Gun Control & RKBA

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts) Sat Dec 12, 2015, 03:42 PM Dec 2015

When talking about guns, terms matter. (repost from GD)

( A repost from GD)

Interesting read from the LA times, about how definitions matter in the gun debate, I fully agree with his assessment. It is very hard to discuss the relevant issues at hand, with someone who, in their very posting prove they know next to nothing about the subject at hand.

The author uses the example of dogs to show too non-gun knowledgeable folks, what the conversation looks like to someone who actually knows the subject at hand.

If you think precision doesn't matter, forget about guns for a second. Imagine I'm concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I'm explaining my views to you, a dog trainer — but I have no grasp of dog terminology.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights, but we need to do something about pit bulls. We need restrictions on owning an attack dog.

You: Wait. What's an “attack dog”?

Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.

You: Huh? Pit bulls aren't military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?

Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.

You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.

Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.

You: Hounds? Seriously?

Me: OK, maybe not actually “hounds.” Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with violent dogs the way you are. But we can identify breeds that civilians just don't need to own.

You: Apparently not.

Before we can have a serious conversation, their must be a base of knowledge so at least both sides will know what they are talking about. Very interesting read!

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1213-white-productive-gun-debate-20151213-story.html

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When talking about guns, terms matter. (repost from GD) (Original Post) virginia mountainman Dec 2015 OP

That is pure unadulterated obfuscation. upaloopa Dec 2015 #1

Evidently you do.. virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #2

WaPo had a piece yesterday TeddyR Dec 2015 #3

What doesn't seem to sink in with you....... pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #9

That piece was criticizing broad ignorant statements about "assault weapons"... benEzra Dec 2015 #10

Imagine the difficulty you would have... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author deathrind Dec 2015 #5

Looks like you struck a nerve. beevul Dec 2015 #6

Using terminology loosely (read poorly) serves the agenda of The Controllers...... pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #7

This^^^^ beevul Dec 2015 #8

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)

1. That is pure unadulterated obfuscation.

Reply to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2015, 03:50 PM

Dec 2015

I don't need to know shit about guns to support background checks or national registration.

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)

2. Evidently you do..

Reply to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 12, 2015, 03:55 PM

Dec 2015

because somehow background check bills, end up making illegal to even hand a gun to someone else in your backyard for some odd reason..

If you want to legislate, you MUST know the subject at hand..

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)

3. WaPo had a piece yesterday

Reply to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 12, 2015, 03:59 PM

Dec 2015

Pointing out that UBCs have basically no impact on mass shootings. Guns aren't the problem - felons with guns, kids with guns, poverty, etc. Those are the problems, but dealing with those issues are complicated, and it is a lot easier to blame "gunz."

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)

9. What doesn't seem to sink in with you.......

Reply to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 02:51 PM

Dec 2015

..........is that you will get exactly nowhere pushing registration. But keep that rhetoric flowing. The sooner Democrats bottom out on unstudied tactics, the sooner we'll stop sustaining political losses.

benEzra

(12,148 posts)

10. That piece was criticizing broad ignorant statements about "assault weapons"...

Reply to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 11:39 AM

Dec 2015

which are ordinary one-shot-at-a-time civilian rifles that kill fewer Americans annually than bicycles, but which a lot of journalists and fence-sitters think are military-grade automatic weapons. A lot of people also seem to think that "semiautomatic" means military bullet hoses rather than ordinary civilian guns, which is another blooper the op-ed criticized.

The dog breed analogy is actually a pretty good one.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,577 posts)

4. Imagine the difficulty you would have...

Reply to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2015, 06:12 PM

Dec 2015

...if someone could lie to you or exaggerate in an article or news story, you just couldn't tell because you're unfamiliar with the details. I'm an engineer; I work in software and systems environments and work a great deal with technical requirements. I know first hand the value of a statement that articulates a concise thought at the relevant level of detail. I can tell you that in almost all cases having the patience to learn the vocabulary of most pursuits will enable you know when you're hearing exaggerations or plain old lies and enable you to know when someone is simply trying to confuse you.

I am always suspicious of someone who advocates some sweeping set of restrictions but demonstrates their inability to have a debate in plain language. I accept that most of what's needed to learn about anything technical (like guns) is basically enough patience to continue the pursuit of knowledge in the face of dry and boring information. Many gun owners, shooters, collectors and firearm hobbyists don't find these details boring. I suppose this is a major source of frustration for many folks that feel more restrictions are needed.

Thanks for your patience. I guess I ramble a bit.