What's in a name? Apparently a lot to some wingnut gun lovers for whom even a prefix is enough to ruin their day.
I just spent my morning dealing with a "pry it from my cold dead hands" type of gun lover upset over a bit of research I had a hand in publicizing.
(More on the flip, as you more experienced diarists say)
A survey put out by the university where I work asked residents around our state "Do you favor or oppose a state law that would ban the manufacture, delivery and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons in [mystatehere]?"
The answer: 64 percent yes, 32 percent no.
Seems pretty straightforward, but that's where I would be wrong.
My new best friend called this morning to inform me that there is no such thing as SEMI automatic assault weapons. Ergo, the research was faulty on its face and should be stricken from the face of the earth, or at the very least removed from our website.
Not being an expert in such matters related to firearms, I panicked a bit. No need it seems. Three seconds of Googling led me to many websites that explained that while it is controversial to classify semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons, many are indeed explicitly included in that category (http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIG4.html#WhatIsAssault). Furthermore, in our state, two proposed pieces of legislation specifically refer to semi-automatic assault weapons, and since the whole point of the survey in question was to get at attitudes toward legislation in the state, such a definition seemed in order.
WRONG! As my new friend informed me, you can propose a bill to call apples oranges, but that doesn't change what they are. There is NO SUCH THING as a semi-automatic assault weapon, and any one including them in that category (even when asking a hypothetical question), or proposing legislation that does so, is just trying to change the definition ..."
The unspoken completion of that sentence, I can only conclude, is "...so that they can take them away from me."
Despite my repeated attempts to get off the phone (there was no agreeing to disagree) he persisted. How could I associate my name with such junk science? Why should HIS tax dollars have to pay for it? Why, after he had PROVEN to me that this was blatantly misleading, did I refuse to retract this press release?
I explained about the proposed legislation; I explained about the purpose of the survey; I mentioned some of the examples I found on the Web of people - even pro gun sites - who include some, but not all, semi-automatic weapons under the heading of "assault weapons." Big mistake. Each point was an invitation to detour back down the rabbit hole so that he could press his case and repeat his demand that we retract this piece of misleading propaganda.
(Boy, am I glad I didn't bring up the survey I got from the NRA (I bought something online from Bass Pro, they must have sold the list). Even for someone with but a passing knowledge of public opinion polling, that thing was an absolute JOKE, a litany of one leading question after another.)
In the end, I provided phone numbers for the supervisors of all the researchers involved, and that of my own supervisor, so that they too can experience this man's tortured logic.
It was a frightening first-hand glimpse into the wingnut mind. As a frequent reader (first time diarist!) of Daily Kos (and from life experience) I know that these people hate anything that doesn't fit with their own narrow world view. But to be engaged in an extended conversation with one of these zealots was frightening.
This single survey question did not precisely fit his world view, and it was nothing less than an abomination in his mind. While he never said as much, the inference was clear: He should not have to tolerate anything that did not categorically conform to his specific beliefs, and we were obligated to right this wrong so that he could be happy once again.
The concept of researchers having academic freedom to ask any question they like - regardless of whether you, me or him agreed with the premise of the question of its answers - was absolutely foreign to him. Dissent must be stomped out at every turn.
By the way, he didn't even want to begin discussing the survey results that showed most people favored a ban. Didn't care to stop to consider that, for the average person, the modifier "semi" means nothing. Oh, and he was particularly rankled by the information that 60 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of those who voted for Bush, favored a ban. He also didn't like the idea that the researchers involved said that gun owners were a vocal minority (where did he get THAT information he wanted to know).
All in all, a very stressful morning, and a frightening glimpse into the wingnut mind. I need a DKos fix.