Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
First Learn Our Language, Then We Can Have a Conversation
Once again, Democrats are calling for a “conversation” about guns in America. But when a state-enforced ban and confiscation of semi-automatic firearms is one of their talking points, it’s hard to believe a “conversation” is what they really want. Would we be having a “conversation” about the First Amendment if they were proposing to ban whole categories of news outlets or implement background checks for journalists? I would doubt the sincerity of anyone suggesting such things, and I doubt the sincerity of anyone proposing universal background checks for gun owners, too.
The anti-gunners believe that if they talk enough at gun owners, we’ll see the light (their light), trust in their good intentions, and turn in our guns. The problem is that they have no clue how you actually talk about guns, as California State Senator Kevin de Leon (D) will now demonstrate:
It’s like a someone cut up an issue of Guns & Ammo, turned it into magnetic poetry, then handed it to Senator de Leon to read at the press conference.
Even supposedly mainstream media outlets routinely show off their ignorance about how guns work, undermining their authority to speak on the subject. The Huffington Post makes a rookie error in the first few paragraphs of this article on an upcoming Supreme Court case by referring to “ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds.”
This simple, avoidable mistake undermines the HuffPo’s authority to speak about gun rights in America. It showcases their ignorance about their subject instead of presenting them as a reliable source of facts about a contentious issue. Would you trust a sports magazine that calls a baseball bat a “mallet,” or a talks about the fourth quarter of a hockey game?
Me neither.
For those of you who don’t understand the difference, a clip organizes and holds ammunition prior to insertion in the firearm, and a magazine is where the ammo goes inside the gun itself. “Clip” has become the generic term for a magazine, but it’s a misnomer. A clip is definitely different than a magazine, as I will now demonstrate in terms anyone can understand:
Any questions?
Published in Domestic Policy, General, Guns
None. That’s perfectly clear to me now. Thank you.
Kevin,
Right now Israel’s highly restrictive gun carry laws are causing plenty of concern. People are carrying pepper spray or anything else they can think of. I really appreciate your bedrock common sense posts on carrying a firearm. Simple realities like the proper holster suddenly are brought home when you realize that in a split second you, someone you love, or a innocent stranger could be in peril of their lives if you don’t act with force immediately.
The endless debate becomes mute when a madman has a knife and intends to kill.
Regards,
Jim
If the language of guns is “Greek” to Liberals, then allow me to speak their language – Molon Labe
I’ll share the graphic with my 2a friends. Funny, and a good advertisement for Ricochet.
Two points:
1. We get so upset that liberals don’t have subject matter expertise on firearms, but why is that surprising? They try to regulate things they don’t understand all the time. Have you ever discussed economics with a liberal?
2. Their insistence on referring to magazines as clips is the least egregious of their many sins. If nothing else, it is largely just semantics. I take more offense to them altering the classifications of “mass shootings” to fit their narrative. Gun-related suicides being included in gun violence statistics. Words like “gun-show loophole’ and the fanciful idea that I can buy a firearm from a dealer at a gun show without a NICS check. It’s the outright lies that anger me, not the stupidity.
Well I don’t want to have the conversation at all, even if the Libs get up to speed on our language–is that wrong of me? -because they will always work to subvert & minimize the entire idea of our right to self-defense, & continue to mightily mischaracterize those of us who support it. I can’t in good faith accept the terms of their “conversation”, even if they brush up on the correct terminology. Thanks for the good gun-related posts, Kevin.
Conversation = capitulation, IMHO.
I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked many times about this issue.
Whenever we have a school shooting or some other national-spotlight occurrence that gives rise to conversations about gun control, the left always seems to focus on the same things. They talk about “assault rifles,” “high-capacity firearms,” and “making it more difficult” to acquire firearms. What I’d like to know is how any of these measures make even the slightest difference, practically speaking? The answer is that they do not. Basically, what you have is the following reasoning:
The focus is solely on the guns themselves. I suppose an analogy would be that a terrorist attack occurs, and the government proposes to put a tax on the sale of Korans. How that relates to terrorism is unclear, but it sure will suck for muslims, right?
Only in this case, there is only angst directed at guns themselves, or at gun-owners. There is literally no connection to the prevention of any of the crimes used to justify the measures.
Which brings me to the ultimate point. The only meaningful gun-related response to gun-crime would be to ban all guns, and criminalize the manufacture and sale of all guns. If they are fully removed from our society, they can no longer be used for ill. I can think of no other anti-gun-crime measure that would have any impact whatsoever. And before anyone says it, this isn’t a slippery slope argument because there is only point A and point B. Point A is where we currently are, and point B is the point at which there is any notable change in outcome. All other actions are meaningless, which means there will always be a need for further action (by definition) until we arrive at point B.
Can anyone suggest other measures that would have a practical impact on gun-related violence?
Just to stir up the hornet’s nest, of course the term “assault weapon” is another one. It’s funny, when Prog’s talk assault weapon, they seem to mean “scary looking rifle”. When I talk assault weapon, I’m thinking more of something like this (AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher, for those interested):
At the very most, it would be a selectorized rifle with fire capable of burst fire. Which, of course, is already illegal for public possession.
To the left, a “conversation” actually means “a lecture you will sit and listen to while we convince you that you are wrong.”
<Devil’s Advocate On> “Clip. Magazine. Who cares? I know that GUNS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. [Yes, that was a shout.] What is so darn hard to understand about wanting to protect innocent people?” <Devil’s Advocate Off>
This is what you are arguing against. Telling an anti-gunner to “learn the language” is an effort in futility.
A conversation implies give and take. The problem with their usage of “conversation” is that it’s much like “diversity”, “tolerance” or even “liberal” itself: The way the word is used has nothing to do with it’s actual meaning, it’s a cloak to disguise their true intent (see also “Democratic Socialist”).
If they want, say, universal background checks, are they willing to give up a repeal of the Hughes Amendment in return? Are more restrictions on firearms ownership worth nationwide CCW reciprocity? If the anti-gunners are not willing to give an inch, they shouldn’t expect me to move a mile
I take offense to most use of the word clip. It’s a magazine.
That lie fires me up as well.
But gross ignorance seems to be a feature, not a bug, in the new
DemocratSocialist Party.Only in gun free zones.
I teach firearms so I get this a lot. I control the conversation.
Let’s talk about what else kills innocent people:
Since swimming pools kill more kkids than anything else – let’s talk about banning all bodies of water (including the beach – let’s build a fence around the coastal US).
When I get an incorrect term thrown at me, I start by asking what it is. So, usually, I ask “What is the Gun Show loophole?”. When they tell me what they *think* it is; I share my own experience with them informing them that what they are saying is wrong.
Soon, they are backtracking on how “this happened to a friend” – and I usually tell them I really, really want to meet this friend. I’ll cook – let’s have them over.
I have never met “the friend”.
No more gun free zones.
Gun free zones are created for mass shootings
(Jest aside, shootings decrease the more lax gun laws are)
He won’t need to learn any language. One more progressive Supreme Court Justice and confiscation will be simple as anything. There are a lot of guns but making felons out of your competition is something that progressives dream about at night. This was a political stunt and is probably pretty effective in California. It seems that 2nd Amendment rights are not given much sympathy given the demographics of California.
ok… that’s fine, but again, I don’t think this argument is really all that productive. You really are comparing apples and oranges. Cars are responsible for a great many deaths, but the positive side of that trade-off is too undeniable to ever have much of a conversation that includes an outright ban on cars.
What is the positive value of guns? Sport? Sure, blasting targets is super fun, but how does that compare against the lives of schoolchildren? As a liberal sees it, there is no positive value of guns. Deterrence is best left to the professionals, just like everything else. Trust the experts.
Really, the value of guns is our broader concept of freedom. Our ability to rise in armed rebellion against our own government, for instance. Our ability to take immediate action for self-protection. More generally speaking, guns are symbolic of our anti-government tradition and our personal autonomy, and for us, the trade-offs are certainly worth it.
So it is fruitless to argue the practicality of guns, or the hypocrisy when it comes to other sorts of deaths. The argument is one of worldview. You, Barkha, have no reason to ever discuss gun control until the issue of statism has been resolved.
By way of analogy; talking gun control with a liberal is like debating infra- vs. supralapsarianism with an atheist. Better settle the existence of God, first.
No more gun free zones.
Exactly. The GFZ stickers I see everywhere around these parts (northern IL) are a winning advertisement to what a soft-target you’re walking in to. To violate it up here means endless & expensive red-tape. So, driving home a few weeks ago, I saw these same stickers posted on all the outside doors of a large apartment building–is the property owner/management co. of that building saying the tenants who live there can’t arm themselves in their own apts?? What about going downstairs to the basement areas to do your laundry at nite & a gal may want her piece with her?? -2A rights should trump City of Evanston’s BS ordinances. Seeing those stickers on that building made my head POP.OFF. I think the State of IL is the most hostile to 2A rights.
How many liberals have yo converted to libertarian? How many lesbian women have gone from “I’ll never touch a gun” to defending your gun threads on FB – after having gone shooting with you?
The answer in my case for #1 is 12 and #2 is 6.
You may call it fruitless; but I choose to go on.
Like a lot of Americans, I think some people think that one conversation is all it takes for people to understand each other. It does not. If you are in it for “I am right, you are wrong”, have fun. But don’t expect change. Change requires more commitment. I run a once a month shooting class for women, speak a lot at events, hold local women only meetups for shooting. Sometime I only have one person show up, some time it’s fifteen. I hold monthly Mises circles at my house.
I may be making a small difference, but I’d still rather be net positive as far as my influence goes.
I don’t say this to gloat but hopefully inspire. Many of you here are much more capable. Win arguments, annoy people or inspire them to think – it’s up to you. Don’t tell me what not to do, though; or that there is no point in what I am doing. I’ll just ignore you.
Well, then carry on! (pun intended)
This is so true. If, during the course of our entire lives, we are each able to convince just one political opponent to become an ally, we would have a commanding majority inside of a generation.
I can claim credit for 2 conversions. One actually campaigned for Ted Kennedy in 2006. He’s now as staunch a 2a proponent as you’ll find and a solid GOP voter.
Don’t think I’m not on board with all of this, though. We’re on to episode 45 of “Flyover Country,” and I’d hate to count up all my pages of written material on Ricochet. Yes, you’re correct that discussion and argument are necessary to persuade people.
However – my initial comment about your reasoning was that to people who argue in favor of gun control, it is not terribly persuasive to say that swimming pools kill people, as most gun violence is non-accidental. Also, like that ridiculous Australian comic someone linked to over on Tom’s thread, most of these people are thinking in a vacuum. I still think that you have to bring people around slowly, at which point the arguments in favor of gun-control start to look less and less persuasive to them. For me, it has always worked that way. Broader conversion on matters of worldview, followed by the natural conversion regarding individual issues.
The swimming pool line has worked for me, BTW.
I’ll elaborate; Context matters, and who is the message from and to matters. A 5’2″ Indian vegan woman talking about guns is a lot different than one of you (yes I said one of you :-D).
But the point is to control the conversation, and we all have our way of doing it. For some just walking away from the conversation works for me. Sometimes, the come back and ask for my your opinion. Not all battles are winnable; but the ones that we win are worth the fight.
Arguing about this won’t change minds. What does change minds is inviting people out to a gun range range and having them learn for themselves what guns are all about. Appeal to their intellect. Tell them about the need to argue from experience. Talk about the safety of shooting indoors. Have them start with a 10/22 and then move on to a them deadly ebil assault guns with the shoulder thing that goes up.
And then step back and watch them smile as they learn for themselves that guns are the gateway drug to freedom.
And nobody, in the history of everything, has ever had fun at an anti-gun rally. Sanctimonious self-righteousness does have a dampening effect on spontaneous humor…
ok – may I also add that the fact you’ve kept such specific score is so in line my vision of you that this comment made me laugh out loud. Not at all a bad thing, either. A little competition among conservatives is healthy.
Don’t forget they often count criminals killed during a gun battle with police as victims of “gun crime”.
Unfortunately a conversation is not really possible even if we all used the same language. The ultimate aim of many in the progressive left (the core group directing the show) is the confiscation of all guns here in the US, notwithstanding their piecemeal legislative approach. No doubt they do understand the actual gun crime statistics, do understand that the consequences of gun-free zones are horrible atrocities, and do understand that crime rates decrease dramatically when citizens are able to arm themselves. Many even “speak gun.”
The core understands all this but does not share it with their followers, those who do not know any better. The willing-led then do what is expected of them: they take to the streets to demonstrate against something they have very little knowledge of (and in so doing, provide good copy for the MSM). In some ways this is similar to Jonah’s explanation of PC: a cudgel to beat up conservatives. In both cases it makes the wielders feel good about themselves, thinking that lives will be saved and hurt feelings eradicated.