Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dictionary definition of "asault rifle" = blah blah blah bullshit
OK, you can reject any definitions you choose. But accurate and effective communications demand that we all generally accept a uniform set of definitions. You can keep trying to get everyone else to accept your alternative definitions if you like, but until you suceed, the universally accepted definitions apply.
(I might not know jack, but I know what an assault rifle is)
Section 5 – Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Coverage
Let's take a look at some examples of accurate and inaccurate, clear and misleading, honest and, perhaps, less than honest writing about firearms and ammunition.
you dont know jack, there are no "universally accepted definitions" you keep talking and the vomit keeps spewing.
you dont know jack, there are no "universally accepted definitions" you keep talking and the vomit keeps spewing.
universally accepted definition.
Yeah, whatever ....
You're boring me now. (That mean's you haven't offered anything interesting - doesn't matter how YOU define it.)
Can we also accept that anything less than "automatic" is either semi or non automatic? Semi meaning that the round is chambered without manual bolt-action? Assault meaning that either auto or semi-auto are selectable?
Obviously there are accepted terms and disputed terms in the English language in all categories of conversation, not just firearms.
While Deconstructionists like Derrida may theoretically say we never agree on what words mean, obviously we do agree on some words, otherwise we couldn't communicate at all.
As far as firearms go, can we accept that "automatic" means one trigger pull = between 1 and all rounds (potentially) in the mag?
Can we also accept that anything less than "automatic" is either semi or non automatic? Semi meaning that the round is chambered without manual bolt-action?
Assault meaning that either auto or semi-auto are selectable?
Can we also accept that anything less than "automatic" is either semi or non automatic? Semi meaning that the round is chambered without manual bolt-action? Assault meaning that either auto or semi-auto are selectable?
Apparently not - even though 99% of folks do. At least one among the remaining 1% feels the need to insult and name-call the other 99%.
Go figure. But it really doesn't matter in practical terms.
OK, point out how.
Mirriam webster:
Main Entry: assault rifle
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
The free dictionary:
Noun 1. assault rifle - any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use
Definition of Assault rifle
Babylon English-English
semi-automatic rifle, rifle used by infantry
Dictionary dot com
assault rifle 
Use assault rifle in a Sentence
noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
Thanks, I'll have to double check the dates of definition. I may be mistaken but I believe the first real usage (and original description) was based on the MP44 and all resultant types of selective fire weapons. The inclusion of purely semi auto to that list may have come as a result of cultural usage, not true description.
The inclusion of purely semi auto to that list may have come as a result of cultural usage, not true description.
The inclusion of purely semi auto to that list may have come as a result of cultural usage, not true description.
Well I guess a "true" description of what consistutes an "assualt" weapon would be any weapon that is used to "assault" another person.
ANY other definition is not going to be based on "true" word meanings. It is going to be based on some other universally accepted criteria.
So claiming a definition that is not word-meaning based is a "true" definition, while any alternate definition is just some sort of culturally-approve bastardization, is just silly.
Ok - all very good points. And maybe a good indication of why people who feel very strongly about an issue have a hard time communicating with people who are more moderate. If you can't even agree on what a word means, it's hard to find any other common ground.
Thanks for a very good post.
I do think that trying to hack someone up for using the universally accepted term rather than the historic term serves little purpose in advancing productive communication - but obviously, everyone is free to commincate in whatever method they choose.
Ok - all very good points. And maybe a good indication of why people who feel very strongly about an issue have a hard time communicating with people who are more moderate. If you can't even agree on what a word means, it's hard to find any other common ground.
Thanks for a very good post.
I do think that trying to hack someone up for using the universally accepted term rather than the historic term serves little purpose in advancing productive communication - but obviously, everyone is free to commincate in whatever method they choose.
Hopefully you don't think I was trying to "hack you up". I was thinking about my post and forgot to include one other aspect. In general dictionaries, by their very nature, list all definitions of a word or phrase, even though not all of the same definitions are used or recognized universally. The very good ones will list the original definition + origin followed by common usages and origins, frequently common usages are colloquial, but not always.
Hence, as you pointed out, the communication challenges we (and everyone every where) experience.
I believe your statement concerning communication between moderates and others was way to generalized, this inherency exists across the board. I firmly hold to the belief that the incrementally increased usage adaptations over the last five decades has done more to intensify rather than mollify the issue.
Ok - all very good points. And maybe a good indication of why people who feel very strongly about an issue have a hard time communicating with people who are more moderate. If you can't even agree on what a word means, it's hard to find any other common ground.
Thanks for a very good post.
I do think that trying to hack someone up for using the universally accepted term rather than the historic term serves little purpose in advancing productive communication - but obviously, everyone is free to commincate in whatever method they choose.
Hopefully you don't think I was trying to "hack you up". I was thinking about my post and forgot to include one other aspect. In general dictionaries, by their very nature, list all definitions of a word or phrase, even though not all of the same definitions are used or recognized universally. The very good ones will list the original definition + origin followed by common usages and origins, frequently common usages are colloquial, but not always.
Hence, as you pointed out, the communication challenges we (and everyone every where) experience.
I believe your statement concerning communication between moderates and others was way to generalized, this inherency exists across the board. I firmly hold to the belief that the incrementally increased usage adaptations over the last five decades has done more to intensify rather than mollify the issue.
Not at all - your posts have been very "unhacky" and I appreciate that almost as much as the very good information and insights you bring to the table.
And you may be right about over-generalization in the moderate-activist communication gap. But I do think it tends to magnify to rift. And being a bit of a purist (in most instances) I don't like seeing words bastardized to fit a political objective. Thanks to your posts, I have come to see that very well may have been the case with the semi-automatic and "assault" issue.
I think that's what can happen when folks drop the vulgarities, the insults, the hyperbole, and replace them with solid communication. That's another reason I think all the hyper-partisan theatre and inflammed rhetoric are a real barrier and that contributes so much to the failure to communicate. But yes, I agree - that does extend beyond politics and political leanings.
. No matter how hard we try we still on occasion regress, sometimes more frequently than others.
With that, when we do (and we have) I hope we can see it for what it is and show more tolerance towards each others foibles. (Jeeze, talk about idealistic notions )
