Is Holmes mentally ill?

I haven't really considered whether murderers are all inherently mentally ill, but to me it seems from a naive perspective that not all murderers have to be mentally ill or psychopaths.

I'd appreciate any ideas.

No.  I'd venture to say that not all murders are cases of mental illness, but the court system recognizes the concept of "crime of passion" or "temporary insanity."

It looks as if this kid blew his pre PhD exam and probably knew it was going to happen.  He'd spent tons of Federal Grant money and was about to make a fool out of himself.

I find it ironic that people make such a big deal out of the shooting taking place at batman.  Our society does kind of glorify violence...not to mention war and the death of anonymous innocents and unknowns.

I find the oft-trumpeted concept that human nature somehow abhors murder and military recruits must be abused to turn them into killing machines ideologically driven, baseless and straight up laughable. At most, human nature may abhor murder within one’s perceived tribe, but I see no reason whatsoever to assume that murder in general is alien to us. All the contrary, I think murder is an integral part of our nature and only through civilized culture we can propagandize people into being squeamish about it. In short murderers are not, just by being murderers, mentally ill. Uneducated at most. 

I am loathe to disagree with the great Merlin but on this point, I don't agree and I think the facts are quite on the "squeamish" side of the debate. Within battle, military scholars have consistently found that the vast majority of the killing is done by a small number of people who can be considered the "Michael Jordans" of killing. In his book On Killing, Lt. Col. David Grossman documents how, during the civil war era, a regiment would fire at a target shaped like a regiment on the battle-field as target-practice and get something like an 80+% hit rate. When in battle, however, their hit rates were abyssmally low, in the teens. It doesn't make sense to say "they're scared" because the best thing you can do, rationally, is KILL the things that are the cause of your fear. It was true of experienced as well as green troops. WWII-era studies duplicated these results even though troops were armed with rifles which are inestimably more accurate than smooth-bore weapons.

I think there is a spectrum of killing-aptitude and most people are born naturally very low on that scale. Cultural reinforcement might shift the population average upward on this scale but it will never change the basic gap between the natural elites of killing and the average individual who will - despite his own rational interests - squeeze his eyes shut and shoot over the head of his enemy.

Grossman provides more than ideology to explain why people do this, too. Most inter-species conflict in other animals and most conflict between human beings is settled merely by posturing. Roaring, beating your chest, yelling, throwing mostly harmless rocks or sticks... these are generally sufficient to persuade the other guy to get lost, which is usually the desired outcome.

Only very recently (10kya) have human beings begun to engage in large-scale, totalistic warfare requiring vast hosts of people to cooperate in the act of killing an enemy. For the vast majority of us, this really is learned, not innate. The mechanics of killing have to be drilled in and made into a "thoughtless reflex" that is only later regretted. The goal of military training is to get the recruits to skip pondering the consequences of their actions in the moments prior to shooting. Kill first, regret later. And that's why the US military's suicide rate is at nearly one per day. This is the natural consequence of the post-Vietnam training regimen which has succeeded in training soldiers to kill first, regret later.

Clayton -

Those with mental problems are more likely to go into psychology as a major, ostensibly to learn about themselves and their disorder.

I figure the guy went schizo.

So, you’d be saying that that strong desire to avoid physically harming others is instinctive in humans, and not just acquired through learning?

Merlin:

So, you’d be saying that that strong desire to avoid physically harming others is instinctive in humans, and not just acquired through learning?

We know there's a class of people whom lack the capacity for empathy whom thereby cannot imagine what others feel, and such have made the worst murderers. I'd say empathy is probably innate, sure. It's not hard to imagine that we feel bad about harming others because we know what pain feels like, and there is a certain economy of pain.

By which I mean that man, as a praxeologic creature, attempts continually to avoid or minimize loss, and also to promote gain. Pain can be rightly viewed as a loss of well-being.

If the pain of others if viewed as a loss for ourselves, we will tend to minimize it. It's when a person's value system gets upended just enough that the pain of others is to them a gain that problems can quickly materialize into serious crimes.

@Merlin: I think the brain is wired to default to not killing until fight-or-flight really kicks in. At that point, I have no doubt that the human is plenty capable of killing. The problem is that you can't just flip the "fight-or-flight" switch at will. We're wired this way because almost always, a confrontation will be non-lethal in the Ancestral Environment and if the genome favored a cannibalistic hair-trigger, we would have ended up extinct a long time ago.

Some people don't need the switch to flip in order to be able to kill. Those guys go right to the top in the military and, if they have the right connections, they might even end up working with these guys - basically, USG's Murder Inc.

Clayton -

I haven't really considered whether murderers are all inherently mentally ill, but to me it seems from a naive perspective that not all murderers have to be mentally ill or psychopaths.

Obviously you have not, thus the stupid question. Is Bill Clinton mentally ill? Was Paul Tibbets?

A good starting point would be to define Mental Illness.  In the DSM you see everything from identifiable diseases with etiologies, to much more broadly defined syndromes with multiple supposed potential causes that go from genetic to environmental.  So what counts; is incessant fidgeting a mental illness or is it someone who was just never disciplined as a kid?  Is psychopathy an illness or is it just someone who was born way to one side of the mental spectrum, with the same mix of psychological traits we all have, merely in massively different balance and proportion?

And the follow up question is does it really matter in the end?  It's the old legal debate; what's the practical difference between an irresistable impulse and an impulse that wasn't resisted?

It's a bit subjective, but I think if your morals and ethics are in line with your planned actions and you view this as acceptable or correct in regards to any action or situation you may view the act of killing as something that may be "routine" or justified due to certain circumstances. 

Someone may have a friend who was raped, but in a lot of cases this is not reported for various reasons.  You find out who it was, and you decide to "take action," and in the process end up killing the person, and for the sake of argument let's say you get away.  If in your mind your morals and ethics do match up with how you think and feel (that psychologically what you did was normal and justified from your perspective and context), you may not have an negative after affects and find it to not be any concern afterwards.

In these more motivated circumstances (not just being robbed at gun point and then shot out of a criminal's chaotic choice/reaction) the murderer see's nothing taboo about it, but understand's "society" does not see it so.

Let's say he was motivated by material culture and obsession with the fictional and highly profitable movie industry who's fans act like drones rushing and fighting to see a movie remade and remade again and that in his view some this just adds to the decline of culture and progress, and took it upon himself to shoot people at a Batman movie with a plot where a secret society plans to destroy Gotham because they view it as degenerate waste.  The irony is a film is being played where, in a certain light the League of Shadows is trying to fix Gotham from it's own demise by destroying it at it's lowest to rid the world of degeneracy, while Batman optimistically tries to save Gotham by destroying half the city in each movie, and when someone goes into the very theater and shoots people while they watch and freak out over a violent fictional movie they get hit hard with reality and can't believe someone could ever actually go and kill people as they watch a film about the same very thing!  The gunman is Ra's al Ghul, "good intentions," but not an acceptable way of achieving it.

...or I'm completely full of shit and I hate the people who clamour to see the damn movie.

This raises a lot of interesting questions...

 

Reality Check: Unanswered Questions About Colorado Theater Massacre

 

Patsy?

 

In fact this reminds me of the Soviet situation where the Soviets (or so I heard it told) designated political dissenters as mentally ill and stuck them in mental institutions, because obviously it would take a nutter to dislike the glories of Soviet Socialism.

Just because you are not able to understand someone does not mean they are mentally ill. That is extremely patronizing to claim.

No murderers are not inherently mentally ill.  There are plenty of people who have directly or indirectly killed other people who have no mental problems.

 

 

xahrx:

It raises nothing.

Uh.  It raises quite a bit.

 

The guns are relatively easy to get, the cost was not beyond him or most people if they had a mind to do it.

You're suggesting this unemployed kid could have legally got his hands on ~$4000, without any help?  Not likely.

 

The bombs weren't that complex or sophisticated, from what I understand they were containers of gas with electic igniters.  Anyone who has shot off a model rocket as a kid could make them.  And the police taking their time to disarm them isn't unusual from what I understand.  Even the simplest device can blow you to hell if you handle it improperly.  Given their 'trap' nature likely the cops were taking their time to make sure they didn't blow themselves up.

For two days?  Containers of gas with electic igniters cause an official to specifically comment on intricacy of the bombs and state it's rarely seen outside of warzones?...and takes the FBI two days? 

 

And he wasn't such a marksman either, he had a crowded theater in front of him and an automatic weapon.  He'd have to have been a total spaz to have not hit a significant amount of people.

What does this have anytihng to do with what was discussed in the video?

And I find it interesting you completely neglect to even mention one of the major points raised...that all the evidence doesn't indicate that he acted completely alone...and in fact points in the opposite direction.

"raises nothing".

 

I think most college students could get access to a few thousand dollars relatively easily.  Could have been working and going to school.  Could have used scholarship/grant money.  Could have just taken out a loan, if he did take out a loan I'm sure he was fairly certain he wouldn't be paying it back.

You're suggesting this unemployed kid could have legally got his hands on ~$4000, without any help?  Not likely.

He had $21,000 in federal grant money at his disposal.  Per year...I have grant money (not that much)...it got me a tube amp, a new computer, tons of books, food, fuel, etc. and it paid my tuition and rent.

Who is he a patsy for if he was one?

Aristophanes:

He had $21,000 in federal grant money at his disposal.

There's a source somewhere that says he had that money?  Or you're saying the grant money is available for people to apply for?

 

Who is he a patsy for if he was one?

Anyone else who was complicit?

 

There's a source somewhere that says he had that money?  Or you're saying the grant money is available for people to apply for?

Nope, I made it up out of thin air.

First result for: Batman shooter grant money

Holmes, who apparently spent his spare time coloring his hair bright red and posting his picture on sex websites, was the recipient of a $26,000 federal grant from the National Institute of Health. What did he do with all the money you and I gave him? One thing is certain, he didn't spend much time studying. In fact, he was reportedly in academic trouble prior to dropping out of the neuroscience PhD program at the University of Colorado back in June.  So you and I got to pay taxes, essentially, so this individual could avoid work for the last year.

Who is he a patsy for if he was one?

Anyone else who was complicit?

Thank you, Captain...

But seriously, do you mean to imply some kind of 'Alex Jones-esque assumption', or just that some other kids did this with him?

 

@xahrx

the term "automatic weapon" typically refers to a weapon (other than a shotgun) that fires more than one round with a single trigger pull. As far as I know, the shooter's weapons were semiautomatic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57479463/james-holmes-received-thousands-from-grad-school-grants-ahead-of-deadly-aurora-shooting/

the term "automatic weapon" typically refers to a weapon (other than a shotgun) that fires more than one round with a single trigger pull. As far as I know, the shooter's weapons were semiautomatic.

Not quite.

"Automatic" guns are guns that, when the trigger is pulled, both expel and rechamber a round and the hammer is pulled back 'automatically'.  The trigger may only causeone bullet to fire at a time.  A magazine loading 7 round handgun is an automatic. (Most) Shotguns and revolvers are not automatics.

Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol.

The term semi-automatic is a euphemism used to refer to guns that fire one bullet, but still reload the chamber and pull the hammer.  Think of a slide.  When the trigger is pulled the slide ejects the chamber, reloads the chamber, and hairpins the trigger; all of the internal process of a fully automatic, but with only one round per engagement with the trigger.

That wiki doesnt have very good references. Furthermore, it never uses the term "automatic weapon" which is what I was responding to, in addition the term "automatic gun" is rarely heard and something of a misnomer.

if you go into a gun store and ask to see the automatic weapons, they might show you semiautos, because they assume that you dont know what youre talking about, but they are just as likely (if not more) to show you their class III merchandise or explain the gun control act of 1964 to you. If you refer to a semiauto pistol as an "automatic" around people who use firearms, they will probably tell you that "no, your kel-tec is not a machine pistol."

"semiautomatic" is not a euphemism (is "automatic" considered profane?), it is a descriptive term for a weapon that cycles automatically but does not permit automatic fire.

Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol.

Note your quoted "sometimes" vs my statement "typically." just because people use a misnomer like "automatic pistol" to refer to an autoloader, does not make it accepted semantics among people who use firearms. People call revolvers "pistols" as well, that does not make them so.

Aristophanes:

Nope, I made it up out of thin air.

Well that's not good.

 

First result for: Batman shooter grant money

I thought you said you made it up?  Oh well.  I guess that answers that question.  Now on to the others.  I assume you have answers for those too?  Or will you at least make up stuff to entertain us?

P.S.

It's nice to see the IBTimes call out the media for their bullshit: "The media, once it found out about the NIH fellowship, immediately branded this guy as some kind of delicate genius. Now that narrative has been discredited. This guy was no genius. Now we are left to wonder how he managed to secure a prestigious and lucrative NIH grant with only a mediocre academic record."

 

Thank you, Captain

You're welcome, random deckhand.

 

But seriously, do you mean to imply some kind of 'Alex Jones-esque assumption', or just that some other kids did this with him?

I mean to "imply" that when the idiot with the badge looks into the camera and says "All the evidence we have — every single indicator is that this is all Mr. Holmes' activity, and he wasn't particularly aided by anyone else," he's full of shit.

 

Furthermore, it never uses the term "automatic weapon" which is what I was responding to, in addition the term "automatic gun" is rarely heard and something of a misnomer.

blah blah blah

Most people know nothing about guns and use ignorant phrases to describe them.  An "automatic" refers to the chambering system not the firing pin.  (All it takes is a rubber band and a slight bend in the firing pin to make a "semi-auto" a "full-auto.")  The same cannot be said for a gun with a manual hammer.  That was all my point was.

if you go into a gun store and ask to see the automatic weapons, they might show you semiautos

haha, yeah.  Semi-autos are automatic...SEMI refers to the TRIGGER and FIRING MECHANISM.  AUTOMATIC refers to the chambering system.  They used to call them autoloaders.

@JJ.

Christ man, you are a dickhead.

Not even a post made in jest can slide without you demeaning the poster.

Aristophanes:

[essentially incorrect definition of "automatic guns" with Wikipedia link with bad references]

What Malachi said, plus this.

 

What Malachi said, plus this.

Your link contains an incorrect definition.  Malachi and I have both stressed that, semantically, people are very ignorant of classification of guns. Just look at the term "assault weapon."  It is a political term that people latch onto and connect incorrect images to.  Much like "automatic."

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/199/Guns/Pistols/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.htm - notice how they are classed as 'automatic' even though they are all also "semi automatic"

It is because 'automatic' is a general term for the chambering system.  "Semi-" and "Full-" refer to the trigger/firing mechanism.

Aristophanes:

What Malachi said, plus this.

Your link contains an incorrect definition.

So now the dictionary offers "incorrect definitions."  Tell me, what source do you reference to discredit the definitions provided by dictionary?

 

When the trigger is pulled the slide ejects the chamber, reloads the chamber, and hairpins the trigger; all of the internal process of a fully automatic, but with only one round per engagement with the trigger.

I'm not picking on you, this is just a rare opportunity to talk about things I know about (small arms) instead of what you guys know about (things Austrians said a hundred years ago).

semiautos actually have a slightly different task than fullautos, and in a fullauto mechanism there are some things that sometimes happen that you dont see in the semis. For starters, the hammer or striker actually has to be retained by a different mechanism than the sear (which is connected to the trigger) because thats what makes it fire one round only.

secondly, the process a self-loading firearm goes through is actually des ribed in textbook fashion as an 8 step process: firing the round, unlocking the breech, extracting the now-empty shell from the chamber, ejecting the shell, cocking the firing mechanism, feeding a round from the magazine, chambering the round, and locking the chamber. See, the chamber has to stay locked because if it wasnt locked up, the hot gas from the deflagrating propellant would come out of the open breech which would be unpleasant and likely hazardous to the user. A big part of the design in self-loading firearms is figuring out how to lock and unlock the breech, and make sure the timing is correct. There are three major ways to do this, although each has its own minor variations. Recoil operated firearms (thats the nomenclature, another action type is recoil operated but called something else) use a mechanical delay of some sort, frequently a rotating link that mechanically ensures that enough time has elapsed for the pressure to drop to a safe level before allowing the weapon to unlock. Recoil operated firearms cycle because the hot gas from the propellant pushes back on the bolt (or slide) face. Gas operated firearms actually bleed some of the hot gas from the fired round and use this energy to cycle the action. The delay to allow pressure levels to drop is designed into the gas travel system, somehow. Blowback firearms are the simplest, like a recoil-operated weapon, they cycle because of the equal opposing force from the deflagrated propellant. The only things keeping the chamber locked up are inertia (of the bolt or slide) and the compression resistance force of the recoil spring. So thats how all that works, in simple terms.

Another thing that is different about some automatic weapons is that they fire from an open bolt. When I told you about the cycle of operations, I related it as it pertains to closed-bolt firearms. There is a lot of waste heat involved in the process from all the propellant, and naturally this is even more of a factor with automatic weapons, so they discovered that if you heat the chamber up and then leave a round sitting in there, it will cook off and this is dangerous and unpredictable. So weapons were designed to be carried around with the bolt locked to the rear, and when you pull the trigger it does this; feeds a round, chambers the round, fires the round, extracts the shell, ejects the shell, cocks the firing mechanism; and if the trigger is still depressed it will immediately begin to feed a round. So that leads me to my third point,

this cycle of operations needs to be timed as well. Of course, this is part of the design of firearms but my point is that when the repeated firing action is always and necessarily interrupted by the need for the trigger to reset and be pulled again, and an automatic weapon does not have this opportunity. This means that automatic weapons need to have the cycle of operations timed or the weapon will fire too fast and beat itself apart. In ww2 the armorers used to sometimes modify machine guns for the guys by drilling holes in the bolt to make it lighter, and therefore cycle faster.

[/thread hijack]

I think our Aristophanes has yet again found himself out of his league, and with a foot in his mouth.

womp womp womp.

 

Most people know nothing about guns and use ignorant phrases to describe them.

the implication being, "so should we also"?

An "automatic" refers to the chambering system not the firing pin.

no, as in "automatic fire." an automatic rifle is a light machine gun. It is not your dad's mini-14. Dont take my word for it, do some reading.

All it takes is a rubber band and a slight bend in the firing pin to make a "semi-auto" a "full-auto.")

if you can do this to any of my guns*, you are the king of all hAAxxx0000Rz and I will call anything you want an automatic, even a double action revolver. But I think you heard this from someone you trust who is totally full of shit. I would like to see some evidence please.

*we are going to use a new firing pin and immediately destroy both firing pin and rubber band after the experiment. I dont need automatic weapons, else I would get a class III license.

The same cannot be said for a gun with a manual hammer.  That was all my point was.

well I must admit I am still confused as to your point. Double-action revolvers are self-loading, and capable of repeating fire, yet most of them have manual hammers. But you cannot make an ar-15 into an automatic weapon by bending the firing pin, or with a rubber band, nor both, I'm sorry, you have to show me this trick because I dont buy it for a picosecond. The same for the semiauto glocks that he used as secondary weapons, there is no full-auto hack, short of a g18. Obviously this is a semantic debate, but there are propagandic implications here as well. I refuse to give up the terms "automatic weapon", "automatic rifle", and "automatic pistol" so that hoplophobes, ignoramuses, and would-be tyrants can shout at each other and remain ignorant of both reality and the conventional vocabulary of the industry they wish to destroy. This is one semantic hill I am digging in on, and I have the military crest, all the avenues of approach are wired and mined, supporting arms are sighted in, and the automatic weapons are in condition one. Thats all metaphorical, I'm not shooting anyone over semantics/diction. But I will not be silent.

Semi-autos are automatic...SEMI refers to the TRIGGER and FIRING MECHANISM.  AUTOMATIC refers to the chambering system.  They used to call them autoloaders.

they are not automatic, they are autoloading. They are semiautomatic, hence the term semiautomatic pistol. Automatic weapons are also autoloaders, although infrequently referred to as such. The term "autoloader" is not archaic, as you seem to imply. I really hate to say this because the quality is so bad, but read a gun magazine someday. But take everything you read with a grain of salt.

You said

the term "automatic weapon" typically refers to a weapon (other than a shotgun) that fires more than one round with a single trigger pull.

Using the word "typically" (I assume for the average TV watcher).  You are right "typically" people refer to automatics as machine guns or fully automatics.  All I said was that "automatic" refers to the rechambering not the bullets fired.

If you want to split hairs what prevents shotguns from being made this way?  You disqualify them from this...
 

@JJ

So now the dictionary offers "incorrect definitions."

 

Yes, or "overgeneralized definitions" or "incolmplete definitions."

(just like "inflation" is misdefined in the average university textbook)

Tell me, what source do you reference to discredit the definitions provided by dictionary?

Here is one that is complete.

Autoloader

A firearm that automatically loads the next cartridge to be fired into the chamber either upon the pull of the trigger in an open bolt design or upon the firing of the previous round in a close bolt design.  Over time this term has been shortened to just "auto" and sometimes "automatic" thus creating confusion between a full-auto firearm and a semi-automatic firearm.

Automatic

An fully automatic firearm is capable of sequentially firing two or more cartridges with a single pull of the trigger.  A fully automatic firearm is also called a machine gun.  [This is the typical definition]

Automatic can also refer to a semi-automatic firearm--see Autoloader. [This is merely what I pointed out]

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=35

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/200/2/Guns/Pistols/Colt-Automatic-Pistols.htm

Tell me, why would they categorize them as "automatics" if they aren't "automatics"? Hm?  Because the dictionary (that you referenced) is using the "typical" defintion instead of the definition an actual gun owner and user would use.

I think our Aristophanes has yet again found himself out of his league, and with a foot in his mouth.

Says Canada.

Most people know nothing about guns and use ignorant phrases to describe them.

the implication being, "so should we also"?

Dude, read my last post.  I'm not challenging the accuracy of your statement, just the breadth of it.

if you can do this to any of my guns*, you are the king of all hAAxxx0000Rz and I will call anything you want an automatic, even a double action revolver. But I think you heard this from someone you trust who is totally full of shit. I would like to see some evidence please.

I watched a friend's dad do it to a G-3 he brought home.  And yea, I doubt a rubber band was the case.  He had the firing mechanism taken apart and showed us that the sear block prevents a full auto in the trigger through the firing pin locks.  Bend and file the firing pin (or hammer...I cannot remember) and modify the sear block in order to accept full auto (although I am not sure how he notched it).

Double-action revolvers are self-loading, and capable of repeating fire, yet most of them have manual hammers.

Right, cause they tie the function of the hammer to the cylinder.  This is not controversial.  They are called "double action" to specify their fuction from a standard revolver.

"automatic weapon", "automatic rifle", and "automatic pistol" so that hoplophobes, ignoramuses, and would-be tyrants can shout at each other and remain ignorant of both reality and the conventional vocabulary of the industry they wish to destroy

You think I want to destroy it?

they are not automatic, they are autoloading. They are semiautomatic, hence the term semiautomatic pistol. Automatic weapons are also autoloaders

This was all my point was.  I thought that automatic simply overtook autoloader because automatic is referred to, colloquially, as a machine gun.  A 1911 is still an "automatic," but it is semi automatic.

You said

the term "automatic weapon" typically refers to a weapon (other than a shotgun) that fires more than one round with a single trigger pull.

Using the word "typically" (I assume for the average TV watcher).  You are right "typically" people refer to automatics as machine guns or fully automatics.  All I said was that "automatic" refers to the rechambering not the bullets fired. If you want to split hairs what prevents shotguns from being made this way?  You disqualify them from this...

because when you fire shot out of a shot gun, it releases n (where n>1) projectiles. This is what it was designed to do, which is what makes it a shotgun. 12 gauge 00 buck in 2.5 inch has like 9 pellets that are .3 inch in diameter, or something like that. It releases all those Projectiles when you fire one single round.

my use of the word "typically" was intended to refer to a typical user of firearms, who wouldnt often make a novice mistake like referring to a semiauto as though it were a machine pistol. You are incorrect, as "automatic weapon" refers to a weapon capable of producing automatic fire. So lets quit enabling those who would like to bombard television viewers with agitprop referring to the "automatic weapons" that holmes used to murder over a dozen people. Because he didnt have automatic weapons. He was firing semiauto weapons.

An fully automatic firearm is capable of sequentially firing two or more cartridges with a single pull of the trigger.  A fully automatic firearm is also called a machine gun.  [This is the typical definition]

Automatic can also refer to a semi-automatic firearm--see Autoloader. [This is merely what I pointed out]

Yes it certainly can, but that hardly makes it correct nomenclature. Semantics is inter-subjective. We are talking about weapons, lets use established terminology.

Tell me, why would they categorize them as "automatics" if they aren't "automatics"? Hm?  Because the dictionary (that you referenced) is using the "typical" defintion instead of the definition an actual gun owner and user would use.

thats backwards. The typical definition is the definition that the actual gun owner would use, because gun owners have need to talk about guns, therefore they need a common language. This necessitates the need for a degree of semantic agreement. Whereas non-gun-owners dont typically have a need to discriminate between a semiauto and an automatic weapon, they are less likely to conform to semantic adherance. They can remain ignorant of semantic distinctions, but this is a problem when you live in a place where they might vote for someone who would like to prohibit ownership of autoloading weapons, simply because he convinces them that you can buy a machine gun at the flea market.

Yes it certainly can, but that hardly makes it correct nomenclature.

So, I am not wrong.

You are scared that the people who call the guns the batman nut used "automatic" that you are unwilling to accept the categorization of 'automatic" as "autoloader" in the semantic field.  Sure, you'll admit, as evidenced above, that operationally I am correct, but you don't want to admit that semantically the people who call for gun control are technically correct as well.  Even if they use the term ignorantly.

thats backwards. The typical definition is the definition that the actual gun owner would use, because gun owners have need to talk about guns, therefore they need a common language.

It is not backwards.  It looks that way to you because (paragraph above).

Semantics is inter-subjective. We are talking about weapons, lets use established terminology.

You wish to use the terms as the gun control lobby does...

If they say "ban automatics" but they mean fully automatic guns and I point out that semi-automatic guns have the same automatic function (chambering) then you are worried that semis will get culled as well.

Dude, read my last post.  I'm not challenging the accuracy of your statement, just the breadth of it.

no, whats going on here is that you insist that the definition of term be broadened in order to accommodate the most ignorant element of the general public, completely disregarding previously established nomenclature and the broader consequences of this semantic shift.

I watched a friend's dad do it to a G-3 he brought home.  And yea, I doubt a rubber band was the case.  He had the firing mechanism taken apart and showed us that the sear block prevents a full auto in the trigger through the firing pin locks.  Bend and file the firing pin (or hammer...I cannot remember) and modify the sear block in order to accept full auto (although I am not sure how he notched it).

yah, you can convert guns if you know what youre doing. There are maybe half a percent of gun owners that have the skills to reasonably attempt this task. Most of them are professionals. also, the majority of legally prohibited home gunsmith projects end up badly for those involved, one way or another. I hope your friend's dad was successful.

You think I want to destroy it?

no, I am telling you that your insistence on this definition for this word is enabling the hoplophobia-mongers by equivocating between automatic weapons, which are machine guns; and semi-automatic weapons, which discharge exactly one round per trigger pull.

This was all my point was.  I thought that automatic simply overtook autoloader because automatic is referred to, colloquially, as a machine gun.  A 1911 is still an "automatic," but it is semi automatic.

youre missing an important distinction, the inclusive term is "autoloader." the exclusive terms are "automatic {weapon type}" and "semiautomatic {weapon type}". A select-fire weapon, like a glock 18, is capable of both, and there do exist burst settings on some weapons, that permit the firing of exactly two rounds, exactly three rounds, whatever. These are all autoloaders, but not usually called such, and while some automatic weapons are capable of semiautomatic fire (even switching from open-bolt to closed-bolt operation), they are still automatic weapons because they are capable of automatic fire. Semiautomatic weapons are not capable of automayic fire, hence the necessity of the term "autoloader."

look man, semantics is relative. You can call it whatever you want, but thats going to be out of ignorance, and its going to reveal your ignorance until you change and decide to inform yourself. You seem like youre pretty pro-freedom, you didnt like the unintended implication that you wanted to destroy the gun industry, why not support it by getting yourself something fun and cool like a walther p22 and partaking in the joy of punching holes in paper multiple feet away from you? Its awesome

you insist that the definition of term be broadened in order to accommodate the most ignorant element of the general public,

Right.  I see it optimistically.  If we tell them that semi- and full are distictions between the 'autoloader' then we might enlighten them to think that they must say "machine guns" or else people will roll their eyes and check their holsters.

here are maybe half a percent of gun owners that have the skills to reasonably attempt this task.

Seriously?  My grandpa has a Chinese SKS that he said he modified before steel bullets were illegal (he also has a bucket of steel rounds!!) and it still fires full auto.  I shot it when I was probably 12 years old and still have both my eyes and all my fingers.  He was an engineer on a submarine in the 60's...my friends dad is a rich dude with a lot of time and three very large gun safes.

look man, semantics is relative. You can call it whatever you want, but thats going to be out of ignorance, and its going to reveal your ignorance until you change and decide to inform yourself. You seem like youre pretty pro-freedom, you didnt like the unintended implication that you wanted to destroy the gun industry, why not support it by getting yourself something fun and cool like a walther p22 and partaking in the joy of punching holes in paper multiple feet away from you? Its awesome

Your inclusive/exclusive did it.  I get what you are saying.  And, I was not under the impression that I  was the one enabling the ignorant to make their claims as I thought that by telling them that they are "not specific enough" we could divide 'semi' and 'full auto' along lines that don't use the word "auto."

Also, I have a ruger super blackhawk .44 that was gift from my grandpa (he has all barrell lengths).  It is a western grip.  I haven't shot it in years.  I have tried to get my mom to give me her Ruger SP101 (she has a lady D.E. and both are .357; she doesn't need them both)  And if I had 1,200 bucks to blow on a gun that I'll never shoot I'd get an FN 5-7.  Counter-Strike that shit!

Aristophanes:

Tell me, what source do you reference to discredit the definitions provided by dictionary?

Here is one that is complete.  [http://www.boomershoot.org]