There is no question that how one frames and presents things affects the tone and tenor of any debate or discussion. But sometimes we must step back and decide if the choice of words properly reflects and is guiding the debate in the desired direction.

“Gun control”. This tends to be the phrase bandied about, and there’s no question the use of those 2 words sets the tone of the discussion.

Some months ago I came across this article. The author writes:

Calling the debate “gun control” presupposes that there will be control — i.e., that government control over guns is the end, rather than the means. The only question remaining in such a debate is how much control the government will ultimately exert over citizens’ guns.

Most people, though, if they thought about it, would say that what they’re really aiming for is “violence minimization.” If one properly identifies minimizing violence as the goal, the debate changes dramatically. It forces those participating in the debate to ask, not “how many guns can we take away or how many magazines can we limit?” but, instead, “what approach results in the fewest number of gun deaths or overall violence?”.

When I speak with most people on these issues, I dig a little into their true intentions and most in fact are desiring to minimize violence and “senseless death”. Of course, they still tend to believe that banning guns would help achieve that end, but there’s data to support otherwise. The discussion continues.

But really, if the discussion is going to continue, we should strive to continue it towards the truly desired end. I mean, if what you’re truly interested in is minimization of violence, then let’s frame the discussion as such. There’s so much talk about “finding common ground”, I dare say you’ll find more on this discussion.

Of course, if you choose to keep the discussion about “gun control”, then perhaps that’s really what you are after. If so that’s fine, just be honest about it and stop hiding behind the children.