this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
177 points (94.5% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3543 readers
67 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Screwthehole 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's extremely poorly worded, as the word weapon is not the same as the word shell or ammunition. In fact, that's why we have separate words for both. I'd have thought people with English degrees (journalists still need education right?) would know these things.

But I'm not a journalist, so I guess they know best right? πŸ˜…

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, certainly that can't be an intentional choice. That would violate the entire oath of journalism. The people rely on them.

[–] Dellyjonut 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is it poorly worded? You refer to guns by their bore size.

[–] Vorticity 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If it confused a bunch of people, I'd say it's poorly worded. "A gun the length of a toothbrush" made me think of a small pistol not a cannon.

[–] starman2112 3 points 1 year ago

That's because british journalists are incredibly stupid. Industry standard is to refer to weapons by their bore–you don't call a Glock 19 a 185mm handgun, after all.