PDA

View Full Version : Ill-Informed Pontificating Media Nannies and Asinine Use of the Word "Arsenal"


The Gleam
08-01-2012, 5:01 PM
I am sick of hearing from media nannies that 4 guns is an "arsenal", from writers living a shuttered life with their mind stuck somewhere in the middle of North Korean ideology.

Many, and I mean a majority, of shooting-sports enthusiasts, collectors, and hunters alike have 5 times that amount in guns, tens-of-thousands of rounds of ammunition for various firearms, and in some cases, 20 times that amount or more. They, including myself, might go through a 1000 rounds at a casual and common regularly scheduled weekend visit to the range.

Additionally, it is getting quite obvious that many of these articles are being written by liberal media despots or debutantes that likely live in a 1 bedroom compact apartment in some urban microcosm of their own kind, spending most of their days in the confines of a subway car or Toyota Prius, and the rest of it in a cubicle, all when not spending what remains of their day fettering away in coffee shops, nail salons, or watching American Idol, with very little knowledge of firearms or the wide and common ownership of firearms throughout America.

I am also tired of hearing how much is lauded on California gun laws, and how supposedly uncommon, bizarre, esoteric, or other-worldly Holmes' purchases, expenditure of purchases, the model of firearms, the gear, or the amount of ammo Holmes purchased had been, or that he had some preferential knowledge or super-secret access with back-room cloak-and-dagger privileges in that he was able to acquire these firearms, gear, and use them.

Also rolling my eyes to the point of their hurting, at hearing how often he supposedly must have been clandestinely trained in some secret tactical manner in order to just operate the guns he purchased, that no mere mortal other than a super-duper secret Special-Ops member of a paramilitary arm of the NSA, Secret Service, or Mossad could only muster.

If he was able learn how to rig his apartment with kitchen-counter-top bombs and home-made Betty-Crocker style incendiary devices, to potentially kill up to 50 of his neighbors at once, he could just have easily learned how to load and shoot a Glock 22, Remington 870, or an S&W M&P AR15 in a matter of minutes; not by some obscure source, but by the internet (invented by super-liberal Al Gore by the way) and something as simple as Wikipedia.

While I don't think he was uber-trained or had much training at all, shooting into a crowd of seated people set merely 10 to 60 feet before you, lined up in rows, all shoulder to shoulder, without being aware what is happening - doesn't take much "training" intellect, courage, stamina, or ability to then actually hit your target, by way of as little more training than "this is where the trigger is, this is where the ammo goes, this is how you charge it, now point-and-shoot".

I refuse to give this slug Holmes any ounce of credibility toward knowledge, specialty, or experience in the way of firearms, nor will I assist in the propagation of the media painting him as the "norm" of firearm owners as the media is wont to do.

With all of these knowledgable posers on firearm etiquette and laws, I would like to hear any one of them comment on how these laws they cite in the case of Holmes might have applied, or how did ANY of California's gun laws contribute, to preventing eight people killed by Scott DeKraii in his shooting spree in October 2011, when he opened fire at the Salon Meritage in Seal Beach?

ALL of the California gun laws for which media are stumping that would have supposedly stopped Holmes, were on the books at the time that Scott DeKraii committed his atrocities. And he did NOT use any form of supposed "Assault Weapon" as the ill-informed claim is the root of all evil.

Not a SINGLE California gun law would have stopped Scott DeKraii: but maybe the media manipulators think 8 people dead is not so bad as 12, so it's OK? Maybe they are trying to say CA laws stopped an additional 4 from being killed?

But they continue to propose all sorts of ideas about how California's gun laws would have prevented this or that, or saved the world. A ban on the misnomer "Assault Weapons" would not have stopped DeKraii or Cho at Virginia Tech, nor would a ban on certain capacity magazines have stopped DeKraii or Cho at Virginia tech - no waiting-period laws would have stopped any of these guys, INCLUDING Holmes.

:rant:

cannon
08-01-2012, 5:30 PM
Hey I got four guns so I have an arsenal. Woo Hoo!!

Does it matter if three of them are .22's?

Bruceisontarget
08-01-2012, 6:09 PM
I am sick of hearing from media nannies that 4 guns is an "arsenal", from writers living a shuttered life with their mind stuck somewhere in the middle of North Korean ideology.

Many, and I mean a majority, of shooting-sports enthusiasts, collectors, and hunters alike have 5 times that amount in guns, tens-of-thousands of rounds of ammunition for various firearms, and in some cases, 20 times that amount or more. They, including myself, might go through a 1000 rounds at a casual and common regularly scheduled weekend visit to the range.

Additionally, it is getting quite obvious that many of these articles are being written by liberal media despots or debutantes that likely live in a 1 bedroom compact apartment in some urban microcosm of their own kind, spending most of their days in the confines of a subway car or Toyota Prius, and the rest of it in a cubicle, all when not spending what remains of their day fettering away in coffee shops, nail salons, or watching American Idol, with very little knowledge of firearms or the wide and common ownership of firearms throughout America.

I am also tired of hearing how much is lauded on California gun laws, and how supposedly uncommon, bizarre, esoteric, or other-worldly Holmes' purchases, expenditure of purchases, the model of firearms, the gear, or the amount of ammo Holmes purchased had been, or that he had some preferential knowledge or super-secret access with back-room cloak-and-dagger privileges in that he was able to acquire these firearms, gear, and use them.

Also rolling my eyes to the point of their hurting, at hearing how often he supposedly must have been clandestinely trained in some secret tactical manner in order to just operate the guns he purchased, that no mere mortal other than a super-duper secret Special-Ops member of a paramilitary arm of the NSA, Secret Service, or Mossad could only muster.

If he was able learn how to rig his apartment with kitchen-counter-top bombs and home-made Betty-Crocker style incendiary devices, to potentially kill up to 50 of his neighbors at once, he could just have easily learned how to load and shoot a Glock 22, Remington 870, or an S&W M&P AR15 in a matter of minutes; not by some obscure source, but by the internet (invented by super-liberal Al Gore by the way) and something as simple as Wikipedia.

While I don't think he was uber-trained or had much training at all, shooting into a crowd of seated people set merely 10 to 60 feet before you, lined up in rows, all shoulder to shoulder, without being aware what is happening - doesn't take much "training" intellect, courage, stamina, or ability to then actually hit your target, by way of as little more training than "this is where the trigger is, this is where the ammo goes, this is how you charge it, now point-and-shoot".

I refuse to give this slug Holmes any ounce of credibility toward knowledge, specialty, or experience in the way of firearms, nor will I assist in the propagation of the media painting him as the "norm" of firearm owners as the media is wont to do.

With all of these knowledgable posers on firearm etiquette and laws, I would like to hear any one of them comment on how these laws they cite in the case of Holmes might have applied, or how did ANY of California's gun laws contribute, to preventing eight people killed by Scott DeKraii in his shooting spree in October 2011, when he opened fire at the Salon Meritage in Seal Beach?

ALL of the California gun laws for which media are stumping that would have supposedly stopped Holmes, were on the books at the time that Scott DeKraii committed his atrocities. And he did NOT use any form of supposed "Assault Weapon" as the ill-informed claim is the root of all evil.

Not a SINGLE California gun law would have stopped Scott DeKraii: but maybe the media manipulators think 8 people dead is not so bad as 12, so it's OK? Maybe they are trying to say CA laws stopped an additional 4 from being killed?

But they continue to propose all sorts of ideas about how California's gun laws would have prevented this or that, or saved the world. A ban on the misnomer "Assault Weapons" would not have stopped DeKraii or Cho at Virginia Tech, nor would a ban on certain capacity magazines have stopped DeKraii or Cho at Virginia tech - no waiting-period laws would have stopped any of these guys, INCLUDING Holmes.

:rant:

Big High Five....

DasBoost
08-01-2012, 6:37 PM
Well-worded and dead-on!! :thumbsup::thumbsup: I've only been purchasing firearms for the last 3 years and I already have 4, 1 pistol and 3 rifles, and my 5th (a rifle) just arrived at my FFL today.

That being said, if 1 weapon is enough to be the 'spree/lead-slinging, single-mother-targeting, cop-killer' that Fineswine makes it out to be, then 4 should be nothing short of America's nuclear arsenal... :D And to think I have family members that have multiple safes filled.

Fjold
08-01-2012, 6:42 PM
How many guns are an arsenal?

Thefeeder
08-01-2012, 7:05 PM
You may not like to hears this, but here it goes.

"Arsenal" "Weapon" and others are thrown around here all the time. Everyone thinks its cool to refer to a Rem 700 or any other as a weapon they added to their arsenal.

But when LEO or the media use the words, we get angry.

Pro gun, for long time has said, do not refer to firearms as weapons.

But were just old snobs who don't understand that we should be albe to call them what we please.

Just because it can be said does not make it the best thing to say.

HokeySon
08-01-2012, 7:09 PM
I understand that you may not like the connotation, but "arsenal" is a correct term for a collection of weapons -- which would include someone's collection of 4 firearms (i.e. it ain't asinine at all).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arsenal

The Gleam
08-02-2012, 8:18 AM
I understand that you may not like the connotation, but "arsenal" is a correct term for a collection of weapons -- which would include someone's collection of 4 firearms (i.e. it ain't asinine at all).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arsenal

That would also be dependent on whether 4 guns is a "collection" or not, within the Webster's definition of collection, as well as contextual among collectors, where I and many other shooting sports enthusiasts, hunters, and collectors don't consider 4 very pedestrian and common every-day average guns a "collection" within the context of those who collect guns, nor anywhere close to the realm of what I have seen in the way of numbers within any collector's collection with whom I have met (including my own).

Looking up Webster's definition of collection, I don't consider Holmes' intents or motives fitting within the definition of collecting, therefore his grouping of firearms is not an arsenal.

" ...an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby".

Holmes did not gather 4 guns for ANY of the reasons relating to the above Webster's definition: he neither cared to study them, had no interest in comparison to similar makes or models in a gathering of like-kind models (which he did not do), he did not exhibit his guns or display them for any educational or historical purpose, nor was his collecting guns as a hobby; he bought them as tools and only wished to use them as tools for destruction and nothing more. Even if he had no plans to carry out his mass-killing plan, he bought them as tools; 4 guns acquired as tools is not collecting, wherein you only ever mean to use them as tools; the same would apply if you merely wished to use them for hunting, for home protection, for competion in 3-gun matches or IDPA, or on the job as LEO.

4 guns = 4 tools, no intent toward collecting = not an arensal.

Calling them an arsenal is asinine, and remains so within how arsenal is defined, and how collection is defined; I would not call 4 plain-Jane, ubiquitous run-of-the-mill guns a collection under the Webster's definition, nor Holmes' intents for acquiring his guns remotely close to collecting, thus I would not consider that an arsenal.

WReyth
08-02-2012, 9:03 AM
Journalists do not seemed at all concerned with the terminology that we use, or what the proper terminology would be at all. They do seem to be very concerned with presenting the story the way that they want. There are some that can't even publish a sports interview without doing their slice and spin. Someone opined once that the only group of people with less credibility than politicians is the media. In the case of firearms I'm inclined to agree.

CBruce
08-02-2012, 9:15 AM
That would also be dependent on whether 4 guns is a "collection" or not, within the Webster's definition of collection, as well as contextual among collectors, where I and many other shooting sports enthusiasts, hunters, and collectors don't consider 4 very pedestrian and common every-day average guns a "collection" within the context of those who collect guns, nor anywhere close to the realm of what I have seen in the way of numbers within any collector's collection with whom I have met (including my own).

Looking up Webster's definition of collection, I don't consider Holmes' intents or motives fitting within the definition of collecting, therefore his grouping of firearms is not an arsenal.

" ...an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby".

Holmes did not gather 4 guns for ANY of the reasons relating to the above Webster's definition: he neither cared to study them, had no interest in comparison to similar makes or models in a gathering of like-kind models (which he did not do), he did not exhibit his guns or display them for any educational or historical purpose, nor was his collecting guns as a hobby; he bought them as tools and only wished to use them as tools for destruction and nothing more. Even if he had no plans to carry out his mass-killing plan, he bought them as tools; 4 guns acquired as tools is not collecting, wherein you only ever mean to use them as tools; the same would apply if you merely wished to use them for hunting, for home protection, for competion in 3-gun matches or IDPA, or on the job as LEO.

4 guns = 4 tools, no intent toward collecting = not an arensal.

Calling them an arsenal is asinine, and remains so within how arsenal is defined, and how collection is defined; I would not call 4 plain-Jane, ubiquitous run-of-the-mill guns a collection under the Webster's definition, nor Holmes' intents for acquiring his guns remotely close to collecting, thus I would not consider that an arsenal.

Now you're just being pedantic and quoting out of context to make your point while elliminating relevant context .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collection?show=0&t=1343927509

...
2a: something collected; especially: an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby
b: group, aggregate
...

"arsenal" is a proper a term for a collection of firearms.

Curley Red
08-02-2012, 9:42 AM
Now you're just being pedantic and quoting out of context to make your point while elliminating relevant context .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collection?show=0&t=1343927509

...
2a: something collected; especially: an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby
b: group, aggregate
...

"arsenal" is a proper a term for a collection of firearms.

100% correct. It is not the media that is ill-informed on the correct meaning of the word.

The Gleam
08-02-2012, 3:54 PM
Now you're just being pedantic and quoting out of context to make your point while elliminating relevant context .

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collection?show=0&t=1343927509

...
2a: something collected; especially: an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby
b: group, aggregate
...

"arsenal" is a proper a term for a collection of firearms.

100% correct. It is not the media that is ill-informed on the correct meaning of the word.


Yet you are taking individual words out of the entire context of the definition where one part is symbiotic to the other; one that someone else specifically cited as being the whole of it; therefore it is yourself that is not giving consideration to context of the very definition you cited, when it ESPECIALLY indicates "especially" as to how the meaning is applied.

"Group, aggregate" only specifies there would be a group in reference to collecting, but the intent of the collecting the group does not apply to Holmes' purposes or intent.

Thus, he was not collecting, and his 4 guns are not an arsenal.

Fjold
08-02-2012, 4:22 PM
Definition of ARSENAL
1 a: an establishment for the manufacture or storage of arms and military equipment
b: a collection of weapons

2: store, repertoire <the team's arsenal of veteran players>

Definition of collection
1: the act or process of collecting

2 a: something collected; especially: an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby



It doesn't look like there is a numerical definition of arsenal.