"Gun owners"

OC for ME said:

What people?

"Prius owners"
"Tesla owners"
"Dog owners"
"Glock owners"

Context is everything.....if you are overly sensitive to context.

Being worried about what the anti-liberty crowd thinks of "gun owners" is a rock that is being pushed up hill.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to suggest. Some people use "gun owners" to portray a negative meaning, illegitimately. When "gun owners" use the same term "gun owners," even if they do not intend to portray the same meaning as those using it illegitimately or negatively, they're unnecessarily lending validity to the negative use of the term. (ETA: Not sure if it's even relevant that even when the term is used not to be malicious it's still lazily inaccurate - who has ever said "all gun owners" and literally meant every person that owns a gun?) When people read "gun owners" they will not stop and think about what it means in the context that it is used in and whether or not it's valid in that context, they will automatically recognize it. There's no use for it but laziness. Don't allow people to think lazily when it leads to harmful and false conclusions, misrepresentations. It is very simple to use a different term to spur deeper thought, better and more accurate conclusions and understandings.

Moreover it appears that you think I'm having a fit over the use of this term... Not in the least. I just made an observation that I thought was interesting, and that some others might find interesting as well. I, personally, will probably try to avoid using the term "gun owners." You're of course free to keep using it, and I probably won't say a word about it. From time to time when someone uses it negatively and incorrectly, to try and be sly and deceitful, I'll probably call them out on it as I have in the past. Shouldn't affect you one bit.

ETA2: Couldn't we all agree that one of the problems with society, and one of the problems that fosters opposition to rights, and particularly the RKBA, is that people simply do not think enough? Then why would it be a bad thing to make minor adjustments to your terminology to help spur deeper thought in people? It's not about a "sensitivity" to "correctness" it's about helping people not fall victim to purposefully misleading catch phrases and buzzwording.

stealthyeliminator said:

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to suggest. ....

Click to expand...

What is interesting about your suggestion is that a simple descriptor is so easily sliced and diced to fit a certain agenda. I guess we could segregate "gun owners" into firearm owners vs. gun owners. Would this provide the fidelity that you seek. The illegitimate use of a gun/firearm is what it is. I could just as easily use firearm owner in a negative context as is gun owner. The focus on descriptors is important from time to time but in the general sense gun owner is neither negative or positive, in my view.

YMMV

OC for ME said:

You? Law abiding? Prove it. A lack of you being arrested is not evidence that you are law abiding.

Words do mean things, especially to the overly sensitive crowd.

If you own a car you are a car owner and potentially a lethal threat to your fellow motorists....

Click to expand...

And as far as I know, sirrah, you are a potential child rapist and eater of the still-beating hearts of virgins.

As far as that desire for proof that I am law-abiding? I give you not merely the verdict of my criminal trial but the honorable judge's comment that at least at the time of both the alleged offense and the resolution of the criminal charge it wa perfectly legal to point one's finger at another person.

As for the comment about not being arrested not being a metric for law-abiding-ness? Is it now my fault that the police are concentrating on jaywalkers and little children operating lemonade stands without Health Department certification?

There is help for the overly-sensitive crowd. Lately I have been buying it in the bulkpaks.


stay safe

OC for ME said:

What is interesting about your suggestion is that a simple descriptor is so easily sliced and diced to fit a certain agenda. I guess we could segregate "gun owners" into firearm owners vs. gun owners. Would this provide the fidelity that you seek. The illegitimate use of a gun/firearm is what it is. I could just as easily use firearm owner in a negative context as is gun owner. The focus on descriptors is important from time to time but in the general sense gun owner is neither negative or positive, in my view.

YMMV

Click to expand...

I can't tell if we're on the same page or not but I think maybe. You are probably tired of me, seemed to be by first post, but,

Yes, it is so easily sliced and diced to fit an agenda. The reason I brought this up is because I see this often used against me and others like me. It isn't a sensitivity to accuracy, it's a defense to being attacked by snake-like privilege and status seekers. When people say gun owners they almost never mean it literally. There's nothing inherently malicious about it, and really in most cases it's not even a bad thing. What is meant is understood even though the term being used is inaccurate. That's not a problem. But people take advantage of this fact often to pit an imaginary brotherhood against people they don't agree with, while trying to subconsciously persuade the readers that they are a part of this brotherhood because they own a firearm.