Brian Peacock wrote:Forty Two wrote:... The trouble with the gun control side is they don't come to the table speaking gun language, and often appear to gun advocates as not knowing what they're talking about, and the result is often that the gun control side proposes vague and overly broad regulations which they think are targeted at scary, military weapons, when in fact they include normal hunting weapons as well.
The religious say the same thing about their special interest when an atheists puts them on the spot.
That's a different issue. The gun side is more like the climate science side. The anti-climate change side comes to the table not speaking climate science language, and often appear to climate change scientists as not knowing what they're talkinga bout. The result is foten that the anti-climate change side proposes vague oppositional arguments, which make no sense in relation to actual climate science. This frustrates climate scientists and people who have worked to understand the science.
Another example is evolution. The anti-evolution folks come to the table not speaking the language of biology. They appear to biologists and anyone who understands even the basics of biology as not knowing what they're talking about. It's hard to discuss an issue with someone who comes across as not having tried to understand the topic.
In the gun context, this happens over, and over, and over again in the context of machine guns and assault rifles. The pro-gun folks react in dismay and often with laughter at anti-gun people who come to the table discussing how nobody needs a machine gun, an automatic weapon or an assault rifle. It's obvious why they would be dismayed and amused by such arguments from the anti-gunners. It's because the anti-gunners are not referring to machine guns, automatic weapons and assault rifles, when they refer to getting rid of them, or people not needing them. They use those words, but since those types of weapons are completely controlled already, the anti-gun folks are actually referring to weapons which are not machine guns, automatic, or assault rifles - they are referring to semiautomatic rifles.
When someone who is familiar with guns hears those arguments, they are handed an easy way to just hand-wave the argument away. "Machine guns, automatic weapons and assault rifles are already effectively/essentially banned," and hardly anybody can feasibly own them, so there's nothing to talk about there. Then they can laugh and say "you think the ______ gun looks scary so you want it banned, even though it's no more deadly - and arguably less so -- than many other weapons which look more like traditional hunting rifles..."
Some form of that argument occurs over, and over, and over again, and it just goes around in circles. The gun regulation movement, to succeed in convincing gun owners to support gun regulation, has to speak their language, and offer solutions that make sense in that language.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
