because you are not using conditioning along with the new terms. Associative Psychology is a thing. (think Pavlov.) You need to associate a feeling with the word. (seriously, this is basic stuff. How do you not know this?) When the changes you mentioned were made, they just became new words to use on the group. You need to imbue a new MEANING along with the new word.
Lets take an example of Associative Conditioning: You view firearms as weapons. Why? they are just as often used in hunting, to provide for someone. Why aren't they hunting tools? They are also pretty popular in sports, why are they not sports equipment? And the examples of mass shootings, well, as has been said, you are more likely to be struck by lightning. So, why are they weapons?
I'll tell you why: because you have been conditioned to view them as weapons by society. simple as that. Associative Conditioning. Because society has told you all your life that they are weapons, you view them as weapons without a second thought.
This ties into two different types of associative psychology: memory and subconscious. You remember, however vaguely, that they are supposed to be weapons. You subliminally recognize them as weapons because of this.
Whereas someone who learned from a young age to shoot, and had gone on multiple hunting trips, and had been taught that they were a tool, would view them as that: a tool.
And someone who had been doing competitive shooting all their life would view them as sporting equipment.
Do you see what I am getting at? it's not just changing the name: it's changing the perception, and associating that changed perception with a new name.
yes, I said that, because my experiences with teaching safety were that, and I could not think of a situation that would be otherwise, aside from what I stated.
So, you are saying that association does not work?
The researchers and policymakers, afaik, have been focused on keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them in these mass killings, and not on changing public perception of them into firearms that are used for sport.
so, because it's not the case now, we shouldn't try to change it?
hey, guys! Gay Rights are never gonna happen. sorry, dude. It's not that way now, never gonna change. Doesn't matter how hard you try.
See how that doesn't make sense? Just because that isn't the case now doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And if you are successful, and spread awareness of basic firearm safety, and violence goes down, what wrong have you done?
I am not saying that firearm doesn't mean weapon. I am saying that the effort is to associate the term firearm with a nonlethal tool. They are still dangerous, they can still be used as weapons, but that is not their primary purpose.
Why is that so hard to grasp? would it help if they were called, I don't know, invisible fireworks or something?
the effort is to associate firearm with tool. If you think of a shotgun as a firearm, does it really matter that it has the term gun in it? You're still classifying it as a firearm and not a gun, so it is a tool and not a weapon. I think that may be where you're getting confused: They do not object to the word "gun", just the classification of "gun", since it has that connotation. (I apologize if I have not made that clear.) So, a shotgun is a firearm, even though it has the word gun in it.
And pseudo-psychology? really? it's an association game: Just like you learn to associate the word "red" to the color red, you can learn to associate "firearm" with the tools you go skeet shooting with, and "gun" with weapons. By creating two separate terms for them, you effectively separate them. Guns are used to kill people, firearms are used in target shooting and competitions.
If you want, we can compare dinner knives to combat knives. They are essentially the same thing, but used for different purposes. Why can't we have the same thing with, say, rifles?
I am not saying that this is universally accepted, but why shouldn't it be? if you CAN think of a firearm as something other than a tool to destroy, why wouldn't you?
because "shotgun" is the term for a firearm that fires pellets instead of single rounds. The idea isn't that not using the word gun makes it safer, the idea is that using the word firearm and treating it like a tool and not a weapon will make people think of it as a tool and not a weapon, thus reducing it being used in lethal situations. calling it a firearm is just one part of that process. Another part of that process is training people to automatically point it away from people, by stressing that you do not point it at anyone, period.
If you cannot see past the words to the intent, then there may be something wrong with you.
well, I explained the reasoning behind said definitions... and your response was immature symantecs. I also explain what the goal of the NRA training was, and you completely ignored that in favor of... attacking terminology.
the point is that the NRA teaches people to treat firearms as tools rather than weapons. If you saw a shotgun and thought of skeet shooting instead of person shooting, wouldn't that be a good thing?
you misunderstand: a firearm can be both a weapon (AR-15) or a tool (flare gun), depending on the use. the NRA firearm safety training is meant to reinforce that you use what they are training you with as a tool, not a weapon.
When you use a knife to cut your dinner, it is a tool. but, when you use it to stab someone, it becomes a weapon. make sense? By using the term "firearm" instead of "gun", you distance yourself from the common word, and you let them know that what they are learning isn't to kill with. I get that "firearm" means weapon, but it doesn't have that same punch that "gun" does.
because of the terminology. A gun is almost exclusively a weapon, while a firearm is both a weapon and a tool. By calling it a gun, you are saying that it is a weapon, which it isn't. You are not using it as such, so it is not a gun, it is a firearm. While it is true that a firearm can also be a weapon, part of the safety class is stressing that they are NOT weapons.
I guess I should clarify, then. I have taught NRA and BSA firearm safety courses, and in both of those, the use of "firearm" or "tool" is mandated, instead of "gun" or "weapon". I actually feel this is a better classification system, because calling it a weapon implies it's only intent is to harm, when this is just not true.
as a counterpoint to your wiki article, here is another: . SO, no, not all firearms are weapons. (a Flare Gun, for example, is a firearm.)
Like I said, if they called it a weapon, AND THEY WERE NOT TRAINING YOU FOR THE MILITARY, they instructed you wrong. Civilian firearms training NEVER calls it a weapon. EVER.
Lets take an example of Associative Conditioning: You view firearms as weapons. Why? they are just as often used in hunting, to provide for someone. Why aren't they hunting tools? They are also pretty popular in sports, why are they not sports equipment? And the examples of mass shootings, well, as has been said, you are more likely to be struck by lightning. So, why are they weapons?
I'll tell you why: because you have been conditioned to view them as weapons by society. simple as that. Associative Conditioning. Because society has told you all your life that they are weapons, you view them as weapons without a second thought.
This ties into two different types of associative psychology: memory and subconscious. You remember, however vaguely, that they are supposed to be weapons. You subliminally recognize them as weapons because of this.
Whereas someone who learned from a young age to shoot, and had gone on multiple hunting trips, and had been taught that they were a tool, would view them as that: a tool.
And someone who had been doing competitive shooting all their life would view them as sporting equipment.
Do you see what I am getting at? it's not just changing the name: it's changing the perception, and associating that changed perception with a new name.
So, you are saying that association does not work?
The researchers and policymakers, afaik, have been focused on keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them in these mass killings, and not on changing public perception of them into firearms that are used for sport.
hey, guys! Gay Rights are never gonna happen. sorry, dude. It's not that way now, never gonna change. Doesn't matter how hard you try.
See how that doesn't make sense? Just because that isn't the case now doesn't mean you shouldn't try. And if you are successful, and spread awareness of basic firearm safety, and violence goes down, what wrong have you done?
Why is that so hard to grasp? would it help if they were called, I don't know, invisible fireworks or something?
And pseudo-psychology? really? it's an association game: Just like you learn to associate the word "red" to the color red, you can learn to associate "firearm" with the tools you go skeet shooting with, and "gun" with weapons. By creating two separate terms for them, you effectively separate them. Guns are used to kill people, firearms are used in target shooting and competitions.
If you want, we can compare dinner knives to combat knives. They are essentially the same thing, but used for different purposes. Why can't we have the same thing with, say, rifles?
I am not saying that this is universally accepted, but why shouldn't it be? if you CAN think of a firearm as something other than a tool to destroy, why wouldn't you?
If you cannot see past the words to the intent, then there may be something wrong with you.
Yeah.
the point is that the NRA teaches people to treat firearms as tools rather than weapons. If you saw a shotgun and thought of skeet shooting instead of person shooting, wouldn't that be a good thing?
And the irony especially kicks in when you consider who said kids are:
Toph, the earthbender who developed a whole new facet of it.
Katara, one of the youngest waterbending masters in recent history.
Aang, the Master Airbender, who is an idealist trying to pursue what he feels is right.
and Sokka, the unique contributor that no one sees coming.
When you use a knife to cut your dinner, it is a tool. but, when you use it to stab someone, it becomes a weapon. make sense? By using the term "firearm" instead of "gun", you distance yourself from the common word, and you let them know that what they are learning isn't to kill with. I get that "firearm" means weapon, but it doesn't have that same punch that "gun" does.
as a counterpoint to your wiki article, here is another: . SO, no, not all firearms are weapons. (a Flare Gun, for example, is a firearm.)
But, I have gotten admissions that they shifted specifically because of my deck, so that's something, I guess.
Like I said, if they called it a weapon, AND THEY WERE NOT TRAINING YOU FOR THE MILITARY, they instructed you wrong. Civilian firearms training NEVER calls it a weapon. EVER.