|
December 08, 2006
If violence is bad, "gun violence" is worse, right?
What is "gun violence"? I wanted to ask this as very brief question, but I'm afraid "gun violence" is just another one of those ill-defined terms, which is used not to illuminate an argument, but to manipulate people by hiding the argument in the hope they'll go along. Unfortunately, the term is gaining in strength even though it is unclear what it means. Because I've already discussed (ad nauseam) the logical fallacy of suggesting that guns commit violence, this post is not about that. Rather, I'm noticing more and more that the term "gun violence" is being used in a major attempt to change the very language we use to define crime and criminals. Perhaps this is a deliberate utilization of the tactic George Lakoff calls "framing"; perhaps not. Whatever it is, it amazes me that people fall for it. Once street crime is thought of as "gun violence," that makes it a much easier task to shift the focus from the criminal to a physical object used in the commission of a crime. To understand the sheer scope of this logical error, imagine going back to the days of John Dillinger, Baby-Faced Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde. These people were criminals, and their pictures were in post offices everywhere. The idea was to hunt them down and bring them in. "DEAD OR ALIVE" was how the issue was "framed" in those days. I think that had anyone tried to describe the problem as "gun violence," he'd have either been laughed at, or else someone would have stated the obvious: there's a difference between good gun violence and bad gun violence! It might seem obvious to me and many of my readers that there is, but I think this argument falls on deaf ears in the case of people who think that all violence is wrong. Because, if all violence is wrong, then all gun violence is even more wrong! Nonsense. But my saying "nonsense" constitutes little more than self-reassurance. People who agree with me already agree, and people who disagree -- well, calling it a disagreement is itself misleading, for they might as well be living an endless replay of John Lennon's "Imagine." The world is not seen as it is, but as it should be. Criminals are not seen as criminals, but as victims. Often, criminals shooting each other in gun battles are seen as victims of "gun violence." And "gun violence is then defined as a "civil rights issue." The latter links to a pdf file from one of the leaders in this language battle, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I thought it might be worth examining how they define "gun violence." From the top of the above "FACT SHEET": Deaths from Gun ViolenceSo, CSGV apparently defines "gun violence" as including all shootings. While they seem to place accidental and police shootings in a different category from the rest, I see no exception for self defense, which legally constitutes "justifiable homicide," and is included in the "Homicide" group. What this means is that when they say "gun violence" they mean all gun violence, including defense against crime by armed citizens. Considering the broad definition of the term, I can only wonder whether its use as a synonym for crime evinces a mindset that armed homeowners who defend themselves are morally indistinguishable from armed criminals. It's tough debating people who think that way. MORE: Diane Edbril, Executive Director of CeasefirePA, seems to think that "gun violence" is a religious issue: ....here in Pennsylvania, the abstract notion of the right to bear arms transcends the concrete and horrific damage that we tolerate by allowing guns to get into the wrong hands. I know this because every day in my job, I read a dozen or more news articles from across the state, recounting the latest killing or assault.I'm not an expert on the Torah, but I have a funny feeling that if we translated all the "biblical passages into a modern vernacular," there'd be some recognition of the right to armed self defense. Can't the religious issue be argued either way? I mean, what about armed Israeli civilians like this woman in a market: ...the Israelis have learned to shoot first and discuss the matter later when the explosives or the guns come out in the hands of the other side. Not long ago, a woman in a market in Israel saw a man attempting to activate an explosive device strapped to his body. She drew a concealed pistol and shot him dead before he could trigger the suicide bomb, and in so doing she saved countless innocent people from being killed or mutilated. American newspapers referred to her as a "security" person, but the word I get is that she was simply an ordinary lady...with a gun, and the will to use it, and the foresight to have learned to use it properly and effectively.Did the ordinary lady with a gun engage in gun violence? Doesn't that example demonstrate that there is a difference between good gun violence and bad gun violence? Why is it that no one is suggesting disarming Israeli civilians because terrorists have guns? AND MORE: It's probably just a coincidence, but according to David Kopel, the global gun prohibition lobby wants to ban arms sales to Israel. posted by Eric on 12.08.06 at 07:46 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Gun violence occurs when angry, neglected, psychotic, unhappy, unappreciated, or greedy guns get off the shelf and go shoot someone. Such guns need therapy and understanding, not jail or confiscation.
On the other hand, good guns should be rewarded with good ammo and good oil.