"gun violence" is a misnomer

[Rich2018]

Bothers me too, but not as bad as the thought of me, my family or so other innocent becoming a victim does.

How many times have you had to repel armed instituters in your home ?

 

[Rucker61]

How many times have you had to repel armed instituters in your home ?

None. If the qualification to own a firearm is to have had a need to defend oneself against an armed attack in the past, we'd have fewer people left alive to want one for that purpose.

How many times a year does someone break into a home where at least one resident is at home?

 

[Rich2018]

None...

QED: You have no need of guns.

 

[Rucker61]

QED: You have no need of guns.

So glad you can see the future. Can you PM me the Powerball numbers?

 

[Rich2018]

So glad you can see the future. Can you PM me the Powerball numbers?

Sure:


05, 06, 45, 55, 59, 14


powerball - Google Search

 

[jet57]

Like the title says, "gun violence" is a misnomer. It's also nothing more than a talking point designed to instill fear of guns into people.

Why is it a misnomer? Well first lets determine what a "misnomer" is.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary ~ misnomer

Simple definition that does not have any sort of wiggle room to it.

Now, what is the definition of gun violence? Well, going by Merriam-Webster dictionary there is no definition for it. So we have to go for the individual definition for each word.

Merriam-Webster ~ gun
Merriam-Webster ~ violence

So, under proper grammar the term "gun violence" indicates violence caused by a gun.

Problem with this....guns do not cause violence. A gun cannot shoot on its own. A gun cannot walk around and threaten people, things, or animals. A gun cannot use force. A gun cannot cause violence. Period.

People with guns can cause violence. People with guns can walk around and threaten people, things, or animals. People can use force. In fact people can do those things without once holding or even referring to a gun.

So, if you're using the term "gun violence" know that you are using it inappropriately and falsely. If you continue to use it knowing all of the above, then know that those of us that are not so gullible are on to your use of it as a talking point meant to cause fear of guns.

:roll:

The gun crowd thinks that the public is unbelievably stupid and gullible. Grasping at straws to try and draw people away from the reality that too many guns AND stupid people with guns AND combat weaponry are the big problems.

It's nothing to do with the second amendment. It's nothing to with the constitution. It's everything to do with the fact that all the smart people in this country are on to the NRA and their minions and that smart people are on to the gun crowd nonsense, so the gun crowd is shaking in their boots and building houses of cards where ever they can fit them in.

 

[Rucker61]

:roll:

The gun crowd thinks that the public is unbelievably stupid and gullible. Grasping at straws to try and draw people away from the reality that too many guns AND stupid people with guns AND combat weaponry are the big problems.

It's nothing to do with the second amendment. It's nothing to with the constitution. It's everything to do with the fact that all the smart people in this country are on to the NRA and their minions and that smart people are on to the gun crowd nonsense, so the gun crowd is shaking in their boots and building houses of cards where ever they can fit them in.

Your so-called "combat weaponry" has resulted in about 17 deaths per year from use in mass shootings since 2004. That's not a big problem. "Too many guns" isn't a "problem" that's going to be solved without mass confiscation, which isn't Constitutional.

All the smart people aren't on your side, either. The pragmatists on both sides can see that with the current SCOTUS make-up that the so-called solutions won't be getting far, and that much of the activity is purely political in nature. The Democrats in Congress know that none of their current gun control efforts will get past the Republican Senate majority, but they pass it anyway and crow about finally doing something about guns when they are actually doing nothing about guns but perhaps a lot for their re-election efforts.

It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS says about that ridiculous law being challenged in New York Rifle and Pistol Association vs NYC.

 

[jet57]

Your so-called "combat weaponry" has resulted in about 17 deaths per year from use in mass shootings since 2004. That's not a big problem. "Too many guns" isn't a "problem" that's going to be solved without mass confiscation, which isn't Constitutional.

All the smart people aren't on your side, either. The pragmatists on both sides can see that with the current SCOTUS make-up that the so-called solutions won't be getting far, and that much of the activity is purely political in nature. The Democrats in Congress know that none of their current gun control efforts will get past the Republican Senate majority, but they pass it anyway and crow about finally doing something about guns when they are actually doing nothing about guns but perhaps a lot for their re-election efforts.

It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS says about that ridiculous law being challenged in New York Rifle and Pistol Association vs NYC.

Is that all you have to say? Nothing about the changing times and coming Democratic majority: senate as well as president I'd say for 2020. People in this country are very tired of the milieu of NRA and right-wing nonsense that perpetuates lies about attacks on the second amendment and "tyranny". There's no truth in any of it; all it's ever used for is a blitzkrieg on gun sales. I would think that some you gun people would be smarter than that, but every day, as in threads like this, it becomes harder and harder to believe it.

 

[Phys251]

Your the one talking about flying shells. What does that have to do with kinetic energy. I guess unless it hit you in the eye.
However several pages back you don't seem to know a lot or least ways concerning it with firearms.

In other words, you don't understand why it is dangerous to get hit with an object that has high kinetic energy.

 

[jet57]

Your the one talking about flying shells. What does that have to do with kinetic energy. I guess unless it hit you in the eye.
However several pages back you don't seem to know a lot or least ways concerning it with firearms.

Which of the founders, concerning the second amendment were ballistics experts?

 

[Rucker61]

Is that all you have to say? Nothing about the changing times and coming Democratic majority: senate as well as president I'd say for 2020. People in this country are very tired of the milieu of NRA and right-wing nonsense that perpetuates lies about attacks on the second amendment and "tyranny". There's no truth in any of it; all it's ever used for is a blitzkrieg on gun sales. I would think that some you gun people would be smarter than that, but every day, as in threads like this, it becomes harder and harder to believe it.

Oh, there are idiots on both sides. That's why, if nothing else good comes from a Trump presidency, and not much has, I'm glad that the Court had some small C conservatives added to it. Regardless of the unconstitutional crap that may get passed and signed we should have some adult supervision in place.

 

[Rucker61]

In other words, you don't understand why it is dangerous to get hit with an object that has high kinetic energy.

All firearms shoot objects with high kinetic energy. That's their purpose.

 

[Phys251]

All firearms shoot objects with high kinetic energy. That's their purpose.

No ****. Now address this flawed point of yours already:

Your the one talking about flying shells. What does that have to do with kinetic energy. I guess unless it hit you in the eye.

High-KE objects are inherently dangerous to living beings. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a basic fact. Can you accept that fact?

 

[Rucker61]

No ****. Now address this flawed point of yours already:

One, that's not my post, and two, he's referring to your use of the phrase "flying shells". My understanding of this phrase is that it would refer to the empty casings from fired rounds ejected from a firearm with very low mass and velocity.

High-KE objects are inherently dangerous to living beings. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a basic fact. Can you accept that fact?

I believe I've already stated that as such. Low KE objects can be, too. The human body is fairly fragile.

 

[Rich2018]

The gun crowd thinks that the public is unbelievably stupid and gullible....

They have three arguments:

1. Gun ownership is a natural right that supersedes any national law or constitution

2. People need guns for:
2a. Self defense
2b. Hunting food (for the tiny minority that don't live near a shop)

3. Banning guns is impractical anyway because:
3a. There are already too many guns in the USA
3b. No law enforcement agency would enforce such an immoral law


All are discredited.

Oh and the usual: Guns don't kill people, people kill people and if you outlaw guns the only people with guns will be outlaws.
Both are correct in a way but entirely miss the point.

 

[jet57]

Oh, there are idiots on both sides. That's why, if nothing else good comes from a Trump presidency, and not much has, I'm glad that the Court had some small C conservatives added to it. Regardless of the unconstitutional crap that may get passed and signed we should have some adult supervision in place.

See? Here you go with "unconstitutional" again: nothing that has passed as gun control can be considered unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says anywhere that one can keep any gun they want for any reason they want. Gun control has been passed in the several states and federally for very good objective reasons concerned with public safety. And with respect to your reply, you've really not answered anything I put you other than you like conservative judges and the word "unconstitutional", which only goes to my point: you gun guys have prepared talking points that only echo useless right-wing gun sales agenda. You have nothing profound or historically accurate or socially constructive to add to anything that is put in front of you all as a thesis for good gun control that leaves the 2nd exactly as it stands today - unharmed and in full use.

 

[jet57]

They have three arguments:

1. Gun ownership is a natural right that supersedes any national law or constitution

2. People need guns for:
2a. Self defense
2b. Hunting food (for the tiny minority that don't live near a shop)

3. Banning guns is impractical anyway because:
3a. There are already too many guns in the USA
3b. No law enforcement agency would enforce such an immoral law


All are discredited.

Oh and the usual: Guns don't kill people, people kill people and if you outlaw guns the only people with guns will be outlaws.
Both are correct in a way but entirely miss the point.

And to your point I would that the gun crowd has nothing constructive to place into the issue because they are singularly focused on nothing but their guns.

 

[Rich2018]

And to your point I would that the gun crowd has nothing constructive to place into the issue because they are singularly focused on nothing but their guns.

The gun lovers absolutely do not care how many are killed by guns.

It's all about them and their self image.

 

[jet57]

The gun lovers absolutely do not care how many are killed by guns.

It's all about them and their self image.

It's been a weird trek ever since Reagan introduced phony patriotism and the far right has taken over who is and is not patriotic based on their thinking.

 

[Rich2018]

It's been a weird trek ever since Reagan introduced phony patriotism and the far right has taken over who is and is not patriotic based on their thinking.

It was compounded by Bush Jr's scandalous drumming up of "patriotism" and then pumped up to the max by the current occupant of the White House.


Nationalism is the worst motivation for people to have and Trump feeds this base impulse in a way that no democratic leader ever has before.

 

[Phys251]

One, that's not my post, and two, he's referring to your use of the phrase "flying shells". My understanding of this phrase is that it would refer to the empty casings from fired rounds ejected from a firearm with very low mass and velocity.

I believe I've already stated that as such. Low KE objects can be, too. The human body is fairly fragile.

So you don't think there's a causation factor of physical danger from kinetic energy?

 

[Rucker61]

See? Here you go with "unconstitutional" again: nothing that has passed as gun control can be considered unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says anywhere that one can keep any gun they want for any reason they want. Gun control has been passed in the several states and federally for very good objective reasons concerned with public safety. And with respect to your reply, you've really not answered anything I put you other than you like conservative judges and the word "unconstitutional", which only goes to my point: you gun guys have prepared talking points that only echo useless right-wing gun sales agenda. You have nothing profound or historically accurate or socially constructive to add to anything that is put in front of you all as a thesis for good gun control that leaves the 2nd exactly as it stands today - unharmed and in full use.

Any gun law that restricts ownership of "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" can be considered to be unconstitutional.

 

[Rucker61]

So you don't think there's a causation factor of physical danger from kinetic energy?

Shall I agree with you a third time? Will that suffice? Yes, bullets are dangerous. Ejected shells and brass, not so much. "Flying shells" to knowledgeable gun owners refers to the latter, not the former.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Dude, I'm ok with guns being killing machines. Why aren't you?

That's what they were made for. We can't have an honest conversation about guns if we can't agree on their purpose.

Because the purpose depends on specifically what its being used for.

 

[jet57]

Any gun law that restricts ownership of "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" can be considered to be unconstitutional.

In your opinion. Reality says otherwise.