[eridius]

I did not say "rape", I did not say "terrorism", I did not say anything about morality or ethics or politics.

You're making some pretty big assumptions as to the motivation for my comment, and they're wrong. I do not appreciate having my concern trivialized or dismissed as "political" when it's nothing of the sort.

My issue with the name "Gun" is that it's violent imagery. It has nothing to do with gun control, or anything political. It's about the glorification of violence. Our culture is already oversaturated with violent imagery. Objecting to unnecessarily violent names is not the problem. Immediately dismissing anybody who raises a concern about naming is the problem. You are contributing to the problem, not me.

[sp4rki]

You might not have said the words (and I never said you did, for the record) but you're giving the word "gun" an equal connotation as per your "kill" and "genocide" references. So, you say it's wrong. You say it's violent. That's your prerogative and you're entitled to it. You can dislike the name if you wish, but it's insulting to attack other people's choices of a product name when it doesn't violate any valid and widespread social moral constructs.

So now I'm the problem you say? Well, I could say the same exact thing about _you_. You're the type of person that will take the freedom to own firearms and the right to defend yourself from the people. Guns to me mean security and discipline. My life has been saved by myself or a person wielding a gun on multiple occasions (no deaths mind you), and I think that while the human race is littered with despicable human beings it's incredibly irresponsible for anyone to try to take away our right to defend ourselves.

I'm not dismissing your concerns, and I haven't down voted you either because even though we disagree wholeheartedly I find it's a valid discussion topic. I truly don't mind your criticism and can at some point respect it. What I don't respect is your super heightened moral compass and to a point denigrating a product and it's creator because it doesn't fly with what you believe, either morally and/or politically.

[eridius]

> but it's insulting to attack other people's choices of a product name when it doesn't violate any valid and widespread social moral constructs

That's complete bullshit.

> You're the type of person that will take the freedom to own firearms and the right to defend yourself from the people

What on earth are you going on about? I have never once expressed an opinion on gun control, yet here you are attacking me for a position that you've entirely manufactured in your mind. It's entirely possible to support the right to own and use guns while still decrying the overabundance of violent imagery in our society.

> denigrating a product and it's creator because it doesn't fly with what you believe

When did the mere questioning of the name of a product suddenly become equal to publicly denouncing a product and castigating its creator? You, and everybody else who've been responding, are acting as if it's some great crime to express a dislike for an unnecessarily violent name. I have to assume this overly-defensive behavior is actually a reflex to defend the term "gun" rather than anything about this particular product.

[sp4rki]

> That's complete bullshit.

Why? Because you say you say so? You got down-voted because you equated the word "Gun" to "Murder" and "Kill". That is what I call bullshit, and fear-mongering, and just plain old FUD.

> What on earth are you going on about? ...

Acting as if using the term "Gun" is a negative because of it relation to violence does a disservice to any and all anti anti-gun movements. There is no way around it. You might not believe in gun control yourself (and that's irrelevant in any case), but this attitude is nonetheless part of the problem. People should be taught to understand and respect guns, not to fear them implicitly.

> When did the mere questioning of the name of a product ...

You didn't just express the dislike of the name, which by the way would have gone down better with me and most probably with everyone else, but compared it with a totally over the top "names" that do a have a definite negative connotation.

You say we're overly defensive, but that would be incorrect. Most people just down-voted you and moved along. I decided to go ahead and tell you why you got down-voted and explain why your comment goes down in a sour manner, after which you decided to defend your position at any cost. The only one with a defense reflex and overly defensive behavior is you.

[eridius]

What do you think you're accomplishing here? You are overly defensive. You're putting words in my mouth, attacking straw men, and just generally doing everything you can to try and protest the very simple claim that the word "gun" is unnecessary violent imagery in this context. I hope you aren't expecting to convince me that you're in the right with your behavior, especially when you aren't even addressing the core point I've repeated (that violent imagery is not appropriate in this context).

If you want to engage in bad rhetoric and repeatedly attack me over my comment, that's your choice. But to then claim I'm being overly defensive because I respond to your attacks, that's just nonsense. But you do make a good point, which is that I'm not required to respond to you. If you wish to have a reasoned discussion about names and violent imagery and what contexts it is and is not appropriate, I will be happy to talk. But if you continue to respond in the same vein as you have so far, then do not expect a response from me.

[sp4rki]

The fact that you believe I'm attacking you tells me all I need to know. I'm not protesting a single thing. You are. I'm telling you why people - myself included - do not agree with you. There is no violent imagery besides the one you want there to be.

It's ok though. Don't respond, this is obviously not going anywhere and we'll just agree to disagree. Cheers.