I didn’t. I had the impression he used the term “semi-automatic” because the weapon was, in fact, semi-automatic. I’ve also seen them specify a gun as a revolver in an article. It’s just a descriptor.
Dunno what the reported had in mind, but he/she did accurately describe the guns - both the handgun and the shotgun - at least in the one story I read. More frequently though, news reporters will use the term “automatic” when describing what’s actually a semi-automatic when they’re trying to stir up trouble, or don’t know what they’re talking about. The description you posted in your first paragraph is accurate if one is talking about a semi-auto pistol (or long gun); it’s an inaccurate definition of a revolver though. Revolvers are designed in a wholly different manner and aren’t accurately described using the term “semi-automatic.”
There are, in fact, a couple distinctly different kinds of revolvers; they’re described using the terms: single-action & double-action. With a single-action, the user must pull the hammer back prior to a shot in order to revolve the cylinder so as to align a new cartridge with the barrel and cock the trigger. Then, you pull the trigger to fire that cartridge.
With a double-action, in order to bring a cartridge in line with the barrel, the method above may be used, or you can simply pull the trigger. Using either the hammer, or the trigger, causes the cylinder to revolve.
The same type who must have their clocks set at Hawaiian Central Time
According to the deceased girl’s [DEL]father[/DEL] sperm donor:
Must’ve been a mixup down at the lab.
Hawaiian central? Who knew Hawaii was that big. Heh.
If you still had your Mod password, you coulda changed to Standard.
Everyone has fired at a fiberglass moose sometime in their adolescense.
Seriously I think that his previous conviction for doing this is of no concequence (other than showing he liked guns) the anger problems are much more relivent. Should potential gun owners be screened for emotional problems? I guess in an ideal situation (where screening was cheap easily available and accurate) this would be good, but not sure it could ever be achieved in the real world.
Yeah, blame “Hollywood”. Because if we got rid of those creeps, then creepy nuts would only have 6000 years or so of violent literature to be inspired by.
Taking up the hijack, here.
I really don’t know. I’ve got very mixed feelings. I think I’m one of the vocal supporters of modern psychiartry on the Dope, but that doesn’t mean I think that it’s an infallible institution. So, mistaken diagnoses could take the teeth from this sort of law, or contrariwise, there could develop a garden industry of shrinks offering diagnoses that fit most of the symptoms expressed by the patient, but aren’t quite the one diagnoses that are prohibited by statute from owning firearms. Then I look at things like the Capitol shooting, which might have been preventable by siezing the man’s firearms after he’d been diagnosed, and shown to be resistant to taking his medications.
But even something like that wouldn’t, AIUI, have prevented this massacre - the guy had anger issues, but he wasn’t diagnosed as being dangerous. If society allows people to have rights stripped from them because of hearsay from neighbors, or anonymously, I’d be very worried. It was wrong when it came to allegations of child abuse, and it would be just as wrong with second amendment rights, too.
It’s an interesting idea, really. I’m afraid I have to agree that I don’t think it could be instituted in the real world. At least not without wholesale trampling of the rights of people.
You expanded precidely on what I was saying, thank you. I don’t see anyway this paricular event could have been avoided without illegalising personal ownership of firearms. And I don’t support illegalising all personal ownership of firearms.
I suppose zero tollerance to immature usage of firearms could be implemented, so that the perpetrator would be never allowed to own a gun again because of his early indiscretion with the Moose. But that would not take into account that people change and become mature over time.
Not to mention 3000 years of violent theater.
I mean, have you read Sophocles? Damn smut merchants, destorying our greek youth. Damn kids would rather go to the theater and watch such crap, addling their brains so they’ll just roll over when the persians come around. Now, in my day…
Is that like a fiberglass deer? Because I’ve seen them as targets in shooting supply catalogs.
Not sure, I imagined it to be some huge hideous outside shop feature. The sort of tacky thing that makes your skin crawl so much that anyone with aesthetic sense wishes to do permanent harm to it.
Suggested generic handgun term (unless specifics are important): pistol.
Well, no, not really. A generic handgun term is . . . handgun. Pistol almost always used by gun owners and manufacturers to mean a semi-automatic handgun with a detachable magazine. Revolver being the other large class of handgun. If you go to the Ruger website to do a firearm search, you’ll see that there are two distinct and mutually exclusive categories of handguns listed there:
Well, yes, if you follow the accepted English language definition (consult any dictionary), or, it would appear, the law.
For instance, the Dept. of Justice (ATF) does not consider a “pistol” to necessarily be a semiautomatic with detachable magazine. From this site:*
Accordingly, the proposed definition of ``pistol’’ in section
479.11 would read as follows:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand,
and having–
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently
aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and
at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like
an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt
buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more
than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.*
This is a particularly US thing… in most other English-speaking countries, “Pistol” and “Handgun” are interchangeable terms, all referring to a firearm less than a certain length (usually 75cm or so), and capable of being fired with one hand (but not always, it depends on the local laws).
For example, the official British military designation for the Webley Mk VI revolver is “Pistol, Revolver, No 1 MK VI”.
I’ve always found “Handgun” to be a convenient catch-all, especially since rifles are referred to as “Longarms”.
I got that feeling as well. But then again, this is the LA Times here, and if there’s one thing that Californians don’t seem to understand, it’s firearms.
No gun for you! Come back one year!
Let’s look closely at this item from the ATF regs:
This disqualifies revolvers. In a revolver the “chamber” (or actually chambers) are the holes in the cylinder into which the cartidges are inserted. The chamber(s) then are not "permanently aligned with the bore (the bore being the hole along the axis of the barrel thru which the projectile is ejected. In a revolver, the chambers . . . revolve.
Here in the U.S., we use the terms handguns & long guns. Handguns have been described in detail above. Long guns, in addition rifles, also includes shotguns in our usage.