Four Owellian Word Usages in Gun Control

Gun Watch ^ | 18 August, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

 "Killed by a gun" places volition and responsibility on the gun

In  the novel 1984, Eric Blair, writing under the pseudonym George Orwell, wrote of how unscrupulous people redefine and misuse words and language to enhance political power.  Here are four examples of Orwellian misuse of language used to promote more restrictions on firearms ownership and usage.

1.  The first usage is very simple, very powerful, and extremely common.  It is simply to substitute "by" for the correct word "with" when describing the use of a firearm.   Here is a headline from Slate:  "How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?"
 
Consider the absurdity of the question for a moment.  It is literally attributing volition to inanimate objects.  It is grammatically incorrect.  The correct use would be: "How Many People Have Been Killed with Guns Since Newtown.    This is a very important distinction.  By substitution of the word "by" for the correct word "with", the author removes human volition from the discussion, and frames the debate to be about guns rather than human actions. 

The superstitious idea that objects have volition has been rejected in most of Western Civilization for centuries, but this usage seems intent on resurrecting it.

2.  The second usage is the term "gun violence".  It is so commonly used I do not think an example is necessary.   It is Orwellian in two ways.  First is the false, and highly successful conflation of violence as evil.  Violence is neutral like gravity.  Violence can be used for good or evil, but this clear truth has been so eroded by the continued conflation of violence and evil that most people do not even see the switch that has been done.   

"Gun violence" separates and makes violence done with guns more evil  and more important than  violence done without guns.  It creates a false category to be exploited for political purposes.   It does not matter to a victim if they are killed with a bomb or poison or a machete or a gun.   They are still dead.  

If more legal restrictions on firearms increase overall unjustified violence, then it is counter productive rather than positive for a society, even under the limited world view of pragmatism.  The term "gun violence" eliminates that debate from the argument by limiting the discussion to actions accomplished with guns.   

The unstated assumption is that "gun violence" occurs in a vacuum, and that any reduction in "gun violence" automatically results in a reduction of all violence, which is one of the main points of contention in the debate.   As stated above, the entire idea that violence is always evil is another unstated assumption.

3.  The  third usage is of the term "buy back" for gun turn in events where guns are turned in for money or some other valuable item.   There can be no "buy back" of something that the entity doing the "buy back" never owned before.    Yet, the term is almost universally used for these events.    The terminology creates the assumption that all guns are owned by the government, and only allowed to be possessed by individuals at the sufferance of the state.

4.  The fourth usage is of the term "recovery" in the context of guns that are confiscated, impounded, or seized by the government.  Here is a recent example from  abcnews:  "Officials Recover 67 Guns at Ga. Airport in 2013".  

No guns were actually recovered that I could tell.  67 guns were confiscated, seized, or impounded.  If the guns had been stolen, they could be recovered.  But they had not been stolen.  They allegedly had been placed in baggage or carried  in a way that violated a regulation or law.  

Again, the implication is that guns are all owned by the government, so when the government confiscates, seizes, or impounds guns, they are "recovering" them.

The gun control debate is full of Owellian word usages.  The four above are some of the more common.   Control of the language is a powerful means of manipulating people, because many casual readers will not recognize how they are being deceived.

 ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

I see these Orwellian games being played by the Statists all the time. The latest is to call laws infringing on the Second Amendment "gun safety".

[Chode]

Smith & Wesson LIVE Gun-Cam

Gun Cam is Active

[Paladin2]

"The second usage is the term "gun violence"."

"Violence"? I always thought it was "violins".

[Paladin2]

"The fourth usage is of the term "recovery""

In keeping with #1 shouldn't they use a term like "apprehended"?

[marktwain]

The term “Gun Control” is Owellian as well, as many have noted.

[mountainlion]

Economic recovery? confiscation of he economy?

[marktwain]

In keeping with #1 shouldn't they use a term like “apprehended”?

Yes, and with the rules they follow they should also use the term “allegedly”.

Someone noted a while back, that Statists do no care much about being consistent. They care about having and keeping power.

[marktwain]

Economic recovery? confiscation of he economy?

Makes perfect sense, now that you mention it!

[MarkL]

"Violence"? I always thought it was "violins".

We need more "sax & violins" on television, not less!

Hat tip to the late, great Gilda Radner

Mark

[DuncanWaring]

They call shootings “gun violence”, but they never call lynchings “rope violence”.

[phockthis]

sfl

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I can expand on that list a bit.

“Gun homicide” is a statistic that compiles murder, manslaughter, suicide and accident, as well as being indifferent to criminality, or lack thereof, justification, if any, and extenuating circumstances.

This one really matters. For example, Arizona is ranked at #11 in the US for “gun homicides”. But 71% of those homicides are suicides. Take them away, and Arizona is close to last on the list.

[supercat]

The superstitious idea that objects have volition has been rejected in most of Western Civilization for centuries, but this usage seems intent on resurrecting it.

I would regard as correct a linguistic usage which describe a person as being killed "by" a gun in cases where the firearm acted with fatal effect in a manner contrary to the way firearms normally behave. For example, if a firearm were to explode because of a defect in the metal, or if it were to fire when it was not being handled (e.g if the firing pin on a rifle gets stuck causing it to slam-fire full auto, I would regard the first shot as being a consequence of being handled, but the 30th as being a consequence of the gun's own volition). By such a definition, the number people killed "by" guns in most years would probably be well below 100, but not necessarily zero.

[marktwain]

Thanks. There are many others. Orwellian use of the language is pervasive among statists and “progressives” because they do not have any compunction about lying. To statists, lying is just another tool in the box to obtain and keep power.

[marktwain]

I understand your point. As you say, the number of correct usages is likely vanishingly small.

[RedMDer]

DEFEAT TYRANNY!
START HERE.
Please Contribute Today!

[Standing Wolf]

I can expand on that list a bit.

I can, too. I'm thoroughly sick and tired of seeing the term "gun rights." Guns don't have rights. They never did. They never will.

We have a right to keep and bear arms. We have a right to self-defense. We have a right to own and carry guns.

[jeffc]

...wrote of how unscrupulous people redefine and misuse words and language to enhance political power.

Like "undocumented worker", "pro-choice", "homophobia", "hate speech"? Who uses those words?...........

[marktwain]

Exactly so.

[supercat]

I understand your point. As you say, the number of correct usages is likely vanishingly small.

Precision of language is important. If the phrase "to be killed by a gun" had no meaning, one might claim that the preposition 'by' should be regarded as a shorter alternative to the present participle 'using' and the phrase should be interpreted the same way. As it is, however, the phrase has a meaning which is different from "to be killed using a gun"; rarely is such meaning required, but it's hardly obscure; those who would pretend the 'by' form means the same thing as the 'using' form are being dishonest.