svtruth
Member
When an anti-gun person uses this term, they betray their focus. The phrase is two words, a noun, and an adjective. Clearly, the noun, "violence" is more important than the adjective, "gun." If one is against violence, surely one is against all violence, not just a subset. I would suggest, that if one is against "gun violence" that one work to eliminate violence.
To that end, it is likely to be more productive to look at the causes of violence, and the conditions that nurture peaceful existence. The two examples that spring to mind, are Chicago and Vermont. The latter has very minimal gun laws, and very low rates of all kinds of violence, including "gun." The former has strict, repressive gun laws and high rates of violence.
I would bet that if you improved employment opportunity and educational level, and decreased gang participation, narcotics trafficking, and government corruption in Chicago, all violence, including "gun" would decline. Further, those are things within the power of Chicago city government, and do not require national laws.
To that end, it is likely to be more productive to look at the causes of violence, and the conditions that nurture peaceful existence. The two examples that spring to mind, are Chicago and Vermont. The latter has very minimal gun laws, and very low rates of all kinds of violence, including "gun." The former has strict, repressive gun laws and high rates of violence.
I would bet that if you improved employment opportunity and educational level, and decreased gang participation, narcotics trafficking, and government corruption in Chicago, all violence, including "gun" would decline. Further, those are things within the power of Chicago city government, and do not require national laws.