I think I have a problem with that practice.

They should require some type of mental evaluation.

When people that are placed in a position of great responsibility can't differentiate between an inanimate object problem and a people problem,
I find it very concerning.

STOP IT.

Your denial only makes your job much harder.

I'm not sure I understand...BENDABLE!

Are you saying that the term implies the gun is responsible?

Cause if that's the case then the reader/listener is flawed, not the speaker.

It's all violence, but if I want to differentiate between domestic, sexual, gun, physical...then I appreciate being able to use the words as intended.

So again, it sounds like your mad at the person using it when instead you should be upset with the person misinterpreting it...but that means...

Then again I could have no idea what you're getting on about.

I've never seen a violent gun,car, toaster, brick, crow bar, pool cue, ball bat, turkey baster, cell phone, hub cap, welcome mat or gin bottle.

When is the last time that you've seen a L.E.O. on camera use any of those in the description of a socially violent act?

They don't it's either a
Gentleman high on crack or
A mentally disturbed lady

Or
A known criminal used a stick to do what ever.

anthropomorphising a firearm
For some reason is acceptable
that does not make it logical

It helps no one

Bendable,

A "violent physical" is a doctor going two knuckles too deep.

"physical violence" is similar but not the same.

"Violent gun" and "gun violence" are not the same thing.

I think bendable's point is that it's about the violence, and not about the gun.

Too many people in front of a camera or a microphone can't seem to make that distinction. (Or maybe they use that phrase intentionally, for the sensationalization value.)

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
I think bendable's point is that it's about the violence, and not about the gun.

Too many people in front of a camera or a microphone can't seem to make that distinction. (Or maybe they use that phrase intentionally, for the sensationalization value.)

Absolutely, but we can't be omitting adjectives because of how other people view them.

We complain about that on the forum when others do it.

And generally the ones in front of the microphone is a politician. Some is great care in the words they use. Others are political hacks that say whatever string the handler pulls.

Look at the difference between Nashvilles press conference a few weeks ago and the one in Louisville today. Nashville was straight forward, laid out the facts. The one today was filled with lots of “allegedly” “gun violence” and my personal favorite “officers responded to an alleged act of active aggression. The alleged aggressor was neutralized”

I find myself in agreement with bendable. The term "gun violence" is either mental laziness or an attempt to blame guns for the actions of their wielders.

Inanimate objects can be employed to commit or facilitate violence. They cannot commit violence. Thus the term "gun violence" is nonsensical.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
Absolutely, but we can't be omitting adjectives because of how other people view them.

We complain about that on the forum when others do it.

I agree, man.

Truth is, I had part of this discussion with family over the past weekend. It's as if the word "gun" is used as the adjective in that phrase. And that's [grammatically] wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
the term "gun violence" is nonsensical.

Yes, it is.

What the general population hears day in and day out, week in and week out
from
People in positions of authority or power makes a difference.

If you tell someone somthing often enough ,
Weather it true ,false or silly
It will become fact.

I agree with you bendable but I hear it coming from politicians not law enforcement.

quote:

A "violent physical" is a doctor going two knuckles too deep.

“Uh, using the whole fist, doc?”
-Fletch

There were four cops on our news stations in four days that used those very words.

I don't see the politicians because I turn the station a.s.a.p.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
There were four cops on our news stations in four days that used those very words.

I don't see the politicians because I turn the station a.s.a.p.

I don't know any real cops who will talk to the press. Jones is correct. They are politicians in uniform. All the news organizations including FOX use the term gun violence now as if it is a thing.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
And generally the ones in front of the microphone is a politician. Some is great care in the words they use. Others are political hacks that say whatever string the handler pulls...

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I find myself in agreement with bendable. The term "gun violence" is either mental laziness or an attempt to blame guns for the actions of their wielders.

Inanimate objects can be employed to commit or facilitate violence. They cannot commit violence. Thus the term "gun violence" is nonsensical.

Yup, it's that simple. If you're trying to turn this into an English lesson, you're missing it by a mile, James.

Anytime I hear about attempts to reduce gun violence, I inquire if they're seeking to increase knife violence.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are politicians that use the phrase intentionally to promote their anti gun agenda's .

And
We all know that the media loves controversy and drama,
So their use is very understandable.

But L.E.O.'s
In particular must know that feeding false information to the people they are hired to protect won't end well.

Treating the people will tax the current health care system like never before.

The government will suffer because the rise in taxes will be huge.

So taking guns is their "simple" answer.

But the L.E.O.'s need to recognize what's this phrase is doing.

I dislike the term as well and usually put a quote in on social media platforms that it is not ""gun violence"" but rather criminal use of firearms that is the problem.

Using the term "gun violence" is an ideological or political sleight of hand to keep the spotlight off the person(s) behind the firearm--and their behavior. Even though the United Kingdom has for all intents and purposes banned and confiscated privately held firearms, their media talks about "knife violence" instead of the individuals behind the knife. So the focus has shifted to regulating knives! The public suffers from the unwillingness of politicians to address the human and social behaviors underlying violence.

I don’t really like the term gun violence either, especially the way it’s usually used in the media. The phrases that I absolutely cannot tolerate are “crime gun” and “crime gun intelligence”. Crime gun isn’t quite as bad as long as it’s understood to just be a short hand term for “firearm that was used in a criminal act,” but it is misleading since we don’t cars used in crimes “crime cars,” etc. “Crime gun intelligence,” is a big part of why I left ATF as a whistleblower. It is a misguided idea that criminal activity can be disrupted by focusing on one type of instrument used in a crime. The problem is that it presupposes that crime can be prevented merely by intercepting one type of widely available and constitutionally protected tool. I’m all for vigorous prosecution of those who commit crime, and even adding enhanced sentences to those who possess firearms while committing crimes. However, federal laws are primarily reactive in nature, and attempts to enforce them “proactively” are loaded with issues and potential to violate civil rights. Proactive law enforcement is done in the fashion of “broken window theory” policing like NYPD used to turn NYC around in the early 1990s and is the domain of local and maybe state law enforcement, not federal agencies.