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 Violence

Annually, about 30,000 people die of firearm injuries. In 2000, guns claimed 28,663 lives in the United States, the majority from suicides. Firearm deaths, 2000,by cause:

Suicide--16,586

Homicide--10,801

Unintentional Shootings*--1,276

*includes causes:accidental,undetermined and legal intervention

So, 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 know this because I speak to our state lawmakers about sensible policies to reduce gun death and injury, and rather than try to learn what their constituents want, they ask me what the gun lobby says.

I know this because too many of our political leaders don't view gun violence as a humanitarian crisis or public-health epidemic, but rather, as the price we have to pay for living in a democracy that values individual freedoms over the well-being of the broader society.

But they are wrong -- and it is up to the Jewish community to take a leading role in showing these policymakers the error of their ways.

The Torah commands us to seek peace in our world, not just practice it on an individual level. We are exhorted to right injustices, to care for orphans, to be fair in our dealings.

Translating these biblical passages into a modern vernacular, we must do all we can to reduce the likelihood that innocent parties will fall prey to violence -- and that children will be killed, maimed, or left without parents and guardians. We must do all that we can to stop the trade in illegal handguns that thrives here in the Keystone state, to provide police with the tools they need to enforce the laws, and to provide educational and job opportunities in the communities beset by violence and guns.

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.

Many years before, a clutch of terrorists opened fire in a public place in Israel. Guns bloomed everywhere from the concealing garments of honest Israeli citizens. In moments, the terrorists were on the ground bleeding from their gunshot wounds, all dead but one. The wounded survivor said indignantly afterward that no one had told them that their victims might be armed and capable of shooting back.

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





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4313






Comments

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.

bird dog   ·  December 9, 2006 01:58 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits