Uncle reports they can’t help it. It’s just a condition. Jed read the report and took away that people “become deaf to arguments of reason”.
I think it’s a fascinating insight into the human mind. And my take is different from both Uncle and Jed. My take is that we need to carefully word things to avoid reinforcing the very lies the anti-gun bigots are trying to convince people of. This is very closely related to something Alan Korwin shared via email over seven years ago. Here is just a sample of Alan’s brilliant, ahead of his time, insight:
Certain words hurt you when you’re talking about your rights. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you’re probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROLIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENTIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRYIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPONIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALSIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNSIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINESIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENTIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS
I tend to use a lot of these terms anyway. Of course, some of them are interchangeable, depending on your audience… but when I’m talking to antis or fence-sitters, I err on the side of more “friendly” terms. Still, most of the readers on my blog agree with me, so a little fist-shaking and “harumph harumph” won’t hurt our cause. When the occasional anti does post a comment on my blog, my response is friendly, diplomatic, and using correct “Susie-Soccer-Mom-friendly” terminology.
I am with Uncle on the one that says full capacity magazines should state “standard capacity magazines”
I might say gun bigotry or gun prejudice instead of anti-gun bigot/prejudice to try and stay away from their buzzword altogether.
I’m in full agreement with the “standard capacity” tweak to Korwin’s suggestion. My main point was that Korwin came up with a brilliant idea a long time ago and we should understand the fundementals of his insight and run with it.