I’ve been sick of this term since it first began to appear however many years ago. It implies that there is something different about violence committed with guns, which is exactly what the anti-gunners want people to think. You don’t hear about knife violence, wine-bottle violence, or club-with-a-nail-through-it violence. It’s true that more people can be harmed in a short time with a gun than with a knife or a wine bottle, but that’s not what the anti-gunners mean, although they like to point that out.
It’s a subtle thing. They are singling out guns as somehow different, not because they’re more effective, but because they are guns. With the implication being that a person who is killed with a gun is more of a victim than one who has been clubbed to death.
I think we should raise an objection every time one of us is asked a question by the news media. The people asking the questions are not necessarily anti-gun-rights, though most are, but they usually don’t know anything much about guns, and we have to educate them (and throw a monkey wrench into the flow of words) when it comes up.
If we accept “gun violence” as part of the discussion, we are yielding some ground in the argument.
It’s a subtle thing. They are singling out guns as somehow different, not because they’re more effective, but because they are guns. With the implication being that a person who is killed with a gun is more of a victim than one who has been clubbed to death.
I think we should raise an objection every time one of us is asked a question by the news media. The people asking the questions are not necessarily anti-gun-rights, though most are, but they usually don’t know anything much about guns, and we have to educate them (and throw a monkey wrench into the flow of words) when it comes up.
If we accept “gun violence” as part of the discussion, we are yielding some ground in the argument.