More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[olofscience 421]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yet still no intelligent answers or adult conversation. No surprise.

The lack of intelligent answers or adult conversation usually only comes from one side.

 

Anyway, to expand on my point - in the UK, criminals find it difficult to get guns, because it's difficult to get guns in general. So most crimes are done with knives, a recent shooting (if you call 2020 recent) was done with an antique revolver with home-made ammunition.

Even police here don't usually carry guns, and it's one of the best things I like about the UK.

 

What gun supporters usually reply to the above points is:

1. "well, the British are just a bunch of bootlicker, freedom-hating lackeys" (or some sort of similar insult)
2. "well, even the UK can't eliminate guns 100% so we might as well give up trying, actually, we need MORE GUNS!"
3. "it's in the CONSTITUTION!"

So if your reply is one of the above, don't bother.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe - No.  We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. 

Read an interesting article this weekend. It said that if the government really cared about citizen safety they would ban cigarettes and do something serious about stopping drugs.

CDC says 480,000 smoking deaths annually with 41,000 from second hand smoke.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/diseases-and-death.html#:~:text=Cigarette smoking is responsible for,resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.

NIH says in 2021 there were 106,000 drug overdose deaths

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#:~:text=Overall%2C drug overdose deaths rose,overdose deaths reported in 2021.

Those two account for 12 times more deaths than guns. If you remove suicide (54% of gun deaths) then drugs and smoking are 28 times more deaths.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

Round and round we go, nothing changes. 

If certain guns, magazines and other gun accessories were outlawed do you think that criminals would stop having them and using them against others? 

Hi Bill,

Re:  Round and round we go, nothing changes. 

Here in Oregon, we are doing our best to change things:  Oregon’s Measure 114 is constitutional, federal judge rules regarding gun control law (msn.com)

Do you support this type of legislation?  What changes would you make?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  How about you give up on the red herrings about smoking deaths, etc?  IMO and most of the rest of us here, it has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[kallend 1,623]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yet still no intelligent answers or adult conversation. No surprise.

Well, stop posting unintelligent diversions and tired excuses then.

[billeisele 122]

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

 

When you stop lying and deluding yourself. The answers will still be the same ones every other country in the world has used to solve this same issue.

OK, fine. In your infinite wisdom, explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan and not some fantasy world Kallend Merry Go Round with pink unicorns.

Demonstrate that you actually have a brain and not just some political concept.

[wmw999 2,122]

Bill, what thoughts do you have on things that would help with preventing (rather than punishing) gun violence? Because it’s almost always cheaper to prevent things than to fix them after they’re broken. It’s not the only cause of US death, but if we have to fix every single other one completely before the first step is taken to prevent gun violence, you know nothing will ever happen.

What are your thoughts on trigger locks? Biometric ones? How about gun dealers who sell them? How about mandatory lock-your-gun laws?

Wendy P. 

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Thanks Bill, I'll put you down with the never give an inch, armed speech over free speech is the American way, and because what about something else crowd. Honestly, you guys kill me.

Joe - you know my position is not close to what you just stated. I've made clear statements about options that could have an impact.

I asked a legitimate question. The fact that no one wants to exchange thoughts doesn't get anyone anywhere. 

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

The lack of intelligent answers or adult conversation usually only comes from one side.

Anyway, to expand on my point - in the UK, criminals find it difficult to get guns, because it's difficult to get guns in general. So most crimes are done with knives, a recent shooting (if you call 2020 recent) was done with an antique revolver with home-made ammunition.

Even police here don't usually carry guns, and it's one of the best things I like about the UK.

What gun supporters usually reply to the above points is:

1. "well, the British are just a bunch of bootlicker, freedom-hating lackeys" (or some sort of similar insult)
2. "well, even the UK can't eliminate guns 100% so we might as well give up trying, actually, we need MORE GUNS!"
3. "it's in the CONSTITUTION!"

So if your reply is one of the above, don't bother.

Thanks for the reply, certainly a much safer society.

I've asked before and just a minute ago ... how could the current situation in America transition to that model? There would be plenty of issues to tackle.

My feeling is that as long as it continues to be used as a political hammer, nothing will get done. Some states and local jurisdictions are trying. Not sure there has been one that has worked. Once the court battles stop in Oregon, if the legislation survives, we'll have one to watch.

[Phil1111 911]

34 minutes ago, billeisele said:

OK, fine. In your infinite wisdom, explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan and not some fantasy world Kallend Merry Go Round with pink unicorns.

Demonstrate that you actually have a brain and not just some political concept.

So dollars and pennies have a trading value for those killed by gun violence.  As everyone has suggested here and elsewhere. The number of guns together with the number of people who can and do posses them must be restricted, reduced.

BIGUN is the only progun poster here who has suggested or endorsed restrictions that would make a difference.

Both you and Brent play the game that nothing can or should be done. You do it with more finesse. But that makes you even more disingenuous.

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  Round and round we go, nothing changes. 

Here in Oregon, we are doing our best to change things:  Oregon’s Measure 114 is constitutional, federal judge rules regarding gun control law (msn.com)

Do you support this type of legislation?  What changes would you make?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  How about you give up on the red herrings about smoking deaths, etc?  IMO and most of the rest of us here, it has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

I've been watching 114. Once the legal battles stop, if 114 survives, we'll have a model to watch, see if it's effective and how it works. 

I read it when you first posted it and found parts to be too lenient. I support what the legislation says but have advocated for periodic retesting and recurrency training. Here in SC one can have never handled a gun, take an 8-hour class, use a 22-caliber to qualify and they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That weapon could be a 45 with a 12-round magazine, or an FN 57 with a 20-round magazine.

IMO That makes no sense. I think the permit holder should be restricted to the maximum caliber that they used to qualify.

 

As for smoking and drugs. we'll have to disagree. No doubt there are differences between gun deaths and death from smoking and drugs. Excluding suicide, gun deaths are violence by one against another, where smoking and drugs are generally self-inflicted. Using that description they are different. The similarity, that I see, is that smoking and drug deaths could be stopped or significantly reduced by restrictive legislation, just as gun deaths could be reduced by restrictive legislation. Regardless of laws all require enforcement.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

33 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Bill, what thoughts do you have on things that would help with preventing (rather than punishing) gun violence? Because it’s almost always cheaper to prevent things than to fix them after they’re broken. It’s not the only cause of US death, but if we have to fix every single other one completely before the first step is taken to prevent gun violence, you know nothing will ever happen.

What are your thoughts on trigger locks? Biometric ones? How about gun dealers who sell them? How about mandatory lock-your-gun laws?

Wendy P. 

I'm not Bill, but when I point out how useless and pointless most of the proposed 'solutions' are, I get asked the same question.

To answer your questions directly:
Trigger locks aren't as good as many like to think. As with any lock, it can be defeated. It's just a matter of how determined the person is to get through it. Trigger locks are ok for keeping kids away from guns. But that's about it.
Biometrics have some promise, but it's got a lot of flaws. Keep in mind that ALL of the laws that mention biometric devices specifically exclude police from them. Despite the fact that a significant number of cops are shot with their own gun (can't find the number with a quick search), the cops refuse to use this technology. What does that say about it? Or maybe about the cops?
"Secure your gun" laws have some merit.
But how much of a difference will that make?
How many of the high profile shootings happened with stolen guns? Versus how many happened with guns that were legally purchased? 

I keep repeating that "I don't know" how to fix it. I don't disagree that it's 'broken', but I don't see any real solutions.

Bigun proposed making ALL transactions (or maybe just 'all military style semi-autos, not certain I remember correctly) subject to NFA rules.

I never did respond to that, but my response could (should?) have been that it won't work.

#1 - Miller vs US Supreme Court ruling basically said that NFA was unconstitutional. It was never carried through because Miller was never re-tried. So the ruling ended up in a sort of 'legal limbo'. Given that previous ruling and the current composition of the court, I can see a challenge to the NFA making it all the way through and watching the NFA disappear in the not-too-distant future.

#2 - NFA rules have either the local sheriff or chief of police having final say on whether or not the purchase happens. Under current laws, a sheriff or chief of police who doesn't think 'those sorts of guns belong in our community' can veto any and all transfers. That's not speculation. That's real.

 

#3 - Again, the sheriff or chief of police has to sign off on all transfers. How many of them are going to be willing to take on that much extra work (and responsibility). How many sheriffs didn't want to do the "Brady background checks"? Remember the lawsuits from them?
How many have said flat out that they'd not bother investigating, let alone prosecuting violations of 'universal background checks'?

The way that Australia & the UK dealt with 'gun violence' was 'confiscation & compensation'. They took most of the guns away from the public (and paid a fraction of the value to the former owners). 

That will NEVER happen in the US. Given the current Supreme Court (and the average age), it won't pass legal challenges for a long time (likely not in my lifetime).

Given the strength of the conservative base here in the US (they're a minority, but Trump still got 75 MILLION votes in 2020), I honestly don't see any real changes happening any time soon.

 

[billeisele 122]

39 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Bill, what thoughts do you have on things that would help with preventing (rather than punishing) gun violence? Because it’s almost always cheaper to prevent things than to fix them after they’re broken. It’s not the only cause of US death, but if we have to fix every single other one completely before the first step is taken to prevent gun violence, you know nothing will ever happen.

What are your thoughts on trigger locks? Biometric ones? How about gun dealers who sell them? How about mandatory lock-your-gun laws?

Wendy P. 

Hey Wendy - I've posted on this before. And just discussed a couple things in responding to Jerry. 

Don't remember the full list of suggestions I've previously made (guessing, way earlier in this thread) and don't know how to find the post, some are: 
Guns must be removed from vehicles when the vehicle is at their residence or overnight location.

Require a background check for all gun sales.

No limitation on the time it takes to do the check.
Mandatory recurrency training for permit holders.

Maximum un/concealed carry allowed caliber is what was used to qualify for the permit.

Mandatory reporting of stolen or missing guns. Make, model, serial #, caliber, etc.

21 years or older to purchase ammo.

Illegal to transfer ammo to someone under 18.

New one - Background check when purchasing more than a certain number of rounds (50?) larger than ?? (32-caliber?), especially for rounds typically used in "assault" weapons.

New one - All hunting guns must have a part removed making the gun inoperable (rifle bolt, shotgun forearm removed or separated), if possible, outside of hunting season unless the gun is locked in a safe or has a trigger lock, with the removed part stored in locked case.

No bump stocks or binary triggers or other devices that increase the rate of fire.

Eliminate access to tracers, armor piercing and similar munitions except those specifically designed for hunting.

 

As for gun locks - trigger, cables, biometric, etc. My thought is that those are primarily intended for in-home safety. Having them would stop the accidental kid deaths, sudden rage domestic violence (maybe), and maybe some of the suicides. An argument that may be legitimate is that it restricts the owners access in an emergency. Not sure that is a legitimate argument but it would be used, loudly. I'm undecided on this one.

Gun safes can prevent theft but that would be a difficult one to pass. They are big, heavy and expensive. But yes, effective.

 

[billeisele 122]

39 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

So dollars and pennies have a trading value for those killed by gun violence.  As everyone has suggested here and elsewhere. The number of guns together with the number of people who can and do posses them must be restricted, reduced.

BIGUN is the only progun poster here who has suggested or endorsed restrictions that would make a difference.

Both you and Brent play the game that nothing can or should be done. You do it with more finesse. But that makes you even more disingenuous.

Again, you just want to argue and make false accusations, and still offer no intelligent answers to a simple legitimate question. Not productive.

You've stated a flat out LIE. What I have written directly conflicts with what you wrote.

To some extend we do agree. Yes, the number of people that have access to guns must be restricted.

I've made plenty of suggestions, just wrote a small list in reply to Wendy (above). I've made other suggestions earlier in this post that I don't remember.

[billeisele 122]

32 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm not Bill, but when I point out how useless and pointless most of the proposed 'solutions' are, I get asked the same question.

To answer your questions directly:
Trigger locks aren't as good as many like to think. As with any lock, it can be defeated. It's just a matter of how determined the person is to get through it. Trigger locks are ok for keeping kids away from guns. But that's about it.
Biometrics have some promise, but it's got a lot of flaws. Keep in mind that ALL of the laws that mention biometric devices specifically exclude police from them. Despite the fact that a significant number of cops are shot with their own gun (can't find the number with a quick search), the cops refuse to use this technology. What does that say about it? Or maybe about the cops?
"Secure your gun" laws have some merit.
But how much of a difference will that make?
How many of the high profile shootings happened with stolen guns? Versus how many happened with guns that were legally purchased? 

I keep repeating that "I don't know" how to fix it. I don't disagree that it's 'broken', but I don't see any real solutions.

Bigun proposed making ALL transactions (or maybe just 'all military style semi-autos, not certain I remember correctly) subject to NFA rules.

I never did respond to that, but my response could (should?) have been that it won't work.

#1 - Miller vs US Supreme Court ruling basically said that NFA was unconstitutional. It was never carried through because Miller was never re-tried. So the ruling ended up in a sort of 'legal limbo'. Given that previous ruling and the current composition of the court, I can see a challenge to the NFA making it all the way through and watching the NFA disappear in the not-too-distant future.

#2 - NFA rules have either the local sheriff or chief of police having final say on whether or not the purchase happens. Under current laws, a sheriff or chief of police who doesn't think 'those sorts of guns belong in our community' can veto any and all transfers. That's not speculation. That's real.

 

#3 - Again, the sheriff or chief of police has to sign off on all transfers. How many of them are going to be willing to take on that much extra work (and responsibility). How many sheriffs didn't want to do the "Brady background checks"? Remember the lawsuits from them?
How many have said flat out that they'd not bother investigating, let alone prosecuting violations of 'universal background checks'?

The way that Australia & the UK dealt with 'gun violence' was 'confiscation & compensation'. They took most of the guns away from the public (and paid a fraction of the value to the former owners). 

That will NEVER happen in the US. Given the current Supreme Court (and the average age), it won't pass legal challenges for a long time (likely not in my lifetime).

Given the strength of the conservative base here in the US (they're a minority, but Trump still got 75 MILLION votes in 2020), I honestly don't see any real changes happening any time soon.

 

That's a lot to unbundle and unfortunately there's more. IMO there is no easy big solution that will work. That's why I advocate for a series of small changes that can pass the legal test and can make some difference.

Hopefully Oregon 114 will pass and we'll see if it makes a difference. If so, roll it out but add more. Clearly the gun laws in Chicago don't work, no need to repeat that experiment.

One other item I keep seeing is accusations that this is a R or D thing. There are plenty, millions, of D's that own guns, hunt and conceal carry. Just like there are millions of R's that do the same. There are also millions on both sides that do neither. It's silly to keep using one term or the other on this topic. R this or D that, the generalizations are not accurate.

I hold out hope that the politicians can make some decisions that will pass the legal test and that will be effective. You may be right, not in our lifetime.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

....The number of guns together with the number of people who can and do posses them must be restricted, reduced....

 

52 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Again, you just want to argue and make false accusations, and still offer no intelligent answers to a simple legitimate question. Not productive.

What part of that don't you understand?

55 minutes ago, billeisele said:

....To some extend we do agree. Yes, the number of people that have access to guns must be restricted.....

It has worked everywhere else in the world. But nibbling around the edges does nothing. Ten to fifteen million more guns every year. More states allowing open carry without permits. Are not going to solve any problems.

Reducing the number of guns in the US by 30-50 million a year would.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

....The way that Australia & the UK dealt with 'gun violence' was 'confiscation & compensation'. They took most of the guns away from the public (and paid a fraction of the value to the former owners).

As I've said before as a pro gun liberal at least you're honest about your position on guns. Inflexible but honest.

If the US government paid "fair" compensation would you be in favor? Given of course severe restrictions on new production and imports.

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

...That will NEVER happen in the US. Given the current Supreme Court (and the average age), it won't pass legal challenges for a long time (likely not in my lifetime)....

So are you in favor of constitutional changes if they still allowed gun ownership but allowed real restrictions?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

That's a lot to unbundle and unfortunately there's more. IMO there is no easy big solution that will work. That's why I advocate for a series of small changes that can pass the legal test and can make some difference.

Hopefully Oregon 114 will pass and we'll see if it makes a difference. If so, roll it out but add more. Clearly the gun laws in Chicago don't work, no need to repeat that experiment.

One other item I keep seeing is accusations that this is a R or D thing. There are plenty, millions, of D's that own guns, hunt and conceal carry. Just like there are millions of R's that do the same. There are also millions on both sides that do neither. It's silly to keep using one term or the other on this topic. R this or D that, the generalizations are not accurate.

I hold out hope that the politicians can make some decisions that will pass the legal test and that will be effective. You may be right, not in our lifetime.

Hi Bill,

IMO it is a R vs D thing.  The GOP constantly does everything that it can to prevent any legislation that will help this problem.  IMO it is on the D's who trying to do something.

Here in Oregon, the state GOP was completely opposed to 114.

IMO there is no discussion on this, it is factual.

Jerry Baumchen

A Non-affiliated voter

PS)  Do you think any of these people are Democrats:  Gun rights groups file notice to appeal federal judge’s ruling upholding Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 - oregonlive.com

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by JerryBaumchen

[billeisele 122]

30 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

As I've said before as a pro gun liberal at least you're honest about your position on guns. Inflexible but honest.

If the US government paid "fair" compensation would you be in favor? Given of course severe restrictions on new production and imports.

So are you in favor of constitutional changes if they still allowed gun ownership but allowed real restrictions?

Phil - you don't want a conversation, you just want to argue, label and diminish others opinions. And you continue to LIE and misrepresent my position on firearms.

You want me to answer your questions but yet you can't answer the legitimate question that was posed to you?

[billeisele 122]

12 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

IMO it is a R vs D thing.  The GOP constantly does everything that it can to prevent any legislation that will help this problem.  IMO it is on the D's who trying to do something.

Here in Oregon, the state GOP was completely opposed to 114.

IMO there is no discussion on this, it is factual.

Jerry Baumchen

A Non-affiliated voter

PS)  Do you think any of these people are Democrats:  Gun rights groups file notice to appeal federal judge’s ruling upholding Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 - oregonlive.com

 

Jerry - I get it, the elected officials are bad. If the elected official continue to lump together and vote rather than representing what is best for their voters that's a problem.

What I was talking about is the general population, their political label and their position on these issues. There are plenty of Ds and Rs that want reform. Just like there are people in both parties that oppose some or all of it.

Again, as long as it's used as a political hammer, nothing will get done.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

....What part of that don't you understand?

Reducing the number of guns in the US by 30-50 million a year would.

What part of reducing the number of guns in the US by 30-50 million per year is hard to understand?

35 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Phil - you don't want a conversation, you just want to argue, label and diminish others opinions. And you continue to LIE and misrepresent my position on firearms.

You want me to answer your questions but yet you can't answer the legitimate question that was posed to you?

You asked and I answered not once but twice as of now. With that solution there would be no guns in the US in about eight years.

You really are disingenuous.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

36 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - I get it, the elected officials are bad. If the elected official continue to lump together and vote rather than representing what is best for their voters that's a problem.

What I was talking about is the general population, their political label and their position on these issues. There are plenty of Ds and Rs that want reform. Just like there are people in both parties that oppose some or all of it.

Again, as long as it's used as a political hammer, nothing will get done.

Hi Bill,

Re:  elected officials are bad.

I also get it:  Not All elected officials are bad.   Why do you continue to lump them all together?

Re:  I was talking about is the general population

Sure, you can find a small percentage of the D's that do not support any changes.  But, IMO they are so small as to be insignificant.  It is the GOP, across the board, that is standing in the way of progress.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

As I've said before as a pro gun liberal at least you're honest about your position on guns. Inflexible but honest.

If the US government paid "fair" compensation would you be in favor? Given of course severe restrictions on new production and imports.

So are you in favor of constitutional changes if they still allowed gun ownership but allowed real restrictions?

Honestly, I don't know.

How far I'd be in favor of restrictions going isn't a question I have an answer to. 
15 or 20 years ago, I'd be totally against them. Today? I don't know.

I have seriously mixed feelings on it. It's abundantly clear from other places around the world that serious gun restrictions have not produced the authoritarian governments that many (including me) expected.
We are getting some seriously fucked up and fascist shit going on here in the US, even with way too many guns.

I DO know that I am no longer a 'single issue' voter, and that gun rights have gone way down on my 'selection criteria' for a candidate to get my vote. Again, 15 or 20 years ago that was not the case.

The other thing is...

Reality.

There's more guns than people in this country right now. The money needed to compensate the owners, even at a fraction of the market value, is insane. It simply isn't there. Someone suggested 10% of the defense budget, but even that wouldn't get all the guns.
And there's no way the military, the defense industry or the congress-creatures would go for that.

This doesn't even get into the questions of how many gun owners would refuse to surrender their guns. How many would try to fight back (and lose). 
How many cops would refuse to take the guns away and how much of the military would refuse to participate if ordered (which would be an even bigger issue).

I simply can't believe it would happen, unless a whole lot of the US changes. And changes a lot.

We're definitely stuck. 

[kallend 1,623]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

  Clearly the gun laws in Chicago don't work, no need to repeat that experiment.

 

FALSE,  that is a commonly spouted lie by the poorly educated. The gun laws worked very well until Scalia & Co dismembered them.  Homicide rate per 100k went from 15.9 the year before Heller went into effect, to 27.7 by 2016. 

And, of course, you can drive from an Indiana gun store (very lax gun laws) to Chicago in less than 5 minutes. 

[winsor 186]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Bill, what thoughts do you have on things that would help with preventing (rather than punishing) gun violence? Because it’s almost always cheaper to prevent things than to fix them after they’re broken. It’s not the only cause of US death, but if we have to fix every single other one completely before the first step is taken to prevent gun violence, you know nothing will ever happen.

What are your thoughts on trigger locks? Biometric ones? How about gun dealers who sell them? How about mandatory lock-your-gun laws?

Wendy P. 

Be advised that referring to "gun violence" is on a par with using "the N word" conversationally.  It tells me too much about your perspective on the issue.

It is also equally offensive.

[gowlerk 1,912]

9 minutes ago, winsor said:

Be advised that referring to "gun violence" is on a par with using "the N word" conversationally.  It tells me too much about your perspective on the issue.

It is also equally offensive.

Is the term “gun violence “ as offensive as people dying from gun violence?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

Be advised that referring to "gun violence" is on a par with using "the N word" conversationally.  It tells me too much about your perspective on the issue.

It is also equally offensive.

That's a crock of shit. "Gun violence" may have a taint of wokeness from your perspective but it is not a pejorative term meant to demean and harm others.