View Single Post
Old 12-23-2016, 08:48 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,528

Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
I'm just saying that we live in a world were the use of terms can change how people view them and movies and fiction in general have done a lot of disservice to the gun community by portraying firearms usage and availability incorrectly like full auto guns being so common in gangster movies and how easy it is to actually get them or that no common civilian in movies own guns. Hollywood, while promoting the entertaining value of gun fights have also been anti-gun in how it tells us that guns are cool to look at but you shouldn't own one and we show you why with cool movies. It's a double standard.
No argument there. Alas, as I have often emphasized in the past, we are fundamentally not a political site, so trying to fight that battle on IMFDB does not seem like a good use of our collective time and energy. There are other, better (dedicated) venues for that purpose.

Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Because we are a site meant to accurate tell our readers what gun is used and how it is used, it should be part of our "job" here to correctly inform the readers what they are looking at.

Hell, we nitpick different lowers on "M4s" and at least 1 time, the recent Siege of Jadotville pointed out the FALs were correctly portrayed as full auto. We are a site of nitpickers. We tell people if an MP5 is an actual MP5 or an HK94 that has the paddle release missing.

Hell, the Blackhawk Down page points out the one Ranger character firing his rifle in burst and says a Ranger wouldn't use the burst feature in combat.
Again, no argument that our job is to inform viewers of inaccuracies where we see them, or to provide as much detail as possible on the guns. (i.e. if there is visual evidence that an AR-pattern rifle is a semi-auto civilian model, or was converted to full-auto from a rifle that was originally semi-auto only, I see no reason we can't point it out.)

This is fundamentally not probative to the issue at hand, which is the proper term of reference for an AR-15-pattern rifle, and whether usage of said term should be discouraged. My attitude is that it does not need to be, for reasons I have stated earlier.

Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
The AK has a different history in America and name recognition than the AR-15 that had a very complicated start as "America's rifle". The AK started out with the common name "AK" because of it's creator but the AR-15 went through brand name changes, copy rights, etc. Even with AKs, we point out differences and will use correct names if we can properly ID it.
Again, if you can ID it, then sure.

But the issue you brought up is whether we are misleading viewers by calling everything "AR-15", vice "AR-15" for civilian models and "M16/M4" for mil models. My point is that in practice, this is no different than calling all select-fire and civilian AK-pattern rifles just plain "AKs." If we accept the latter, we can accept the former.
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote