When talking about guns, terms matter. (repost from GD)

[virginia mountainman]

( A repost from GD)

Interesting read from the LA times, about how definitions matter in the gun debate, I fully agree with his assessment. It is very hard to discuss the relevant issues at hand, with someone who, in their very posting prove they know next to nothing about the subject at hand.

The author uses the example of dogs to show too non-gun knowledgeable folks, what the conversation looks like to someone who actually knows the subject at hand.

If you think precision doesn't matter, forget about guns for a second. Imagine I'm concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I'm explaining my views to you, a dog trainer — but I have no grasp of dog terminology.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights, but we need to do something about pit bulls. We need restrictions on owning an attack dog.

You: Wait. What's an “attack dog”?

Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.

You: Huh? Pit bulls aren't military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?

Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.

You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.

Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.

You: Hounds? Seriously?

Me: OK, maybe not actually “hounds.” Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with violent dogs the way you are. But we can identify breeds that civilians just don't need to own.

You: Apparently not.

Before we can have a serious conversation, their must be a base of knowledge so at least both sides will know what they are talking about. Very interesting read!

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1213-white-productive-gun-debate-20151213-story.html