In my previous article about nitpicking word selection, I discussed misused idioms.

Now, recent events have me word griping about something else entirely. And while I fully understand the gravity of the situation that’s being reported — I won’t go into detail because the journos are covering it in spades — I can’t help but be bothered by how inaccurate the word choices are.

Why does it bother me so much? Because what I’m about to explain means that dozens of journalists are either stupid or they’re lying. And I’m not thrilled with either of these options.

What I’m talking about is simple: the description of a weapon used in a recent, high-profile crime.

I’d like to start off by telling you what kind of rifle was actually used in the crime, but after reading seven articles from reputable news sources, I’m still not 100% sure — and that’s exactly what I’m getting at.

So, I’ll run through the mishmash of descriptions used in those articles and point out the issues:

“Assault-style rifle” — the first article reported it as this…a term that screams sensationalism but somehow still the most accurate description of the bunch. The weapon was probably an AR-15, which is not an assault rifle by any definition other than regulatory. The Brady Bill is what determined that certain firearms could be legally classified as assault rifles based solely on how they look.

This is akin to enacting a law that a bicycle can be legally called a car if you put a steering wheel on it, but it does provide grounds for a term like “assault-style rifle”. Which, in reality, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

M4 – The rifle was also referred to as an M4. The M4 is a distinct military carbine, not a style. While it essentially looks like an AR-15, conflating the names is disingenuous. 

“High-powered rifle” — this one really irked me because it’s impossible to say that it’s inaccurate…but that’s only because of the nuance around existing inaccuracies. 

The term “high-powered” is not just a vivid adjective that you can stick on to indicate that it’s scary or deadly or even military grade. Traditionally, high-powered rifles are chambered in certain calibers (i.e. .308 or .30-06) designed for long-range shooting and hunting. 

While legislators and journos don’t seem to agree, AR-15s and even M4s are not really “high powered’. Chambered in NATO 5.56mm (or .223 Remington), their rounds are high velocity but not high in muzzle energy. That’s why they are actually illegal to use for hunting in many states.

All told, high-powered is more of a marketing term than anything, but it really loses all meaning when people use it to mean “scary” — which is apparently what the journos are doing.

“Semi-automatic, also known as an assault rifle” — this one is egregious. The line is akin to saying “orange, also known as purple.” It’s common for people who don’t know a lot about guns to think “semi-automatic” means “fully automatic” but I have no earthly idea why. I can only assume it’s because of journos writing without doing their research.

While the Brady Bill does provide that some semi-automatics can be legally called assault rifles under certain conditions, it’s absolutely incorrect to say that “semi-automatic” is a term that can be swapped with “assault rifle.”

Semi-automatic simply means that every time you pull the trigger, one round is fired, some manner of action chambers another round, and the weapon is back in a ready state.

That’s it. The name “assault rifle” was created to describe magazine-fed, intermediate caliber rifles (like the original Sturmgewehr) with fully-automatic firing modes. The “assault” part of the name means that it can lay down large amounts of fire, unlike semi-automatic rifles. 

What I’m getting at is that these are literally two distinct names for two different things, not interchangeable names.

“…she thought it looked like a machine gun” — This one just made me say “wow” and shake my head. One news outlet actually reported what a witness thought the weapon may have  looked like rather than what the weapon actually was. 

This is obviously so they could ram the words “machine gun” into their story, and that kind of linguistic manipulation pisses me off.

Even if the weapon turned out to be an M4 capable of fully-automatic firing, it’s still not a machine gun. At that point, it actually would be an assault rifle — but I guess that designation isn’t scary enough so they had to press on to something completely incorrect and made up.

Sorry, but an AR-15 only looks like a machine gun to someone who knows nothing about firearms. And if that’s the case, that person shouldn’t be your source for the article, and quoting them adds nothing to the story but fabricated drama. The journos know that…and I take issue with the fact that they choose to dance on the razor’s edge of misreporting the facts anyway.

“Glock-style firearm” — This is a late addition unrelated to the event that inspired this post, but I had to come back and add it. The phrase “Glock-style firearm” showed up on my feed a couple days ago, and I barfed. This is such meaningless, fabricated language. It’s like saying a “Toyota-style car.” It’s either a Glock or it isn’t a Glock. You can just say “handgun” …or you can say what make the weapon actually was. This reeks of someone trying to trigger a response by using the word “Glock”…although I don’t pretend to know what that response is.

I’m not here to take a public stance on firearm laws or any of that. My stance is around something more critical on a broad level: misinformation, stupidity, and bad reporting. I consider journalists to be some of the most important people in a free society, and it seriously pains me when they twist facts or use manipulative language. It’s simply a betrayal to the people they’re supposed to be informing — there’s no way around that.