Posted on Jan 12, 2017
Why do the anti-gun groups continuously call an incident with a gun "gun violence", but with other objects, it's just "violence"?
25.4K
220
70
14
14
0
You never hear knife attacks called knife violence.
You never hear car rundowns being called vehicle violence.
You never hear baseball bats being called bat violence.
So why do the media and anti-gun group continue to call it "gun violence?"
You never hear car rundowns being called vehicle violence.
You never hear baseball bats being called bat violence.
So why do the media and anti-gun group continue to call it "gun violence?"
Firearms and Guns
Terrorism
Gun Control
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 26
16
16
0
Because "gun violence" sounds scarier and helps all the anti gunners push their agenda. Just like labeling certain guns as "assault weapons".
(16)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
LTC Patrick Husted
Is it so hard for the anti-gun groups to do a simple Google search to find out what "assault weapon" actually means? Hell, Fox News completing embarrassed itself after the San Bernardino terrorist attack by bringing in the "expert" to tell the anchor what a "bullet button" was. That was hilarious and infuriating at the same time. Thanks for the reply LTC
Is it so hard for the anti-gun groups to do a simple Google search to find out what "assault weapon" actually means? Hell, Fox News completing embarrassed itself after the San Bernardino terrorist attack by bringing in the "expert" to tell the anchor what a "bullet button" was. That was hilarious and infuriating at the same time. Thanks for the reply LTC
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Well doing a Google search takes time, time which can be better spent making up lies and talking to the "experts" who usually only experts at being complete fools!
(4)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
It's based on making that especially evil type of gun a supposed "easy first step" to start the banning process.
WHAT THEY SAY
From the Violence Policy Center website:
"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons [sic] —anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
WHAT THEY MEAN
The American public is generally ignorant about guns, so we can lie to them very effectively by equating “ugly” rifles like the semi-auto AR-15 as “the same thing as the 'machine gun' Army M-16”, after all they look alike, don't they?
That is enough “proof” for these stupid people.
The “confusion” of the public about guns is not to be eliminated by teaching them the difference between an AR-15 (semi-auto ONLY) and M-16 (selective – semi or FULL-auto).
We gain nothing by telling the truth. That would ruin our plans to advance our goals for more useless “gun control”. We must cultivate this public ignorance about guns, and exploit this ignorance as much as we can, to fool the public into thinking the way we want them to think.
We can stress the point that many states do not allow these guns for hunting deer (they are considered to lack the power to kill big game humanely), which is what most urban citizens think of as the only “good purpose” for guns. We will ignore the fact that the Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) and the Army M-16 both fire a "varmint" type cartridge, civilian developed for hunting woodchucks, prairie dogs, crows and various other small “pests” before it was adapted by the Military.
Of course we will not mention any other “lawful uses” other than hunting deer, such as "varmint hunting", or target shooting . We will just keep repeating, over and over ----
“NOBODY NEEDS A MACHINE GUN TO HUNT DEER”.
WHAT THEY SAY
From the Violence Policy Center website:
"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons [sic] —anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
WHAT THEY MEAN
The American public is generally ignorant about guns, so we can lie to them very effectively by equating “ugly” rifles like the semi-auto AR-15 as “the same thing as the 'machine gun' Army M-16”, after all they look alike, don't they?
That is enough “proof” for these stupid people.
The “confusion” of the public about guns is not to be eliminated by teaching them the difference between an AR-15 (semi-auto ONLY) and M-16 (selective – semi or FULL-auto).
We gain nothing by telling the truth. That would ruin our plans to advance our goals for more useless “gun control”. We must cultivate this public ignorance about guns, and exploit this ignorance as much as we can, to fool the public into thinking the way we want them to think.
We can stress the point that many states do not allow these guns for hunting deer (they are considered to lack the power to kill big game humanely), which is what most urban citizens think of as the only “good purpose” for guns. We will ignore the fact that the Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) and the Army M-16 both fire a "varmint" type cartridge, civilian developed for hunting woodchucks, prairie dogs, crows and various other small “pests” before it was adapted by the Military.
Of course we will not mention any other “lawful uses” other than hunting deer, such as "varmint hunting", or target shooting . We will just keep repeating, over and over ----
“NOBODY NEEDS A MACHINE GUN TO HUNT DEER”.
(4)
(0)
11
11
0
You don't think it has a bit to do with their anti-freedom and we know better than you do agenda, do you?
(11)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Ah gee Top, they just want what's best for us.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis, “God in the Dock”
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
—C. S. Lewis, “God in the Dock”
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Seems to, they know everything and You can't offer any evidence to change their minds. It seems only one view counts, their own even if they actually have no idea what they are talking about which seems to be most the time.
(2)
(0)
11
11
0
Because they're not responding to the situation. They're merely parroting a narrative
(11)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Gonna start a band and call it Parroting the Narrative. We're gonna take Katy Perry songs and make it country-death metal.
(3)
(0)
it's easier to instill fear and paranoia when you use the term "gun violence."
(10)
(0)
9
9
0
Because gun control isn't about safety or preventing crime, its about disarming people.
(9)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - I agree with you on that but who are these people that have no business being armed, what is your definition
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - how do you define mental illness, I agree with fellons though
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - removing the gun from the equation is the easy answer, as you know somebody that is truly suicidal will get it done gun or not, as noted by the suicide of at vet at a VA, I believe TN, during this past thanksgiving by hanging. PTSD has basically 3 levels mild, moderate and severe, all are treatable with the right meds and counselling, the PTSD doesn't go away but the symptoms, depression, anxiety, anger, sleep disorders are treatable. I'm 50% PTSD service connected, I have a job, my own house, pay my bills, own 2 guns and hunt, I'm on meds and they work great for me, thru counselling, I've learned my triggers and avoid them. but I do agree with the potential to do harm to self and others, that's when the pros need to step up and do their job and its not being done VA or civillian
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - Dr. Charles Krauthammer, himself a psychologist, commented on the mental health aspect of the gun control issue. He said the problem is a single added word. Where it used to be 'danger to oneself or others', it's now 'imminent danger to oneself or others.' The addition of the word 'imminent' hamstrung the psychiatric community.
Also, as keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right, the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person should not have a gun, NOT for the individual citizen to prove himself worthy of exercising that right.
Also, as keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right, the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person should not have a gun, NOT for the individual citizen to prove himself worthy of exercising that right.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
Well you kinda answered your own question. It's coming from anti-gun groups. Have you seen any anti-knife groups or anti-vehicle groups or anti-bat groups? Of course not. Anti-gun groups use this type of language because the goal is to get rid of guns. So by calling it gun violence, it stirs people up with the notion that guns are the problem and if it weren't for guns, things like this would never happen. That's the simplest explanation.
(7)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I follow a lot of anti-gun groups on twitter and they get so frustrated with my facts that I get blocked. So I just have to find another anti-gun group to have fun with. Moms Against Gun Violence (or whatever they are called now) blocked me just a few days ago. It's ok though, there's always FB.
(6)
(0)
Cpl Justin Goolsby
TSgt (Join to see) - Totally agree and it's kinda sad. Logic and reason should be able to trump feelings but there are too many people who allow feelings to run their lives. But like they say, if someone feels the need to block you, it's a good indication that you were right and they couldn't handle it.
(4)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
TSgt (Join to see) - Yep. Love to see them try to rationalize their intellectual cowardice when they get overwhelmed with facts, logic, and other enemies of their mindset.
(4)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
CW3 Harvey K. - Facts have nothing to do with their views, they don't want to be confused with the truth !
(4)
(0)
6
6
0
Knife attacks are ninja-silent. You never hear them because you never hear them.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
The most hypocritical part is the people yelling the most are doing so from behind a wall of armed guards (and they aren't armed with their sharp wits). I've said it before, and here I go again, without the 2nd amendment, the rest are unprotected. I refuse to have someone else dictate and have the ultimate control of how I live and protect my life, and the lives of my family. The anti-gunners can sit and spin.
Sincerely,
A faithful 111%
Sincerely,
A faithful 111%
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
What cracks me up about the term "gun violence" is the underlying assumption that it's always bad. That assumption is false. Gun violence is often a very good thing.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google