Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Awesome Power of Words

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    We always speak of things and people being "pro-gun" or "anti-gun."
    • Pro-gun legislation
    • Anti-Gun legislation
    • Pro-Gun establishments
    • Anti-Gun establishments
    • etc.
    We go to great lengths to convince people that a gun is just an inanimate object, with no conscience or special properties. We try to divorce the object from the actions of the person acting. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

    Suggestion:

    I propose a 'ban' on the terms pro-gun and anti-gun in all correspondence, postings, etc.

    We need to replace these phrases with "pro-gun owner" and "anti-gun owner."

    This will help put the human element back and focus the attention where it belongs, on the human rather than the object.

    I know it's a subtle bit of semantics, but it seems to me that a politician being anti-gun is one thing, but being anti-gun owner makes it personal.

    Objects have no rights, people, however, do.

    Expressing hatred for an 'object' is much more acceptable in today's culture than expressing hatred for a class of people.

    "Why is your business anti-gun?" is an easy question for a merchant to answer. [perhaps not logically, but easy, nonetheless. - for the safety of our customers]

    "Why is your business anti-gun owner?" on the other hand is a bit more difficult because it requires some actual thought to answer.


    JMHO

    Egg
    http://www.the-eggman.com

    "Never pick a fight with an old spy, if he doesn't feel like fighting he'll just kill you."
    "Never pick a fight with an old spy. If he doesn't feel like fighting he'll just kill you."

    T.S. Eggleston, DmAt, MSI - aka The Eggman
    www.TheEggman.com
    www.TheEgglestonGroup.com

    "If You Can't Be Free, At Leat Be Irritating"

  2. #2
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    I think we should, when possible, replace "gun" with "self defense". Self defense bypasses predisposed emotions surfaced by the word "gun" and creates an intent in being ALLOWED to possess specific tools.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    From the viewpoint of the 'uninitiated' which 'sounds' more frightening?

    I carry a gun.

    I carry a defensive sidearm.

    Semantics and games, yes, but the other side plays it as well, calling more than one gun a 'small arsenal,' and if any of them are 'ugly guns' then they become a 'cache of military-style assault weapons.

    I'm not suggesting that anyone resort to political correctness, but if we're to get a point across we have to get them not just listening, but hearing as well.

    "Guns are merely inanimate objects. You can't be anti-gun without being anti-gun owner."
    "Never pick a fight with an old spy. If he doesn't feel like fighting he'll just kill you."

    T.S. Eggleston, DmAt, MSI - aka The Eggman
    www.TheEggman.com
    www.TheEgglestonGroup.com

    "If You Can't Be Free, At Leat Be Irritating"

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    This has come up before.

    I prefer pro-rights and anti-rights.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  5. #5
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    heh I had a great conversation with a friend - this topic hits a good nail.

    He was rambling on as a 'ban all guns' person and brought up the night time home invasion scenario. Before I could address the specifics of my actions, he'd shout out additional "what if's" and shooting drunk neighbors and confused kids and I was just a killer who happily, and unremorsefully (?) shoot anything that walked by. I got tired of being cut off mid sentence.

    I asked if he was actually interested in answers or if he just wanted to sit and insult my intelligence all night. "This is me you're talking about. Don't take the human element out and replace it with a gun". I explained the actions, tactics, decisions and words I'd use. I walked the scenario, including his interjections that heightened the stress of the confrontation. It ended with me establishing it was my drunk neighbor coming home from the bar who went to the wrong house. Situation diffused.

    Oddly enough, my inebriated husband next to us made my point for me. He clumsily shouted about taking no chances with his wife in the house and he'd be damned if he let some degenerate hurt us because he go so drunk he can't get home etc etc. The result, he shot our neighbor. Let it be noted I don't approve and it will be corrected.

    As I sit as the creamy filling in a loud shouting match of an Oreo cookie, I get both to turn it off for a second. "So?"

    My friend continues the rant "He shot him! He shot him! You see!". I look him squarely in the eye and say, "Yes, he did. But I had a gun too and he didn't get shot. What was the difference?"


    ...."uhhh, well...uhh"


    :celebrate That's right, the decisions of the person with the gun.


    Ok, apologies for the tangeant. My point was that I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be the degree of human and person rather than the object. It is easier to fight against something/someone when you do not consider them a human life.





  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    The OP makes an interesting point. Making this battle a human issue rather than one over an object, seems to be a more appropriate stratagy.

    From my experience in debating those we call "anti-gunners" it seems that arguing a human issue would totally confuse them. They don't seem to respect humanity as much as they claim. They're eat up with some sort of imaginary guilt about being human and always try to project their guilt onto the rest of us.

    However, there is still a large segment of the population that can still identify with being human and turning the debate into a "human issue" may sway that group to our side.

    We could also argue what firearms mean to both sides of the issue.

    To the anti's,firearms mean murder and mayhem. All who own guns are barbarians with nefarious tendencies.

    Though we concede that firearms firearms can be used for doing bad things, we also see them as an offset of "bad" when in the hands of good people. For us, firearms means independance, determination, freedom and liberty, defianceof opprerssion, and food on the table. And we wonder how anyone can be against any of that?

    Shorts touched on a really good point. The anti-independence bunch have a problem with making decisions. I don't know for sure if it's that they don't like to make decisions, or that they can't. On another site a few of us pro-(what ever we shall call ourselves) called out the anti's. We posed several simple questions to them. multiple choice, answer "A" or answer "B". Not a single one of them would offer to answer our queries. I think they are jealous that we can exercise free choice and they can't, so they want to take our options away.

    So, here's my suggestions for labels:

    • Pro-Independence vs Anti-Independence
    • Pro-Liberty vs Anti-Liberty
    • Pro-Freedom vs Anti-Freedom
    • Pro-Defense vs Anti-Defense
    • Pro-Defiant vs Anti-Defiant

    Take your pick


  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    ^No, don't do that. You're having the same problem all over again. Call things what they are. Making manipulative use of words or catch phrases just lowers you to the same level as the other side with their propoganda.

    TheEggman wrote:
    We always speak of things and people being "pro-gun" or "anti-gun."
    • Pro-gun legislation
    • Anti-Gun legislation
    • Pro-Gun establishments
    • Anti-Gun establishments
    • etc.

    I'm glad someone finally pointed this out. It's just like the politically charged (and laughable) terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Who isn't pro-life? Who isn't pro-choice? Call them what they are, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, anti- gun rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •