Why semantics on firearms terminology actually matters

[daniel craig]

I see it all the time, gun guys talking and one uses the incorrect term and it’s brushed off because ‘you know what I meant’ and people discussing whether terminology matters.

My thought is this ‘we’ as the firearm/gun owning community seem to have two different standards when it comes to knowledge and the correct use of terminology. We tend to brush it off when someone in the community messes this up while jumping down the throats of people outside the community when they mess it up. It shows our hypocrisy and makes us looks like a rabid good old boys club. Terms like clip/mag or assault rifle or auto/semi-auto and countless others.

When the standards are different, any legitimate correction for the sake of knowledge looks like an attack because we don’t make the correction among our brethren. It’s my opinion that if we’re to make progress towards/against the things we care about the only way to do so is if we’re seen as levelheaded ‘willing to teach’ intellectuals who adhere to a standard, and that starts with semantics.

Thus, I challenge you, brethren to always be as correct as possible and to politely make/take corrections when required. The little things do matter.

Edit: I had considered moving this to a to activism forum, let me know if I need to do so.

Edit 2: ok so it's becoming clear to me that what I'm trying to say is not as apparent as I thought it was. Perhaps that's due to the poor title.

------ What I'm trying to say is that these things either matter or they don't but we shouldn't change whether they matter or not based on the groups using them. It's been my experience that gun guys seem to be a bit more forgiving of other gun guys making a mistake but when an anti-gun person makes the same mistake the gun community is less forgiving. It either matters or it doesn't. Uniformity. THAT'S what I'm trying to get at, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.

 

[GEM]

It depends on the impact of the terminology. Clip vs. magazine has an ambiguous history and probably doesn't have major legal or rights implications.

Assault something - might because it fed into the full auto vs. semi-auto distinction. That is important because of the regulations and laws for possessing each. Also, the implication to the public who was not in the know was that the commonly available ARs were full auto.

However, after pointing that out, the gun world mocked those who called an AR an assault rifle and went for modern sporting rifle in an attempt to make the gun sound nice and appeal to 'sports'. Sports is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and a mistake for a defense of the gun. Videos of a full auto M4 vs a semi being shot were posted to show how the latter was 'nice' and not so dangerous. Nope, if you see how quickly you can shoot the latter, it would not make an anti or neutral feel good about the gun. Not full auto but still mighty lethal.

The antis figured this out and for the most part, the smart ones, refer to the guns as semi auto versions of military guns, military styled semi autos or similar terms.

You need a better argument for possessing the guns than mocking someone using the term. The antis with firearms knowledge learned the lesson of the AWB and will go for a complete ban of semis with mags. Now, many antis still don't understand gun details and say stupid things but the new legislation will be written by smarter folks to our detriment.

The only solution is a comprehensive and unambiguous SCOTUS decision and IMHO, that won't happen, sadly. I cannot see in the near future any configuration of Congress and President that will offer legislative relief through things like the SAGA act. It was never brought up, even when the so-called gun friendly party was in control (the filibuster, you know - why bother). The relatively benign HPA and reciprocity were ditched with alacrity. Better keep the issue hot for fund raising.

 

[ATLDave]

daniel craig, I agree with you in principle, but, as with the rest of the English language, many firearms related words have more than one definition/usage.

For instance, you cite "auto/semi-auto" as an example. In a legal context, where definitions are set by statute (e.g., the NFA), those two have different definitions. However, another definition of "auto" goes back further in time, and is a shortened form of auto-loading. This was the usage that, for example, John Browning adopted. That's why his design documents for 1911's and the like refer to them as "automatic pistol." That's why his gas-operated shotgun was called (and is still called) the Browning Auto-5. The 45 ACP was invented for use in what is legally a semi-auto pistol, but is not called the 45 SACP.

It's good to be correct... but you must be correct in your correctness. And sometimes trying to enforce correctness on others is, itself, incorrect - particularly where both parties are correct. Sometimes a usage that is different than what you're thinking of is nevertheless correct. A little humility helps.

 

[daniel craig]

It depends on the impact of the terminology. Clip vs. magazine has an ambiguous history and probably doesn't have major legal or rights implications.

Assault something - might because it fed into the full auto vs. semi-auto distinction. That is important because of the regulations and laws for possessing each. Also, the implication to the public who was not in the know was that the commonly available ARs were full auto.

However, after pointing that out, the gun world mocked those who called an AR an assault rifle and went for modern sporting rifle in an attempt to make the gun sound nice and appeal to 'sports'. Sports is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and a mistake for a defense of the gun. Videos of a full auto M4 vs a semi being shot were posted to show how the latter was 'nice' and not so dangerous. Nope, if you see how quickly you can shoot the latter, it would not make an anti or neutral feel good about the gun. Not full auto but still mighty lethal.

The antis figured this out and for the most part, the smart ones, refer to the guns as semi auto versions of military guns, military styled semi autos or similar terms.

You need a better argument for possessing the guns than mocking someone using the term. The antis with firearms knowledge learned the lesson of the AWB and will go for a complete ban of semis with mags. Now, many antis still don't understand gun details and say stupid things but the new legislation will be written by smarter folks to our detriment.

The only solution is a comprehensive and unambiguous SCOTUS decision and IMHO, that won't happen, sadly. I cannot see in the near future any configuration of Congress and President that will offer legislative relief through things like the SAGA act. It was never brought up, even when the so-called gun friendly party was in control (the filibuster, you know - why bother). The relatively benign HPA and reciprocity were ditched with alacrity. Better keep the issue hot for fund raising.

I agree. I also think though that the only way to not be ambiguous is if we’re all on the same page with terminology.

 

[daniel craig]

daniel craig, I agree with you in principle, but, as with the rest of the English language, many firearms related words have more than one definition/usage.

For instance, you cite "auto/semi-auto" as an example. In a legal context, where definitions are set by statute (e.g., the NFA), those two have different definitions. However, another definition of "auto" goes back further in time, and is a shortened form of auto-loading. This was the usage that, for example, John Browning adopted. That's why his design documents for 1911's and the like refer to them as "automatic pistol." That's why his gas-operated shotgun was called (and is still called) the Browning Auto-5. The 45 ACP was invented for use in what is legally a semi-auto pistol, but is not called the 45 SACP.

It's good to be correct... but you must be correct in your correctness. And sometimes trying to enforce correctness on others is, itself, incorrect - particularly where both parties are correct. Sometimes a usage that is different than what you're thinking of is nevertheless correct. A little humility helps.

Humility is absolutely good. And yes language and terminology does evolve but that doesn’t mean the conventions for the proper use thereof go right out the window, they evolve too.

 

[ATLDave]

Humility is absolutely good. And yes language and terminology does evolve but that doesn’t mean the conventions for the proper use thereof go right out the window, they evolve too.

They do, but one meaning does not always replace another. Look up any word in the dictionary. You will almost invariably see multiple meanings. That's just how human language - and the English language in particular - work. This is why context is important.

Another good example is the word "pistol." Again, the 1934 NFA invented a definition of it that defined a single chamber in line with the barrel as an essential element - thereby excluding revolvers. Well that wasn't common usage - that was just something made up in the legislative drafting process to make the word formulas work the way the drafters wanted. So in NFA land, a revolver is not a pistol. Yet in common usage, revolvers were pistols, and often remain so today. Unless they are filling out an ATF form, calling a revolver a pistol is not wrong - but some pedants will try to correct people who do so. Those pedants are generally not nearly as knowledgeable as they imagine.

This is not just common but universal outside the firearms world. A great, great deal of time and money is spent by lawyers and courts trying to figure out which of several possible meanings a word might have in one particular context or another. There is no universal language cop that is going to pick one meaning. If what you want is completely consistent usage/terminology, you're not going to get it. You can't. Language doesn't work that way... and it never has.

 

[daniel craig]

Ok, how about then, a universal way on how we enforce it? If it’s ok for one group to make a mistake it should be ok for the other group too. I’m more talking about the standards difference we seem to have.

If we give the anti-gun group a hard time for messing up the terminology but not our own group how can we be expected to be taken seriously?

We should also be aware of the current usage of terms. If you come in asking the clerk for something but you actually mean something ELSE the clerk shouldn’t be at fault for providing what you asked, especially if you give no other context.

I’d also like to point out that if there were no semantics there would be no language because anything could mean anything or nothing at all. If there isn’t a baseline we have nothing in common to go on, that’s the very essence of learning a language.

 

[HJ857]

Years ago I was involved with what we called Cultural Resource Management and lots of general population got involved in that, peripherally. Any time there was a public forum many folks would interchangeably throw out terms like "preservation" and "conservation" without knowing that there's a huge difference in those words. And that using the wrong word easily can make the difference between your argument being heard or being dismissed out of hand just because you didn't bother doing basic research.

We can see semantics in action in the abortion debate. The Pro Life side were correct in getting themselves known as that, rather than "anti abortion". On the other hand they failed to label pro abortion activists in a way that would undermine their position. So, we now see pro abortion as "Pro Choice", but never as "the right to murder your unborn child", or "Pro Infanticide". This is a huge victory in semantics because if it were labeled as murder, then the overall public would likely view it entirely differently.

In regards to firearms, we've allowed the debate to become "gun rights" and "gun violence". Guns are inanimate objects and never do anything on their own, and do not require rights. So that leads the public to see firearms as the cause, rather than seeing that the person is the cause. This is nothing more than deflection so that the basic truth is harder to see. It's crazy and stupid that we are allowing this to happen.

We need to change the semantics so that we are viewed as people upholding the Bill of Rights because it's the 2nd Amendment that gives the entire document teeth and power.

Anti gun people need to be viewed as those who are working to undermine the 2nd Amendment and therefore weakening the entire Bill of Rights. If that distinction is made, then the overall public are likely to always fall on the side of protecting their basic rights. My feeling is that if we are painted as "gun rights" then the public doesn't need to care as much and possibly dismissing us as nut jobs.

I'm less concerned with minor terminology like clip vs. magazine. However correcting an anti with correct terminology as a means to let them know that they know less than they think is always a good thing.

So yeah, semantics is huge. Semantics is everything.

 

[Buzznrose]

I really try to use the proper terms for things when I know them, so I appreciate the intent of this thread. I further agree that words matter, but also believe that intent trumps words.

Ultimately, my only real complaint is this...when older guys, guys who went through wars, served as LEO’s, and even aged guys who spent their lives hunting, are lambasted by some peon douchbag for using the word “clip” versus “magazine”, I get pissed and tell them to basically piss off.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that...

 

[230RN]

All above: yes,

What bugs me is who the heck ever started calling the "top part" of AR platforms the "upper receiver". This seemed to open the door to proposals to serialize uppers and subject their buyers or transferees to the 4473 infringement.

Technically "correct" according to some, but a major semantic disaster.

Sometimes we're our own worst enemy.

Terry, 230RN

 

[jmr40]

I think it would be better if the correct terminology were used, but I understand that over time some terms have been used interchangeably and the lines have been blurred. Most of the people who use the term "clip" to describe a "magazine" don't even know that that a "clip" actually exists and is something very different from a "magazine". Very few of us use real "clips" anymore. I try to not be a butt about it and find most people appreciative when I describe to them what a "clip" really is. Most have never heard of such a thing.

Same with revolver and pistol. Prior to Colt's revolver all pistols were single shots. A handgun with 2 barrels was a derringer, and multi barreled handguns with over 2 barrels were known as a pepper box. Looking at advertisements of the day it is clear that Sam Colt wanted to call his invention something other than a pistol. Calling it a pistol would create the image of a single shot handgun. He went out of his way to be sure it was called a "revolving pistol", with emphasis on the word "revolving". It would make sense for "revolving pistol" to be shortened to just "revolver".

But both of those examples have been used interchangeably for so long that it is generally acceptable to call any handgun a pistol and to call a magazine a clip. And I don't get upset when I hear others use the terms interchangeably. But I make no apology for using the term revolver when talking about a handgun with a revolving cylinder and I don't use the term clip to describe a magazine. And I'll not apologize for pointing out that there is a difference if I can find a way to do it tactfully and in a non condescending way. Approached correctly most people are appreciatively to know the difference.

Where I do draw the line is in describing optics. There is no such thing as a 3X9X40 scope, that terminology has never been used or considered proper. It is a 3-9X40 scope. There is no ambiguity here. The literal meaning of 3X9X40 is much different than 3-9X40 You're describing 2 completely different things and there is no doubt as to what manufacturers intend their optics to be called.

With optics the 1st number, or numbers describe the magnification, always with an X after the numbers. A fixed power optic would be 4X, or 10X etc. If you include the front objective size in MM it comes after the X (the objective size is optional and isn't always used). For example 4X40, or 10X50. With variable power optics you use a dash between the magnification numbers, 3-9X, or if you include objective size, 3-9X40. You read it "three to nine X forty". The term 3X9X40 is a unit of measure which would read " three inches by nine inches by forty inches"

 

[crestoncowboy]

However, another definition of "auto" goes back further in time, and is a shortened form of auto-loading.

Ive argued this many times. Auto loading/ self loading has been called automatic for many years. ACP cartridges still use the term. Usually I hear it used in reference to pistols and shotguns. People are afraid the BATFE will swarm in if they refer to a rifle as auto (loading or otherwise)

Another is people (usually gun guys BTW. Not the media) correcting someone for calling a Revolver a pistol when the term pre-dates both revolvers or semi-autos.

Silencer vs supressor is another.

 

[buck460XVR]

One only needs to read my signature line to know my opinion about grammar on Social networking sites. One of the definitions of "social" is "an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group". Informal is defined as "of or denoting a style of writing or conversational speech characterized by simple grammatical structures, familiar vocabulary, and use of idioms." IOWs, IMHO there's a difference between posts on Social Media and a final exam. You want to call it a clip instead of a mag, I could care more, but I don't. Consider yourself a handloader as opposed to reloader, go for it. Anyone with enough experience and knowledge to be a Grammar Nazi on a Gun Forum, certainly knows what we're talking about. Shells, cartridges, pretty much the same to me. Some insist a pistol can be a revolver, but a revolver cannot be a pistol. Or is it the other way around? If I wanted perfect grammar, I'd go to an English language forum, not a firearms forum.

Sheesh.

 

[daniel craig]

Where I do draw the line is in describing optics. There is no such thing as a 3X9X40 scope, that terminology has never been used or considered proper. It is a 3-9X40 scope. There is no ambiguity here. The literal meaning of 3X9X40 is much different than 3-9X40 You're describing 2 completely different things and there is no doubt as to what manufacturers intend their optics to be called.

This one gets me every time

 

[theotherwaldo]

-Anyone that has a Garand, a Carcano or a Berthier knows that they have to have a clip to load their magazine... .

 

[George P]

My little pet peeve is when someone uses "caliber" when they should be using "cartridge"; and let's not even go to the pre-teen slang with things like "shotty".............

 

[ATLDave]

I’d also like to point out that if there were no semantics there would be no language because anything could mean anything or nothing at all. If there isn’t a baseline we have nothing in common to go on, that’s the very essence of learning a language.

Of course. Just because a particular question does not have only one right answer doesn't mean there are not infinite wrong answers. Actual errors in usage, particularly where they have a misleading or confusing effect, are worth (politely) correcting or clarifying. But being the self-appointed language cop takes a ton of erudition and a lot of modesty, or a ton of modesty and a lot of erudition, or a big heaping dose of both. Otherwise, you end up being a bad cop.

See also Muphry's Law.

 

[daniel craig]

Of course. Just because a particular question does not have only one right answer doesn't mean there are not infinite wrong answers. Actual errors in usage, particularly where they have a misleading or confusing effect, are worth (politely) correcting or clarifying. But being the self-appointed language cop takes a ton of erudition and a lot of modesty, or a ton of modesty and a lot of erudition, or a big heaping dose of both. Otherwise, you end up being a bad cop.

See also Muphry's Law.

Yep and that's the point I'm trying to make, partly. But we're getting away from the larger point I'm trying to get at in that if we're going to call out anti-gun people for these things we need also to call out our own.

 

[sequins]

Not sure I like referring to gun people as brethren, sorry to pick semantics

 

[Kleanbore]

Ok, how about then, a universal way on how we enforce it?

"Enforce it"? What does that mean?

 

[Robert]

I'm just happy to get people out shooting and learning about responsible gun ownership and rights. And half the time I use the wrong term to annoy those Type A gun people that lose their minds over the

 

[Texas10mm]

My little pet peeve is when someone uses "caliber" when they should be using "cartridge"; and let's not even go to the pre-teen slang with things like "shotty".............

This! Also bullet means the thing at the end of the cartridge. It's really sad that all the reloading sites have to have "This is not loaded ammunition" on the bullet pages. Bullet heads makes me grind my teeth.

 

[Jim Watson]

The word "suppressor" does not appear in the original legal documents; Maxim patented a "silencer" and the feds regulate "silencers." But say or post "silencer" and you will be "corrected" at every turn.

And your "bore diameter" is not .308 inch.

 

[jeepnik]

I love these threads. They are quite entertaining. Fact is words are used to convey an idea or thought. If the word does that then it has fulfilled it's purpose. But if you're anal enough to stress over such things go for it. I'll just sit back and smile.

 

[JumboJVT]

I agree with the OP that being casual with our terminology amongst "ourselves" and then being strident in correcting non-gunners does create a double standard that won't be viewed favorably: they never are. BUT, in my opinion, that pales in comparison to the impact of the ignorance and un-safe practices happily displayed every day by gun owners on Youtube. That I support your Constitutional right to own a firearm doesn't mean I don't want to hide behind a tree or climb under a rock while you have it in your hand. That behavior, to me, is far more likely to put our 2A rights in peril than any discussion of semantics. Until we can get folks that are ostensibly on "our" side to stop making the entire community look like buffoons, arguing over semantics seems a lot like a finger in the dike.