Skip to main content

To those of us who don't own guns, these terms seem synonymous.  For gun lovers, they are not.  The use of the appropriate terms (i.e. framing) makes a big difference.

To gun owners, there are huge differences.  Gun safety is a major positive for them as that is one of their major considerations with respect to responsible gun ownership.

On the other hand, Gun Control has major negative implications as it generates many Second Amendment issues including the possibility of gun confiscation.

Please use the term "Gun safety" instead of "Gun Control".  If we can get everyone including the media using Gun Safety, our struggle to reduce gun violence will be easier.

My wife and I recently introduced a resolution on gun safety to an organization which included gun owners.  It went sailing through.  I am sure that if we had used the term "gun control", it would not have received such a positive response.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Yes, this is a given. We do not want or most of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north

    us do not want to waste time on debates that threaten gun confiscation when the  Second Amendment is clear about the right to own a firearm.  So unless we are going to abolish the Second Amendment, which is a very big undertaking, to say the least,  we should call it what it is 'gun safety' not gun regulation which leads to areas with gun owners that are dead ends or is a needless invitation to get people riled up for no good reason.  The more Americans we communicate with in reasonable terms the better it will be for legislation which is meaningful, fair and supported by a majority of Americans to be passed.

  •  Do you mean gun safety education like this? (5+ / 0-)
    Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

    And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

    If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

    Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

    The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

    Notice that the recommendation doesn’t call for parents to simply lock up their guns. It stresses that the weapons need to be taken out of the house.

    Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.

    What he found was sobering, to say the least.

    (emphasis added) click through for the details

    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 08:34:01 PM PST

    •  And if you have a ladder in your home (6+ / 0-)

      Everybody in your home is more likely than their non-ladder-owning neighbors to die in a fall. Accidental deaths from firearms in the household is at .01% of all accidental deaths.

      Fatal Unintentional Injuries in the Home in the U.S.

      The number and rate of unintentional home injury
      deaths increased from 2000 to 2008 (age-adjusted rate of
      7.5 per 100,000 in 2000 to 13.0 per 100,000 in 2008; Figure 1;
      p0.000); this can primarily be attributed to the increase
      in poisoning deaths (age-adjusted rate of 2.5 per 100,000
      in 2000 to 6.4 per 100,000 in 2008; p0.000). Most of the
      poisoning deaths result from drug overdoses, notably
      unintentional overdoses from narcotics, hallucinogens,
      and drugs classifıed as “other,” which represented 87% of
      poisoning deaths in 2008. Deaths from falls also increased
      during this time (age-adjusted rate of 2.6 per 100,000 in
      2000 to 4.2 per 100,000 in 2008; p0.000). Deaths from
      fıres and burns and from unintentional fırearm injuries
      were the only two mechanisms for which there was a
      decline during this time period (p0.05; although the
      absolute reduction in number of unintentional fırearm
      injury deaths was relatively small during the time frame
      [349 in 2000; 320 in 2008]).
      2 Mack et al / Am J Prev Med 2013;xx(x):xxx
      www
    •  And if I buy two lottery tickets instead of one (4+ / 0-)

      my chances of winning the jackpot have completely doubled.  A 100% increase.  Forget the fact that my chances of winning are still just about zilch, they've still doubled.

      Whether or not to have a gun in the home and whether or not one wishes to get a permit to carry one in public are personal choices.  As are a lot of other things, that also need to remain personal choices.

  •  Newspeak. (9+ / 0-)

    If you're trying to convince me that you don't really want to deprive me of arms- that you honestly do believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that my pistols won't be next after my neighbors' AR-15's... pulling a trick right out of 1984 is a pretty poor way to go about it.

  •  I'm sort of tired of semantical horseshit! (3+ / 0-)

    The problem I have as a gun owner is that I believe in gun control. Real gun control. Which means most people should have them or at least most of the firearms now available.

    At 69 I've owned guns for a substantial part of my life. I've owned short barrel shotguns (legal length of 20 inches), semi-automatic pistols, etc.

    I gave up hunting before I was 23. I hated the "sport" and more than that I had no respect for roughly 90 percent of the hunters. As a current rural land owner, I've seen nothing to change my mind. A neighbor who is a responsible hunter has the rights to my land, in return for keeping the garbage away. Better him than me and no one is more disappointed in the nature of his fellow hunters than him. Thieves, vandals, trespassers, boozers, idiots and liars. I used to see them every morning at 5 a.m. on the way the work, already skunked. They'd threaten me and I'd call the sheriff, who would make them spend them morning doing straight lines, then send them home.

    I kept a shotgun because they are sometimes necessary on rural property. The reasons are complicated, but might include putting down an animal left behind by a shooter or hit by a car. I don't live there now or spend a lot of time so I don't have it.

    My only gun, the only reason I have it, is that it's an heirloom left to me by my grandfather who was born in 1886. Bought in 1908, it's still a modern firearm, i.e. .38 Police Special. It's not loaded and my wife and dog wouldn't know how. It will go away at some point.

    I'm in a state with different handgun laws than my former rural residence. I can't take it out of the house without a license and while I may get one, which isn't hard or easy, it won't be so I can have a gun at home.

    That's because having a gun at home, as noted, is no insurance of any kind against anything other than raising the risk of getting killed, by yourself, your family or an intruder. It's stupid.

    The reason we have civilization is the shared responsibility for controlling illegal acts. It's why we have police. The very notion of using personal violence to control violence against society as a whole is repugnant, especially in this age. We see the example in Britain and most of the world. Firearms contribute to the murder rate. I'd be glad to sacrifice my family heirloom to a gun control system that worked.

    Semantical horseshit doesn't change anything. It doesn't hurt to say what you mean. Better registration etc is all well and good, but we ought to put the munitions makers out of business for the same reason we sought controls in the past. Just as they brought us war, they now bring us personal deal or mass murder.

    Handguns are the daily weapon of murder. The AR-15 and AK-47 are the preferred weapons of mass murderers. It's two distinct groups. Gunkillers are not as a class crazy or criminal. Usually, they're people who acquired a gun and then decided to be violent, on whatever scale. There are too damned many of them to ignore.

    •  If you are ever physically attacked... (0+ / 0-)

      do you intend to defend yourself in any way?

      The reason we have civilization is the shared responsibility for controlling illegal acts. It's why we have police. The very notion of using personal violence to control violence against society as a whole is repugnant, especially in this age.
      But it's O.K. to hire it done second- or third-hand by the State?

      Whutevah.....

      •  This is pure horseshit! (0+ / 0-)

        Your arrogance makes me want to kick your ass, but being peaceable, I won't. Where are you getting this shit? Had you actually read the post, you might have inferred I have felt compelled to defend myself in the past. Fortunately not to the point of shooting anyone. I cannot compensate for the national hysteria that the NRA induces in people like yourself.

        For you this is theoretical and pretty piss poor theory at that. The basis of civilization is to put the greater good of the community ahead of the individual's demands. And I don't think the 2nd amendment was ever intended to create this gun free for all that has occurred since I reached middle age.

        Before civilization came along, individuals punished other people for real or perceived crimes. We still see it today. If through some individual eruption you kill your wife or close relative (the most common homicide involves someone you know) you may have committed a crime unlikely to be repeated. State prisons were once full of inmates, trustees, who were generally trusted as not being violent,but there for life.

        The entire idea of state punishment, even in prehistory, was to limit the damage to the community. If the state killed too many, the fields might lay fallow, the communal self-defense might be limited, etc. The state also removed the blood from the hands of individuals and assumed the duty on behalf of the people.  You seem not to understand that these reponsibilities were a reason that the state, acting on behalf of the people, first rose. How did the small agricultural community of early times defend itself from maurauding hunter-gatherers looking for an easy mark? Communal action. You need to go back and get some concept of how and why civilization developed. It was only in communities/nations with excess population that excesses in punishment developed. Read the records of the Old Bailey in London from 1600 or so for examples. It may sound harsh, but the worst thing in the world is for you to kill the person who killed your wife or child. What is better is for the state to do that or some equivalent, i.e. life imprisonment.

        The real problem is that the need to defend yourself is rarer than anyone wants to admit. And when it occurs, the damage is defense is likely to exceed any inflicted by the attacker. It isn't made up. it's real. If the NRA is right, then virtually every episode of gun violence will be doubled, i.e. shooter kills someone, some other theoretical shooter kills him. Look at the gun boards. Killing the killer is not a good answer to crime. Ever heard of suicide by police shooting?

        I live in the NYC metro area and I commuted for 10 years by Metro-North and the subway. People who would like to get on the subway with guns scare the shit out of me. They're fucking nuts. So are people who insist on carrying weapons around in general. Bernie Goetz did not help the average subway rider feel more secure, as the NRA suggested. It made the city more determined to get guns under control. Cities don't work the way you think.

        As an example, in responding to a shooting at the Empire State Building, Police wounded 16 persons other than those directly involved, primarily through ricochets. Passerby deaths from gunfire is not unusual when police guns go astray. Imagine civilians popping off who haven't been trained. Try shooting one guy 52 times. It's called contagion shooting.

        Gun owner states specialize in massacre.  Louisiana is deadly. Roughly half of all hunting fatalities are murders disguised as accidents. The other half should never occur. Alcohol and hunting? Common as dirt. As a rural landowner I'm threatened by it. It goes on and on. Or maybe I should just start shooting back at people who threaten me?

        Would I defend myself? Depends. If you're talking about the random sort of violence that everyone gets paranoid about, it's not worth it. If I've got a reason to suspect someone's planning on killing me, I've done it and I'll take reasonable measures. But I don't have time for paranoia.

        About 50 years ago, for a period of about 5 years,  some people wanted to kill me over court testimony they thought I could offer. I acquired what was called a trooper permit which allowed me to carry a pistol almost anywhere (things were a lot tougher 50 years ago). I kept a pistol under the seat of my car and two long guns in the trunk. I slept with a 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 inch barrel under the bed, a 1911 10mm in the drawer and a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun nearby.

        I'm old now, but I've had great peripheral vision and was a killer at bird hunting or skeet. I took combat firearms courses and I was good.  The reason went away and I relaxed. Too many friends got shot accidentally with the gun nonsense.

        A distant relative in the same area I once lived was shot to death  while he thought he was defending his home. A court acquitted the defendants because he had come out with a shotgun intended on defending his property and fired it in the area.

        I couldn't get police protection. I went out of my way to let people know I could shoot (i.e. one of my bird hunting buddies) and that I would pull the trigger. I didn't really have a choice. I do now and I choose not to worry about vague shit. I haven't hunted in 40 years and won't. I've decided to do a pistol permit but mostly to make my gun legal again and because I enjoy the sport - the range can keep the pistol. As someone with severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, I choose not to fire shotguns, but if I were keeping a weapon for home defense, it would be a shotgun, not a pistol.

        The chances of that happening are infinitesimal. My city of 135,000 in a bad year has had two murders at most, usually none, in the last 25 years.. It's had one case of intruders, known to the inhabitants, in the last 25 years, as long as I've lived here.

        You wouldn't know about Newtown, CT. I do. Would you like to guess how many people have been killed there since 1970 before the school massacre? Try 1. The biggest threat to that suburban community came from within -- from a person who thought she needed to defend herself, but not from her child with her guns.

        The single murder before was an airline pilot who killed his attendant wife, then ran her through a woodchipper next to some body of water. He eventually ended up in prison on the basis of a fingernail.

        The prevalence of guns is directly tied to the murder rate. New England has one of the lowest regional murder rates in the country and were it not for gun smuggling, its inner urban areas would be much less violent.

        This is a country that needs to stop being paranoid and you're not helping.

        •  I forgot to mention (0+ / 0-)

          Someone tried to mug me in Washington when I lived there. Unfortunately I was drunk and forgot the rules so I kicked the shit out of him without thinking about it.

          Not a good solution generally because the idea is not to get killed. I just caught him by surprise by being irrational.

          •  Know why the empire state event was like that? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, Otteray Scribe

            Because "the state" that you think of so highly has to play the numbers regarding keeping warm bodies on patrol. That means reducing the expected level of proficiency to the minimum required for the most basic standards of safety. Raise the expected level of proficiency and you begin shedding officers that just cannot manage to succeed at their six month testing.

            As an example, in responding to a shooting at the Empire State Building, Police wounded 16 persons other than those directly involved, primarily through ricochets. Passerby deaths from gunfire is not unusual when police guns go astray. Imagine civilians popping off who haven't been trained. Try shooting one guy 52 times. It's called contagion shooting.
            A concealed carry person who makes it to the range on their own time and on their own dime is already approaching the task of marksmanship with more dedication than any cop who is sent to the range by their supervisor with State-bought ammo. It's called initiative and motivation, and the cop who doesn't bother with practicing marksmanship doesn't have it.
            How did the small agricultural community of early times defend itself from marauding hunter-gatherers looking for an easy mark? Communal action.
            HA! Communal action taken by the people at large, not some few chosen to "remove the blood from the hands of individuals". Because you are aware that there weren't cell phones or even landline phones way back then to be used to call the cro-magnon version of the Sheriff, right? You are aware that when a small agri town was attacked, whomever was nearby stepped up to defend, right? It's not like there was time to unhitch the plow horse (or ox) and ride a mile or three to the neighbor "sheriff" and bring that sheriff back to your own farm just because you needed someone to "remove the blood from the hands of individuals".

            Your logic in support of gun control is absurd to the point of ridiculousness, and is plain to see when placed next to your own reports of practical self-defense in the form of the "trooper permit" and kicking the ass of a mugger yourself rather than meekly accepting your role as victim.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

            by JayFromPA on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 11:48:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  bamjack your narrative needs work (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Otteray Scribe, KVoimakas
          About 50 years ago, for a period of about 5 years,  some people wanted to kill me over court testimony they thought I could offer. I acquired what was called a trooper permit which allowed me to carry a pistol almost anywhere (things were a lot tougher 50 years ago). I kept a pistol under the seat of my car and two long guns in the trunk. I slept with a 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 inch barrel under the bed, a 1911 10mm in the drawer and a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun nearby.
          Well, actually?  No.  2013-1983= 30, with Colt chambering the Delta Elite in 1987.
          The reason we have civilization is the shared responsibility for controlling illegal acts. It's why we have police.
          The very notion of using personal violence to control violence against society as a whole is repugnant, especially in this age.  We see the example in Britain and most of the world. Firearms contribute to the murder rate. I'd be glad to sacrifice my family heirloom to a gun control system that worked.

          I couldn't get police protection. I went out of my way to let people know I could shoot (i.e. one of my bird hunting buddies) and that I would pull the trigger. I didn't really have a choice. I do now and I choose not to worry about vague shit. I haven't hunted in 40 years and won't.

          Either there's cops and the greater good, or there's no cops and you're on your own.  Or... at "69" you're less devoted to life than you were at (69-50=19)
          Nineteen and strapped for self-protection.  Or was that forty years ago and I misread your comment?
          A distant relative in the same area I once lived was shot to death  while he thought he was defending his home. A court acquitted the defendants because he had come out with a shotgun intended on defending his property and fired it in the area.
          Right.  This happens.  Particularly if the Prosecutor likes the Defendants better than the victim.  Say, they're white and the victim isn't.
          It's now addressed by the various Castle Laws, which are not Stand-Your-Ground.
          I live in the NYC metro area and I commuted for 10 years by Metro-North and the subway. People who would like to get on the subway with guns scare the shit out of me. They're fucking nuts. So are people who insist on carrying weapons around in general. Bernie Goetz did not help the average subway rider feel more secure, as the NRA suggested. It made the city more determined to get guns under control. Cities don't work the way you think.
          You're right.  Cities, particularly NYC works it's pistol permits via a patronage system.  Volunteer or donate to a City Council campaign, and call your favor in later.
          As someone who worked in the black and brown neighborhoods, I can tell you the average blue collar worker, bodega owner, and cab driver has zero chance of ever getting a pistol permit.  "INSUFFICIENT NEED".
          The NYPD can't stamp:  "No gun for you Negro" but, they'd like to.

          My experience in these neighborhoods is that they'd like to have the chance of being legally armed.  Instead-of just gunned-down for the $340 in their pocket, for working a 70 hour week.
          There's no profit in gunning-down white people.
          Kill a brother?  Ain't no big thing.  The five-o come, the five-o go, all before their White Castles get cold.

          I've decided to do a pistol permit but mostly to make my gun legal again and because I enjoy the sport - the range can keep the pistol. As someone with severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, I choose not to fire shotguns, but if I were keeping a weapon for home defense, it would be a shotgun, not a pistol.
          So... your gun is with you - and it's illegal, as NJ, NY, NYC all have pistol permit requirements for possession.
          That leaves CT, where you need a permit to leave the residence.

          Or your gun is unattended on your (somewhere) rural property where the republican redneck drunks can get to it.

          If you're talking CT, your chances for an NYC Permit are zero, unless of course you're working for a politician, who can pull some strings, and you're a member of the Westside Range already.

          Oh, and before you lecture me on Newtown?  Upon retirement, I worked in Newtown as a contributor for a certain Fine publishing company.  
          Went to the movies in Newtown.
          Know people who now have High School aged children in Newtown.  Same for Cheshire, which was an assault on a good friends co-worker and his family.
          Both families were Physician and Nurse, both husbands and wives worked together.

          You summed-up their situation already:
          I couldn't get police protection when needed.

          •  Still horseshit and you're just another gun nut (0+ / 0-)

            And, obviously not entirely alone here, i.e. Jay from PA who writes lovingly of his obsession with his cheap .22 rifle. It took a while to sink in that the author of this diary was nothing but a cheap NRA provocateur.

            Trying to put lipstick on your pig and your love of the NRA, you just don't get it. We don't need guns in NYC and we don't need any more in Connecticut where I live.

            We didn't need the guns in Newtown. The problem was the gun that you people defend that is in fact a gun of choice -- the AR-15 which was used in this most recent mass slaying of very young children and teachers in Newtown.

            Bought and purchased by a guns right agitator much like yourselves and used by a family member she trained. It was banned under the old law. Still should be.

            Same primary weapon in the Port Arthur Massacre, 35 dead, 24 wounded. For mass murderers the ar-15 and other military style rifles, e.g. ak47 knockoffs, have a sick attraction. For the average killer who contributes daily to our thousands of gun victims a year, the preferred weapon is a pistol, usually purchased legally and sold for large profits to people who can't make a trip to Virginia or otherwise have access to a dealer.

            We have a gun death rate of more than 40 times that of the United Kingdom where the gun rate is just 0.07 while ours is .5. There is no country in the European Union that does not have a significantly lower murder rate than ours, and in the OECD, to find murder rates worse than ours, you have to go to Brazil 22.7, Mexico 19 and Russia at 11.2. Even Turkey, which once played in our league has fallen from 5.3 to 3.3.

            The European Union has adopted the Schengen Treaty as part of its basic law and it was even accepted by Switzerland, which has plenty of carefully regulated guns, including 450,000  Assault rifles with select switches - so Switzerland has a murder rate of .07.

            It would be simple enough for me to get a permit under existing or proposals now in the legislature. But I really don't care. I'm tired of gun nuts wrecking our political system for the sake of the NRA and the gun lobby that just wants to sell more guns.  Keeping guns in the hands of lunatics is not something I care about. Rational gun owners I can live with, including hobbyists. But the world and our nation does not revolve around the guns of the lunatic lobby. Saying Gun Safety is more palatable than Gun Control might make you feel better, but it won't accomplish anything.

            (Incidentally, I had brain fart and it was a .45. I didn't have it long and I didn't like it very much. It was replaced after a couple of years. As for your theory on the shooting death, sorry, dead wrong and a bit racist. On cop not being available for me, I did what I did after consulting with LEOs and prosecutor. My weapon is legal in my house which is all I care about right now.).

            As for the comments about NYC,  and your accusations about patronage, you are mostly nuts. Apparently one way to get a unrestricted carry permit is to work for Fox because Roger Ailes, Sean Hanity and several other Fox goons have NYC permits (even thought they don't necessarily live there). But the process has apparently been cleaned up a great deal from the old days.

            Gawker published all 400 pages of the NYPD gun license list and you otherwise appear to be way off base. There are about 50 pages of unrestricted carry permits (i.e. CB) and at roughly 55 per page - rough of 2,750 total or  round to about 3,000. There are another (roughly) 19,000 restricted permits that are restricted to Guard Duty (actual), premises only not in individual name, etc. I didn't try to count precisely because there are better things to do, but those numbers are not far off either way. The numbers don't seem out of line with a city of NYC size. There was a guy who tried to mug an old lady in her wheelchair. She was on her way home from shooting class shot she shot his elbow. It would not have been legal except enroute to or from class.

            It's also got the lowest murder rate of the largest 25 U.S. cities and of 414 last year, 237 were by gun. The cops are far better than you credit them with being. Even well-trained  marksmen with a lot of practice get weird in a fire fight and contagion shooting is not unknown among seasoned combat troops.

            You could look at the OECD figures on crime and fear (Americans are probably too comfortable given our murder rate, but others are even more perversely comfortable. There's a good
            wikipedia summary listing at http://en.wikipedia.org/...  

            But if we are serious about gun safety, including their role in the murder rate, we might want to look at Switzerland. It has tons of guns but almost no one carries one and use is restricted. They adhere to the Schengen controls, i.e. punishment for all illegal firearms. But one big difference. There's national support instead of gun owners saying screw all of you, here's some total horses hit malarkey like we give you every time our industry shits all over the nation.

    •  well bamjack you sure convinced me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishbone

      For sure there are some totally flipped out people around and I hope you get rid of that 38.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 05:24:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would be all for what you say, except (3+ / 0-)

    for the fact that I think you are simply trying to change terminology without changing the focus.  I believe you are trying, as Neo Control pointed out above, to use "new speak" to put a spin on something that people will reject.  Had I thought you motives were not fallacious, I would have rec'd this post.

    You are correct in that the term "gun control" has taken on a negative meaning.  To me it has taken on the meaning of, "those who wish to repeal the 2nd-A are trying to apply silly restrictions on me in the hope that it will assuage their fears of that which they can't control."

    If the focus were truly about gun safety we should be talking about gun safety, not control rephrased as safety.  For example, I heard on the radio this morning about a football player who shot himself this weekend while cleaning his gun.  Clearly he did not follow the safety rule of having the bullets in a different room than you are cleaning the gun in.  He also didn't follow the rules and procedures for making sure it was unloaded which include both a visual and physical check of the empty chamber.

    The other thing is that current proposals for control, really don't have a basis in safety, so there is no point in disguising them as safety measures.

    I am curious, though, what the resolution the author introduced, which was left out of the original post.  This leads me to wonder if it really was a safety measure and hence doesn't want to mention it when the goal is to push control.

  •  "Diaries" vs. "Comments" (0+ / 0-)

    This is the "latter," not the "former."

  •  Please point out where advocates of bans.... (0+ / 0-)

    restrictions and confiscations promote any actual safety training.... like the NRA does.

    Cognitive disonance, it's what just killed your attempt at Newspeak.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site