*Pettifoggery *is a cool word, I’ll grant you that.
And with pettifoggery the win goes to DA.
The crowd goes wild!
Our friends are suddenly all saying “hoplophobe” these days, too, as if it were not only real but persuasive of something. 
Musta been in some NRA mailing last week, with some encouragement to “parrot this at every opportunity in an effort to make yourself look smart”.
Yeah I saw that word upthread too, but instinctively thought it was dumb. Although, the image in my head of gun nutters all saying it makes me a bit happy.
Are you intentionally demonstrating pettifoggery in an attempt to catch the wave?:dubious:
Nope, it’s been used in posts on this board back to 2000.
ETA: and while not every anti-gunner qualifies, some people really do have a neurotic paranoid phobia about guns.
Exceeded only by the gun feteshists’ neurotic paranoid phobia about tyranny.
Pretty much trivially true: every side has an extreme that even the moderates don’t want to be associated with–case in point, the two parlor pinks I see at the gun range with their “not-Obama” targets who can’t get anyone else to talk to them.
That’s extraordinary. I needed to look up a comparison because it’s so mind-bendingly extreme:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
I’d imagine folks will interpret the numbers to suit their position.
The fear of getting killed is not a psychological disorder. The reality of it is in the news every day.
So what’s with the use of that silly, manufactured word? Is it a way of reassuring yourselves that “No, it’s the *other *guys who have a mental problem, not us fetishists and fantasists!” ?
You’re grasping at straws to deny the weight of the evidence. That’s all you’re doing.
Really? I’ve seen gun nuts chastise other gun nuts for taking extreme positions. But all the gun grabbers seem to sit on their hands when Elvis opens his mouth. Why is that? You sure that the tolerance for extremism is equal on both sides?
Yeah, its not a disorder, it s right.:rolleyes:
I just ran into it the other day when Bone used it in a post. I looked it up and it pretty much covers the gun phobia that a lot of gun grabbers seem to display. You many not like the word but the truth hurts sometimes.
There’s no weight to the evidence, because there is fundamentally no evidence. It isn’t pettifoggery to observe that the “weight” of your evidence is some thing some guy did in his spare time. Gun advocates might see that as weighty; normal people see that as a complete lack of any sort of evidence base.
Nevertheless, you will call it weight, and will crow about having all the evidence, and will hand wave away any actual peer reviewed publications just because, and most of the people you talk with will buy it.
That’s not critical thinking. It’s desperation.
If the definition linked to is correct, it does come with its own built-in well poison:
Except that in these sorts of debates the sort of people who use the word “hoplophobe” don’t seem to accept the existence of “justified apprehension about those who may wield [guns]”; thus everyone to whom it is applied and all fears pertaining to gun use are automatically presumed to be irrational. There is no other option available.
I refer DA to the following by way of example:
Really? There’s no rational reason whatsoever to be worried about anyone with a gun?
Note that I’m not saying that “the other side” doesn’t do it - there’s been plenty of “gun stroker” rhetoric in this thread. That doesn’t diminish the above point.
Compare the following hypothetical situations: You’re in a store shopping one day when you see me coming down the aisle-[ul][li]wearing a cavalry saber in a scabbard[/li][li]walking a pitbull on a leash[/li][li]carrying a portable nail gun[/li][li]wearing a holstered sidearm[/ul][/li]If the sidearm makes you more nervous than the other three, that’s hoplophobia.
You could say exactly the same thing about “homophobia”- that if you regard homosexual sex as immoral, perverse or distasteful, then you’re the one with a mental aberration.
Just taking your ridiculous hypothetical, even though real-world situations are far more plentiful and far more instructive:
Is being the most concerned about your having the weapon with the longest range and the greatest ease of killing me a disorder, or is it reason itself? Is concern over the mental state of someone who is carrying a weapon, and therefore already expecting or even looking for a confrontation, also the sign of a disorder?
Note that “hoplophobia” is not listed as a disorder in any medical reference. It’s something you people invented for reasons you are apparently not willing to discuss.
And I’m still waiting to hear you explain how I know you’re not really a threat to me, and what right I have not to be exposed to the threat you represent. If you have no answer, you can go ahead and say so, rather than let it be the simple and obvious inference.
Genius argument 
If you’re that far out in the hinterland that you’d write this, nothing is going to bring you back in.
That’s easy. As soon as I realized it was you, I’d be terrified. 
Anyway, we already have a word for “fear of things that kill you.” Instinct.
Also, context is important. A cop carrying a sidearm is a normal sight and we understand why he might be walking around with one, so fear is not a reasonable response. People in hunting orange with rifles slung over their shoulder also have a reasonable context for carrying a weapon.
But the random shlub wearing a wifebeater, army fatigue trousers and a gun holster in your local Piggly Wiggly? That’s another matter. He might have a perfectly good reason for wearing a gun openly in an environment where the need to shoot things is exceedingly rare, but he could also be a deranged loon or indeed just an idiot who is a danger to himself as much as to others. Fear is an entirely rational response, given the consequences if he turns out to be from one of the latter two categories.
So where’s your counter-evidence? Oh, you have none? But you’re willing to infringe the rights of other anyway?
You are simply handwaving away all the evidence that exists by saying that they don’t meet YOUR standards.
Pffft.
See the word “irrational” in that definition? Its a pretty important part of the definition.
I have a healthy respect for guns and a fear of anyone who is handling one carelessly or pointing one at me. What I don’t fear is a gun simply sitting in a holster, it might raise my awareness a bit but I wouldn’t fear the gun that would be irrational.
You realize that the portion you quoted was in response to Elvis’s argument for taking away all the guns right? IOW, I am afraid of guns so we should outlaw guns.
I’m not saying that you should never be afraid of guns but Elvis is rpemising his argument for eliminating guns in society on the basis that guns in society puts him in mortal danger. That seems like hoplophobia.
Noone is saying that you cannot be rationally afraid of a PERSON with a gun. If you want to regulate who can have guns then go ahead and try to make your argument that guys that wear fatigues and wifebeaters shouldn’t have access to guns because you’re afraid of them. I can make an argument that a felon shouldn’t have a gun because I am justifiably afraid of what that felon might do with a gun so I can jsutify restricting their access to guns.
I spend a fair bit of time around strangers with guns at the range, some of them come wearing full Duck Dynasty and I am not generally afraid when i go to the range. Do i have a depraved indifference to my own life?