A breakdown of gun terminology to help you in discussions on mass shootings and debates over gun control

https://amp.businessinsider.com/terms-t ... ngs-2019-8





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Not perfect, but better than most articles about firearms. It is definitely written from a certain perspective. To call anything more than 10 rds a "high capacity" magazine annoys me. My 12 round P226 40S&W mags are high cap because... 2 rounds? Really?

K9s wrote:Not perfect, but better than most articles about firearms. It is definitely written from a certain perspective. To call anything more than 10 rds a "high capacity" magazine annoys me. My 12 round P226 40S&W mags are high cap because... 2 rounds? Really?

It's good for the newbie, just sarcastic due to the audience here

Long time coming in the differences between a magazine and a clip. Media always uses the terms like they're interchangeable

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I've seen some crazy threads on mag vs clip on gun forums.

It looks like it was written by a strict-gun-law state resident who researched it on the internet and has never held a firearm.

Not bad, but yea he did really screw up "high capacity" magazines, that's way off the mark. That deserves an e-mail to the author of the article, don't know if he's the source or if he consulted others for the "terminology".

highdesert wrote:Not bad, but yea he did really screw up "high capacity" magazines, that's way off the mark. That deserves an e-mail to the author of the article, don't know if he's the source or if he consulted others for the "terminology".

Well in Chicago, anything over 10 rounds was considered high capacity and thus illegal. Not so crystal clear now with current Illinois conceal carry laws which clouded up the issue for Chicago (not tested in the courts so still up in the air)

I think other states or cities have similar restrictions

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

That 'high capacity' language is bad and, IMO, it is very(!) important that the firearms community, not, use it. These are 'standard' or 'standard capacity' magazines.

This is what the late, great, Senator from NY Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 'semantic infiltration'. You can't allow the other side, or ignorant folks to, in the words of a trial attorney, 'frame the issues'. Allow that to happen and you've lost before you even get a chance to speak.

sfarchitect wrote: Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:06 pm That 'high capacity' language is bad and, IMO, it is very(!) important that the firearms community, not, use it. These are 'standard' or 'standard capacity' magazines.

This is what the late, great, Senator from NY Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 'semantic infiltration'. You can't allow the other side, or ignorant folks to, in the words of a trial attorney, 'frame the issues'. Allow that to happen and you've lost before you even get a chance to speak.

Agreed. The 10 round limit is arbitrary and meaningless. There is no standard round count for all mags except when you believe an "assault weapon" is actually a real thing.

It goes back to my frustration with almost all politicians and media. When they start spouting off "facts" that are untrue and they cannot accurately describe the simplest of facts (e.g. claiming the El Paso shooter used an "AK-57" on Fox or "223 AK-style assault rifle" on CNN), I cannot listen to them spout off about "gun control" or anything related to firearms.

Some politicians claim to be from hunting states and to be hunters, but it isn't believable. I cannot take them seriously when they explain the evil nature of firearms, magazines/clips, and bullets.

Frustrating.

To date this article has over 1600 responses. Interesting to read them. Most are by people who don't want any sort of laws regulating firearms. But there are a few that actually put some thought into their response. They are on the Yahoo News re-posting of the article. https://www.yahoo.com/news/breakdown-gu ... 00679.html