Skip to main content

(   Powerful NRA lobbyists have almost single-handedly controlled the national dialogue on guns, especially when it comes to legislators.  In this context, we should note that the very term "gun control" has the ring of insult to freedom-loving, constitution-abiding, gun-owning Americans.  It is also obfuscatory, if not completely inaccurate.

A majority of Americans are not in favor controlling most guns and hunting rifles.  The NRA has been enormously successful in convoluting ownership of pistols and rifles into the discussion of restricting the sale of semi-automatic weapons and magazines capable of firing a bullet a second (as was the case in the Colorado theater shooting).

Identifying the problem of being able to legally sell seemingly infinite quantities of semi-automatic rifles and ammunition is not enough to counter the verbal bulldozing of the gun lobby and its many supporters.  Legislators and public advocates need explicit language to be effective in making their case.

I propose the term "Crowd Killers" for both the weapons and the magazines.   Semi-automatic guns are crowd killer guns that dispense rapid-fire crowd killer bullets.  Anyone who has followed the tragic events of the Aurora theater massacre and other similar events would not think these descriptors extreme.  These weapons and high capacity magazines have been proven too often as being more than capable of killing and injuring large numbers of people in crowds.  Full stop.

Crowd killer guns could be abbreviated as CKG's.   Crowd killer bullets, CKB's.   The alliterative double hard "K" sounds in Crowd Killer give the words the force and impact of the subject they describe.  Crowd killer guns is a short and easy five syllables.   Crowd killer bullets, six.

One would have to look all the way back to the 1980's when advocates of sensible weapon laws spoke out against bullets sold with a hardened core and tagged them with the controversial but highly impactful moniker, "Cop Killer Bullets."   Since then, the NRA has controlled how to talk about weapons that put the welfare and safety of the public at risk.

Rep. Jim Moran (D), Virginia, for one, has come out with creative and descriptive new ways to address the problem.   "This is about freedom.  It's just stunning to me that my colleagues are so soft on crime and domestic terrorism."

Indeed.  We have found the Weapons of Mass Destruction and they are ours.   Our WMD's are the CKG's awaiting purchase in plain sight.  They can be bought online, at Wal-Mart or at that sporting goods store with the big friendly fish out front.
There will be the inevitable arguments claiming that making these CKG's illegal will just put them into the hands of the criminals.  To counter that argument, both the shooter last week in Aurora and the one last year in Tucson purchased their guns and ammo legally.  It is possible their respective massacres would have been limited if not entirely prevented if they would have had to resort to entering into an unfamiliar world of clandestine relationships with individuals selling illegal weapons.  I suggest the loner, anti-social, secretive, even mentally disturbed personalities of many of these killers indicate a natural aversion to negotiating more risky and socially complex transactions.

It seems as ambitious to attempt to enter new nomenclature into the national dialogue on guns as it seems necessary.   But for years the Republican Party has gotten its carefully defined talking points from its own hired gun, Frank Luntz, a skillful propagandist who has straight-jacketed all manner of Democratic Party ideas and helped facilitate GOP legislation via a multitude of verbal contortions.

It is past time for defeatist attitudes about being helpless in considering the public's rights when discussing gun rights.  To borrow a phrase from the Second Amendment, we are overdue for "well-regulated" gun ownership.   To that end, I humbly call upon advocates, policy markers and legislators to arm themselves with this freshly-minted CK weaponry specially calibrated to save lives.  I invite all to freely retweet, recopy, repost this message honoring all victims, friends and families of crowd killer gun violence.  I ask this as a remnant of remembrance beyond balloons and platitudes in hopes of preventing another cold, dead hand grasping skyward from a blood-stained theater floor.

Originally posted to freshrant on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 05:15 AM PDT.

Also republished by Political Language and Messaging.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent idea! (5+ / 0-)

    That needs to be repeated and adopted.


    "The shooter used a 'crowd killer' AK47 to murder 15 people..."

    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

    by Candide08 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 05:27:39 AM PDT

  •  The problem with "gun control" and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper, IndieGuy, Pete Cortez

    using hysterical names to categorize things wrongly is one of the reasons why sensible laws never get passed.

    "cop killer bullets" and "rapid fire crowd killer bullets" and others I've heard like "semi-automatic machineguns" are emotional misnomers that will get torn apart during a legal battle where actual, exact proper terminology is required.

    When it is revealed that you are attempting to ban a boogeyman, the whole notion will get laughed out of court and any future suggestion you make will be seen in the light of the Court Jester making another proclamation.

    •  If the debate were (6+ / 0-)

      conducted in terms of morality and not law as it is in every other nation it would have been over a long time ago.

      I am relatively new to the US and have noticed that people (usually but not always the RWNJs) resort to the constitution as defence when they have no hope of winning the moral argument.

      •  Many studies have shown that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radical simplicity

        the more guns per-capita the more shootings there are.

        Deaths, per shooting, have declined because of better medical treatment - so that fact gets twisted and misrepresented by pro gun lobbies.  

        Morality does not come into the argument for the pro gun side, unless it involves a woman's body.

        "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

        by Candide08 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:07:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not new to the US. (0+ / 0-)

        Therefore, I understand the importance of the Constitution.  The entire document, not just the savory bits.

        Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

        by IndieGuy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:33:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Funny thing about that. (0+ / 0-)

        Can't really debate either without some appeal to facts.  Easier to do in countries where the population was already homogenous, pliant, and largely disarmed.  Harder to do in a country where one in three households are comfortably armed and a well organized movement of sportsmen, enthusiasts, veterans and law enforcement stand ready to demolish the "nuance" (I think nonsense is a more apt word for it) offered by the gun grabbers.

    •  I think the terminology jut makes some people... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisePiper, Abelia, radical simplicity

      ...uncomfortable for their truth.  Some billets are cop-killers in that they're designed to pierce armor.  And some guns are appropriately called crowd-killers because they enable a psychopath to kill a crowd.  These are moral charactherizations of the tradeoffs gun advocates impose on the rest of us, and it understandably makes some gun advocates squeamish.

      The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

      by TheOrchid on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:05:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it is rediculous, and it is because (0+ / 0-)

        we don't want to end up like the wackos of Inglis, Florida:

        --who officially made a law to ban Satan.

        There is another GOP legislature, I forget where, that made sea level change illegal.

        So if you want to become like these people, and pass laws on things that don't exist or are emotional distortions, by all means, but don't be surprised when it gets taken about as seriously as we view those other examples.


    •  Sorry - can't agree. (0+ / 0-)

      Knowing the statistical and metric nuts and bolts is absolutely essential to having effective laws and judicial decisions, you will not find me arguing against that ever, yes. But being able to emotionally control the debate as well is necessary in order to get support, too. It is not either/or.

  •  I would rather you rename the 2nd amendment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Candide08, luckylizard

    like Bill Moyers did. "It's a cruel hoax."

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 05:49:38 AM PDT

  •  Uh, excuse me but I can't even take a soda into a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luckylizard, radical simplicity

    Movie, or my own popcorn.
      And yet these nuts think I should take a weapon in there to defend myself??
      With what that guy was wearing, full flack gear, should the patrons have brought a flame thrower??

  •  The reason the NRA digs in (0+ / 0-)

    is becasue if they allow some regulations - there are gun control activists who will want to use that as a bridge to more and more gun control.  

    So that's what takes reason out of it.
    You can look at a host of issues and see this pattern - not just guns.  The extremes take over and it all becomes a stalemate.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:12:54 AM PDT

    •  "More gun control" Horrors, can't have that.... (3+ / 0-)

      Better some die at the hand of a heavily armed lunatic than there be "more gun control".

      Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

      by LiberalCanuck on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:20:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There in a nutshell (0+ / 0-)

        is why nothing ever happens - don't call it gun control horrors - responsible gun owners don't want "lunatics" owning guns anymore than gun control advocates.  

        What needs to ba addressed is semi-automatic vs. assault rifles.  Assault rifle is vague.  Is it any rifle with a clip?  Does a pump action fall under the semi automatic umbrella?

        Specifics need to be drawn out before you will ever get the majority to go along with it - regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

        If you define assault rifle as a firearm that's intended purpose is for police / military use and work within a narrow frame, IMHO, something can get done.  If it's left vague, then nothing other than rhetorical fighting will occur.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:34:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Assault Rifle" is not vague. It is a very clear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radical simplicity

          term used to describe military weapons designed for the purpose of assaulting and securing a location from a defender.

          They fire multiple rounds in quick succession and their purpose is to kill or incapacitate anything in its path.

          An Automatic Rifle is a long barrel weapon designed to fire a single shot and then to automatically discharge the spent cartridge and replace it with a new cartridge.  It will fire so long as the trigger is held.

          A Semi-Automatic Rifle will fire a single shot and discharge the spent cartridge as well.  It will fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

          All versions of these weapons should be banned as unneeded, unnecessary and too dangerous for civilian use.

          Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

          by LiberalCanuck on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From what I understand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Automatic weapons are banned - that's not to say there aren't illegals on the street.  There are permits for automatic weapons but that's a type of assault weapon that's not available.  An M-16 is an automatic assault rifle.

            A semi-automatic rifle requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot and the gun automatically discharges the spent case and reloads a live round.  An AR-15 is an example of a semi-automatic assault rifle.  

            Now the question is, what differentiates an assault style semi automatic, from a sport or hunting semi automatic?

            The resistance is that if asault style semi-automatics are banned, next in line will be sport and hunting semi-automatics.

            I'm all for strict gun control - assault style bans or put into the catagory with automatic rifles - but I think it's important to see where the resistance is.

            We had a good diary the other day about having an adult conversation regarding firearms - problem is, there aren't too many adults to converse.

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:42:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I understand 'the right to bear arms' and all (3+ / 0-)

    the legaleeze that comes with it, good and bad.  But to me people should also have the right to go to church, a movie, and for God's sake children go to school without the fear of anyone shooting them.  Is there nowhere safe?  What right do people have when expecting nothing other than an evening out with their families and children.

    I am from Toronto and our country is still reeling from the shootings in the Eaton's Center in Toronto.  How sad that Jessica Ghawi, one of the young ladies killed in Aurora, was witness to the shootings in Toronto and wrote about it:

    "I was shown how fragile life was on Saturday. I saw the terror on bystanders' faces. I saw the victims of a senseless crime. I saw lives change. I was reminded that we don't know when or where our time on Earth will end. When or where we will breathe our last breath."
    Citizens of the world need to stand up and yell ENOUGH.  How can things change with respect to guns?  I don't know and will have to defer to others more knowledgeable than me.  What I do know is, something must be done and done soon.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site