Names are important. A product can fail or succeed based on how it’s named. For instance, would you like to BackRub a question, or would you like to Google a question? The same search engine has used both names, but only one of those names became a verb that everyone knows. In a similar way, the terminology of the gun industry and gun regulation can have major impacts on the future of American gun control. The following examples show how this is happening.
- Politicians are skirting around stances with vague terms.
The loose terms that lawmakers use around gun violence are contributing to legal inaction. Here’s an example. In March 2021, an all-too-familiar story played out twice: a man with a gun slaughtered innocent people in an American city. As with previous mass shootings, people of different political dispositions either called for either more gun control or to reduce gun violence by focusing on other areas. However, by naming measures broadly, lawmakers of either party may be preventing any progress.
For example, when Republican Senator John Kennedy spoke to Fox News in the wake of the Boulder mass shooting, he stated, “In my judgment, we do not need more gun control. We need more idiot control.” On the very same day, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin stated, “We won't solve this crisis with just prosecutions after funerals. We need prevention before shooting.” On the surface, “idiot control” and “prevention before shooting” sound incredibly similar. This masks policy differences. Kennedy and Durbin have vastly different attitudes to gun control. Kennedy opposes extensive background checks on people wanting to purchase a gun, and he also opposes putting people with mental health issues on a no-buy list. Durbin has voted to prohibit the sale of assault weapons and limit firearm magazine capacity. However, their soundbites are vague. Why is this? The Theory of Political Ambiguity, where politicians refuse to make clear statements to avoid upsetting voters, is a likely reason.
2. Loose definitions are preventing actions.
What is the definition of an assault rifle? There is no clear answer to this question. This makes it easy for pro-gun publications to claim that banning assault weapons is illogical. Therefore, when President Joe Biden called for a ban on assault weapons, it allowed anti-gun control groups to claim that an assault weapon ban would not have prevented the mass shooting in Boulder. And that allows pro-gun groups to distract from evidence such as that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban did save lives. This leads into the next point, which is distraction.
3. Highlighting terminology distracts from the main issues.
In February 2021, Republican Representative Lauren Boebert tweeted the following statement: “The People who think we need more gun control are the same people who think the ‘AR’ in ‘AR-15’ stands for assault rifle.” This tweet appears to have been well received by people who were anti-gun control, as it has since gained 30,000 likes and 5,619 retweets. And technically, Boebert is correct in stating that some people are unaware that the AR in AR-15 actually stands for ArmaLite. The statement suggests that pro-gun control advocates are ignorant. However, stating what the contraction in AR-15 actually stands for does not make a difference to the people who have been shot to death by an AR weapon. Ultimately, Boebert’s statement distracts from the issue.
In the Boulder shooting, the gunman used an AR-556 pistol. This pistol has similar mechanisms to semiautomatic rifles and uses the same ammunition as an AR-15 rifle, which travels faster and with more energy than the 9mm rounds used in more common pistols. This is the information that is important to consider when regulating this weapon, not what the AR stands for.
What is the root of the problem?
In many ways, the vagueness of definition in weapon regulation is nothing new in America. The entire text of the second amendment is as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It’s impossible to imagine a modern democracy using only 27 words, grouped into two confusingly bundled clauses, to define its use of weaponry. Yes, since the passage of the Bill of Rights, other gun control laws have passed in America, even on a federal level. But there is one thing that the vague statements of Senators Durbin and Kennedy show: America must do something to reduce gun crime.
Americans are more united than many think on gun control. According to Gallup, in 2020, 57% of American wanted stricter gun control laws. But thanks to vague statements, loose definitions and distractions, Americans are not getting what they want.
It’s clear that vague terminology is stifling the progress that a majority of Americans want. Yes, the naming that the gun industry and gun control proposals use only form one aspect of what is making American gun crime so high. But it’s clear that this aspect is having a significant effect in causing gun deaths and blocking gun regulation. In this instance, the pen is not mightier than the sword. The pen is enabling the sword.
