“Gun violence”

[Dmath]

I’ve been sick of this term since it first began to appear however many years ago. It implies that there is something different about violence committed with guns, which is exactly what the anti-gunners want people to think. You don’t hear about knife violence, wine-bottle violence, or club-with-a-nail-through-it violence. It’s true that more people can be harmed in a short time with a gun than with a knife or a wine bottle, but that’s not what the anti-gunners mean, although they like to point that out.

It’s a subtle thing. They are singling out guns as somehow different, not because they’re more effective, but because they are guns. With the implication being that a person who is killed with a gun is more of a victim than one who has been clubbed to death.

I think we should raise an objection every time one of us is asked a question by the news media. The people asking the questions are not necessarily anti-gun-rights, though most are, but they usually don’t know anything much about guns, and we have to educate them (and throw a monkey wrench into the flow of words) when it comes up.

If we accept “gun violence” as part of the discussion, we are yielding some ground in the argument.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

I'll bite. I think it's because they see guns as the most commonly used weapons in murder cases in the US. It happens to be true. As far as general violence, though, I cannot speak on that. But when it comes to murder, guns, in general, are used more than anything else. That's why they treat it differently.

 

[OregonJohnny]

It's the same with the term "gunman" in the media.

If it's a story about a man who kills someone with a car, a knife, a sword, a baseball bat, a rock, his fists, etc. - he's "the suspect".

If he used a gun, he's "the gunman".

 

[silicosys4]

I'll bite. I think it's because they see guns as the most commonly used weapons in murder cases in the US. It happens to be true. As far as general violence, though, I cannot speak on that. But when it comes to murder, guns, in general, are used more than anything else. That's why they treat it differently.

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-right...-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles

That's a commonly held idea.

 

[Skribs]

Siliocosis, that specifically refers to rifles. Guns are used more often in murders in the US than other weapons. That doesn't mean that getting rid of the guns will get rid of murders.

I just thought of a good analogy: get rid of microwaves, and bachelors will still eat. Get rid of guns, and those with hate in their hearts will still murder.

 

[brnmw]

I have seen Beer violence... saw one guy throw a Lone Star at another man > aka: "Beer Slinger"

I know, I know stupid... but true, knocked him out cold... beer cans especially un opened can hurt.

 

[DammitBoy]

 

[Skribs]

That's beautiful, Dammit.

(That statement made funnier by your screenname)

 

[ExTank]

DMath, I have said much the same thing when anti-gunners get up on their soapbox about "all the gun accidents."

When you point out to them (with statistics from the likes of the C.D.C. or National Safety Council!) about the number of people who accidentally die by falling, by choking, by accidentally poisoning themselves, by burning, by drowning, etc, and compare/contrast those to how few gun-related accidental deaths there are...

...and then ask them why an accidental gun death is any worse than any of those other way to go.

And their response is almost invariably..."Because they're GUNS!!!!"

:banghead:

 

[Skribs]

ExTank, I've heard that same argument from a coworker. She would rather people use bombs for mass murder than guns, because she hates guns.

 

[2000Yards]

The language makes it easier to focus discussion on the "gun" part of "gun violence," since we all know we can't fix the "violence" part of it.

Sarcasm aside, it's a good debate tactic. The language steers people away from solutions that don't address the "gun" aspect because if you bring up anything other than guns then you're clearly not talking about the same thing. And if you don't want to fix "gun violence," well, what kind of monster are you!?!? :banghead:

 

[horsemen61]

just part of the plan to try and take the guns from us

 

[Skribs]

The problem 2000Yards is that their position would not affect violence and would infringe on my rights. But I'm a monster for suggesting a solution that avoids both of those problems.

 

[ccsniper]

ExTank, I've heard that same argument from a coworker. She would rather people use bombs for mass murder than guns, because she hates guns.
__________________

Ran into a woman at a local wal mart asking me to sign a petition to ban "assualt weapons". I pointed at the gas station across the street and said "a gallon of gas is a lot cheaper than a rifle, and can be used in a lot deadlier fashion than any gun. She huffed and began ranting about guns were specifically designed to kill yada yada yada

 

[BLB68]

Comment deleted. Nevermind. Already covered, don't want to look like I'm piling on.

 

[yokel]

“Gun violence” should be called human violence, leaving us at least the dignity of being responsible for our own sins.

 

[Skribs]

Oh, the other part of the problem with this term, is that legitimate violence done with guns (i.e. to stop an attack) is viewed as evil as well. Look at the stats most people quote for gun violence, and it will include lawful use of guns. Many people believe that by being willing to stop an attack on myself, that I am a vigilante.

 

[Dmath]

The language makes it easier to focus discussion on the "gun" part of "gun violence," since we all know we can't fix the "violence" part of it.

Sarcasm aside, it's a good debate tactic. The language steers people away from solutions that don't address the "gun" aspect because if you bring up anything other than guns then you're clearly not talking about the same thing. And if you don't want to fix "gun violence," well, what kind of monster are you!?!? :banghead:

Right. That is exactly the problem. They know that you can't fix man, a flawed creature*, so we will always have violence. So that just leaves the gun part to work on.

*Well, they do think you can fix humans, if you just pass enough laws outlawing enough of the means by which people get into trouble: Guns, alcohol, dirty pictures, politically incorrect thoughts, cars that make pollution, single-family dwellings, nuclear families, men who think they have to protect their women and children, men.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I am just piling on and I don't care, I gotta vent. The uneducated masses look at firearms as this magical death wand that just sweeps streets clear of every innocent bystander. Anyone who has ever studied tactics of either formal or informal nature quickly realize that firearms are woefully weak, statistically.
Handguns are under-powered, inaccurate, and require training.
Rifles are bulky, impossible to conceal, and loud.
The evil people/monsters who walk among us do not plan tragedies of epic scale by using simple firearms which are prone to failures and can only be used one at a time. The real monsters use explosives, planes, rental trucks, dirty bombs, that kind of stuff. Why do you think that most mass shooters are arrested carrying so many firearms? Cuz they jam and don't work perfectly and the perpetrators know that.
Columbine was planned as a bomb attack primarily. Hijackers use box cutters or shoe bombs or underwear bombs. The Bath School bombing, OK City, 1993 WTC, embassies, Tokyo subway, Norway; the list is long but evident. The killers focused on causing the mass carnage eschew firearms because they are not made for that.
By no means am I discounting any tragedies recent or otherwise, any death is horrible and tragic and we need to fix their root cause. My heart breaks at every loss of innocent life, I'm a parent too. But my guns protect us and bad people exist.

 

[Kim]

Gun violence,gun safety, if we can save one child's life, assault weapon, public health problem, guns as a disease, CDC anti-gun propaganda, etc. Yeah makes me ill. And to watch Chrissy Matthews go on and on about not understanding why there is anyone who wants to go to a gun show. Just like auto shows but he can not wrap his pea brain around a gun show.

 

[Skribs]

Actually gun safety is important, Kim.

 

[Kim]

Yes, gun safety is important but not in the way used by the left. Gun safety laws mean gun control to them. Not teaching people how to appropriately use firearms.

 

[Zakarus]

I'd like to bring up that not all gun deaths in statistics should be classified as only gun deaths. A local case in Louisiana, Mickey Shunick, she was runover then stabbed and eventually shot but the cause of death and the statistics won't mention the other ways this sick person tried to kill her first.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It's the same with the term "gunman" in the media.

If it's a story about a man who kills someone with a car, a knife, a sword, a baseball bat, a rock, his fists, etc. - he's "the suspect".

If he used a gun, he's "the gunman".

Well, they can't call the baseball bat guy "The Batman". DC Comics would be all over them.

They can't call the guy with a rock "The Rock". Dwayne Johnson will be all over them.

They can't call the guy with the sword "The Swordsman". That just sounds way too cool.

Nearly everybody drives a car, so they can't risk alienating all their supporters who drive cars.

 

[Twiki357]

There's no such thing as gun violence, it's an incident of an unidentified mentally deranged individual assaulting innocent people.