When Education Could Be Our Enemy

[Howland937]

https://www.businessinsider.com/terms-to-know-about-guns-when-discussing-mass-shootings-2019-8

I'd just finished reading this article, and it seems someone is trying to educate the anti-gun crowd. I'm not insinuating that most of them are ignorant, or even that a lot of them are. Sure, plenty just hate guns (or perhaps just the EVIL guns anyway)

What worries me more is the thought of a collective effort on that side, to learn and be better prepared in their arguments. When people can't be dismissed over semantics, then a more substantive discussion will be necessary.

These may not be the folks testifying in front of congress or advising the president. They will undoubtedly be arguing in the court of public opinion though and possibly be better informed than ever.

 

[AlexanderA]

To the antigun crowd (and even to the general public), proper terminology about guns is irrelevant. Don't make the mistake of going down that rabbit hole.

 

[Howland937]

The point is, proper terminology has only been important to us this entire time. The article attempting to inform the anti-gun community of the nuances of certain words or descriptors is only going to give them knowledge to support their arguments.

 

[earlthegoat2]

The knowledge is out there. As much as I wish our opponents were uneducated and dumb, they are not in either regard. In fact I welcome people to have and gain more knowledge.

Do we also wish less people participated in the democratic process (voting) in the hopes there would have been less Democrat voters? I’m sure many do but that is a very shortsighted belief. Kind of like the belief that if you take away the guns then the violent crimes will end. Shortsighted. And yes, I am aware many liberals would not balk at suppressing conservative votes and that is the same problem. Unfortunately, it is all tainted. None virtuous.

I guess I don’t see the problem with antis using the verbiage that the pro-gun supporters typically use. I see a bigger problem with their beliefs, motives, endurance, interpretations, and actions.

 

[Hartkopf]

I’m surprised the antis worry about correct terminology when facts do not matter in most of their arguments. Outright lying or making up new facts and repeating them until they are accepted seems common now. Because of this, I guess I’m not really concerned about antis learning correct terminology. It won’t change their feelings and I don’t think it will change the outcome of their arguments.

 

[Usonia3]

That business insider article should be required reading for anyone campaigning for commonsense gun laws. Knowledge is power, as another poster mentioned.

 

[Howland937]

Knowledge is power, as another poster mentioned.

That was the premise of my OP. To say that if they take it seriously enough to learn, so they can at least try to know what they're talking about, it ain't gonna get any easier for us. For certain.

 

[Usonia3]

A lttle history about the term 'assault rifle', as we know it today. The July, 1981 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine, had those words slashed across the cover. Big article in side, the author giddy about the 'new gun'. Soon after, a second gun writer used that term.

 

[hso]

someone is trying to educate the anti-gun crowd

You miss an important point. Antis are not winning arguments using logic and facts. They don't care about those because the NSF, CDC, DOJ, and FBI all present facts that support our fact based arguments. They use emotion, empathy, and stories of personal and individual tragedy that people can "feel" and identify with. They're not interested in facts. They're interested in how they can make people feel. It matters not one iota if they get the terminology correct because it doesn't have an effect on how people feel. OUR mistake is thinking that logic and data and facts are all that are relevant and they focus on defining what the truth is for people.

 

[Howland937]

They're not interested in facts. They're interested in how they can make people feel. It matters not one iota if they get the terminology correct because it doesn't have an effect on how people feel.

I do understand how that's been the basis of everything they've attempted in the past. My concern is that an attempt could be made to actually argue "facts". The referenced article shows that at least one of them are trying that approach. They already know how to pull on heartstrings and that's only gotten them so far. Appearing informed with correct terminology and pseudo facts can only make them more dangerous.

 

[mcb]

If I ever felt that, "Education Could Be Our Enemy" on a particular issue I hope I would realize I am then probably on the wrong side of the issue.

If both side of the gun control argument are equally educated I have no doubt that would NOT resolve the issue but at lease we could all be conversing on the same page. I think the more educated both sides are on firearms and the laws surrounding them the better off the pro-gun side will ultimately be.

 

[hso]

My concern is that an attempt could be made to actually argue "facts".

Facts are an ineffective approach when dealing with these issues. As a scientist I've based most of my worldview on facts being the basis for decisions, but I had to come to accept that I'm in the minority and that marketing and politics and persuasion are based on emotional content, empathy, and reliability.

Yes, we should be aware when Antis actually use facts instead of appeals to emotion, but we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that the appeal to emotion is what we should be using to counter the antis.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

https://www.businessinsider.com/terms-to-know-about-guns-when-discussing-mass-shootings-2019-8

I'd just finished reading this article, and it seems someone is trying to educate the anti-gun crowd. I'm not insinuating that most of them are ignorant, or even that a lot of them are. Sure, plenty just hate guns (or perhaps just the EVIL guns anyway)

What worries me more is the thought of a collective effort on that side, to learn and be better prepared in their arguments. When people can't be dismissed over semantics, then a more substantive discussion will be necessary.

These may not be the folks testifying in front of congress or advising the president. They will undoubtedly be arguing in the court of public opinion though and possibly be better informed than ever.

Seemed like a good article to me. I don't see a problem with our opponents having a better knowledge/understanding of what they're discussing. As nit picky as many gun owners are about terminology, I'm surprised any of them would have a problem here.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

To the antigun crowd (and even to the general public), proper terminology about guns is irrelevant. Don't make the mistake of going down that rabbit hole.

Because it is irrelevant.

The point is, proper terminology has only been important to us this entire time. The article attempting to inform the anti-gun community of the nuances of certain words or descriptors is only going to give them knowledge to support their arguments.

True but they never needed that knowledge of our approved terminology. TBH, I am so sick of the debate over semantics. What is important is effective communication. When someone says "assault rifle," you know darn well they are referring to an AR15, AK47, or similar. Yes, yes, I know, I know...legal definition...select fire...bla bla bla. You know what they mean, why play games with it? When I was in the Army we were taught to stay off the "happy switch" and almost never...ever fire full auto. Aimed, semi auto fire was paramount. So, if even the Army is using their M16s like it were an AR15, why do gun owners make a big deal about it? It's an assault rifle. It's identical in every way (other than the safe/fire switch and the associated parts) to an M16. Accept it and move on.

Same thing with magazine and clip. If you and I are at the range shooting our AR15s and I say, hand me another clip, you know darn well what I'm referring to. Yes, yes, I know, I know...magazines are boxes with springs and clips are metal clip. Who cares? They both feed ammo into a gun. Why should it matter?

This is like arguing over whether to call a can of carbonated, high fructose corn sugar a soda or a pop.

ETA PS: If the only argument you have to support ownership of an AR15 is semantic, you've already lost.

 

[danez71]

If I ever felt that, "Education Could Be Our Enemy" on a particular issue I hope I would realize I am then probably on the wrong side of the issue.

If both side of the gun control argument are equally educated I have no doubt that would NOT resolve the issue but at lease we could all be conversing on the same page. I think the more educated both sides are on firearms and the laws surrounding them the better off the pro-gun side will ultimately be.

I agree.

If someone said breathing oxygen makes a person considered a human... being dismissive by countering that a person breaths air doesn't resonate as an effective counter point to win the debate.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Malum prohibitum laws on objects, substances, or even some acts do not deter persons with motive and intent to commit an overt act that is malum in se.

If enough people believe that that their use of the prohibited thing benefits themselves, does not harm others, and is a right or even just a private matter, banning alcohol, marijuana, erotic literature, abortion, Absinth, "assault weapons", whatever, will strengthen acceptance of a black market in the prohibited thing and criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens.

You can ban things no one wants (lethally defective teddy bears, baby cribs, car seats). When you start banning things that a minority abuse, and declare A War On things that a majority use with either no harm or with some benefits, you breed contempt for the law.

It does the dignity of the law no good to pass unenforceable statutes that undermine respect for the law. Prohibition laws do that. That should be the message.

 

[Howland937]

Yes, we should be aware when Antis actually use facts instead of appeals to emotion, but we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that the appeal to emotion is what we should be using to counter the antis

Thank you. That illustrates my concern better than I was able to. If our adversaries are willing to learn and adapt to counter our best tactics, we have to be willing to evolve to do the same.

 

[Basura Blanca]

What worries me more is the thought of a collective effort on that side, to learn and be better prepared in their arguments.

It's already happened.
Here's an example of our own information coming back to haunt us.

The Cliffsnotes version of this is:
A statistical figure regarding the average number of rounds fired in a defensive shooting (2.2) was casually crafted from a digest of NRA articles and has replicated itself into a pseudo-fact which is being inserted into the general knowledge bank. And that figure just happened to find its way into being a part of an argument in a case about limiting magazine capacities. It's a great example of the opposition using our own information against us. A less specific example is the trend toward so-called "red flag" laws. Remember, amidst a backdrop of high profile shootings, we were the ones driving the narrative that mental health is the issue, not guns. The opposition took that ball and ran with it.

The moral of all this is we need to choose our words carefully. Even the term "anti" (although I use it) should be shunned. It comes off as juvenile in the real world.

 

[1942bull]

Personally, I think the best way to protect 2A rights is to advocate for them as forcefully as the Anti 2A folks advocate to take those rights away. I don’t mean advocate in just the legislative or judicial sense. I mean taking the message to the the people. I live in a retirement community. Everyone here is over 55. Most have never held a gun. When I hear any of them speaking poorly of gun owners I speak up and point out that I am a gun owner and they know I am not what they are saying gun owners are. I have made sure that all immediate neighbors know I have and carry a pistol. No one seems to be upset about it because they know I am not whacko. The only folks who can convince others that most gun owners are good, sensible, and responsible is us. We have to speak up and create a better impression of ourselves.

 

[shafter]

You can't win an emotional argument with logic. Battles are won in the trenches, not on the high road.

 

[jmorris]

I think the battle is lost if you think an educated and logical assessment of an argument would favor an opposing point of view. Would certainly have me reassess the views I hold, could you prove them wrong.

No, I’ll stick with facts and present them as needed. You know, things like the areas of our Country with the most crimes commented involving firearms being the most restrictive places to possess one. Acknowledge that single fact and try and push for more....

It’s only in fairytale land do we get the emotional and illogical “If we got rid of them all...” or “We’ve got to do something.” Arguments that have no basis in reality or just actions that make one feel better without even remotely addressing the problem they wanted to rectify.

 

[airfoil]

Whenever I hear the phrase 'common sense' used by politicians...I know it is anything but.