PC Terminology ??

R

Rob Pincus

New member
I have invited a few people to TFL to discuss this topic, as a carry over from rec.guns.
Should they show up or not, it hsould make for an interesting conversation.

Their premise is that we should not use words like weapon, sniper, assault, combat, battle, etc when we talk about our firearms or the antis will be able to use them against us.

I disagree, I feel that if we had stopped using the phrase "assault" 10 years ago, we'd still have the 1994 ban.

I think if we stop using "sniper" today, we'll stop using "marksman" tomorrow and "precision" next month.

I think that the media and the antis will sensationalize whatever they want, whenever they want to.

I believe that to stop using the normal descriptives is to head down a slippery slope that will lead us to "Bullet Motivating Devices" before we know what happened.

As an aside, someone mentioned that they believe that no firearm is a "weapon" until it is used as such (dictionary offers that any means of attack or defense is a weapon, which my firearms are..) and that no rifle is a sniper rifle unless it is being used by a sniper, etc.,etc...

your thoughts?

------------------
-Essayons

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited 12-13-98).]
 
I think your basic assumption that words come to adopt the meaning "and IMPACT" that we give to them by use is correct. If the media or spokespersons use precise terminology imprecisely and with shaded meaning, that is the meaning that the public will come to accept. Our only defense is to use the terms correctly and to correct the errors every time we hear or see them. At least we'll generate our own cloud of meaning for the public to absorb, whether they do or not.

Jim in IN


------------------
-- TANSTAAFL


[This message has been edited by JJB (edited 12-13-98).]
 
I have one thought, no, pet peeve really.

When reading firearms magazines I have seen law enforcement sniper rifles refered to as "counter sniper rifles". Are "sniper rifles" only used by individuals with evil intent? Are "counter sniper" rifles only to be used against those who use "sniper rifles"? But what about....

I could really get going, but I'll stop now.
 
I guess if you accept the basic premise that the press and public are generally misinformed and probably ignorant (and I do), then IMHO, the best favor we can do them (and our selves)is proper and accurate use of terminology. Excessive jargon, exoteric references and BS bravado just fosters more 'them and us' mentality, where neither side communicates or understands where the other is coming from. If you find yourself talking with an uniformed person, you have a great opportunity to make a positive first impression and help somebody get the facts right the first time. I've found athat a lot of people have a knee-jerk 'anti-gun' reaction when the subject comes up, but if you draw them out, they rarely have based it on any firsthand experience with guns, just being 'PC', ya know. But If you take a little time to chat 'em up, many will at least show a bit more openness in their thinking and realize that we aren't all bubba's and Freemen wankers.

One last point - 'politically correct' is an oxymoron, kinda like 'Senate ethics committee'. While I'm in favor of patience with those who might be open to rational discourse, the thing the hard core gun grabbers must understand is a big NO!! YOU CAN NOT TAKE MY GUNS.
M2

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited 12-13-98).]

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited 12-14-98).]
 
Words aren't the problem but, rather the meaning different people attach to them. The same word can conjure up very different images to different people. Example: the term "assault rifle", to you or me this is a military firearm of little use outside of military or LE uses. But, to others it is a deadly threat, the prefered weopon of criminals and gangsters. Just the words scare them.
The media is the culprit here. They just love catch phrases. Its much easier than explaining the facts and they have the bad habit of creating these phrases to suit their own definition of it.
So just keep talking like you always have and don't worry about PC words. We'll just keep doing what we always have. Explaning the truth to one person at a time.
 
I had a hard time with the NRA Instructor certification course because of this. Being Military... a GUN is a 155MM Howitzer and what we carried are weapons. I went a long with it - while in class. Took the class at the Rivana Rifle and Pistol Club. Best club in VA, but didnt join. Oh well.
A handgun, pistol, gun, kenetic energy projector, weapon... words are words. I see no point in US bending to THEM in what WE call our gun... My HK is a weapon - that is what I bought it for. I HUNT too... I dont cull herds, managing and augmenting natural selection - I HUNT dang it... and I like STEAKS too... RARE... 3 inches thick and dripping RARE! You want me to eat a salad? Fine, put some bacon in it and put it on the table next to my steak. Why else did GOD give us CANINE TEETH for? I dont no anybody with 4 stomaches - but I do know people who travel in herds.

------------------
Kodiac
Kenetic Defense Institute
kodiac@hotbot.com
 
Rob, you're right - If we don't use words like "combat" and "battle" then that would actually further the antis' cause, in this way:

The actual original meaning of the second amendment is that the citizenry should have the same weapons as any standing army or police force in order to effectively combat them if necessary; in other words, the second amendment ain't about hunting! The antis have already headed us down that slippery slope by convincing a large portion of the public that the only guns that are or should be protected are those for hunting. This is already a huge factor in BATF policy-making (e.g. only "sporting" guns may be imported). This is a totally BS idea fabricated out of thin air by the antis over the years. We need to emphasize and re-emphasize that the whole point of the second amendment and the citizen's militia created by it is for us to be ready to do COMBAT and BATTLE the federal government should it be taken over by tyrants. If we lose this real original purpose completely (we already have lost much), then we're going down the irreversible road to a total ban, because if the purpose of arms is "sport", then one can always make a successful prudential argument as to why society's need for safety outweighs hunters' need to hunt. But if the original purpose is kept, the true utility of firearms is remembered and thus prudential arguments will weigh in favor of gun ownership (Obviously, witness Hitler, China, down the list). Let's all remind the antis that YES, guns ARE made for killing people as well as animals (in self-defense and in defense of the country against foreign enemies and domestic tyrants), and firearms' utility in killing people if necessary is infinitely more important than their use for killing animals. Don't hide behind sporting purposes in defense of firearms ownership because that's a losing argument. Hope this helps next time you're confronted with an anti.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top