Comments on: Disputed terminology

By: alkali

alkali — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:32 +0000

eudoxis writes: [U]se of the term “intact dilation and extraction” is expressly intended to remove the reader’s association with anything understandable, familiar, or emotional. I’m not sure think the latter claim is true. Doctors don’t refer to a rash as “dermatitis” to be tricky or euphemistic; they use that language to be precise. I don’t have any reason to believe the term “intact dilation and extraction” was devised for any purpose other than to precisely describe the procedure at issue. That having been said, there is no reason that political discussions must use precise medical terminology rather than more readily comprehensible and more descriptive terminology, provided that the terminology is reasonably accurate.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:25:23 +0000

there was, at one time, a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons and military assault rifles Not really. In WWII and Korea, American infantry carried the M1 Garand, which is an 8-shot, semi-auto battle rifle (other forces in WWII all carried bolt-action battle rifles, which require that the action be worked manually after each shot). The Garand continued in use among military forces around the world even after the US had replaced it with the M-16. So semi-auto (and bolt-action) military weapons (which are widely sold on the civilian marken in the US) have coexisted with more modern “assault rifles” in the armies of the world since the latter were introduced, meaning that the distinction between military and civilian weapons is in general more blurry than your comment suggests. Now, perhaps there was a delay between the adoption of the M-16 by the US and the sale of the AR-15 (the civilian version), I can’t be sure. But it wasn’t just marketing that led gun makers to want to sell the AR-15, and it wasn’t just cachet that led shooters to buy it. It is an excellent design with a number of advantages for competitive shooters and varmint hunters over comparable rifles. To summarise, if I understand correctly “assault weapon” means “semi-automatic version of military assault rifle, or similar looking item”. Sorta-kinda correct. The definition also encompasess a number of pistols that have no relation to assault rifles and a number of rifles, shotguns and pistols with no military pedigree or appearence. Furthermore, there are a number of semi-auto guns (such as the AK-47 I own) which, although they are absolutely identical in appearance to the military version, evade regulation. Also, while previous posters have referred to the distinction as “cosmetic,” it has functionality aspects as well: things like pistol grips and folding stocks are just as useful to civilian shooters for improving comfort and saving space as they are to the military. Complete legal definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” is here. (Scroll down) PS: I have a vague recollection of reading that, in many cases, the semi-automatic conversion could easily be undone, producing a fully automatic weapon. Can anyone set me straight on this? This was widely reported, and is pretty much BS. Most semi-autos cannot be converted without completely replacing the trigger group and making external modifications which would be visible to a very brief inspection. Such trigger groups are, under the law, considered “machineguns” by themselves, with the attendant prohibitions attached to their possession and sale. And, for most semi-auto guns which are not military-pattern, full-auto trigger groups simply do not exist and would require a high level of machine-shop and gunsmithing skill on the part of the converter. It is certainly possible in certain (though by no means all)cases to fiddle around with a file and get a sort of improvised automatic weapon, but it will be enormously unreliable and prone to jamming. No one who had a clue would attempt this. And,to be frank, I’d rather have the average criminal shooting at me full-auto than semi-auto, especially if he had made the conversion inexpertly himself. It takes training to take proper advantage of automatic fire, and without the training, he’ll just run out of ammo quicker and hit less.

By: Richard Bellamy

Richard Bellamy — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:11:43 +0000

(BTW, the law references 20 weeks.) “References” is right. In the “finding” (quote, not scare) section, the statute states that “partial birth abortions” (scare and quote) are performed “normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation”. Normally. The law itself has no gestation cut-off. A “partial birth abortion” performed at 16 weeks on a non-viable fetus in the earliest weeks of the second trimester is unquestionably outlawed by the law. The law does not outlaw only late-term abortions. It simply doesn’t. There is no statutory interpretation necessary. If you ask the average “critic of partial birth abortion” what they think the terms means, they would not think it could mean abortions performed early in the second trimester that are outlawed here.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:08:28 +0000

PS: I have a vague recollection of reading that, in many cases, the semi-automatic conversion could easily be undone, producing a fully automatic weapon. Can anyone set me straight on this? You’re right, JQ. One can also convert a single shot weapon into a fully automatic weapon.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:42:50 +0000

The “assault weapons” example is interesting. From what I can see from the discussion, there was, at one time, a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons and military assault rifles. Gun manufacturers blurred this distinction by selling semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles, seeking to cash in on the marketing cachet of the assault rifle. Then anti-gun groups turned the tables by picking up the negative connotations of the term. To summarise, if I understand correctly “assault weapon” means “semi-automatic version of military assault rifle, or similar looking item”. PS: I have a vague recollection of reading that, in many cases, the semi-automatic conversion could easily be undone, producing a fully automatic weapon. Can anyone set me straight on this?

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:32:35 +0000

Richard Bellamy: So, in fact, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 does not ban “what critics call partial birth abortion.” I think there is greater congruence between the law and what opponents call “partial birth abortion” than between the law and “intact dilation and extraction”. The latter does not adequately describe the procedures outlined in the law nor is it, as a technical medical term, meaningful to the lay public. True, the language of the ban is not clear and, even if putting it into practice will develop some clarity, the nebulousness of the practice of late term abortions and a disparity in the level of nefariousness ascribed to it by individuals make both the law and public perception of the practice a large, swampy area. It’s clear that the term “partial birth abortion” is itself a not-so-nice Nelly that attempts to tap into the revulsion that can be generated by the thoughts of healthy, term neonates and rusty scissors. Jacoby does not speak to this. On the other hand, use of the term “intact dilation and extraction” is expressly intended to remove the reader’s association with anything understandable, familiar, or emotional. (BTW, the law references 20 weeks.) The title of the ban contains “partial birth abortion”, so use of that language is not as clearly associated with supporters of the ban as use of “what doctors call “intact dilation and extraction”” is with opponents of the ban.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:02:17 +0000

I’d like to make a clear distinction here which has been only hinted at above. The term “assault rifle” has a long pedigree and a fairly precise meaning known to armorers (as explained above); “assault weapon” had no meaning at all until it was thought up by anti-gun activists who, of course, recognized the power of language. This is a very close parallel to the PBA situation, and therefore a perfect illustration of Levy’s point. Not necessarily any way you could have known that, John. But to answer pepi’s queston, yes, the politicians and their laws have made a mess of the definition, but if the media had used those scare quotes—together with an explanation—then folks like pepi and John (who have no great interest in the topic) would understand it better, and perhaps well enough not to make these sorts of errors. It would also be nice if the media would explain clearly what D&X (vs. D&E, and other possible procedures) entails, so that the public would understand what the debate was about.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:11:40 +0000

general glut – I actually seem to recall the word torture being scare-quoted in a few articles…

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:08:40 +0000

belle: thanks for the explanation. I’m not familiar with that kind of stuff at all! (non-American and totally gunphobic – no scare quotes, I really really mean it). But then shouldn’t he be blaming the laws for making a mess of the definition, instead of the media?

By: General Glut

General Glut — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:50:04 +0000

Too bad we haven’t been seeing press stories on “R2I techniques at Abu Ghraib, which opponents call ‘torture’”.

By: E. Naeher

E. Naeher — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:28:52 +0000

FWIW, AP style prohibits both pro-choice and pro-life.

By: EKR

EKR — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:27:31 +0000

Sent that too early. As Belle says, real assault rifles are banned because they are automatic weapons. Many of the semi-automatic variants of assault rifles were banned in the “assault rifle” ban—although because they’re just aggressive-looking hunting rifles, the ban is really a ban on certain cosmetic features and the manufacturers started to find ways to remove or modify those features so as to circumvent the ban.

By: EKR

EKR — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:09:50 +0000

Actually, Belle, it’s even more complicated. A tommy gun is a submachine gun, not an assault rifle. In the WWII era, there were two basic kind of infantry long gun (i.e., non-pistol). (1) Non-automatic rifles, whether sem-automatic (used by the US) or bolt action (used by most everyone else). These weapons fired one shot per trigger pull and used standard rifle ammunition. They were accurate out to long ranges but could only lay down limited amounts of fire due to the single-shot-per-trigger-pull thing. (2) Fully automatic weapons like the tommy gun, sten gun, etc. These were fully automatic (i.e. they would fire as long as you pull the trigger) handheld weapons. Typically they fired a short pistol cartridge like the 45-cal or 9mm. They could deliver a lot of fire but had lousy accuracy and range. There were also handheld machine guns firing rifle ammo (e.g. the Browning Automatic Rifle) but these were really designed to be squad weapons. An assault rifle is basically a compromise design: it’s a fully automatic or selectable fire rifle firing a small rifle cartridge. The US M-16 uses a 22-cal cartridge. The AK47 uses a shortened 7.62 mm cartridge. The idea is to get reasonable accuracy and control while still sustaining a high rate of fire. Now, you can buy semi-automatic variants of military assault rifles . Basically, these are just aggressive-looking hunting rifles.

By: Richard Bellamy

Richard Bellamy — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:53:52 +0000

“Ironically, use of the term “what-opponents-call-”partial-birth-abortion” defeats the claim of euphemistic use of “late term D&C”. The general public is not (and does not want to be) aware of the actual procedure, yet the tip to “what-opponents-call-it” is a directly enlightening.” But, you see, that’s exactly wrong. Jacoby is actually correct, but for 100% wrong reasons. The real issue is that “What opponents call partial birth abortion” is completely different from “What the law calls partial birth abortion.” Specifically, the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 bans, in relevant part “the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;” Do you see “late term” anywhere in the statute? Anything that says expressly or impliedly leads one to conclude that the law bans abortions conducted only after a specific date? No. Do you see any type of abortion specificed—such as the procedure most often described as partial birth abortion “intact D&X”—anywhere in the definition? Would it help if you knew that intact D&X is, by definiton, performed breach, while the law bans some types of head-first delivery as well? So, in fact, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 does not ban “what critics call partial birth abortion.” That is not a political statement, but an empirical one. The statute bans much more than what opponents would call partial birth abortion, including some things (such as some pre-viability head-first abortions) that ONLY SUPPORTERS OF THE BAN would even think to call “partial birth abortion.”

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:27:14 +0000

Apart from anything else, Jacoby is not even being original here. This PBA scare quote business has been a reliable Taranto/OpinionJournal spin point for months now.