Why Hasn't the NRA Emphasized that Assault Weapons Do Not Really Exist?

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, but there are differing types of language. There's technical terms and then terms that just come into usage by the population. The term "assault rifle" is a specific term referring to a weapon that fires an intermediate power cartridge and has automatic fire capability. The term "assault weapon" supposedly means a weapon that is specifically designed to let one kill a large number of people very quickly (how this is so is never explained of course). The term "assault weapon" doesn't deal with anything technical, it deals with the cosmetics solely of the weapon, as it was made up by the gun control people.

I am really unclear on where you get your made up definitions, especially of assault weapon. These were clearly defined by law in 1994 and don't mention anything about killing people.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~harald...e Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.htm

Under Assault Weapons are descriptions of various configurations that constitute being an assault weapon. These include rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

I am not sure how you can claim something does not exist when it is codified into law at the federal level and for several states. You are going to have a very tough argument to make with the NRA given the obvious evidence against your claim.

Funny how you can claim "assault rifle" is only a technical term but that "assault weapon" is just a term that came into use by the population and then defined it without reference to its legal definition.

However, you seem to be concerned with the validity of terminology based on its etymology and ascribing more validity to prescriptive definitions over descriptive definitions. While I would tend to believe that prescriptive definitions are generally more precise than descriptive definitions (i.e., common language usage), you would be hard pressed to justify a claim of a lack of existence because you don't like a descriptive definition or that a descriptive definition is necessarily wrong because it is a descriptive definition and not a prescriptive definition.

 

[44 AMP]

I do not believe it is in fact a single valid term. It is a phrase, enormously plastic, that has as its meaning whatever any legislature anywhere sees fit to give it as a meaning. Since no one can give you a single, reasonably precise definition of the term, I think we have ample basis to doubt its validity.

Yes, the term is "plastic", dependent on changes to the law. But that is the same for everything the law does. The meaning of everything covered in law is whatever "any legislature anywhere" says it is, in the law they pass.

You want a single, precise definition of assault weapon? Just READ THE LAW they wrote. They define it there. Legally. If your gun meets whatever absurd definition they wrote in the law, the the law says it is an assault weapon.

Those of us who know and understand how the various terms are used in our sport and industry know what it "right". What is written in the law is what is legally binding. Until/unless the law is removed from the books, then no matter what we know they are, they are what the law says they are, for any purpose involving the law.

One example: The law says that any semi auto handguns that uses a detatchable magazine and does not accept that magazine through the grip of the firearm is an assault weapon. That is a definition, and when in law, a legal definition.

This makes the Tec 9 (as an example) an assault weapon. This particular gun looks like (in general) a submachine gun, fitting the intended image of an assault weapon, and so now, this handgun is now an assault weapon.

But some models of Walther and other brands of Olympic target pistols also are legally turned into assault weapons by the definition in this law. (note that the newest versions of the proposed law, and I believe the law passed in NY, specifically exempt the Olympic target pistols from being assault weapons under the law. Nice of them to do that, huh?

The current assault weapon laws list a lot of guns specificly by maker, name, and model number. These guns are assault weapons in the law. Then the laws go on the define any other semiautomatics with....whatever particular combination of features they list. Guns meeting that written standard ARE legally assault weapons.

No amount of reasoned argument, explanation, or industry standard usage can, or will change that. The only way to change it is to do it through changes to the law. Our Legislators have spoken, and until we can get them to say different, that is the way it is.

Ok, maybe a court, or THE court can strike the law, effectively going back to square one, but until/unless one of those things happens, the law is what it is, and we have to live with it.

 

[LogicMan]

I am really unclear on where you get your made up definitions, especially of assault weapon. These were clearly defined by law in 1994 and don't mention anything about killing people.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds...0of 1994.htm

It being defined in law doesn't make it a legitimate term.

Under Assault Weapons are descriptions of various configurations that constitute being an assault weapon. These include rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

I am not sure how you can claim something does not exist when it is codified into law at the federal level and for several states. You are going to have a very tough argument to make with the NRA given the obvious evidence against your claim.

Because again, a legal definition that has nothing to do with the technicals is meaningless. That's like if a legislator creates a term "assault speech" and says they just want to ban "assault speech" when assault speech can be whatever they want it to be. There are forms of speech that legitimately are harmful to people, and thus which we regulate, and then there can be political definitions of speech that are whatever the legislator wants it to be.

Funny how you can claim "assault rifle" is only a technical term but that "assault weapon" is just a term that came into use by the population and then defined it without reference to its legal definition.

Not sure I understand your argument here. "Assault weapon" was created by gun control proponents. It solely deals with the cosmetics of the gun and the definition can be changed. It can be a weapon with a detachable magazine and two "military-style" features or a weapon with a detachable magazine and one "military-style feature." They can define it to be what they want it to be.

However, you seem to be concerned with the validity of terminology based on its etymology and ascribing more validity to prescriptive definitions over descriptive definitions. While I would tend to believe that prescriptive definitions are generally more precise than descriptive definitions (i.e., common language usage), you would be hard pressed to justify a claim of a lack of existence because you don't like a descriptive definition or that a descriptive definition is necessarily wrong because it is a descriptive definition and not a prescriptive definition.

You could point out it is wrong by the fact that it doesn't deal with the function of the weapon, no explanation is given as to how the so-called "military-style features" make the weapon more lethal supposedly, and the fact that the legislators can constantly modify the definition to be whatever gun they want it to be.

By this standard, you could create the term "assault speech" and outlaw almost every form of speech in existence by simply expanding or rewriting the definition to constantly encompass more forms of speech, and so long as you let people engage in some limited forms of speech, you claim you are still protecting their right of free speech.

 

[zukiphile]

I do not believe it is in fact a single valid term. It is a phrase, enormously plastic, that has as its meaning whatever any legislature anywhere sees fit to give it as a meaning. Since no one can give you a single, reasonably precise definition of the term, I think we have ample basis to doubt its validity.

Yes, the term is "plastic", dependent on changes to the law. But that is the same for everything the law does. The meaning of everything covered in law is whatever "any legislature anywhere" says it is, in the law they pass.

Let me suggest to you that your clause bolded above does not reflect ordinary grammar and use. While legal terms of art and statutory definition may be determined or influenced by legislative action, the meaning of ordinary language is determined by the agreement of the users. Where participants in a conversation do not agree that a term so broad as to have no meaning, "assault weapons", has a single specific meaning, it is fair to question the validity of the term.

Certainly, if your state legislature determined that it would call your horse a unicorn, you would not feel compelled to admit the validity of the term unicorn has applied to your horse.

You want a single, precise definition of assault weapon? Just READ THE LAW they wrote. They define it there. Legally. If your gun meets whatever absurd definition they wrote in the law, the the law says it is an assault weapon.

I would prefer a coherent definition. Which law should I read? Who are they above? And what is the law?

Congress? The Ohio General Assembly? The Connecticut state legislature? California? New Jersey? Cleveland city Council?

Many legislatures have had their own statutory definition of the term "assault weapon".

When Sen. Feinstein uses the term "assault weapon", is she referring to the statutory definition set forth in 1994, or in an outline of a bill she proposes currently, or in the California statutory scheme? She does not specify because she is not using a legal term of art or a statutory definition; she is using a word she knows is ambiguous and that conveys her disapproval. That is in no reasonable sense a valid definition of a class of firearms.

Those of us who know and understand how the various terms are used in our sport and industry know what it "right". What is written in the law is what is legally binding. Until/unless the law is removed from the books, then no matter what we know they are, they are what the law says they are, for any purpose involving the law.

I don't believe anyone has contested that. This is not a matter of an ability to read statute, but whether the use of statutory jargon beyond the context of reference to a specific legislative act is a valid use of a term in ordinary political discourse.

Where the common thread that runs through the various definitions of "assault weapon" is not much more than "items most of one legislature or another would rather people not have", it seems fair to question whether the use of such a loose term is validly employed.

I would just urge anyone making this point not to imagine that it is a persuasive argument to a person who cannot wrap his head around private ownership of a shotgun that holds more than five shells.

 

[eodinert]

Arguing semantics will not win the debate.

 

[JRH6856]

However, if you want to pick something to complain about with forum members, how about complaining about their promotion of the phrase "evil black rifle" that Glenn mentioned above. Far too many gun owners proudly refer to their ARs, AKs, and other models as EBRs and when "EBR" starts to become mainstream in the media and the media starts emphasizing the moniker "evil," "assault ____ " will sound like a kind phrase. The sad part is that we will be our own worst enemy on this.

Wow. So EBR = Evil Black Rifle? And all this time I thought it meant Enhanced Battle Rifle as in Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (Mk14 EBR).

 

[44 AMP]

The fact is that perception creates its own reality. And so does the law. As to whether or not assault weapon is a valid term, I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

You and I may not agee with the validity of the term, or the accuracy of its definitions, but in each jurisdiction where such a law exists, and assault weapon is what the law says it is.

And yes, it can be different in each different jurisdiction. And yes, it can be changed at the whim of the legislatures & governors.

No, it shouldn't be different in different places, but it is. No, it shouldn't be in use at all, but it is.

And some version of a definition exists in the minds of the general public already. And yes, most of them are incorrect.

But we have to deal with what is, not what we wish, or what should have been, and isn't.

 

[zukiphile]

The fact is that perception creates its own reality.

Then if we perceive the law to be an ass, isn't that also real?

Mr. Brownlow: The law assumes that your wife acts under your direction.

Mr. Bumble: If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.

-Oliver Twist

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Because it's a specious, semantic argument. The only value it has is to unbalance your opponent in a debate by demanding they define "assault weapon" so you can hit them with a more substantive point in the few short seconds that they stammer. Joe Sixpack doesn't care about what he perceives as a minor technical point. He'll just roll his eyes and say "You know what we mean: those scary black guns with big *clips*."

The important parts in this battle are to remind people that:

1: Guns save lives
2: Civilian possession of military weapons is the cornerstone of a free nation

 

[LogicMan]

Because it's a specious, semantic argument. The only value it has is to unbalance your opponent in a debate by demanding they define "assault weapon" so you can hit them with a more substantive point in the few short seconds that they stammer. Joe Sixpack doesn't care about what he perceives as a minor technical point. He'll just roll his eyes and say "You know what we mean: those scary black guns with big *clips*."

I don't see it this way. I think the semantics that would make people roll their eyes would be if a gun rights person gets bent-out-of-shape perhaps over for example the exact term for an automatic fire weapon. For example, if someone says, "assault weapon" regarding an automatic fire rifle and the gun rights person says, "Assault weapon is a political term, ASSAULT RIFLE is the appropriate term," I mean yes but THAT'S were many people might roll their eyes and say, "You know what we mean, the weapons that have automatic fire capability."

Pointing out that assault weapon is determined solely by the cosmetic features, and not by function, I think really scores points with a lot of people. It opens up eyes of people who otherwise didn't know that. It says to them that you are not against banning automative fire weapons, that your point is that "assault weapons" are nothing of the sort, they just look frightening is all.

 

[44 AMP]

Pointing out the truth, particulaly in a manner where they are forced to see the truth, and best if it can be done in a manner that doesn't get interpreted as a personal attack OR condesention, actually works well with people who do have the integrity of an open mind.

However, a good share of the public has been more or less trained to react like the old joke about art/pornography, "I don't know/can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it!"

Some people are so conditioned, we will never reach them.

 

[overhead]

Really? Wow, I'm surprised to see people think this. I'd think it could really put the administration on the defensive. It's just all in how you go about doing it. If you repeatedly, and calmly, and very professionally, refute all such claims about "assault wepaon," politicians and journalists would be hard-pressed to refute any of it.

I do not believe focusing on putting the Administration or others that are ardent gun control supporters on the defensive is very constructive to reaching the goal. The gun community has come a long way since I was a kid and started paying attention to it in the early 80's. People's opinions have been changed, not by the NRA, not by rhetoric, but by reason and statistics. I do not care to interact with them at all as I am not going to change their minds and I prefer to focus on people that can actually impact the discussion. While I enjoy debating with people of this sort, it is nothing more then a mental exercise as I know I am not going to change their minds. Starting off a conversation by correcting word usage, which to the uninformed might come across as rather elitist (probably not the right word, but the best I can do on a Friday morning) is not a positive way to get to the desired end state. That end state, for me, is opening eyes and explaining my position. Not correcting "clip" to "magazine" or any other terms they may use. I will save that stuff for when I take them shooting.

The people I prefer to focus on are the ones that may not hold a strong opinion one way or the other. They tend to be easily swayed by reasonable arguments, assuming they have the ability to reason.

 

[zukiphile]

However, a good share of the public has been more or less trained to react like the old joke about art/pornography, "I don't know/can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it!"

Some people are so conditioned, we will never reach them.

At least not with well reasoned analysis.

I do not believe focusing on putting the Administration or others that are ardent gun control supporters on the defensive is very constructive to reaching the goal.

On the contrary, putting one's adversary on the defensive, leaving him dispirited, and breaking his will to continue the fight is very constructive if one's goal is to win the issue.

The trick here is to know one's audience. If one's audience is a court, he is more likely to be well served by a clear, compelling, and factually correct analysis. If one's audience is every American over the age of 18 who can fog mirror, one should maintain his fidelity to the truth, but persuasion will require more.

The lesson I take away from public policy disputes over the last few decades is that most people, normal people, do not collect data and then employ a rigorously rational framework to that collected data. Instead, most people, and many courts intuit which result they like better, then formulate an apologetic for that result.

This means that routinely the process of persuasion involves changing the intuition of your audience. For many of us, the best way to accomplish this is to take someone shooting so that they can learn that while arms deserve respect, they are not horrible and frightening to use.

For the public policy debate generally, this can mean that efficacy may be prioritized over perfect and exhaustive accuracy. LBJ's Daisy ad had virtually no public policy content and did not explicitly make any argument; however, it aroused an unreasoned fear that was far more effective politically than a merely correct argument.

 

[overhead]

On the contrary, putting one's adversary on the defensive, leaving him dispirited, and breaking his will to continue the fight is very constructive if one's goal is to win the issue.

I agree, but IMO, you are not going to break the will of Sen. Feinstein or the Brady bunch via rational argument, irrational argument, emotional argument, logical argument, illogical argument etc. I am not really worried about the Peirs Morgan's of the world as I know I am not going to change their minds. I am concerned about those I can influence.

The trick here is to know one's audience. If one's audience is a court, he is more likely to be well served by a clear, compelling, and factually correct analysis. If one's audience is every American over the age of 18 who can fog mirror, one should maintain his fidelity to the truth, but persuasion will require more.

I agree. But, when speaking to those in the "middle", I do not think one should begin an argument or an attempt at persuasion with correcting terms that automatically puts them on the defensive or in any way makes them feel as though I think they are stupid, uninformed or silly. My opinion is correcting disputed terms definition tends to do that with many people. Of course, that is just my opinion.

The lesson I take away from public policy disputes over the last few decades is that most people, normal people, do not collect data and then employ a rigorously rational framework to that collected data. Instead, most people, and many courts intuit which result they like better, then formulate an apologetic for that result.

This is probably true, but I would still assert correcting terms is not going to sway that apologetic, political cheerleaders, mind.

This means that routinely the process of persuasion involves changing the intuition of your audience. For many of us, the best way to accomplish this is to take someone shooting so that they can learn that while arms deserve respect, they are not horrible and frightening to use.

For the public policy debate generally, this can mean that efficacy may be prioritized over perfect and exhaustive accuracy. LBJ's Daisy ad had virtually no public policy content and did not explicitly make any argument; however, it aroused and unreasoned fear that was far more effective politically than a merely correct argument.

I agree.

Very recently I had a discussion with a female friend about guns. She is what I would call a "political cheerleader" in that she essentially supports anything that the person she voted for suggests. I did not bother trying to correct her usage of the word "clip" or "assault weapon" as I knew that would not get me anywhere. Honestly, in the end, I gave up. Her argument was "I don't want to be shot in the head when I go out, I have a right not to worry about being shot in the head". I explained over and over again that the suggested laws would not lower that possibility. In the end, it did not change her mind, though my goal was not really to get her to immediately change her mind. My goal was to "plant a seed" in her brain that hopefully she will consider in the future. If I put her on the defensive or made her feel stupid I have zero chance of getting through to her. If i corrected her misunderstanding of "rights" or the gun terms she used it would have turned the discussion from a constructive to a debate. I did not want to do that. Hopefully I left her with the impression that we are not all "gun nuts" as the gun control folks suggest, we have reasoned arguments and are not just paranoid,scared or dangerous.

All of this is just my opinion, I understand others might feel differently and for all I know, I maybe wrong.

 

[SPEMack618]

So, while pursuing my daily dose of the interwebz, I found this gem.

Rather aggravating to read, condescending tone, and cherry picked statistics. However, to me, it illustrates why the NRA isn't waging a dedicated attack on the term "assualt weapons."

When the NRA is already percieved like this, it doesn't do any good to quiblle over semantics.

 

[Evan Thomas]

My goal was to "plant a seed" in her brain that hopefully she will consider in the future. If I put her on the defensive or made her feel stupid I have zero chance of getting through to her. If i corrected her misunderstanding of "rights" or the gun terms she used it would have turned the discussion from a constructive to a debate. I did not want to do that. Hopefully I left her with the impression that we are not all "gun nuts" as the gun control folks suggest, we have reasoned arguments and are not just paranoid,scared or dangerous.

Very well put. It's always polite to deal with people as equals, and in this case, I think it's essential. If the only thing we accomplish in talking to someone on the other side of this issue is to convince them that we're reasonable people, that's a victory. Next time, they'll be that much more likely to listen. I think it's easy to forget that most of the people we label as "antis" are just uninformed, scared of guns, and by extension, of people who own them. If we can convince some of them that we, at least, aren't scary, it's a start.