing calculations manually, but that's what the term meant once."
Me: "You know, I most agree with you on this issue. It's in fact a strange semantic argument to say that 'assault rifle' has to hinge on automatic fire capability. But it becomes important -- and I think this is why we fight over this term so much -- because of legislation which attempts to limit even further our right to keep and bear arms. Without getting into a larger argument about this (such as whether the various Amendments in the Bill of Rights are actually conferred primarily on states rather than The People), we can agree that the current state of the law is that automatic fire weapons are heavily regulated. No matter what the Brady campaign says, you can't simply walk into a Wal-Mart (or any gun shop in the U.S. operating within the law) and buy "an assault rifle," in the traditional, conventional sense in which I've been using it and trying to persuade you is correct."
Anti: "Well, I don't see why you have a better claim on convenient definitions than I do. The gun we're arguing about is certainly semi-automatic, but it's shaped for convenient manipulation in close quarters, is "military style" (which may be a cosmetic issue, but it's not ONLY a cosmetic issue -- military style presumably is based on considerations of durability, ergonomics, and function), fires the same rounds as the select-fire version, gets the same kind of cleaning. Heck, with a few parts differences, it could probably be spitting ammo in full-auto like a champ. Would you say a car is not a car if you're carrying the distributor cap in your pocket, so it doesn't function quite as a car should? Seems like this rifle we're looking at is charitably a *crippled* assault rifle, whether by design or intervention."
Me: "Again, I'd agree with you in a parallel universe where the term isn't often the linchpin of misguided --"
Anti: "I sense I'm being slandered, but do go on."
Me: "-- misguided legislation to ban certain guns based on features that boil down to looks rather than function."
Anti: "Would you be ok with ever more guns being banned based on function, then? Because I have a list of functional features I'd like to see banned, starting with 'fires metallic projectiles' ..."
Me: "No, it's not quite that. We disagree about the importance and reason for the right to bear arms -- I think we can at least agree that this is something we disagree about, vociferously even. But by imposing an ever-expanding, amorphous definition of 'assault rifle' (and more to the point, assault *weapon*), you make it hard to even discuss things with a common understanding of terms. I know you don't like handguns, but if we call them 'handguns' we can at least share an idea of what we're talking about. If you call them only 'deadly assault pistols' and I call them 'woman-protecting equalizers,' we'll probably never even get to much of a discussion at all. Why *do* you hate women, anyhow?"
Anti: "You still haven't given me any strong reason other than convention why I shouldn't call an AK-47 an assault rifle (or weapon!) just because it requires multiple pulls of the trigger to fire multiple rounds. I'm looking at it, and it still looks like an assault weapon to me. Should victims of gun violence be required to fill out a waiver that says 'getting shot is fine, as long as it's aimed fire?' If I pulled an Uzi on you right now, you'd be scared -- I'd have assaulted you with a deadly weapon. Right? And if there's any category of firearms that looks the same and operates very similarly (with the obvious exception you keep harping on), are you sure you wouldn't believe I had an 'assault weapon'? Let's not stretch things too much by saying a pipe is 'an assault weapon' in anything like the same sense."
Me: "First, I take issue with 'gun violence' as category meaningfully separate from 'violence' generally. If guns start attacking people violently all by themselves, I might eat my hat and start agreeing with you, but I think I'm safeo on those counts. But I can't follow your rule. You pull a pipe, and therefore assault me? Assault pipe! Why not?"
Anti: "Oops, late for work. You're hopeless. But 'Because the pro-gun crowd lets automatic v. semi-automatic trump all the other obvious characteristics of an "assault rifle"' is no reason that I have to agree. That's a bit like 'I'm your father, that's why.' Show me one convincing source that says I'm not only wrong but inarguably wrong."
Me: "You're hopeless, too. I doubt that you can show me an 'inarguably correct' source for your mishmash, ever-changing definition. Are you saying it's like pornography, and you'll know it when you see it? Why, that makes you no better than Justice Steward, and a filthy pervert, too! Why not come shoot some semi-automatic non-assault weapons at the range this weekend?"
Anti: "That sounds fun, as long as there are no bullets around."
-------------------------
Frankly, I hate getting dragged into the definition game (because it's rigged by both sides, so far as I can tell, even though again I agree with the functional definition that requires select fire capability. Or are some assault rifles full-auto only? Durnit ...), and only fight the loosey-goosey definitions because of the reason they're employed. Barring the politics, I think the "pro-gun" (or, let's face it, "pro-choice"
) side of the usual argument could have some more colorful and interesting discussions about whether a semi-automatic weapon could be fact be "an assault rifle", but because of the adversarial definition, we're forced to at least point out the historical understanding of that term as a party line. Ah, well! Perhaps someone can provide the definitive, convincing source I'm looking for, and prove me wrong in the above paragraph
timothy
