Gun nuts’ infuriating craze: Why they want to redefine “school shootings”

[laughing dog]

It is a shooting at a school, which is the logical meaning of "school shooting", so your claim is false.

Language doesn't operate with strict logic but with lexical semantics and inferred meaning. So your claim is false.

Language does not operate at all, people do. So your observation is irrelevant.

There you go again with your meaningless posts and rhetorical shenanigans.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is clear you missed the point.

 

[laughing dog]

I changed my mind... I'm going there....

If you want to claim that any discharge of a weapon, in or near a school, for any reason whatsoever, is a "school shooting" to be grouped together with the likes of Colombine, etc.. Then you must also have the same black and white views on:

Show

Abortion = Murder
Something that can (by some definition) be considered "Alive", is no longer considered "Alive" due to the actions taken by an individual. Therefore murder.
Black and white definitions are a slippery slope.

How are black and white definitions a "slippery slope"?

 

[bilby]

Well to be fair, I wouldnt put a gang related shooting at a school in the same category as a 'classic' school shooting. Not that they are any less dangerous though.

I'm gonna kind of go in the other direction.

I don't think we should discount a shooting just because it is gang related. Gun violence is gun violence, and what the "gun nuts" are trying to do is pare down the definition to the point where it doesn't even exist anymore.

Kid shoots another kid? Sorry, doesn't count if it is "gang related." Kid gets shot in an accidental discharge of a firearm? Sorry, that's a "safety issue." Bunch of kids get shot by a crazed gunman? "Hey, did we mention we support mental health screenings?" Whenever anyone tries to talk about possible solutions to gun violence, the gun lobby whittles away at the definition so that only shootings by lawful gun owners are on the table, which can then be easily dismissed as mental health problems or "that person wasn't a real responsible law-abiding gun owner after all."

I disagree. If you're going to deal with a problem you have little hope of success if you don't understand why it happened in the first place.

A gang shooting at a school is still caused by gangs.

And the reason for the opposition is that the only solutions they talk about are straight from the playbook of the gun banners.

That explains all the gang shootings in my country that has Gangs but very few pistols. If gangs cause shootings why does most of Europe and Japan not have as many shootings? Let me guess not as many bleh people?

You don't have gangs anything like we do.

That's true; they are not armed with guns. Apart from that, they are pretty much exactly the same though.

 

[Nexus]

It is a shooting at a school, which is the logical meaning of "school shooting", so your claim is false.

Language doesn't operate with strict logic but with lexical semantics and inferred meaning. So your claim is false.

Language does not operate at all, people do. So your observation is irrelevant.

There you go again with your meaningless posts and rhetorical shenanigans.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is clear you missed the point.

Well if you google "how language operates". You will find the verb "operate" is in fact used by linguists regarding language. So the point of your post saying language doesn't operate was indeed meant to be be rhetorical bullshit. Perhaps you should try making insightful arguments rather than playing rhetorical games.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a shooting at a school, which is the logical meaning of "school shooting", so your claim is false.

Language doesn't operate with strict logic but with lexical semantics and inferred meaning. So your claim is false.

Language does not operate at all, people do. So your observation is irrelevant.

There you go again with your meaningless posts and rhetorical shenanigans.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is clear you missed the point.

Well if you google "how language operates". You will find the verb "operate" is in fact used by linguists regarding language. So the point of your post saying language doesn't operate was indeed meant to be be rhetorical bullshit. Perhaps you should try making insightful arguments rather than playing rhetorical games.

It wasn't intended to be rhetorical bullshit, but I will bow to your obvious extensive expertise in rhetorical bullshit.