You will tell me that this is not the worst problem in either the media or our societies, and I will agree. Although it may be related to more serious problems or inspire some inquiry in the economics of language, you may consider this post as a light midsummer piece. Reporting on a murder mystery, the Wall Street Journal writes, speaking of a sheriff’s deputy (“A Hiker Died With a Bullet in His Chest. Why Did Police Say He Was Stabbed by a Stick?” July 12, 2023):
He didn’t see any bullet wounds in the puppy, and after searching the area for 25 minutes, he couldn’t find any shell casings.
As the story headline says, not only had the puppy been shot, but his master too. Here, I am focusing on the muddled terminology.
The deputy sheriff would not be looking for “shell casings” except if he had already seen a wound or wounds typical of a shotgun blast. Only shotgun shells have “shell casings,” because the whole cartridge is called a “shell.” A pistol or a rifle typically fires a single bullet propelled from the end of a metal (usually brass) “case” or simply “casing” containing the powder; together, the bullet and the casing are called “cartridge.” A shotgun shell casing, mainly made of plastic, contains a large number of pellets on top of the powder. True, there is the exception of shotgun shells that contain only one “bullet” commonly called “slug.” The other exception is revolver shotshells, designed for snakes and unlikely to kill a dog or a man. It would be surprising if the deputy sheriff had sloppily spoken of “shell casings” while he was looking for all sorts of casings.
If the deputy sheriff really said he was looking for “shell casings,” it would suggest that he was not exactly on top of his job, as his failure to identify a bullet wound on the dead hiker would confirm. By definition, of course, murder mysteries raise many questions.
This being said, the reporter may not be allowed to go scot-free. Ignorance of firearm basics (it is not rocket science) seems to be systemic in the media and, alas, not only in European or Canadian media—where we should not be overly surprised to find that they can’t distinguish a rifle from a broomstick. I suppose that ordinary individuals, as opposed to state agents or their war conscripts, should not know about these things. In a previous EconLog post on a related topic, I wrote:
Perhaps it should be a condition of the job, even in America sadly, that journalists and their editors own and shoot guns.
READER COMMENTS
Monte
Jul 13 2023 at 1:28pm
Now that’s what I would call adversarial journalism…
Craig
Jul 13 2023 at 1:40pm
And here I am thinking the pen is mightier than the sword, no?
KevinT
Jul 13 2023 at 4:30pm
It might be the case (casing?) that the journalist, not the officer, is the person who confused the terminology. Many years ago, there was a front-page article in the WSJ about gun violence. Very early in the article, the journalist discussed how, in the old days, handguns were revolvers that required the trigger be pulled for each shot. But, today’s handguns were pistols (e.g. 9mm Ruger) that fired multiple bullets for each trigger pull. Complete nonsense, but many readers who had only the foggiest of notions regarding guns might easily believe it.
steve
Jul 13 2023 at 2:56pm
If you dont already, you might want to read John McWhorter. I think this is a linguistic issue now. At the pistol range where I shoot many people refer to them as shell casings and no one bats an eye, including the guys who go apoplectic every time some liberal confuses clips and magazines or doesnt know what an automatic weapon is when they write about guns. Gun stores sometimes refer to them that way. I have never seen it done in an official NRA publication or Guns and Ammo but in gun chat groups and blogs you often see the terminology go back and forth. Anyway, as McWhorter points out language changes and we gradually accept the new meanings.
I suspect economists have to deal with he same problem and if I had a nickel for every time someone screws up some medical term I could have retired early. However, some of those wrong terms are used so often I now use them also since I got tired of correcting people and I wanted people to know what I meant and most of the time it doesnt matter that much other than offending my fussy pedant side.
Steve
Jeff
Jul 13 2023 at 4:52pm
I agree that most people in the US know that shell casings can refer to pistol or rifle cartridges too. Also, when artillery is used for “shelling” the enemy, they are not shooting shotguns.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 13 2023 at 5:13pm
Steve: Nobody is perfect, of course. As I point out, what I talked about appears to be a systemic problem in the media. (I am using “systemic” in an extended sense, like it is fashionable to do!)
John hare
Jul 13 2023 at 4:12pm
I once had some people quite upset with me calling a revolver a pistol.
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 13 2023 at 5:20pm
John: Tintin and Captain Haddock called pistols revolvers, as if the latter term was the generic one. But it might be because Hergé (the author) knew as much about guns as journalists! He made policemen in NYC carry semi-autos, decades before they started substituting them for revolvers! Of course, I agree with you that the American usage is clear and I share your indignation.
john hare
Jul 13 2023 at 5:51pm
Not real sure where I am on the issue compared to most. To me, revolver is the mechanism along with blow back, short recoil, and gas operated. Pistol is one that can be fired with one hand (though mostly use two for control) and rifles/carbines and such are shoulder fired. Though there are many interesting sidelines such as the Colt revolving rifle, the Dardick, and the Gyrojet.
Comments are closed.