A Counter-Attack in the War of Semantics

By Ron Cain
RCain@priceradar.com

I don’t know about you, but I find one of the most frustrating aspects of this debate on gun ownership comes from the fact that those we call the “anti-gunners” just don’t seem to get it.  We “pro-gunners” point at the Bill of Rights, quote the founding fathers to demonstrate precisely what they meant, show how the accidental death statistics from the FBI and ATF do not support the wild claims being made about firearm mortality – and yet, it seems to go right over their heads.  In practical terms, it really is going over their heads – no different than green recruits firing over the tops of the opposing troops.  Doesn’t do a lot of good that way.

In a public debate, following the normal rules of rhetoric and logic, point and counterpoint, this affair would be one-sided.  An objective judge would recognize that one side is based on Constitutional law, publicly available data, sound statistics and reason.  The other side is based mostly on gut-feel, emotional pleas, and (disturbingly) demonstrable untruths.

But clearly, there is more to these debates than well-reasoned thinking – there are some very hot emotions at work here.  And it is not the logic of these debates that attracts the media sharks, but rather the emotions.  The anchormen and the news teams know that murder and scandal sell papers, not discussions on the nature of mankind.  Stirring people into frenzy so they burn city blocks at a time is a particular specialty of theirs.

So how are these emotions communicated?  What’s the trick?  How is it that both the anti-gunners and the media continue to influence otherwise intelligent citizens, despite having no logical arguments to present?

The answer lies in the semantics they use.

One of their tricks is simply the use of inflammatory words.  This is especially successful when you can get the other side to use these words, because you can both redefine the playing field as well convey a bias to the discussions.  Maybe you and I can see past these words, but when our arguments are considered by ordinary folks trying to form an opinion on the subject, the message is already undercut.

I have had close friends (not particularly gun-oriented) hear just the words “assault rifle” and turn to me and say “nobody really needs an assault rifle.”  You see, without even knowing the arguments on either side, an opinion can be formed, and a vote can be swayed, and “inalienable rights” can be lost.

I suggest we change this – as soon as possible.  Let me illustrate how a similar situation developed in the media during the coverage of the Vietnam War.

I was reading the excellent new book “Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973” by Mark W. Woodruff this last weekend, and was fascinated by the way Hanoi spin doctors biased the language which the American media used to describe the war.  This process was formally called dich van (action among the enemy), and was expressly designed to convey the message that the war was unwinnable and immoral.  The United States did not use bombs, it used “anti-civilian bombs” (despite the fact, as described in this book, that our soldiers did an absolutely amazing job of avoiding civilian casualties, and that immediately after the war, most of North Vietnam was largely untouched).  The NVA described themselves as “anti-war” or “liberators” and the South Vietnamese as “pro-war”.  And their enemy was not South Vietnam nor the United States so much as it was “those pro-war factions”.  So Americans could feel the NVA did not hate them – instead they hated only MacNamara, Johnson, etc.  And I’ll bet most people still believe that Tet was a great disaster for the U.S. and victory for the NVA.  It couldn’t be further from the truth.  But the dich van policy established the way the American involvement should be seen (while conveniently omitting mention of the enslavement of thousands of the indigenous people, mass graves, torture, etc. committed by the NVA and the Viet Cong throughout the war)

And we bought it.  Or at least the media did, after which they spoon-fed it to us.  This did not begin as a media conspiracy, but was more a reflection of the relatively small amount of experience of the war correspondents (there were some superb war correspondents, but their messages were not what hit the 6:00 o’clock news).  As Woodruff’s book describes, these reporters conveyed the panic they felt, rather than the events that happened.

That one observation changed the way I see many things now.

I needn’t take this example further (please read the book for that) other than to observe that these reporters needed an angle, a story, a heart-tug.  Consciously or otherwise, they latched onto the messages the NVA dich van program provided them.  And by the end of the war, they were given explicit directives by their own editors to pitch all news from the perspective of why we needed to get out of Vietnam as soon as possible.  It has been suggested that the media wanted the U.S. to lose the war, just to prove their earlier stories were right.

The inflammatory and carefully-biased words from Hanoi fed directly through the news reports, into the mainstream, and affected the opinion of Clark Clifford, who was thought (incorrectly) to be knowledgeable in this area.  And his opinion directly fed to President Johnson, which affected the bombing tactics, which led directly to higher losses of American lives when the NVA returned to battle rather than repairing the bomb-damaged supply roads.  Amazing what a few carefully chosen words can do.

There is a very important point here and it is the crux of the matter. The media does not exist to report history as it happens.  Rather, the media exists to keep the media in business.  And this means pitching emotional stories with a human angle.  Further, these stories are not typically written by experts in the areas being covered -- they are written by experts in the field of writing stories with emotional impact.  As a result, the media is not fair.  It never has been, nor will it ever be.  We are wasting our time if we expect the media to pick up our rational arguments and stand them side-by-side with the anti-gun arguments.

So are we completely out of luck?

I don’t think so.  We cannot influence the media on our terms, but we can influence them on their own terms.  We can influence them the same way the anti-gunners did, by choosing carefully the words we use in our discussions.

Frankly, I think the anti-gunners out-flanked us in just the last few years by feeding the media inflammatory words.  Even worse, we began to incorporate these same words in our debates (presumably as a short cut to agreeing on a common terminology), thereby undercutting our own arguments.  But these words are poison.

Ask some ordinary person on the street how he or she feels about those “gun nuts” having “uncontrolled access” to “assault rifles”.  This person doesn’t even need to know any of the arguments, yet they can come to a conclusion with which they are comfortable, and they can consider themselves informed.

It’s human.  Don’t dismiss it lightly.  These folks will take the words at face value, form an opinion from them, and feel no need to pursue it further.  They will typically not read any of the arguments of either side, so all the statistics and founding father quotes are not a factor.  The gut speaks – the brain listens.

Like it or not, these little words affect the opinions of a large number of voters.

The solution is for us to reject these “anti-gunner” words in our debates, craft new words to convey the real issues at stake, and be utterly rigorous in using them in further discussions.  When new categories of firearms come under attack, it is up to us to anticipate some inflammatory term for it and to come up with a better term first.

Let’s take them one at a time.  And by the way, I have no particular skill at choosing these new words.  If someone has already coined them, let’s use those instead.  But let’s at least get a public list we can agree to use.

Assault rifle.  Now there’s a word that has a specific meaning that has been subverted and reapplied to a different class of firearm.  We know that an assault rifle, by definition, has to be capable of selective fire (semi-auto, and burst or full-auto).  But someone latched onto that term because it carries with it a certain level of adrenaline, and they redefined our semi-automatic cousins of these assault rifles to be in this same class.

Yes, this is incorrect.  Yes, it was not coined by someone knowledgeable with firearms, and, yes, it is inflammatory.  But now they can talk about this “dangerous” class of firearm and win votes (without a single logical explanation).  No one cares to hear whether the term has a basis in fact.  As long as the term is used, it has a meaning.

Brian Puckett advised me that the semi-automatic AR-15 clone you keep in your safe is properly called your “militia rifle”.  Excellent term.  It moves the playing field away from the class of firearm and right back to the 2^nd Amendment.  Not only does it unload the prior term of its inflammatory power, it brings to the table the real issue at stake here; the right and the responsibility of U.S. citizens to protect their country and their freedoms.

“Anti-gunners”.  We use that word constantly.  I’ve used it in the paragraphs above.  Yet, we are the only people to whom it has any pejorative value.  If I wanted to ban all guns, I would want to be called an “anti-gun” person.  It is gratifyingly self-righteous and defines the outlawing of guns as a legitimate pursuit. But that’s their word.  I’m sure we can come up with several replacements, but I prefer “freedom grabbers” or “anti-Constitutionalists”.  We have to convey the message that these people are after a fundamental inalienable right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  They are truly out to subvert the Constitution.  From my point of view, “traitors” is not semantically incorrect, but it will raise blood to the boiling point too quickly.

Remember -- the opposition of the “Pro-Life” movement is not “Anti-Life”.  They knew better and used “Pro-Choice”, and in so doing, redefined the playing field.  Even better, their name restated the basic issue, and if there ever was an inalienable right, being in charge of one’s own body has got to be one.

“Pro-gunners”.  This is the other side of the coin.  Unfortunately, it sounds as if members of this group are proposing gun ownership as if it didn’t already exist.  It just invites the term “anti-gunner” and makes it appear there is a fair debate whether guns should be considered for public ownership.  It does not convey any indication that such people are trying to defend the basic freedoms of their country (which is why other people can get the idea that “pro-gun” is the same as “duck hunter”) or that the possession of firearms was expressly enumerated as an inalienable right in the Bill of Rights.  We need some term that says we are trying to defend what has already been set forth by our founding fathers as a core freedom.  Ideas, anyone?  How about “Pro-Constitution”?

“Gun-control”.  That term admits defeat.  Think of “pest control”.  It presumes there is a problem that needs to be controlled.  Without any supporting arguments, that term says “guns are a problem and we need to do something about it.”  However, when you think of what it means in terms of the Constitution, it should be called “arms infringement.”  Of course, that term is as loaded as the other, but it at least restates the real issue.

Saturday Night Special.  Now there’s a loaded term.  Someone who knows nothing about handguns will suspect there is a class of handguns that blow up in your hand.  It is not fair (nor is it intended to be) nor is it correct.  It is, however, inflammatory.  I’m open to suggestions on this one, but something like “affordable self-protection” comes to mind.  The message has got to be delivered that even inexpensive handguns from all the major manufacturers are strong and reliable, or they would have been sued out of business long ago.  Further, the very people who can least afford the “luxury” of self-protection and cannot afford a $600.00 handgun are the very people who often have to resort to self-defense first.  If such people need affordable housing, they definitely need affordable self-protection (which makes Clinton’s campaign to regulate firearms in such a setting all the more clueless and destructive).

Sniper rifle.  Don’t even let that one get started.  By now you can smell this family of words coming.  Someone must sit around thinking of how they can best make bogey men out of inanimate objects.  I don’t know about you, but I would prefer to talk about my “competition  rifle” (which is how I use it) or my “hunting rifle”.  Don’t let these people put innocents in your cross hairs – you certainly don’t.

Gun nut (or the older “gun crank”).  We use this word ourselves to refer to those of us who make their major hobby involved with firearms.  It’s self-effacing and a form of good-natured kidding.  But putting the word “gun” and the word “nut” in the same sentence is exactly what the freedom-grabbers and media want most.  In their eyes, it means someone who is not to be trusted, someone who is a danger to the public just by having a firearm at home.  Sadly, it was our own term, and it has merely been subverted (not unlike the word “hacker” in the software world).  Time to jettison it.  I prefer “gun hobbyist”, or  “firearm collector”.

So let’s recap:

There are many others, but I think we need other creative minds here.

Will it work?  Is there time enough to make a difference?

I honestly don’t know, but I do know what will happen if we do nothing.

It’s too late to persuade the freedom-grabbers using reason.  They’re gone.  Their minds were made up out of the gate.  Save your breath.  The only way these folks will change their minds is by suffering some crime they could have prevented with a gun.

What matters is whether we can persuade those still undecided.  If we can win back some of this war of semantics and influence the media’s choice of terms, I think we have a real chance.

Recommended further reading on this important topic:

• Politically Corrected Glossary of Terms by Alan Korwin

• Amazing Secret Weapon of the Gun Control Movement by Jon Haupt