Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by HollowHead, Apr 9, 2012.
Is the term, "gun violence" accurate? HH
Nope; I've never seen a violent gun.
You've never dropped an in battery Lorcin, I take it? HH
There is no such thing as "gun violence". People are violent due to a myriad of issues. Guns aren't responsible for the violence.
What about 'gun play'?
How about 'street violence' or 'domestic violence'? Nothing more....just a way to group things.
Are they also being referred to as, "pavement violence" and "thrown lamp violence?" I'm specifically referring to how the intial mechanism of injury is now being mentioned as being synonomous to the injury itself as which is so common to those who ignorantly use the term, "gun violence." It's like describing what happened on 9/11 as "commercial airliner violence." HH
Actually, HH, you're overthinking it.
The term is accurate from a colloquial stance because it is an attempt to describe violence and the means used to commit it in the same term.
The other terms you propose, though not colloquially correct now, could become so if commonly used. Language, especially American idiomatic English, is a living, evolving tongue. Pervasive usage and acceptance is the arbiter of correctness.
It's a means of connecting guns with violence.
If you mean to describe violence committed with a gun, it's as good as anything, I guess.
However, it is normally used to imply that "gun violence" is negative, but the term doesn't really say that.
More importantly, it is a term almost always used to intentionally mislead people. Where statistics on violent crime prove the opposite of someone's point - such as that gun control does not reduce crime (as in the UK) - the antis usually resort to citing "gun violence" which implies that the gun control is effective, even though the opposite is true.
No , the term stupid human violence is more fitting.
If you're describing violence committed with a gun I guess "gun violence" is accurate. You could use "firearm violence", too. Of course, if you're all hung up on defending guns against all imaginary attacks you could probably get your nose all out of joint at the term, but it just make you look silly. The real truth is that some people commit violence with guns, some with knives, some with plush toys, etc. The fact that I like guns and knives doesn't mean I have to deny those facts lest I become an "anti".
You never hear the term "pool violence" when someone dies in a pool related accident.
I have never even heard the term "knife violence".
Absolutely. Shoulda seen what a Garand did to my thumb the first time I shot one....
I would say that somebody did violence to this AR15.
Oh! My! God! That is clear cut case of Assault Weapon Violence.
Just get a damn A3 upper
It's an abused term. It's like calling road rage "automobile violence".
That's right. in fact, you rarely hear the term "violence" applied to any accidents.
Sure it is accurate. That didn't stop the anti's from attempting to misuse it for all eternity.
' Gun violence ' is about as accurate as ' fork gluttony '.