Loaded Language about Loaded Guns

When I read an article about legalizing drugs, or the war on poverty, and especially the education system, I like to think that the articles I find especially convincing or well-written are the ones that use the best argumentation; the ones who give solid logic and impeccable evidence. When I take a closer look however, I'm fairly confident that some of the most powerful articles are the ones that use powerful language, even if that language doesn't exactly accurately portray the objective reality. Two of the most emotionally charged issues right now are abortion and gun control; for this post, I will be focussing on gun control.
The article for gun control can be found here.
The article against gun control can be found here.

Before I look at the connotative language in the articles, I'd like to discuss connotative language in this debate in general. the term thrown around a lot is "gun control," which seems to have a slightly negative connotation taken by itself. In this context, however, I feel it is mostly neutral because both sides use the phrase, and even if it was originally intended as negative, it has become neutral through overuse. Some other less neutral terms are gun violence prevention, gun protection, and weapons ban for those in favor of gun control. For those against, gun freedom, gun rights, and gun owner protection. I'm sure there are more, these are just the ones that immediately come to mind. If I missed any important ones, feel free to let me know in the doobly-doo below.

With that out of the way, lets look at Ban Guns, End Shootings? by John Donohue. He, almost immediately, jumps to the term "mass shooting," which seems pretty objective but definitely invokes emotion at this point of use. He describes the NSA's influence over the decisions reached by policymakers in Congress as a "stranglehold," which feels like a definite exaggeration and is certainly not literally nor maybe even metaphorically true. He says that the gun culture "worship[s] the magical protective capacities of guns." This is definitely loaded with more than objective reality, especially the words "worship" and "magical," of which neither are true. He is painting a picture of a cultish group that believes in magic and is completely crazy. This is certainly a good strategy for convincing people to agree with you; they just don't want to be like the others. He uses words and phrases like "safe storage," "unsecure," "scientific evidence," "wisdom," "other advanced nations think so," "humane values," and other such terms. If you look at each of these terms on their own, it's very hard to disagree with them, which is evidence that they don't accurately represent the objective reality.

NRA Chief David Keene disagrees with Mr. Donohue, and he uses equally loaded, subjective language. He starts by calling legislation signed ny Lyndon B. Johnson restricting gun trading "draconian," and proceeds to say that it "prosecuted innocent gun collectors." Obviously not objective. He uses terms like "those hostile to firearms," "defend their rights," "government would threaten their way of life," 'firearm owners protection," "exploit the murders in Newtown," and "demonize." Once again, all of these things are pretty one-sided out of context; it's hard to be for the government "threatening [someone's] way of life." One thing I find particularly interesting in this article is when Keene seems to quote his opponents, saying, "draconian legislation imposed restrictions on "dealing" firearms." He is criticizing the loaded language of the other side, attacking the way they portray gun selling as similar to the drug trade, or shady and illegal. He is aware enough of loaded language to criticize it in his opponents, but not to find it in his own writing.

Both sides of the issue are equally guilty of this crime (there I go with the loaded language), and regardless of who provides the better substance, both seek primarily to persuade not with logic, but with connotation and connected emotion.