[timschmidt]

All tools have potential use for violence. Hammers are as good at smashing heads as building houses. Even nuclear weapons have been used for constructive purposes. No tool is inherently good or evil, safe or violent. Those are properties of verbs. Everything is in the application and choices of the user.

Blaming a tool does seem like a convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.

[AlecSchueler]

Again I'm not making a moral argument here. I'm not talking about good and evil. I'm talking about violence and non-violence. A gun being used for "a good purpose" doesn't make it less violent.

[timschmidt]

So to you a flare gun is violent? It's a gun. Takes 12ga cartridges / shells. It can certainly be used to kill someone, but is designed and intended for saving lives. Is a knife violent? How about a letter opener? What about rope? Does it become violent only when certain knots are tied in it? How does this violent / non-violent object dichotomy work for you?

Violence, to me, is a verb someone can do to someone else, very specifically, with just about any object since the discovery of the rock and pointy stick.

[AlecSchueler]

> Violence, to me, is a verb someone can do to someone else, very specifically

That's fine, I already shared several dictionary definitions which differ from what it is "to you." To answer your questions above I would refer you again to those definitions.

[timschmidt]

I see no answer in your comments to my question about the knife / letter opener dichotomy, or about when a rope becomes violent or not. That's why I asked a direct question about your system of thought, your perceptions. They are common tools, they should be easy answers.

In the system of thought I've expressed, this is easy: all are tools, all have potential violent and non-violent uses. Depends on the intention and choices of the user.

In the system of thought you've expressed, I'm asking about these specific objects, because the words you've provided aren't sufficient for me to tell if they are violent objects or not. I'd like to know how it works for you. How you perceive it. If you're referencing a previous comment could you quote it? I'd like to understand what you're trying to say.

[AlecSchueler]

Sure. Would you usually describe a letter as having been "violently opened?" The regular magnet of using a letter opener doesn't involve violence, even while the object itself has the potential for a violent use.

But a loaded gun can only be fired violently. A clay duck can't explode non-violently when struck by a bullet. Nothing can be struck by a bullet without violence.

[timschmidt]

> The regular magnet of using a letter opener doesn't involve violence, even while the object itself has the potential for a violent use.

This sounds like you agree with my assessment, that violence is not inherent to the object, but a function of it's user's intent.

> But a loaded gun can only be fired violently. A clay duck can't explode non-violently when struck by a bullet. Nothing can be struck by a bullet without violence.

And yet you're back to assigning violence as an inherent property of an object here. Seems you are using two different and opposing systems of thought simultaneously.

Sometimes in my area of the US, people will fire guns into the air in reverie. Which most people would not describe as violent. Rather, celebratory. Rescue flares don't strike me as violent, but are fired from guns. Spin launch's projectile is another great example of something fired from a gun without violence.

On the other hand, if a person stood in the path of any of those while firing, the results could be quite gruesome, energetic even. But I wouldn't describe them as violent unless there was associated ill intent. Accidents are not typically described as violent.