Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonethewiser | Hacker News Reader

The original article never seems to substantiate that the firearm ads are for illegal sales. You can legally sell guns lots of places, including the specific ones mentioned in the article (Glocks). ~~There is no inherent problem with advertising guns for sale on Instagram.~~ (EDIT: I stand corrected. It's against TOS. I should say there is nothing inherently illegal about advertising gun sales online).

That just wreaks of alarmism, especially when they use less informed language like "silencer" instead of "suppressor". If there was something about it that is actually illegal they should mention it.

https://www.404media.co/instagram-ads-illegal-content-drugs-...

View on HN

> There is no inherent problem with advertising guns for sale on Instagram.

It is, at the very least, a violation of Instagram’s terms. They don’t permit gun sales on any Meta platform.

My original statement is overreaching then. There is nothing inherently illegal about advertising gun sales on Instagram.

Would you consider this "a mark of not understanding the subject matter" as you apparently do with clip vs. magazine in the realm of firearms?

Complaining that they use a common term that most people know rather than a correct term misunderstands language.

Like, yes, it's a magazine, but colloquially it's a clip. Pop culture has given these objects two names.

It's not a mark of failure to use the term most people are familiar with.

It's a mark of not understanding the subject matter.

It's not. I guarantee you they know the difference. They are choosing to use common vernacular to speak to their audience.

People know what a "silencer" is because that's what it's called in movies and TV. Much fewer people know that it's actually called a "suppressor".

Meet the audience where they are.

I'm not going to take their word that they are illegal firearms when they demonstrate ignorance of firearms and firearms ads.

Not all details matter for the broader discussion. Being a gun nerd has very little to do with understanding their impact on society.

The impact on society and whether you arent ignorant about firearms is irrelevant. They claim the firearm ads are illegal but dont seem credible because they use outsider language and incorrectly imply firearm ads are illegal in general.

The general public knows what a “magazine” is.

Even if we didn’t, it’s a journalist’s job to inform. Using “clip” isn’t just a colloquialism — it refers to a different thing entirely, and is incorrect.

If they genuinely believe the public is not familiar with “magazine”, they can and should explain the terminology.

However, I sincerely doubt these individuals — especially given their Vice/Motherboard background — knew the correct terminology in the first place.

FYI/PSA, the article does not contain the word "silencer", "suppressor", "magazine", nor "clip". The only relevant part is "silenced Glock handguns". This whole tree is cheap astroturfing exploiting clip-silencer controversy. It shall not be rewarded.

Thanks. I’ll be honest, I’m avoiding giving 404media any clicks and was responding solely to the commentary here.

The last thing I want to do is contribute traffic to vapid outrage-bait Vice/Motherboard-style journalism, and HN has been spammed with their articles for days now.

Without comment on the rest of the discussion, a professional journalism outlet should work to be technically accurate to the greatest extent possible. Explain the true term in a one-liner and then use it.

edit: If Tom's Hardware ran an article about a laptop that has 2TB of "memory", I'd be skeptical of their ability to give me the proper information. If I read an article about welfare that calls Medicaid "handouts", I'm going to realize they aren't being objective.

And so, according to your logic, no one is allowed to talk about guns using the words people typically use. You’re literally gatekeeping.

According to your logic, "everyone" is a professional journalism institution trying to build a reputation for good reporting.

So no, you are incorrect.

If you are talking about guns and call a magazine a clip, even in a casual setting, you would be instantly made fun of for not knowing what you are talking about. Pop culture absolutely has not given these things two names.

Calling a suppressor a "silencer" is just incorrect.

There are different kinds of casual settings. In my social circle, if you criticized someone for calling a magazine a clip, you would be instantly made fun of for being such a pedantic nuisance. A clearly left-leaning media outlet like this is likely targeting an audience more like my social circle than ones who would be pedantic about silencer/suppressor or clip/magazine.

A lack of precision is only really a problem when it would cause confusion. In the context of the article, nobody is confused about what they mean by "silencer". A good example of this is that, even while complaining about calling them "silencers" rather than suppressors, the top comment still didn't have any confusion about what was being discussed.

I live in rural Iowa where everyone has guns and if someone "well ackshully it's called a suppressor/magazine not a silencer/clip" you would be ridiculed by everyone for being a pedantic clown.

> In the context of the article, nobody is confused about what they mean by "silencer".

People are confused as to believing the idea that any device which makes a gun silent exists.

Even my most gun averse friends don't think a silencer makes a gun silent.

Apparently none of your friends work in Hollywood.

Movies haven't done things bad out of ignorance for many decades. It's always a sound engineer or a director saying "no people expect a movie gun to do X nowadays"

Movie hackers don't work like that because nobody involved knows how computers work, even NCIS had dedicated Computer Consultants for that kind of stuff, but real "hacking" is boring AF, and most people are willing to put that kind of "reality" aside for a better narrative.

Sure, movies portray suppressors as incredible magic devices, but everyone I know thinks this is fiction.

But that distinction isn't relevant to the discussion of instagram ads.

The legal term in the NFA is "Silencer", and the original items were in fact called "Silencers".

That you dislike it when people use incorrect but clear language does not mean that it invalidates their point.

A large part of the world is made up of people that don't live around guns or know the proper names of their parts - living in the UK, the majority of people I know wouldn't know this, I bet it's the same for most of the people in Europe and Asia too.

It's similarly incorrect to call a Ryzen 9 7950X3D a "chip", but if you complained about it, even on a hardcore PC enthusiast forum, you'd probably be downvoted and mocked for being uselessly pedantic.

My guy, I'm in a gun organization. I'm aware. But most folks call it a clip because that's what movies and videogames have called them for 40 years.

"Throw me a clip!" Or picking up "clips" of ammo in FPS games.

Yes, mag is becoming more common now, but clip was absolutely common.

I believe they are used fairly interchangeably in colloquial speech. E.g.

"Full clip, do you wanna mess with this?" (Guru and Premier, 1999)

"I'm like two magazines fully-loaded to your one" (ibid.)

They're different technologies. Maybe there could be a "ammunition holding feature" superclass that both belongs. Clips don't have springs, and are used to tidy ammunition, and to aid loading magazines. Old rifles and some revolvers had clip compatibility to aid loading internal magazine. At some point the military stopped using old rifles and some revolvers, making removable magazines far more common.

But that is not even remotely relevant to the topic. The original article don't even use the word "silencer", nor "suppressor", let alone "clip".

> But most folks call it a clip because that's what movies and videogames have called them for 40 years.

This is precisely the point. Perhaps there is something illegal about these sales but why should I assume this is the case when the author incorrectly implies the existence of gun ads itself is illegal and use video game and movie terminology to talk about them?

Shouldn’t you base that judgement on the validity of their argument, and not discard the argument outright because of some semantics around the author not using ‘pure’ enough language for you?

It's also one very small part of a much larger article listing several different illegal items.

Good thing then that US law isn't the universal arbiter of ethics!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com