The NRA wants to suppress one of guns’ most important safety features

[dm1333]

Gunfire — loud, sharp, rude, abrupt — is an important safety feature of any firearm. From potential victims who seek to escape a mass shooting to a hiker being alerted to the presence of a hunter in the woods, the sound warns bystanders of potentially lethal danger. Yet gun advocates insist there is a greater danger: hearing loss by gun owners.

I had no idea that muzzle blast was a "safety feature".  Is this the left's equivalent of "loud pipes save lives"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/the-nra-wants-to-suppress-one-of-guns-most-important-safety-features/2017/01/22/5a7140fc-dcd7-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

[freakazoid]

 

Donald Trump Jr. visited a Utah-based company that manufactures gun silencers, which proponents call suppressors.

What is the purpose of them adding that? If anything it would hurt their agenda by showing that it does in fact not silence them. Are they trying to somehow discredit us calling them suppressors? I am confused.

[makattak]

What is the purpose of them adding that? If anything it would hurt their agenda by showing that it does in fact not silence them. Are they trying to somehow discredit us calling them suppressors? I am confused.

They want to control the language. It's the same way they pushed "anti-abortion" and refused to use "pro-life" for a long time. They know that language matters and if the better description "suppressor" gets into common use, they will have a harder time confusing the uninformed.

("It's a SILENCER! It SILENCES the gun!" is a lot easier than "It's a suppressor, which makes the gun less loud. It's still loud, just not as much.")

[T.O.M.]

They want to control the language. It's the same way they pushed "anti-abortion" and refused to use "pro-life" for a long time. They know that language matters and if the better description "suppressor" gets into common use, they will have a harder time confusing the uninformed.

("It's a SILENCER! It SILENCES the gun!" is a lot easier than "It's a suppressor, which makes the gun less loud. It's still loud, just not as much.")

Agreed.  They taught us a lot about this in law school in litigation.  Language has a significant impact on people.  Control the language, control the message, control the listener's thoughts on the subject.

[Perd Hapley]

They want to control the language.

Which the Left constantly seeks to do, on most every issue. Americans need to do it, too, but too few of us get it.

[RevDisk]

Agreed.  They taught us a lot about this in law school in litigation.  Language has a significant impact on people.  Control the language, control the message, control the listener's thoughts on the subject.

"Shape the message" is the nicer way of putting it. 

There's guides that folks write up for this sort of thing. They hire PR firms or thinktanks put it out. Generally not for public consumption, but enough of them have leaked. Not just for anti-gun purposes. Businesses do it all the time. All political parties do it as well, just with mixed levels of experience or success. Right wing folks too, I assure you.

[Ben]

The lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise

I feel sorry for The Onion, given all this competition it has been getting.

[MechAg94]

It seems to me that everyone either ignores gun shots from a mass shooting or is confused.  At least until they see the blood or others running. 

[Perd Hapley]

"Shape the message" is the nicer way of putting it. 

There's guides that folks write up for this sort of thing. They hire PR firms or thinktanks put it out. Generally not for public consumption, but enough of them have leaked. Not just for anti-gun purposes. Businesses do it all the time. All political parties do it as well, just with mixed levels of experience or success. Right wing folks too, I assure you.

Yup. The Right has a little bit harder time of it, of course, given who runs the press, the schools, entertainment, etc. It's effective, too. 

[T.O.M.]

It seems to me that everyone either ignores gun shots from a mass shooting or is confused.  At least until they see the blood or others running. 

When I took the ALICE training (active shooter training), the instructor indicated that there is always a great deal of confusion at the start because people don't expect there to be gunshots in their school/work/church/mall.  So there's the initial confusion as to what the sound actually is.  Then you get confusion as to the location of the sound.  Echos through hallways make it difficult to figure out where the sound is coming from.  Add on top of that the number of people who simply freeze up under that kind of stress.

[HankB]

They want to control the language. It's the same way they pushed "anti-abortion" and refused to use "pro-life" for a long time.

Right - note the outright HOSTILITY that comes from the leftists when someone uses the term "illegal alien" . . . some leftists have even begun to substitute "undocumented citizens" for it. 

And of course, "liberal" and "leftist" are now called progressive . . .

[Perd Hapley]

And of course, "liberal" and "leftist" are now called progressive . . .

You mean, "leftist" and "statist" are now "liberal" and "progressive."

[Kingcreek]

It's refreshing to think my .300 win mag might be safer than my pellet gun.

[Hawkmoon]

Donald Trump Jr. visited a Utah-based company that manufactures gun silencers, which proponents call suppressors.

Correction: "Donald Trump Jr. visited a Utah-based company that manufactures firearm suppressors, which anti-gun advocates inaccurately call 'silencers'."

[mtnbkr]

Correction: "Donald Trump Jr. visited a Utah-based company that manufactures firearm suppressors, which anti-gun advocates inaccurately call 'silencers'."

Actually, the inventor of the firearm silencer/suppressor called them silencers. 

Personally, I prefer suppressor because it's more accurate, but either name is correct. 

Chris

[makattak]

Actually, the inventor of the firearm silencer/suppressor called them silencers. 

Personally, I prefer suppressor because it's more accurate, but either name is correct. 

Chris

And, he also chose it for semantic reasons, but different ones. It's far more attractive if you think the device actually silences the gun.

[KD5NRH]

It seems to me that everyone either ignores gun shots from a mass shooting or is confused.  At least until they see the blood or others running.

Been in a couple of unexpected gunfire situations, where I couldn't see the shots being fired.  Both times, I moved quickly but casually near hard cover and waited to see what was going on.  Since the majority of the crowd just looked confused, I waited, then checked it out.  Both turned out to be non-events, but I was happy that my initial response was to not draw attention to myself (with plenty of other targets around, might as well let the others go first) and to use the environment appropriately.

[makattak]

They want to control the language. It's the same way they pushed "anti-abortion" and refused to use "pro-life" for a long time. They know that language matters and if the better description "suppressor" gets into common use, they will have a harder time confusing the uninformed.

("It's a SILENCER! It SILENCES the gun!" is a lot easier than "It's a suppressor, which makes the gun less loud. It's still loud, just not as much.")

I'm bumping for an example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/abortion-foes-compete-womens-march-turnout.html

Find the phrase "pro-life" in the article. The have to include the word "Life" because it's the name of the March, but at no point do they use the words "Pro-life". It's "opponents of abortion" "anti-abortion" "abortion opponents."

To their credit, they do, one time, call the other side "abortion rights supporters". I guess they realize that avoiding the term abortion wasn't helping the left.

[T.O.M.]

I'm bumping for an example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/abortion-foes-compete-womens-march-turnout.html

Find the phrase "pro-life" in the article. The have to include the word "Life" because it's the name of the March, but at no point do they use the words "Pro-life". It's "opponents of abortion" "anti-abortion" "abortion opponents."

To their credit, they do, one time, call the other side "abortion rights supporters". I guess they realize that avoiding the term abortion wasn't helping the left.

The abortion debate was used as an example of how much language usage/message control is used, and it's impact on people.  It's either "pro-life" or "pro-choice" to the people on the two sides of the debate when describing themselves.  By choosing these words, they imply to a listener that they are either about saving lives or protecting freedom.  Great example, though it is a little played out by now. 

[Hawkmoon]

"Shape the message" is the nicer way of putting it. 

There's guides that folks write up for this sort of thing. They hire PR firms or thinktanks put it out. Generally not for public consumption, but enough of them have leaked. Not just for anti-gun purposes. Businesses do it all the time. All political parties do it as well, just with mixed levels of experience or success. Right wing folks too, I assure you.

I'm sure "our side" tries to do it, too, but I think the NRA needs a lot of help in this regard. The "modern sporting rifle" boondoggle is just a poster child for trying to shape the message by controlling the language -- and failing miserably.

[MechAg94]

I'm sure "our side" tries to do it, too, but I think the NRA needs a lot of help in this regard. The "modern sporting rifle" boondoggle is just a poster child for trying to shape the message by controlling the language -- and failing miserably.

The problem on the gun side is people like cool gun names and like owning them.  However, despite controlling the language and the media debate most of the time, opinions on guns and self defense has continued to shift in the favor of gun rights. 

[Perd Hapley]

The "modern sporting rifle" boondoggle is just a poster child for trying to shape the message by controlling the language -- and failing miserably.

Failing, as in the phrase isn't going mainstream, or failing as in they did something wrong?

The right isn't in a position to control language. We don't own the schools, or most of the media. I was going to saw we don't own the government, but I can't really say that anymore.  


The "pro-lifers" should never had fought the "anti-abortion" label. We should be as proud of being anti-abortion as we are of being anti-slavery.

[lee n. field]

I'm sure "our side" tries to do it, too, but I think the NRA needs a lot of help in this regard. The "modern sporting rifle" boondoggle is just a poster child for trying to shape the message by controlling the language -- and failing miserably.

Hmm.  How about "King George's rifle"   (Not, of course, the one he uses.)

[Hawkmoon]

Failing, as in the phrase isn't going mainstream, or failing as in they did something wrong?

Failing in that it was too late, and the term "modern sporting rifle" was such an obvious, blatant attempt to re-characterize something that had already been firmly emplanted in the public's consciousness as an "assault weapon" with an alternate, innocuous-sounding term. It was clear to everyone, on both sides of the debate, that the term "modern sporting rifle" was something the NRA came up with because they didn't know how to effectively rebut the gun-grabbers' characterization of AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles as "military" (style) weapons, suitable only for mass killing.

Basically, rather than confronting the lie and educating the public about the very real differences between a civilian AR-15 and a military M16 or M4, the NRA punted and tried to evade the issue. You may disagree, but I think it was a massive failure. Ask someone who isn't firmly on one side or the other of the gun rights debate what a "modern sporting rifle" is and you'll get a blank look in response. Ask them what an "assault weapon" is, and they'll tell you it's an AR-15 or AK-47. Ask them if they know the difference between an AR-15 and an M16, and most of them won't have a clue.

[Pb]

Shooting a shotgun while wearing earplugs gave me a horrific disease called hyperacusis.  I have been suffering for about five years from it.  The noise that damaged my ears wasn't safe at all.  No one should suffer what I have gone through.