TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:
At the risk of offending folks, I think the people who feel the need to correct other folks on terms like negligent discharge or 9mm clip are mostly just trying to demonstrate a superiority.
An M16/ AR15 is a gun despite what your drill sergeant claims.
You are no less of a person if you fill Glock clip with 17 rounds.
I buy my WWW bullets at Wallyworld.
Shooting your mattress accidental discharge.
Redefining words to fit political correctness is just as nasty as Orwellian newspeak or leftist PC.
Even our rebellion against calling EBR "assault weapons" I think is a little silly, The initial design of an AR15 was as an assault weapon, it seems as though the leftist have backed us into a corner and made us defensive about owning such a gun. I don't care what the Brady's or the leftist think. and I don't see why we should let them dictate the language. Maybe if we could get the public to accept that assault weapons aren't so bad, we can get them to accept the notion that automatics aren't so bad either.

At any rate I don't see why we should modify our language to make others more comfortable with our words.

mr.72 wrote:

seamusTX wrote: If someone hits another person over the head with a rock, isn't that an assault weapon?

Getting quite off-topic for this particular thread... I don't know the history of the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" but I can only assume that it is applied to distinguish weapons that are not either intended for hunting or target use. I am curious to know exactly what the history is, however. However, the term "assault" is in fact a technical, legal term used to describe a criminal act. So it is quite incorrect to refer to what I would call defensive arms as "assault weapons".

You are right, Jim. if I assault you using a rock, then the rock is in fact my assault weapon. If I assault you using a 30/30 lever gun, then my trusty Marlin may become an "assault rifle". But if you go hunting hogs with an AK-47 then that is a "hunting rifle" and if I like to shoot targets with my Ruger LCP then that teeny gun becomes a "target pistol".

The whole concept of the use of the word "assault" to refer to guns is to give the connotation that these guns are only used in the commission of a crime, or to impart a passive criminal intent to the owners of such guns. Your pappy's Remington 700 is a hunting rifle, your gandma's S&W .38 is a self-defense gun, but your AR15 clearly makes you a potential criminal because it's an "assault rifle".

srothstein wrote:Well, I am not offended, but I am a cop, not a lawyer. I do understand what you mean by the meanings of words, and I agree that in many cases, it is very important to be precise. Some of my pet peeves include the improper use of terms that do have specific meanings (I really hate hearing about houses being robbed).

And I can understand how this could grate on someone's nerves if they believe the two terms are so different as for one to be incorrect. I do not agree that the two terms are so different, because negligent assigns blame but it clearly also says there was no intent. Maybe because of my background, but I think most people do not connote a lack of blame with the term accident. Too many people will apologize after saying something was an accident for this to be true. Anyone who has been driving for more than the past ten years also understands that all accidents are still caused by negligence.

But even if I am wrong (and I am somewhat surprised that the two thesaurus entries did not include each other based on how far out they usually get), there is also another factor to consider.

Communication is the key. In a courtroom, I would never say a house was robbed, I would use the proper term burglarized. But we are not in a forum that requires precise terms. Here, communication is complete when both the reader and the poster understand the concept being transmitted. And we all do understand this, no matter which term is used. So, if we both understand what is being said, why insist on the proper term so much? In a class room situation, definitely do so. In a courtroom, do so. But when friends are just talking,we all misuse terms or have different terms for the same thing. As long as we understand each other, we can just let the term stand.

srothstein wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:There is no such thing as a gun "accident". Because guns - in and of themselves - are not the inherently dangerous inanimate objects that the media and liberal fear-mongers want everyone to believe.

This is really my point. I agree with you 100% that guns are inanimate objects and do not kill people. There is an old quote about airplanes (where I heard it) that applies to guns also. Aviation (or firearms) is like the sea. It (or they) is not inherently dangerous, just terribly unforgiving of mistakes.

But where did the fairly recent concept that the term accident moves the blame away from the operator come from. We all called them car accidents for years, and I would bet most of us still do. How many parents out there still worry about the phone call from their young newly licensed child calling that they were involved in an accident? And we all know that there must be an operator for the car to have an accident. Parked cars do not move on their own and do not have accidents. Guns do not shoot on their own and do not have accidental discharges. Obviously, both general rules have exceptions for maintenance and design defects (guns that have floating firing pins for example or cars with bad transmissions that jump out of park).

If we can still refer to a car accident and everyone knows it means someone was at fault, we can still refer to a gun firing as an accidental discharge and know someone was at fault (negligent).

Of course, my real complaint is not even calling them negligent discharges, but the group that jump when someone else calls them accidental. If I say accidental and you know what I mean, why all the worry about the term used? Communication is complete and we both had the same understanding.

Keith B wrote:Can we add the term 'stupid' discharge and cover those accidental negligent ones??