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

[virginia mountainman]

( 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

[upaloopa]

1. That is pure unadulterated obfuscation.

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

[virginia mountainman]

2. Evidently you do..

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]

3. WaPo had a piece yesterday

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]

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

..........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]

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

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]

4. Imagine the difficulty you would have...

...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.

[beevul]

6. Looks like you struck a nerve.

The truth hurts I guess.

[pablo_marmol]

7. Using terminology loosely (read poorly) serves the agenda of The Controllers......

........which is to muddy the discussion.

Recall the "Never Argue with an Idiot" rule.

Edited to add: Strong OP

[beevul]

8. This^^^^

Unvarnished truth.