It is bothersome when folks don't use the proper terms, but in many cases in dealing with the news or people in public, many of the distinctions that come from proper term usage is meaningless in the grand scheme of what is being said, but that is only because the level of understanding of the general public isn't to the level where the distinctions are significant.
Reporters get a lot of things wrong, and not just with guns. However, we are quick to blame them and refer to them as the liberal media if they use terminology that we don't like, but as if often the case, the media is going by what the police have told them when it comes to firearms information. When the report what nuclear scientists have said about nuclear power plant problems, the same thing occur. The reporters are no more of nuclear physicists than I am and haven't the background to second guess or challenge what they are being told by an expert or something who should be in the know on a given topic.
We have had several threads here where it has been expressed that the police, media, etc. are hyping negative aspects of firearms and doing it intentionally by misrepresenting them when in fact, the representation was accurate, only the forum members didn't know the difference or who didn't like the terminology because they thought it sounded bad though it was 100% accurate. We apparently get angry when the media uses incorrect terminology and we get mad when they use the correct terminology but we don't like it.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=400990&highlight=automatic+pistol
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=372489&highlight=automatic+pistol
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163520&highlight=automatic+pistol
The misunderstanding of 'automatic' is one of my pet peeves, but we get shooters here that do clip/mag thing (as noted), who call cartridges "bullets," propellant as explosive, ballistic vests as bulletproof vests, pepper spray as mace, etc. We have lifelong hunters who think javelina are pigs, that rabbits are rodents, and call anters horns. Far too frequently we have posts where people have stated that their house, car, business, etc. got robbed when nobody was there, but they weren't robbed. They were burgled.
It is strange to hear people argue that they don't like it when the media actually uses correct terminology but who also complain when they use incorrect terminology. Pahoo's post is an excellent example of this...
Not only the term but how the media uses these terms, in a irresponsible manner. As an example and your review;
A few years back, one of our local TV news reported that an Illinoise man, has committed suicide with a "semi-automatic" handgun..... ...
What was the point; that he could have done this more than once or sprayed bullets all over the place. ....
I don't mean to be incensitive and did pray for his family.
So the media properly identified the suicide weapon as being a semi-automatic gun, but pahoo thinks using the proper terminology is irresponsible. He didn't like proper detail being used because it could make things sound worse apparently. However at the same time, we don't like it when the media doesn't report enough details that we think are critical, going as far as referring to it as journalistic malpractice and typical stupid reporting.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495169&highlight=reporter+investigation
We have had people here called out on the misuse of terminology who who buttress themselves with the argument of "Well you know what I meant." In other words, incorrect terminology is fine when it suits us. However, my favorite all time cover argument for misuse of terminology is, "Well, that is just semantics!" Funny thing, you can't have language without semantics and so discounting another person's word use critique as being 'just semantics' is rather nonsensical since the conveyance of information properly is all semantics.
