Four Owellian Word Usages in Gun Control

Gun Watch ^ | 18 August, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[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.