Skip to comments.'Gun violence': why are other forms of violence preferable?
Posted on 05/20/2009 4:35:48 AM PDT by marktwain
One puzzling characteristic of citizen disarmament advocates is their bizarre apparent belief that "gun violence" is somehow "worse" than other forms of violence. One would think that being stabbed, beaten, bludgeoned, strangled, etc. to death would be just as bad as being shot to death, but apparently that's not a universally held belief.
I was reminded of this peculiar attitude yesterday when reading "New York's Gun Battle," an article in the Gotham Gazette about current attempts to make gun laws in New York state even more restrictive than they are now (the Brady Campaign ranks New York the 6th most draconian state in the nation):
Bloomberg's push to rid New York City of illegal guns has seen results. The number of guns recovered from crime scenes in the city dropped by 13 percent from last year. The number of people shot to death dropped from 347 in 2007 to 292 in 2008. Overall, murders increased from 2007 to 2008, but only due to an increase in crimes committed with knives.
The implication is that Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun jihad has been successful, despite an increase in murders, simply because fewer of those murders were committed with guns. Somehow, we are to believe that murders committed with knives are less tragic than those committed with guns. That's something in which to take comfort in your last seconds of consciousness, as you bleed out from your slashed carotid artery.
So as not to appear to be picking on the Gotham Gazette, I should point out that the above paragraph is merely a particularly illustrative example of my point. Another example can be found in the fact that in an average year, approximately half of the deaths by gunshot in the U.S. are suicides. These deaths are very often lumped in with the "gun violence" statistics, despite the rather questionable characterization of suicide as "violence." One does not, for instance, generally hear of a person who washes down a fistful of valium with a fifth of vodka as having committed "pharmaceutical violence," or of a swan dive off a penthouse balcony described as "gravitational violence."
But I digress. Let us not quibble with the notion of classifying the deliberate shooting of oneself to death as "gun violence," despite the fact that other methods of suicide are rarely, if ever, thought of as being "violent" acts. Instead, let us consider the fact that in Japan, where private ownership of firearms is regulated to an extent that even extremist anti-gun organizations like the Violence Policy Center only dream of, suicide rates are significantly higher than in the U.S. At least, though, very few of those suicides are committed with firearms. Apparently that is something from which the Japanese should take comfort.
Speaking of the Violence Policy Center, another example would be that organization's recent press release ranking states by gun ownership rate and "gun death" rate, and attempting to show a correlation (utterly ignoring the fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation). That press release is also reticent about the fact that some of the states with high rates of "gun violence" also have high rates of murder committed without guns.
VPC also failed to mention that Alaska's non-gun murder rate is higher than its gun murder rate, despite widespread gun ownership in the state, and that Louisiana and Nevada also are among the highest five states in terms of their non-gun murder rates.
It's almost as if only "gun murders" count.
I could go on--the soaring rates of violence in the U.K. in the wake of draconian gun laws, Chicago's status of "murder capital" of the U.S., despite (?) a near total ban of privately owned handguns, Washington D.C.'s frequent ownership of that same title, concurrent with that city's even more restrictive gun laws, etc., but the point I really want to make is somewhat different, although related.
That point is that not all violence is created equal. That is to say, although violence is something that any moral person strives to avoid, some violence--defensive violence--is not only morally acceptable, it is necessary. When a 105 lb. woman shoots a 250 lb. would-be rapist, violence has certainly been committed, but evil has been defeated. When an 80-year-old man shoots the young thug who has decided that mugging isn't enough--that he needs to experience the "fun" of taking a life--that's violent, too, but it's far from wrong.
Some would have us "imagine a world without guns." I fully support that idea--do so. Imagine a world in which the strong dominate the weak, the old and infirm are ruled by the young and ruthless, and a woman must belong to a strong man in order to ensure her safety.
That's not a world in which I wish to live. There will always be violence, and guess what--that violence is almost never initiated by the 105 lb. woman, the 80-year-old man, or the wheelchair-bound paraplegic. Sometimes, "gun violence" provides peaceable people their only hope of survival.
I’d rather live in a society where the old, small and weak can own an “equalizer,” than in one where thugs and gangs rule by numbers and brute strength.
Guns put teeth into liberty.
It’s difficult to have an uprising with another weapon.
It always comes down to the PERSON. A gun doesn’t hop into your pocket and shoot people by itself. The same applies to a knife, rock or any other weapon. So banning guns won’t stop murders.
Nope, but it sure makes resisting tyranny a lot harder. And those in Washington are not stupid, evil but not stupid, so they are fully aware of the facts.
Actually, one could argue that “gun violence” demonstrates a lesser degree of depravity than other kinds of violence. Which is “worse,” a teen gang banger who pulls a trigger in an instant of detached, impersonal impulse, or someone who abducts a victim and rapes, tortures and kills him or her over a period of days using a variety of non-gun implements?
The concept of “gun crimes” is nothing more than an attempt to disarm people and create a victim class who will be more than ever dependent on government for protection. “Gun crimes,” the concept of criminalizing the use of the tool rather than the act, is designed to make gun ownership, in general, riskier and more trouble than it’s worth.
Let’s cut the BS. TPTB don’t give a crap if we all bludgeon, stab, beat, etc. each other to death. They just don’t want us to have weapons in our hands which would give us a chance to resist their tyranny.
The propagandists in the DBM and their leftist fellow travellers prefer the term “gun violence” because it establishes a negative connotation about guns. In addition, the juxtaposition of “gun” with “violence” establishes the impression that ALL gun activity is, by necessity, borne out of an act of violence.
Through terminology such as “gun violence”, the left is trying to convince someone that all guns are bad and should be banned.
However, the writer makes a great point about “pharmaceutical violence” and “gravitational violence”.
Gun “violence” is much more impersonal. One doesn’t have to touch the victim, nor be particularly physically close. Running away tends not to work.
The recent sale of guns and ammo make me think most Americans think this way.
This is a valid point that many of us here on FR have been making for many, many years.
Why is "gun" violence treated like something special? Because the very term "gun violence" is nothing less than propaganda with the end-game being a state-owned monopoly on force.
It's not hard to figure at all once one realizes what the true purpose is.
“Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
-”Did you know that 65% of the people murdered in the last 10 years were killed by handguns?”— Gloria
—”Would it make you feel any better little girl, if they was pushed out windows?”— Archie Bunker
“Would you rather they were all pushed out of windows?”
So, is that their new moniker because it sounds nicer than Gun Control Advocates?
You know, like now it's climate change rather than global warming because it just feeeeels nicer.
Enjoyed this article because it wasn’t the same old usually written.
“I would say that violence is neutral, like gravity. It can be used for good or evil. It is simply one aspect of reality.”
True enough, and I’m a major gun advocate. I suspect if guns were somehow confiscated in the US, easily made homebrewed explosives would become popular to create mayhem. All that said, though, the difference between a gun and every other method mentioned is the potential for innocent bystanders to get hurt, due to the range capability of guns.
So, here’s my public service announcement for today:
1) Always treat the gun as if it’s loaded.
2) Keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
4) Know your target and what’s beyond.
The good news is that in a recent poll I saw, more than half of Americans support gun rights, an all time high.
The bad news is that I saw some folks shooting the other day, and a few of them had trouble keeping half their shots on a full size silhouette at ten feet. Not good if you’re downrange. If you’re going to carry, learn to shoot well!
(BTW Mark, love your work! heh)
That has to be one of the best quotes... I like these too:
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you are one dumb Polock.”— Archie Bunker (to Mike)
“Jesus was a Jew, yes, but only on his mother’s side.”— Archie Bunker
“We didn’t crawl out from under no rocks. We didn’t have no tails. And we didn’t come from monkeys you atheist pinko meathead.”— Archie Bunker
I'll just go with “fascists”
These seemed like unpleasant ways to go. Once in a while someone would be shot, but guns are not so common Down Under, so most murder victims aren't so lucky there.