I don't get this. There's a left-wing blog, you may have heard of it, it's called The New York Times. You should check it out every once in awhile. They wrote a blog post that is essentially about understanding the AR-15 and guns. Here's an interesting line:
Mr. Diaz said semiautomatic weapons, including the AR-15, are increasingly being used in the killings of police officers, whose vests often provide little protection against such firearms.
Let's take the first part first: "Semi-automatic weapons" are apparently "increasingly being used in the killings of police officers". Ok...semi-automatic guns are most guns. Unless you're using a bolt action rifle, a pump-action shotgun, a revolver, or a slingshot, you're probably talking about a "semi-automatic".
Saying "semi-automatic gun" is almost redundant. It's like saying a "flat-screen TV" nowadays. Yes, there used to be big vacuum tube TVs, or big front projection TVs, but does anyone really have those anymore? A semi-automatic gun comprises most of the new guns out there, especially handguns. In the same vein, you would expect most TVs to be flat screens now, right? If someone said, "Flat-screen TVs are increasingly being used to watch television" would you really be surprised? The funny thing is that semi-automatic handguns have been around for a long time. This semi-automatic handgun has been around for more than a hundred years.
Ok, so we have figured out that that the semi-autos are being used more, because they dominate the market-share. Now, let's get to the really weapons-grade stupid part.
"whose vests often provide little protection against such firearms"
Seriously? The word semi-automatic describes the action of the firearm. Got it? It describes the mechanism of the gun. It does not describe the velocity of the projectile as it leaves the gun, it does not describe the nature of the projectile (weight, shape, composition), and it does not describe the trajectory of the projectile. All of those things that the word "semi-automatic" does not describe are the relevant factors in whether a projectile can penetrate a vest. The manner in which the gun functions is entirely irrelevant to whether the projectile can penetrate a vest.
It's just an insane proposition to write the quoted sentence. It's almost like Mr. Diaz at the VPC doesn't know jack-crap about guns. Maybe they should have interviewed me.
Saying "semi-automatic gun" is almost redundant. It's like saying a "flat-screen TV" nowadays. Yes, there used to be big vacuum tube TVs, or big front projection TVs, but does anyone really have those anymore? A semi-automatic gun comprises most of the new guns out there, especially handguns. In the same vein, you would expect most TVs to be flat screens now, right? If someone said, "Flat-screen TVs are increasingly being used to watch television" would you really be surprised? The funny thing is that semi-automatic handguns have been around for a long time. This semi-automatic handgun has been around for more than a hundred years.
Ok, so we have figured out that that the semi-autos are being used more, because they dominate the market-share. Now, let's get to the really weapons-grade stupid part.
"whose vests often provide little protection against such firearms"
Seriously? The word semi-automatic describes the action of the firearm. Got it? It describes the mechanism of the gun. It does not describe the velocity of the projectile as it leaves the gun, it does not describe the nature of the projectile (weight, shape, composition), and it does not describe the trajectory of the projectile. All of those things that the word "semi-automatic" does not describe are the relevant factors in whether a projectile can penetrate a vest. The manner in which the gun functions is entirely irrelevant to whether the projectile can penetrate a vest.
It's just an insane proposition to write the quoted sentence. It's almost like Mr. Diaz at the VPC doesn't know jack-crap about guns. Maybe they should have interviewed me.
I've only read half the article you linked, but I'm going to make a SWAG here and predict that from this point forward, news articles will substitute "AR-15" for AK-47" as the weapon used for every incident when the reporters don't know what weapon was used.
ReplyDeleteNew talking points have been issued.
It's completely plausible that most journalists don't know the difference...and don't care.
Delete