5 ms·

Always love how people throw out "gun violence" as if "gun violence"(as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "viol

Always love how people throw out "gun violence" as if "gun violence"(as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence".

dfxm12 14y ago
There is such a thing as gun violence. It is distinguished as violence involving at least one gun.
- jug6ernaut 14y ago
  "There is such a thing as gun violence" I'm not convinced. "It is distinguished as violence involving at least one gun." re-read my post, i said >> "so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence"" I'm not saying that it cant be distinguished (as others describe it), I am saying is there a big enough difference that we should focus on it over violence in general. IN MY OPINION! focusing on "gun violence" takes away from the more important discussion on "violence" in general and diverts the discussion to matters non conducive to stowing violence in general. BUT this is not what this post is about.
  - dfxm12 14y ago
    I reread your post. It was the same as the first time I read it. It said "Always love how people throw out "gun violence" (as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence"." Based on the bit I emphasized, you are implying "gun violence" is not a real concept, or doesn't exist, or something along those lines. Gun violence is real. Further, OP is clearly not commenting on the prevalence of gun violence vs other violence. OP is commenting on things more likely to cause damage than a meteor strike.
    - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      We don't call out 'knife violence' or 'fist violence' or 'cricket-bat violence'. All are real too.
      - arjie 14y ago
        Well, I suppose it depends on the relative frequency of the crimes. British newspapers are always on about 'knife crime'.
        kamjam 14y ago
        That's because in the UK knife violence is a much bigger than gun crime. Having said that, drunken violence on a friday/saturday night is a big problem regardless.
sliverstorm 14y ago
as if "gun violence" is so distinguishable Sure it's distinguishable. It's scarier, so it's easier to get people upset about it. People seem to be orders of magnitude more afraid that they will be gunned down as opposed to, say, killed with a knife or a hammer.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  May just be me, but I'd prefer to be gunned down than killed with a hammer. Not that I disagree with your point - it's far easier to avoid being killed with a hammer.
miles 14y ago
Indeed. The fact that guns save lives around the country on a regular basis is almost completely ignored by the media: Guns Save Lives http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_... "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you." http://gunssavelives.net/ http://gunssavelives.net/ has a huge collection of articles like these: Son Uses Dad’s AR-15 To Defend Home http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/ http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar... Armed Citizen in TX Stops Shooting Spree and Saves Cop http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/ http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-st... GA Woman Kills Would Be Rapist With .22 Pistol http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ga-woman-kills-would-be-rapist/ http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ga-woman-kills-w...
- tokipin 14y ago
  quite frankly, the "gun in your house" thing is a very weird argument. if you actually play out a real-life instance of such a situation, it's not so simple at all. reality is much more nuanced. for example, a gun is about 120% useless if you have it stored and the bad guy has the drop on you, which is likely the case on multiple levels given that that the 'bad guy' is the aggressor and initiator of a rare situation. for example, the 'bad guy' may have a gun himself, and seeing you wielding one may cause him to shoot you, when he otherwise wouldn't have. and it's entirely possible or even likely that he has spent more time at the shooting range than you, or that he has killed people before. nevermind that he, having the mental preparedness that comes from being the initiator, may have the clearer presence of mind and less shaky hands Etc. Etc. the "gun in my home to keep me safe" is a non-sequitur and only makes sense in simplistic cowboy scenarios, and I've even heard statistics saying you're more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one than the bad guy... ...but we don't really have any good ideas about that, because the gun lobby has suppressed research into these things for several years

Always love how people throw out "gun violence" as if "gun violence"(as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence".

dfxm12 14y ago

There is such a thing as gun violence. It is distinguished as violence involving at least one gun.

jug6ernaut 14y ago
"There is such a thing as gun violence" I'm not convinced. "It is distinguished as violence involving at least one gun." re-read my post, i said >> "so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence"" I'm not saying that it cant be distinguished (as others describe it), I am saying is there a big enough difference that we should focus on it over violence in general. IN MY OPINION! focusing on "gun violence" takes away from the more important discussion on "violence" in general and diverts the discussion to matters non conducive to stowing violence in general. BUT this is not what this post is about.
- dfxm12 14y ago
  I reread your post. It was the same as the first time I read it. It said "Always love how people throw out "gun violence" (as if there is such a thing) is so distinguishable that it should be focused on above "violence"." Based on the bit I emphasized, you are implying "gun violence" is not a real concept, or doesn't exist, or something along those lines. Gun violence is real. Further, OP is clearly not commenting on the prevalence of gun violence vs other violence. OP is commenting on things more likely to cause damage than a meteor strike.
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    We don't call out 'knife violence' or 'fist violence' or 'cricket-bat violence'. All are real too.
    - arjie 14y ago
      Well, I suppose it depends on the relative frequency of the crimes. British newspapers are always on about 'knife crime'.
      - kamjam 14y ago
        That's because in the UK knife violence is a much bigger than gun crime. Having said that, drunken violence on a friday/saturday night is a big problem regardless.

sliverstorm 14y ago

as if "gun violence" is so distinguishable Sure it's distinguishable. It's scarier, so it's easier to get people upset about it. People seem to be orders of magnitude more afraid that they will be gunned down as opposed to, say, killed with a knife or a hammer.

jlarocco 14y ago
May just be me, but I'd prefer to be gunned down than killed with a hammer. Not that I disagree with your point - it's far easier to avoid being killed with a hammer.

miles 14y ago

Indeed. The fact that guns save lives around the country on a regular basis is almost completely ignored by the media: Guns Save Lives http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_... "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you." http://gunssavelives.net/ http://gunssavelives.net/ has a huge collection of articles like these: Son Uses Dad’s AR-15 To Defend Home http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/ http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar... Armed Citizen in TX Stops Shooting Spree and Saves Cop http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/ http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-st... GA Woman Kills Would Be Rapist With .22 Pistol http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ga-woman-kills-would-be-rapist/ http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ga-woman-kills-w...

tokipin 14y ago
quite frankly, the "gun in your house" thing is a very weird argument. if you actually play out a real-life instance of such a situation, it's not so simple at all. reality is much more nuanced. for example, a gun is about 120% useless if you have it stored and the bad guy has the drop on you, which is likely the case on multiple levels given that that the 'bad guy' is the aggressor and initiator of a rare situation. for example, the 'bad guy' may have a gun himself, and seeing you wielding one may cause him to shoot you, when he otherwise wouldn't have. and it's entirely possible or even likely that he has spent more time at the shooting range than you, or that he has killed people before. nevermind that he, having the mental preparedness that comes from being the initiator, may have the clearer presence of mind and less shaky hands Etc. Etc. the "gun in my home to keep me safe" is a non-sequitur and only makes sense in simplistic cowboy scenarios, and I've even heard statistics saying you're more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one than the bad guy... ...but we don't really have any good ideas about that, because the gun lobby has suppressed research into these things for several years