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.

There are those on here who believe laws prevent crimes.  Yet, we see all the looting and destruction on the mainland going unchecked, and there are a number of laws that "prevent" this behavior.

Laws do nothing to prevent crime.  Laws are "tools" for law enforcement and the justice system to use to arrest and punish criminals AFTER they break those laws.  As we are observing in real time, failing to arrest and punish law breakers neuters any possible prevention features of the law.

Then there's the attitude "it ain't illegal if you don't get caught."  Easy to live that when everyone can wear masks in public without suspicion.

Sure, law abiding people obey the law, but for most of us who know the difference between right and wrong, there doesn't need to be a statute for us to do what's right.

I don't break the law NOT because the law exists, but because I know those behaviors are wrong.

The law doesn't prevent criminals from criminaling, just like it doesn't prevent good, law abiding people from doing what's wrong either.

AFAIK there's no law against running a stop sign on private property (i.e Walmart, Lowes, local mall, etc.), and the people who obey those signs are not doing it to avoid a ticket or arrest.

i don't want to live in a country where you can do anything you want without consequences as long as there's no law against it. There are basic standards of behavior in a civilized society, and having a law for every possible transgression is an impossible target.

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.

Yes and no. We can never fully control human behavior but we can provide incentives and disincentives. We can also design things in ways using psychology and sociology to influence societal behaviors.

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.

Generally speaking if someone died from a lethal injection of breathing in car exhaust I don't think it would be considered a violent death. Having your body explode from a high jump or your brains splattered all over the wall would be considered violent I think.

So if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that you think using gun violence incident is a way of counting statistics which would make them a little different than say shootings or something more specific?

My list proved "shooting" is specific, but "gun violence incident" is vague.
Done.

No, no it didn't. I gave you examples of why the term shooting could also be vague.

However if you look back at my first statement I said that gun violence incident is an accurate term. Randay said it wasn't accurate and it was vague.
I never stated GVI wasn't vague so you acting as if you are somehow intellectually superior for disproving an argument I never made is just another example of your straw man arguments.

I stated a GVI is an accurate term, and it is. It can be vague but still accurate, just like shooting.
You still haven't given any reason what is wrong with using the term gun violence incident... or do you not have a problem with that phrase?

I stated a GVI is an accurate term, and it is.

still wrong. you do not know the meaning of the word accurate.

Yes and no. We can never fully control human behavior but we can provide incentives and disincentives. We can also design things in ways using psychology and sociology to influence societal behaviors.

That makes no sense. Yes and No. What kind of rebuttal is that?  You said it. We can never control, only influence. Just stop digging.

still wrong. you do not know the meaning of the word accurate.

In his mind, "not wrong" and "right" are synonymous.

i'm reminded of the Cheers episode where postal worker Cliff "Know-it-all" Clavin was selected as a Jeopardy! contestant.

He had amassed an unbeatable $22,000 going into final jeopardy.  All he had to do was leave enough so the next highest contestant couldn't catch him. 

The answer (clue) in the category "Movies" was, ""Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur".

Cliff's response: ""Who are 3 people who've never been in my kitchen?"

Totally accurate response, and no doubt unambiguous.  I can see EEF protesting that Cliff should have won and doubled his winnings! 

BTW, his wager was "$22,000 Big Ones!"

Generally speaking if someone died from a lethal injection of breathing in car exhaust I don't think it would be considered a violent death. Having your body explode from a high jump or your brains splattered all over the wall would be considered violent I think.

So if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that you think using gun violence incident is a way of counting statistics which would make them a little different than say shootings or something more specific?

What I'm saying is that instead of GV, there should also be just Gun Incident.  TBH, I'm not really reading what you guys are posting too much in this particular thread.  What I'm also getting at is that GVI is being used to make the pro 2a side look bad. See my example of the vet in the PBS special on CCW and him leaving out the truth and partial information.

GVI sounds a lot more scarier than GI with regard to a suicide. And seeming how about 2/3's of gun incidents are suicides, woudln't it be logical to have a clear separation from someone using a gun to murder someone else, rob, rape, assault, etc...vs suicide, self defense, etc...

What I'm saying is that instead of GV, there should also be just Gun Incident.  TBH, I'm not really reading what you guys are posting too much in this particular thread.  What I'm also getting at is that GVI is being used to make the pro 2a side look bad. See my example of the vet in the PBS special on CCW and him leaving out the truth and partial information.

GVI sounds a lot more scarier than GI with regard to a suicide. And seeming how about 2/3's of gun incidents are suicides, woudn't it be logical to have a clear separation from someone using a gun to murder someone else, rob, rape, assault, etc...vs suicide, self defense, etc...

He's arguing the terms in use now are technically accurate.  He couldn't care less about them being vague vs. specific.

The fact that he's falling for the "trick" of using technically correct terms that also invoke images that support an anti-gun narrative shows he's already a victim of the Liberal education system.

He only preaches nuance when it supports his opinion.  In this case, nuance is a nonissue. 

still wrong. you do not know the meaning of the word accurate.

It really isn't that hard.
Is there a gun involved?
Is there violence?
Is it an incident?

If all 3 are there, then the term is accurate.

That makes no sense. Yes and No. What kind of rebuttal is that?  You said it. We can never control, only influence. Just stop digging.

It is nuance.
Yes and no meaning your statement is partially correct and partially incorrect.

What I'm saying is that instead of GV, there should also be just Gun Incident.  TBH, I'm not really reading what you guys are posting too much in this particular thread.  What I'm also getting at is that GVI is being used to make the pro 2a side look bad. See my example of the vet in the PBS special on CCW and him leaving out the truth and partial information.

GVI sounds a lot more scarier than GI with regard to a suicide. And seeming how about 2/3's of gun incidents are suicides, woudln't it be logical to have a clear separation from someone using a gun to murder someone else, rob, rape, assault, etc...vs suicide, self defense, etc...

I am not opposed to using more accurate terms like armed robbery, suicide by firearm, etc. to describe things more accurately. I just don't have a problem with GVI, I don't think it is some word trick trying to scare people.

It really isn't that hard.
Is there a gun involved?
Is there violence?
Is it an incident?

Its very simple. the oxford definition of accurate, "correct in all details, exact".

What kind of gun?
What kind of violence?
When? Where? Who?

x person with glock replica bb gun, shot y person in the foot, 10am thursday on so and so street after arguement over z. <--accurate description of gun violence incident.

edit: furthermore, a (terrible) journalist may describe the same event as: An 11 year old child is in the hospital today after a gun violence incident on Oahu.

It is nuance.
Yes and no meaning your statement is partially correct and partially incorrect.

And here we go.

I just don't have a problem with GVI, I don't think it is some word trick trying to scare people.

Their programing worked.

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an electrical malfunction disabled
all of the aircraft’s electronic navigation and communications equipment.

Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot could not determine the helicopter’s position. The
pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, and had the copilot hold up a handwritten
sign that said “WHERE AM I?” in large letters.

People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign, and held it
in a building window.

Their sign said “YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER.”

The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map, determined the course to steer to SEATAC airport,
and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the copilot asked the pilot how he had done it.

“I knew it had to be the Microsoft Building, because they gave me a technically correct but
completely useless answer.”

Its very simple. the oxford definition of accurate, "correct in all details, exact".

What kind of gun?
What kind of violence?
When? Where? Who?

x person with glock replica bb gun, shot y person in the foot, 10am thursday on so and so street after arguement over z. <--accurate description of gun violence incident.

edit: furthermore, a (terrible) journalist may describe the same event as: An 11 year old child is in the hospital today after a gun violence incident on Oahu.

Very well but then most of the words we see used shouldn't be used. Homicide for example, shooting, armed robbery, etc. All of these can be more specific. I am certainly not against more accurate descriptions.

Very well but then most of the words we see used shouldn't be used. Homicide for example, shooting, armed robbery, etc. All of these can be more specific. I am certainly not against more accurate descriptions.

Bad example as they are way diff.  A charge for homicide is very diff from an armed robbery charge.  In fact, they're 2 separate charges.  You should know this.

This will continue to go on and on.  So I will just accept the fact that you give into the anti 2a's programming and will refer to stuff as GVI, even though no violence occurred. Me on the other hand, I will just say GI or GVI, depending on what occurred.

I just hope you don't call an AR-15 an "assault rifle" or "weapon of war" or "assault weapon" and a standard capacity magazine a "high cap magazine".

again. All you dumb tools who think it is OK for this kind of label is the reason why NM's governor suspended the 2a. You guys think the short game while they are thinking the long game. Absolute nonsense.

Bad example as they are way diff.  A charge for homicide is very diff from an armed robbery charge.  In fact, they're 2 separate charges.  You should know this.

This will continue to go on and on.  So I will just accept the fact that you give into the anti 2a's programming and will refer to stuff as GVI, even though no violence occurred. Me on the other hand, I will just say GI or GVI, depending on what occurred.

I just hope you don't call an AR-15 an "assault rifle" or "weapon of war" or "assault weapon" and a standard capacity magazine a "high cap magazine".

I was saying that homicide is not specific enough because it doesn't tell you whether it was a murder, an accident, or a justified killing, or whether a firearm was involved.

Here is my bottom line, I would not use GVI as a describing term but I won't complain if others do because I don't believe it is some lefty conspiracy to control language and scare people away from guns. If you can find evidence that it is one of their psychological tactics then I will reconsider.