In many cases, as in this one, the meaning was perfectly clear and raising the terminology issue is just a distraction.
Climate scientists would prefer to debate global warming with people who have actually read a few papers and know the actual implications of global warming (as opposed to uneducated people on either side of the argument that say that it either doesn't matter or that it will be the end of humanity).
Doctors would prefer to debate vaccinations with people who have read up and learned that the chance of a negative reaction to a vaccine is very tiny compared to the chance of people dying from a disease in an unvaccinated society (see polio) as opposed to listening to people who swear that their child got paralyzed because of a flu shot (maybe they did, but they don't make a convincing argument).
And gun owners would prefer to debate gun control with people who actually understand guns as opposed to people who have only seen their children firing 900 rounds/min death machines in video games.
Using the proper terminology is an easy way to say, "I've done enough homework to understand how guns work in a general sense and have at least considered that I should know about something before I make a decision on it."
Everyone's favorite faux pas, clip vs magazine, is a mostly useless distinction. Both items offer a similar functionality to decrease the reloading time of their respective guns^W firearms; and there is rarely a case where both a magazine and a clip exist for a particular gun^W firearm so it shouldn't be a cause for much confusion. It doesn't help the gun-nomenclature pedant's case that magazines are commonly marketed by gun/shooting retailers as "clips". Another one is bullet vs cartridge vs round but depending upon context bullet is the only one that is unambiguously connected to guns^W firearms.
I'm a gun^W firearm owner, and TBH I don't see a lot of diversity of opinion among firearm-rights activists; so while it might be easy in some cases to debate only those who share my interests, it isn't particularly productive. It's up to firearm-rights activists to accommodate debate from laypersons (and politely educate them if needed), just as doctors, scientists, and other experts must do so for respective laypersons they encounter in each of their fields.
Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?
Unless your agenda is compete and total confiscation, unless you want to be routinely dismissed by those who actually know something about the target, you'd best learn the basics, the sort of thing any grade school child who's a member of the US gun culture routinely picks up.
Come to think of it, this actually equals a "my mother and sister know more than you!" sort of thing, and they were never a fraction as serious about it as my father and the male siblings.
Then again, someone who likes and respects Gundam SEED can't be all bad ^_^.
The four things I can think of are:
1) tighter registration and controls, GPS tracking
2) better training and education for gun owners, mandatory, free
3) arming more citizens so they can take out mass shooters
4) better training in non-lethal methods for police
Then perhaps a return to the issue of dog control. More specifically:
In practice, registration accomplishes nothing good.
What controls?
GPS tracking ... how??? Especially for the 350+ million legacy guns in our hands? And what would it accomplish? At most it would snare criminals stupid enough to legally buy guns before they have a disqualifying record, wouldn't address the other problems.
2) Mandatory is non-negotiable given the bad will, unless you make it a required middle or high school thing for everybody. As for free, the other side's vapors about Eddie Eagle, shutting down of high school rifle ranges (even in Arlington, Virginia, home of the US military! ), and so on suggests that's non-negotiable on their side. But I most certainly support it, did my part of it in JROTC (the members of the rifle team helped the teachers run the winter safety and marksmanship unit).
3) Now you're on to something. But it's not going to happen in 5 of the 15 most populated states (California, New York, New Jersey. Massachusetts and Maryland), and we think the bigger problem is the proliferation of the Orwellian named "gun free zones". With the exception of the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman, all the modern ones have happened in such. And of course the likely stoppings of mass shootings by armed citizens have by definition happened outside these zones.
4) Really doesn't exist. At least if you're talking guns or edged weapons, I would not ask any police officer to use anything less than lethal force from a gun once combat begins. Google Tueller Drill for some sobering videos.
Perhaps better would be real and much more certain sanctions for truly abusive police; going back to the Tueller Drill, in what circumstance is in necessary to shoot a man in a wheelchair if you think he might have an edged weapon? (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1348711197&comments=1) If it was just incompetence in allowing yourself to get cornered as the police allege, that should be worth condign including being expelled from ever having a job in law enforcement. Whereas these police officers should all have been publicly executed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting including every member of the coverup.
But in the current BlackLivesMatter environment which lumps murderous thugs like Michael Brown together with virtuous tax evaders like Eric Garner, I don't see that happening.
Echoing the Eric Garner case, I've been told by police officers that anytime things go hand to hand a tragic outcome is very possible. In fact, we don't talk about "non-lethal" methods at all, just "less-lethal".
Anyone suggesting "GPS tracking" with any degree of seriousness doesn't demonstrate the ability to form rational thought: discussion should not continue.
> Mandatory ... free
Anything less than free is exactly a poll tax. This is also a great way to backdoor a registry of individuals, since, you generally need to track which people have completed the feel-good training.
We were talking about bullet vs. cartridge and magazine vs. clip, and my point is that petty terminology disputes are used to mock reasonable opinions.
Banning assault rifles would ban guns that look scary, while leaving many actually scary guns (just as, if not more, capable of killing) in hnds of gun owners.
Heck, even bayonet lugs are functional, not that that a fixed bayonet has been used in more than one US "gun crime" to my memory.
So now you're reduced to being an ignorant foot soldier in a culture war following people who complain about "that shoulder thing that goes up" instead doing anything to actually help with what are some real problems.
But then you encounter the problem of distinguishing real weapons from toy weapons.
But at least "bullet" is not entirely wrong as it is merely labelling the whole by one of its parts ("pars pro toto" is even a stylistic device).
I think we all know someone who calls their entire computer tower a CPU