BUR #51175 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication em-2 -> assault_rifle
A predecessor to the British L85.
Posted under Tags
BUR #51175 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication em-2 -> assault_rifle
A predecessor to the British L85.
Same problem mentioned in topic #33398, you can't always tell that it's a bullpup.
evazion said:
Same problem mentioned in topic #33398, you can't always tell that it's a bullpup.
Doesn't this apply to every single rifle out there? Any model could be drawn cropped, we'd have to unimply all of them if we follow this logic.
Updated by nonamethanks
nonamethanks said:
Doesn't this apply to every single rifle out there? Any model could be drawn cropped, we'd have to unimply all of them if we follow this logic.
Well, if we unimplied them and then did similar with stuff like tanks, that would resolve one of the issues surrounding original military personifications, but that's out of the scope of this discussion.
The BUR was edited. It originally tried to imply bullpup too, but in order to tell something is a bullpup, you have to be able to see the magazine (in a bullpup, the magazine goes behind the trigger, rather than in front like a normal gun).
It's the same thing as discussed in topic #30571. A AKS-74 has a folding stock, but you can't always see the stock so it can't imply folding stock. A car has wheels, but you can't always see the wheels so car can't imply wheel. In general, these are part-whole implications. Part-whole implications are no good because even though an object may require a certain part, you can't always see the part.
The bulk update request #51175 (forum #400471) has been approved by @evazion.