Add Robinhood violence to the list.

Assault investigation underway after woman shot with an arrow on Hawaii Island
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/08/assault-investigation-underway-after-woman-shot-with-an-arrow-hawaii-island/

If she heard a gunshot, maybe the arrow was fired from a hybrid 22/arrow gun.
Possibly a pcp arrow gun too.

I don't really see the problem with calling it a "gun violence incident". I mean it seems technically accurate and it is neutral in its terminology.

I don't really see the problem with calling it a "gun violence incident". I mean it seems technically accurate and it is neutral in its terminology.

youre wrong. its not accurate at all. its completely inaccurate. its vague. its a generalization. just take away gun and call it a violence incident. then take away violence and call it an incident.

you dont see a problem? well you must be blind. probly a fish ate your eyes.

youre wrong. its not accurate at all. its completely inaccurate. its vague. its a generalization. just take away gun and call it a violence incident. then take away violence and call it an incident.

you dont see a problem? well you must be blind. probly a fish ate your eyes.

I'm guessing he was being a little sarcastic, regarding the chronic blinding bias with the local media.  or a fish wen eat his eyes.

youre wrong. its not accurate at all. its completely inaccurate. its vague. its a generalization. just take away gun and call it a violence incident. then take away violence and call it an incident.

you dont see a problem? well you must be blind. probly a fish ate your eyes.

How is a "gun violence incident" more vague than a "shooting"?

I don't know how you can say it isn't accurate. If someone is shot with a gun, it is:
A. An incident
B. Violent
C. Done with a gun

Tell me why "gun violence incident" is so much worse than just saying a shooting, what changes if the news uses GVI instead of shooting.

we don't hear about "Car violence" "animal violence" "dog violence" "tool violence" "limbs violence" because the gun topic has always been used to politicize our 2a rights. To argue otherwise is naive. And being a complete argumentative, useless tool. If you think your gun is capable of such "violence" I think you should turn it into your local PD.
All of you can argue all you want. That's all you do around here. You people don't shoot or do anything related to the sport. So go have at it. Undermine and argue whatever we have left of our rights here in Hawaii and across the US. Don't argue with the rest of us. Just go down to your local PD and turn all your guns in.

If she heard a gunshot, maybe the arrow was fired from a hybrid 22/arrow gun.
Possibly a pcp arrow gun too.

"sounded like a gunshot" does not mean firearm report.
Could have been the sound of the arrow hitting her car.
just say'n

Biggest issue I have is calling suicides "gun violence".

It implies the suicidal person is a violent and grouping them in the same category as criminals.

How is a "gun violence incident" more vague than a "shooting"?

I don't know how you can say it isn't accurate. If someone is shot with a gun, it is:
A. An incident
B. Violent
C. Done with a gun

Tell me why "gun violence incident" is so much worse than just saying a shooting, what changes if the news uses GVI instead of shooting.

Brandishing is a gun violence incident.

Aiming a gun at someone is a gun violence incident.

Threatening to shoot someone is a gun violence incident.

Pistol whipping or butt stock striking someone is a gun violence incident.

Inflicting violence on oneself (suicide) is a gun violence incident.

Armed robbery without shooting anyone is a gun violence incident.

Shooting a person who is stabbing a third party is a gun violence incident.

Committing a crime armed with an unloaded firearm, toy gun or firearm replica is a gun violence incident.


If you think every time the news uses "gun violence incident" they meant "shooting," you'd be wrong, and you'd have fallen for their narrative.

Not all gun violence includes the intentional infliction of harm by shooting someone else.

It's amazing that Mr. Nuance doesn't understand any of this.

Brandishing is a gun violence incident.

Aiming a gun at someone is a gun violence incident.

Threatening to shoot someone is a gun violence incident.

Pistol whipping or butt stock striking someone is a gun violence incident.

Inflicting violence on oneself (suicide) is a gun violence incident.

Armed robbery without shooting anyone is a gun violence incident.

Shooting a person who is stabbing a third party is a gun violence incident.

Committing a crime armed with an unloaded firearm, toy gun or firearm replica is a gun violence incident.


If you think every time the news uses "gun violence incident" they meant "shooting," you'd be wrong, and you'd have fallen for their narrative.

Not all gun violence includes the intentional infliction of harm by shooting someone else.

It's amazing that Mr. Nuance doesn't understand any of this.

It seems to me that you’ve engaged in a logical fallacy in implying that EEF said all gun violence incidents involve someone being shot by someone else.  It’s an “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares” situation.

He said that IF someone is shot with a gun, that IS a “gun violence incident.”  He didn’t take a position on whether ALL “gun violence incidents” must include one person shooting another. 

For the record, I don’t particularly like the phrase “gun violence incident.”  It shifts focus to the gun, when I think the focus should be on the violence, or more to the point, the violent person.

It seems to me that you’ve engaged in a logical fallacy in implying that EEF said all gun violence incidents involve someone being shot by someone else.  It’s an “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares” situation.

He said that IF someone is shot with a gun, that IS a “gun violence incident.”  He didn’t take a position on whether ALL “gun violence incidents” must include one person shooting another. 

For the record, I don’t particularly like the phrase “gun violence incident.”  It shifts focus to the gun, when I think the focus should be on the violence, or more to the point, the violent person.

No, EEF asked the question, "How is a "gun violence incident" more vague than a "shooting"?"

My list proves that "gun violence incident" is very vague.  And by him asking "more vague than a "shooting"?" shows he equates the two terms with one another.

No, EEF asked the question, "How is a "gun violence incident" more vague than a "shooting"?"

My list proves that "gun violence incident" is very vague.  And by him asking "more vague than a "shooting"?" shows he equates the two terms with one another.

Point taken.

Brandishing is a gun violence incident.

Aiming a gun at someone is a gun violence incident.

Threatening to shoot someone is a gun violence incident.

Pistol whipping or butt stock striking someone is a gun violence incident.

Inflicting violence on oneself (suicide) is a gun violence incident.

Armed robbery without shooting anyone is a gun violence incident.

Shooting a person who is stabbing a third party is a gun violence incident.

Committing a crime armed with an unloaded firearm, toy gun or firearm replica is a gun violence incident.


If you think every time the news uses "gun violence incident" they meant "shooting," you'd be wrong, and you'd have fallen for their narrative.

Not all gun violence includes the intentional infliction of harm by shooting someone else.

It's amazing that Mr. Nuance doesn't understand any of this.

What is the problem with calling armed robbery (with a firearm), pistol whipping someone with a gun, suicide with a gun, etc. a gun violence incident? Is it not factually accurate?

I never said that the two terms are synonymous, that's a strawman.  I said GVI is not more vague than shooting. If I drop a firearm at my house and it shoots a bullet into the wall, harming no one, that would be a shooting but not a gun violence incident. GVI and shooting both cover many similar things but would contain things not covered by the other, like a ven diagram. 

What is the problem with calling armed robbery (with a firearm), pistol whipping someone with a gun, suicide with a gun, etc. a gun violence incident? Is it not factually accurate?

I never said that the two terms are synonymous, that's a strawman.  I said GVI is not more vague than shooting. If I drop a firearm at my house and it shoots a bullet into the wall, harming no one, that would be a shooting but not a gun violence incident. GVI and shooting both cover many similar things but would contain things not covered by the other, like a ven diagram.

Show me where i said you called the two "synonymous."  Talk about a  strawman.

Funny how Sodie followed my point, but you failed to comprehend.  instead, you try attacking my point with things I never said.

 

Show me where i said you called the two "synonymous."  Talk about a  strawman.

Funny how Sodie followed my point, but you failed to comprehend.  instead, you try attacking my point with things I never said.

 

You said that I "equates the two terms with one another."
You are playing the word game now, trying to avoid the fact I didn't equate the two terms by nitpicking that I said synonymous when you didn't use that exact word even though you used one that basically means the same thing in this context. If I equate two things it could be said I am saying they are synonymous. Thus your strawman which you are back pedaling from now.

Furthermore, I didn't fail to comprehend your post. I clearly replied with an explained rebuttal.
Plus you couldn't even bother to address the main point of my post. All you did is list a bunch of things that could be classified as a gun violence incident, a point that I neither disputed nor made the case anything I said was wrong.

Let me know if that was too much nuance for you

Biggest issue I have is calling suicides "gun violence".

It implies the suicidal person is a violent and grouping them in the same category as criminals.

This could depend on the listener. To me a self inflicted gunshot is still a violent incident. To me it doesn't carry any connotations of criminality. 

This could depend on the listener. To me a self inflicted gunshot is still a violent incident. To me it doesn't carry any connotations of criminality.

Would suicide in any other method also be called "violence"?  Like pills, hanging, exhaust from a car, slit wrist, etc...

WHat this specific one is, is the anti's 2a attempt to pass more gun laws by misleading stats.  We have saw that EveryTowns rep on PBS mention gun related deaths are like 40,000 a year, but he left out 2/3's are from suicide.  Same guy also said when Chiraq and gun violence was brought up that they get the guns from states who don't have stricter gun laws. This is wrong because FBI stated 54% of guns used are from IL. Then the next highest percent is 19% from Michigan and it goes low and lower from guns from other states.

You said that I "equates the two terms with one another."
You are playing the word game now, trying to avoid the fact I didn't equate the two terms by nitpicking that I said synonymous when you didn't use that exact word even though you used one that basically means the same thing in this context. If I equate two things it could be said I am saying they are synonymous. Thus your strawman which you are back pedaling from now.

Furthermore, I didn't fail to comprehend your post. I clearly replied with an explained rebuttal.
Plus you couldn't even bother to address the main point of my post. All you did is list a bunch of things that could be classified as a gun violence incident, a point that I neither disputed nor made the case anything I said was wrong.

Let me know if that was too much nuance for you

I don't respond to your comments point by point because I can't lower my IQ enough to make it understandable for you.  If you can't read on an 8th grade level or higher, then I prefer not to waste words.

Go back and read your comment, and look up the word "vague."  My list proved "shooting" is specific, but "gun violence incident" is vague.

Done.

No one on Earth can control human behavior. Not one law has ever been successful. We can control tools though. Hence we relate a certain behavior to a tool. Cue in legislators with new laws curtailing your access to these tools and then calling it a success on their behalf.
Same dumbass tool buffonery arguing otherwise is just plain naivete.