By KEATON LAMBERT
Sheridan High School Student
Editor’s Note: The Sheridan Student Column is brought to readers by Sheridan High School’s 10th grade English class, taught by Abby Williams.
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Even though it is a commonly used term, it is incorrect both literally and grammatically.
“Assault rifle” is a media term used to attract attention, and this incorrect term has been normalized for any tactical style rifle. The rhetoric coming from anti-gun government officials and left-leaning media sources is too often flawed and uneducated. More concerned with pushing their political agenda than gaining a thorough background on firearms and shooting practices, they have used the term “assault rifle” repeatedly even though it is incorrect, for several reasons. The media and left-leaning government officials are more concerned about generating fear and grabbing eyes to headlines rather than using proper terminology and giving a proper analysis.
Assault is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a verb or noun, to violently attack or a military attack.”
“Assault rifle” is a term that makes no sense for “assault” is being used as an adjective. This term was generated by the media and adopted by anti-gun senators because the word assault itself gives off a negative connotation in general. In any context, assault is generally viewed as a negative thing, so when it is identified with tactical rifles it can mislead people and they will perceive it as a negative thing.
The term “assault rifle” is often used to describe rifles that have at least one of these features: An adjustable stock, vertical fore grip, quad rails for mounting things such as flashlights and laser, a muzzle brake or compensator and even a bayonet mount. However, these rifles are classified as tactical rifles. They give users more versatility and practicality while operating their firearm.
Many will argue that tactical rifles are military rifles that were designed to be used against people. This, however, is a false assumption. First and foremost, a tactical rifle is not a military grade firearm by any means. A tactical rifle was made for civilian use, not for military personnel. The M16 and M4 military rifles series is not available to the civilian public without a year-long background check, government clearance and hours of paperwork. Tactical rifles were invented to better aid the firearm operated on the range to be more versatile. Versatility does not equal lethality.
As a young, avid shooter, it upsets me to see the tools for a sport I love to be given such a negative connotation by the media and government, while the beneficial side of firearms is ignored entirely since it doesn’t fit a political narrative. I have shot several tactical rifles of different variations and calibers, and none of them was ever used against another human being.
The term “assault rifle” is incorrect from a literal and grammatical standpoint. The term is a way to instill a negative connotation into tactical rifles for political and controversial reasons. It is used to propagate fear to an uneducated public.
When a grammatical argument is all that is left for gun-rights activists…..then they are acknowledging that they have no substantive argument for keeping weapons of war out of the hands of civilians. How many more must die before something is done?
Mr. Lambert, even at his young age, makes his point quite well. I had two decades in both tactical/strategic reconnaissance and heavy bomber units, and I’ll be darned if I can define what an ‘assault’ weapon is.
One additional point to add, ammunition utilized by the U.S. military is bound by the Geneva Convention…. ammunition utilized by our civilian police departments, and able to be carried by hunters, security persons & good citizens is more deadly, and considered inhumane under the same Geneva agreements.
Assault weapon was coined by Adolf Hitler for the Sturmgewehr 44.
“Assault RIFLE” Was coined ca. World War II as a rough translation of “sturmgeweher” (lit. “storm rifle”) as in the “StG44” (“Sturmgeweher 44” or “Storm Rifle, Model 1944.”)
“Assault WEAPON” Was coined by Josh Sugarmann ca 1986 to mean, loosely quoting, “whatever firearm we want to ban right now.” The initial intent to be to use it with military-appearing firearms (AR-15, AK-47 civ, FN-FAL, &c.) conflating them with their “assault rifle” cousins, and stir up an emotional response, short-circuiting the intellect.
The argument against the term “assault weapon” is not merely grammatical. The term itself is semantically null, no matter how much Congress or the State Assemblies try to define it. An “assault weapon” is, quite literally, anything that one person may use to assault another. If I should pick up my laptop (ruggedized) and swat you upside the melon with it, that computer just became an “assault weapon.” Sitting here at my desk, there are several dozen things that I could do a good deal of damage to a body with, that are not generally considered “weapons,” that would nonetheless become “assault weapons” once used as such. Even my empty hands would become “assault weapons” once I take a swing at you or thrust my palm up under your chin.
And much is made of the number of people “killed with assault weapons.” “Assault weapons” are generally considered longarms. The FBI UCR (Uniform Crime Report) does not break down longarm deaths by type, but the number of people killed by longarms – ALL longarms – tends to run 300-400 PER YEAR. That includes rifles, shotguns, “assault weapons,” “mass shootings,” and all that sort of thing.
More people are killed with “personal weapons” (read: “hands and feet”) than are killed with longarms in a typical year.
Per the CDC, the following kill more people by up to several orders of magnitude:
– Road vehicles
– Heart disease
– Cancer
– Swimming Pools
– Electricity
– Obesity
– Falls
– Medical malpractice
– Surgical errors
(partial list.)
Now, if you think that a “grammatical argument” is “all we have,” you are sorely mistaken. That’s just the one our friend chose to make. If you’d like to really get into this, let me know, and I can move this to a more appropriate forum and wear you down with arguments until you give up. For everything you can come up with, I can come up with at least one counterargument (probably more) that can be developed more fully than your argument in the first place.
Nice try.
The point of contention surrounding so-called assault rifles is less what a firearm looks like or is commonly called & more about magazine capacity, a point omitted by young Mr. Lambert who as an avid shooter & as one with an obvious interest in the social & political machinations on the subject should be quite aware of.
So are you saying that it is not “assault weapons” that kill people, it is people with weapons that only look like “assault weapons” that kill people?
Nouns are often used as adjectives in English. They’re called attributive nouns and are grammatically correct.
Examples:Race Car, Chicken soup, Prom Queen, Assault Rifle
Sorry, but you are wholly incorrect
Assault Rifle is a real thing with a real established definition going back to 1944 when the Germans invented the first Assault Rifle.
It’s a lightweight rifle, chambered for an intermediate cartridge , with a detachable magazine and select fire capabilities designed for close combat with enemy troops (military Assault)
The rifle in question was the Sturmgeuher44, literally the Assault Rifle 44
When Finestein and crew (with Bill Rugers’ guidance)adjorned to a backroom to literally look through a gun catalog to see what guns looked scary enough to ban they developed the term Assault Weapon.
This was done to instill in the publics mind a connection between the guns they wanted to ban and actually military firearms.
Judging by the authors article and the commonality of the denial of the existence of Assault Rifles, which are all but banned for anyone but the most wealthy anyway, their campaign of deception worked