The media, and those in particular who would wish to see guns eradicated, employ some less than useful innacuracies regarding terminology.
By Chris Bodine
How many times do we hear of anti gun people and media referring to "assault weapons" - when in fact the accurate definition of such is a weapon with a selector that allows for full auto fire - and not, as is the case with we humble law abiding gun owners, a weapon with a mere self-loading ability. Exceptions of course may well be the few who happen to have licensing for genuine full auto and the budget to go with that! Sadly, just because a legal semi auto rifle such as the AK-47 "appears" like the full auto "Assault weapon" - we find the same label being incorrectly applied, plus all the hype that goes with it.
The use of the term "semi auto" actually also deserves some correction because we hear of references to auto and semi auto, when in fact in the majority of law abiding gun owners have at best what are referred to often as "auto loaders', but to be strictly accurate these should be called "Self Loaders" - ergo, they respond after one shot by cycling via either blow back or gas action on a piston, to eject an empty cartridge case and chamber a fresh one if available. "Automatic" is a much over blown term even when preceded by "Semi".
The media and the antis revel in their inaccuracies, much as anything to glorify the firearm in a bad light. We still see frequently too (even with gun owners) the incorrect reference to "clips" when in most cases this term refers to a magazine! A genuine "clip" is for instance, a loading device holding rounds such as is used with the M1 Garrand, or even with an SKS where "Stripper clips" are employed. In most cases ammunition can be fed or supplied via a pressed steel container within which is a spring that advances rounds towards the top - it is a MAGAZINE! This applies too to most self loading handguns.
Another absurd description corruption, even though small, is the reference to "bullets" when often the accurate description should be a "round" or "cartridge". Semantics some might say, but correct definitions are important. The assembled parts of ammunition constitute a "cartridge", which happens to comprise of a bullet, a case and a propellant. The empty case found at a crime scene is just that - a case! It's only bullets themselves that cause the damage once propelled.
One other obvious and highly important distinction is that of ownership and intent. The anti gun brigade makes the very convenient assumption that a gun in anyone's hands is by default a death knell. In other words they apply a blanket definition when in fact the responsible private and legal ownership of firearms is not a threat - no, it is a means to utilize the basic rights granted by the Second Amendment - the innate right of self defense.
Sadly we see and continue to see aberrations with regard to descriptions, primarily within the skewed lame-stream-media .. but also within the general anti gun camp. They seem to wish to glorify anything that can help trash the gun as an implement of safe and solid self defense. One is drawn to remember the old saying "Never mind the gun - beware the owner". Never is that more relevant than within the "Gangsta" community, where guns are acquired by any illegal means and used for criminal intent ... which has little to do with responsible and legal gun ownership - by an overwhelming degree the majority statistic.
"Anti gun" has been referred to but, we are all well familiar with the many officials and bodies who oppose citizens' right to own and carry firearms. We also know that many people have bought into the (insanely naive) idea that if citizens are prohibited from owning guns, that will cure gun crime. There is however a public perception problem we should probably address. If we publicly rail against "anti gun rights" officials, then we may appear to those misguided people that it is we who are the bad guys, and the officials we are protesting are the good guys. Perhaps instead of calling the other side "anti gun" or "anti gun rights." which, given the mindset of many people probably helps the other side, we can instead substitute the phrase "ANTI SELF DEFENCE?", because that is really what being against citizen gun ownership is. It should be much harder to argue against self defence!
When, oh when, will the media and the anti gun camp make the distinctions between the different categories. The majority of honest good folks who own guns do not seek a gun fight. They do not wish to paint the streets red with blood - all they want is to have their means by right of gun ownership for self defense and recreational use.