TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:
Liberty, no offense taken on my part. But my goals have nothing to do with "superiority" and certainly nothing to do with political correctness. As I stated earlier, I am a former copy editor with a fetish for precise language. But more importantly my own personal goal in using term "negligent" instead of "accidental" is simply to connote that there is (almost) always some fault, blame or human error when a gun goes bang unintentionally. I think this is an important mindset for gun owners to retain as it forces us to think about safety and be more careful ... e.g. "this gun will not fire unless I make it fire"

Being precise with language does not necessarily have to also carry the baggage of ulterior motives such as political correctness. For me, it is simply a strongly imbedded desire to say exactly what I mean. For the most part, I don't care what the Brady bunch thinks either - until their incorrect use of words starts to reflect badly on me or gun owners as a whole - at which point I will resist their use of incorrect language to paint gun owners in an unearned unfavorable light.

I wasn't really reffering to your posts, or anything said in this thread but rather when folks on forums make a big deal out of the terminology, such as when a newby posts about clips and such. Discussions and input that we are having on this thread have no such overtones and is pretty interesting.

There are various levels of accidents, and sometimes reasonable people who are normally pretty careful have accidents, while almost all accidents have a certain level of negligence involved once, using the term negligent puts an accusatory tone to the post. I would like to learn from such incidents rather than point fingers. Those who have been involved with accident prevention and investigation understand this. I have seen here how some will jump on an AD and I wonder how many people here wouldn't explain the events that happened if they had one. Would we be denied learning from this experience?

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Steve R, et al:

I too like to use the correct terms for items, but fully understand what people
mean when they use something close.

Someone on the forum pointed out that you do not "load" magazines. You
"charge" them. OK. Point taken.

I believe that "loading" a weapon is when the ammo is actually chambered.

But what then is loaded? Ammo, bullets, cartridges, rounds, shells, etc.
With whatever you charge your magazine, or load your weapon with, it's
something that's going to go bang.

Also, some hate the use of the term "clip" instead of "magazine". To me the 2 seem
to be the same. I don't know the fine points that distinguishes one from the other.

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.