mnealtx 0 #51 August 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's impossible for an inanimate object to be anything other than an object. It is the context in which it is used that is either good or evil. Context, being the key word. Then why do you keep mentioning 'gun violence' instead of 'violent criminals'? Why do they say "Gunfight"? It's not two or more "guns" fighting. Why do they say "Firefight" when guns are used? They're not fighting with fire nor are two flames fighting each other. I think you know exactly what is meant by the term "gun violence." Blaming the tool for the action of the user, as you've done the entire thread? Yup, you're right. QuoteThanks for being you, The King of the Eloquent Prose. Always entertaining. No more than one line zingers. No more than that is needed to counter the quality of YOUR arguments.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 August 25, 2011 Quote Why do they say "Gunfight"? It's not two or more "guns" fighting. A gunfight is distinguished from a "fight" in that the likelihood of lethality is much higher than two kids rolling in the dirt. But there is hardly the need for distinction of violence and gun violence, esp when the latter encompasses anything that involves the presence, and not necessarily use, of a gun. It's also long been intentionally misused, just as the misuse of children in statistics that include adults. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #53 August 26, 2011 Quote Quote Why do they say "Gunfight"? It's not two or more "guns" fighting. A gunfight is distinguished from a "fight" in that the likelihood of lethality is much higher than two kids rolling in the dirt. But there is hardly the need for distinction of violence and gun violence, esp when the latter encompasses anything that involves the presence, and not necessarily use, of a gun. It's also long been intentionally misused, just as the misuse of children in statistics that include adults. The term "gun violence" is a widely accepted term. The police use the term. Are you suggesting that they are wrong for doing so? The DoJ use the term. Are you suggesting that they are wrong for doing so? The FBI use the term. Are you suggesting that they are wrong, also? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 August 26, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Why do they say "Gunfight"? It's not two or more "guns" fighting. A gunfight is distinguished from a "fight" in that the likelihood of lethality is much higher than two kids rolling in the dirt. But there is hardly the need for distinction of violence and gun violence, esp when the latter encompasses anything that involves the presence, and not necessarily use, of a gun. It's also long been intentionally misused, just as the misuse of children in statistics that include adults. The term "gun violence" is a widely accepted term. The police use the term. Are you suggesting that they are wrong for doing so? The DoJ use the term. Are you suggesting that they are wrong for doing so? The FBI use the term. Are you suggesting that they are wrong, also? I think my answer is pretty clear, no? BTW, you confuse widely used with widely accepted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #55 August 26, 2011 >But there is hardly the need for distinction of violence and gun violence . . . If you're the parent of a child living in a bad neighborhood it's not an unimportant distinction at all. Keeping them inside may keep them safe from muggings - but (as history has demonstrated) not from drive-by shootings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #56 August 26, 2011 Quoteplaying cops and robbers. They were using their fingers as guns. This poor excuse for a teacher wanted me to talk to these boys, because they were surely disturbed, to do something as evil as that. I think the only person who is disturbed is this teacher..... this nutbag is a pure example of how indoctrination totally removes thinking from some people ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #57 August 26, 2011 Quotemy wife and I didn't let our kids own toy guns, ....until they were well into their teens - old enough for our family's non-violence creed to have become firmly ingrained in them. Glad it works for you. But I don't see how teaching them about owning a piece of property and using it responsibly is considered a part of teaching non-violence. Shooting guns is NOT a violent activity. However, that's clearly your choice as a family. But did you not let your kids play with Hot Wheels because you wanted them to learn to not drive drunk as adults? (just my perspective on it.) My experience with guns (dad was a gunsmith and dealer his entire life) was about being being responsible about it from a VERY early age, hunting and target shooting as a family bonding activity (it's my best memories of my father) and more of all those (true) cliches. to me: guns = responsibility, care of your property, bonding with family, outdoors, control, precision, appreciation of well-made and interesting objects. All this is very supportive of a philosophy of non-violence combined with responsibility. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #58 August 26, 2011 QuoteBut I don't see how teaching them about owning a piece of property and using it responsibly is considered a part of teaching non-violence. Shooting guns is NOT a violent activity. You're mis-casting what I said. If you'll kindly re-read at my earlier post, I specifically made it clear that I don't have a problem with parents owning and teaching their kids how to responsibly handle a REAL firearm, and to respect it as a serious tool of sport, hunting and self-defense, and not to use it as a toy. Done that way, it certainly does not glorify a firearm as an implement of aggressive, unnecessary violence. My critical remarks were directed at toy guns, not real ones (used responsibly). (ETA: My post #7 : I think it's perfectly OK for adults to safely and responsibly own guns, and to teach their kids how to properly shoot and care for guns, and to respect guns as tools of sport, hunting and self-defense that should not be manhandled or used as toys. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #59 August 26, 2011 no problem - I didn't keep a summary of all the post, just responding to the one without all the back context. still, how is letting a kid play with a toy gun any different than letting them play with a toy car, toy anything......a water pistol is fun and not any more or less conducive to teaching violence than a hose, or water balloons - it's a toy. have a great weekend ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
