I am sick of hearing this ridiculous phrase. There is no such thing as "gun violence". There is only "violence".

Every news organization uses this ridiculous phrase. This phrase has seeped into the English lexicon. I've even seen members of this forum use this phrase.

It's not going to stop, of course, but at least we should avoid using it, ever. There is no point in asking why a distinction is made between using a firearm to commit a violent act, and all other conceivable means to do so. It takes only a moment's thought to know the reasons why this phrase is employed at every possible chance.

We do not refer to "knife violence" or "baseball bat violence" or "manual strangulation violence" and on and on. Reading these terms now, they seem silly, don't they? And well they should, but we have become conditioned to the word games being played by those who oppose the Second Amendment and gun ownership in this country.

Violence does not originate with inanimate objects. Violence and violent crimes comes from one source alone: the human animal.

The underlying suggestion of this ridiculous phrase is that if all guns were removed from society, the world would become a paradise, and this is beyond naive and preposterous.

Rarely do cartoons hit the mark so squarely as the one below.

Yup, demonizing the inanimate objects to advance their agenda of ultimately completely banning them. And, people are brainwashed by it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The underlying suggestion of this ridiculous phrase is that if all guns were removed from society, the world would become a paradise, and this is beyond naive and preposterous.

I often bring up this point. In the annals of human history, were we less prone to war and violent crime before the proliferation of private firearm ownership?

I am not a fan of the term gun rights either, b/c again, guns are inanimate objects. Guns don't have rights. Gun owners do. I understand the term was coined more or less as a matter of convenience.

Amen.

I recently had a dialog with somebody who defended the use of that phrase. I attempted to use the same logic that you use; I was not successful.

Is there a reliable source of information re the numbers? Guns vs. knives etc.?

Thank you. One of my biggest pet peeves is hearing that term. Transference of the violence to an inanimate object allows people to assuage the core nature of the problem. We have a large swath of our population that is broken beyond repair. It’s not limited to the United States, it happens everywhere and has been present in every time. Humans are capable of committing acts of pure evil. Shooting another human because they forget to throw an extra packet of sauce in your fast food order, should be cause to remove you from society permanently. When there are not proportionate consequences to actions deemed inappropriate in our society it sends a subliminal signal that such inappropriate actions are acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I am sick of hearing this ridiculous phrase.

For years and years (to which my wife can attest): Every time that propaganda phrase has come up in the "news" I've said something like "It's just violence, idiots. Guns can't commit violence. They're inanimate objects."

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I recently had a dialog with somebody who defended the use of that phrase.

It's indefensible. Guns, being inanimate objects, cannot commit violence. It's that simple.

Give up. You can't fix stupid.

Politicians have mastered the art of manufacturing problems and getting their useful idiots to ram the point home. COVID, "gun violence," LGBQUTACFUCK ____________, "income inequality," the list goes on.


Democrats/liberals are worse than a woman. When they start losing a logical argument they throw lies and the most outrageous bullshit against the wall and it's impossible to address because every logical, well reasoned answer is either met with an emotional response or more lies and outrageous shit but in triplicate. It's never ending and there's a reason why since the dawn of time people resort to physical violence because it's a universal language that those who prevail speak. If the left keep up with this shit they're going to find out they're not nearly as fluent as they think, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

I am not a fan of the term gun rights either, b/c again, guns are inanimate objects. Guns don't have rights. Gun owners do. I understand the term was coined more or less as a matter of convenience.

I use the term "Civil Right" whenever discussing the issue. Back about 20 years ago I ran a website OurCivilRights .org (or maybe .com, can't remember for sure) pushing to end the gun ban in National Parks.

At the least it provokes the argument into the arena of whether a Person has a Right to effective self defense. It also reinforces that the 2A is in the Bill of Rights.

Arguing whether a gun control law is effective in reducing some kind of crime is bad strategy for us.

"Weapons of war" (the semi-automatic-only AR in particular) is another word game they play. Every firearm ever created was designed or used as a weapon of war. Still another is "[insert group here] rights."

Another gem of the left is "hate crimes". Just make sure your crimes are not against anyone in a protected class and do not use a gun for your violent deeds. Let's make acts of evil as inoffensive as possible.

Perhaps, and I am saying this only partly in jest, if we (the conservative minded, pro-2A crowd) were to react to the phrase with the same offense as many do to various other trigger phrases, we might get some traction? Nahhh, offense can only be perceive by the woke.

quote:

Another gem of the left is "hate crimes".

And "white supremacy." And "___phobia."

quote:

Every time that propaganda phrase has come up in the "news" I've said something like "It's just violence , idiots. Guns can't commit violence. They're inanimate objects."

Cain killed Able with a rock.
It wasn't called rock violence. Cain was held accountable.
God gave us free will. Human agency.
We are all flawed, and we are all accountable.
Anything else de-humanizes all of us.

Excellent point. I have written many times to our local news affiliates pointing out this very thing. I remind them sternly that PEOPLE commit violence. A firearm is an inanimate object, no different than a rock or a hammer.

Another similar thing is reporting on serious vehicle accidents. They always make sure to mention “they were hit by an SUV (or pickup).” There is never any mention when they were hit by a small sedan or a hatchback.

I get sick of hearing it in my area.
The dramatic rise in crime has nothing to do with the Police not being allowed to do their job, the DA not prosecuting criminals or the Siren call for all junkies to come and do as they please.
If only guns were not around it would be blissful utopia.

On a side note..
Walmart is closing the last two stores in Portland.
I suspect it has nothing to do with "gun violence"

Yes, this is one of my peeves as well — all the word games, the marketing of the left propaganda. The battle of perceptions in the uneducated mind.

What gets me also is the positioning that guns are ‘built to kill people’ when, again, it’s just a tool. It can be used for great things, like fight against tyranny, whether it be a broad level or a personal level. And like any tool, it can be misused. Fire is a great tool. As mentioned above, knives and bats. Rope. Plastic. The list is endless. Almost anything can be misused in intent or in design.

Policies and behaviors modulate the need for certain tools by society. Different policies, different tools are desired. Don’t get rid of tools. If society increasingly thinks that guns are valuable tools to have, maybe policies should be re-examined. What policies are driving people to value guns more?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:

What gets me also is the positioning that guns are ‘built to kill people’ when, again, it’s just a tool. It can be used for great things, like fight against tyranny, whether it be a broad level or a personal level. And like any tool, it can be misused.

The implication I've heard from the anti-gun crowd is that guns are uncontrollably dangerous because they are designed to kill. Somehow the dangerous energy within the gun infuses the human to commit violence. Since knives, baseball bats, and cars are not designed with the intent to kill humans, their existence is ok. There seems to be a belief, too, that gun owners harbor latent violent desires which is why they want a gun in the first place.

Yes, some firearms were designed to be used against humans. I own several WWII rifles, all but one of which was used by deployed troops, so they not only are weapons designed for war, they are weapons actually used in war. They are, of course, bolt action with fixed magazines of low capacity and would be poor choices to commit mass murder or robbery with. They've been repurposed into peaceful sporting equipment which I use to punch holes in paper.

The method of the Left is to deceive. This is done through lies of commission, omission, distortion and distraction. This is done in many cases by the creation, conflation and perversion of definitions. Definitions are at the core of communication. Deceptive definitions drive the Leftist agenda. As I understand it, Satan, the icon of evil, is the father of all lies. So following the simple transitive formula, Leftism is evil by nature.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

I am not a fan of the term gun rights either, b/c again, guns are inanimate objects. Guns don't have rights. Gun owners do. I understand the term was coined more or less as a matter of convenience.

I use the term "Civil Right" whenever discussing the issue.


Arguing whether a gun control law is effective in reducing some kind of crime is bad strategy for us.

I've done the same. The Left/Progessives like to Word-Smith terms and definitions, they believe they're the more learned and sophisticated of the political persuasions, repackaging phrases and meanings, warping them to fit their agenda. You throw out the right to gun ownership as a Civil Right, and they're automatically on their heels. Most will attempt to blow you off as some rube not quite understanding 'Civil Rights' and you dig-in, 'at what point, is personal defense and protection not a Civil Right?'
Most either stammer-off out of frustration knowing they met somebody who's not willing to get verbally run-over or, they'll switch it around to 'well, you don't have a right to murder someone..'
To which I respond 'I sure do when their hands are on me or, they're in my daughter's bedroom assaulting her'
At which point, they attempt to mealy-mouth their way into a philosophical argument about society and the rights/wrongs of our culture, but never addressing the threat.