Violent Crime vs. Gun Violence
I believe it's time to change the popular theme used in media topics from "Gun Violence" to "Violent Crime". The knee-jerk reaction by politicians and the media immediately following crimes involving the use of firearms result in attacking the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. The debates that follow these crimes, for the most part, avoid or completely ignore the true facts that some people are intent on harming innocent people regardless of the weapon used and the mass shootings are committed by people with long records of psychological and potentially violent behavior.
The theme "Gun Violence" used in media publications and political debates sends an immediate message. The connection between guns and violence is exaggerated to the point where many people have been brainwashed into the belief that it's the guns that are responsible for the crimes, not the person handling the guns. Some debates have gone to extreme conclusions suggesting removing all guns would result in crime going away.
This may seem like a trivial issue however, the simple use of a strong theme has been used by liberals for decades to drive their ideological beliefs. “Women’s rights” has been the theme to justify abortions, “investment” has been the theme to justify tax increases and, “gun violence” is the theme to justify attacks on the Second Amendment.
If you ask Joe Biden, there is no difference between the two phrases. They mean the same thing.
"Gun Control". A good example is from the committee he headed to reduce firearm violence.
SB, so true. One is attempting to identify a bad thing the other a bad action; the Onus put directly where it lies, in the hands of the operator not the tool. Sandy Hook retrospect had the possibility of bringing safety and security to our children with intelligent response, instead they got kneejerk and wrote Emoto-Laws that would prevent nothing because they ban things and dont protect children.
The Boston Massacre is a perfect example of why nothing has changed for the criminal, only the citizen who now has less tools to protect themselves. Our laws already prohibit Murder and Terrorist Attacks of every type! The only prevention was in the hands of the Government and they failed again! What price do we exact from them when they fail us? None other than they will cover their tails by pointing their fingers everywhere but in the mirror. How many criminals did 911 catch in sandy hook or Boston, how many dead came back to life, how many arms and legs grew back because they came running with guns we can no longer own, none?
Thats because 911 is not an immediate response in the best of cases and in this one it could only bring gurneys. Thats the only thing Legislators, Governors and Presidents have given us with laws pertaining to things, not actions. We are a stupid culture that looks to our capital to save us from something that happens without warning and is over before we can think about responding.
Can we sue the weatherman if it rains on our picnic after they predict a perfect day? No way, they have no control over the weather and state that as a fact, we understand that even if it still pisses us off. We empower Republicrats to predict the Sociological weather and they promise to do so via laws that have no chance of a meaningful solution, shouldn't we be allowed to sue them when they fail us?
They create new and improved laws after they fail and flatly refuse to prosecute with the old ones, even when the old ones clearly prohibited the certain activity prior to creative revisionism by policy wonks. Murder, Terrorism, Killing and causing harm to others has been strictly prohibited in this Nation since the day our Rights were clearly enumerated over 200 years ago. Unless its self defense, taking rights and liberties from others is a crime, always has been
We use the English language poorly sometimes by mistake, other times on purpose. "School Murders" are inappropriately labeled as "School Shootings". The US Army sent me to Shooting Schools, thats not a crime but using your School Tools against other is! Shooting isnt a crime in itself, killing is acording to why you did it not how you did it, dead is dead, they wont rise in protest or adulation!
We have the undeniable right to shoot in this country, what we shoot is subject to the laws not the action of shooting. Timothy McVeigh paid the only price we could exact from him for using fertilizer to kill innocent people. We don't need new gardening laws to prohibit this type of use or prosecute killers when they kill, just ask Timmy, he has no comment!
I think this goes beyond "Gun-Control"..! Take away the means to protect and you become helpless and dependent.! They label it in ways as we play our "Word Association" game and a form of brain-washing , conditioning and propaganda..! it,s heading for absolute control..! Anything to do with independence earns you some kind of traitor-ess flag as against the grain.! Food patents , (MONSANTO'S) .? How can anybody make such claim as to hold the right over what life sustaining materials cost or what we are aloud to grow.? The medical profession is also a let down with false treatments that earn them trillions of dollars per-year.! (Cancer Treatments) Chemo , yeah , a dose of radiation and a carton of cigarettes why don,t they..? They,re not looking for solutions or cures , the lost revenue would be catastrophic and un-except able.!
At best their success numbers are right around 30% with conventional treatments and as high as 88% with what they call (illegal) remedies .! Why.?
You can grow most of the things needed to maintain a healthy and long life with-out them .<--(FDA , MONSANTOS , ETC..!A cure or solution would cost them trillions of dollars lost on research
and (mid-Evil) remedies that don,t have a very good success rate to begin with !
Gun Control is only one step in gain absolute power.! They , WANT IT ALL..!
Uncle Sam has been replaced by a lifetime Surrogate parent we can never gain Independence from, no way to ever outgrow the chains and binders For Our Own Good. The only one that can is those that become the ruling class and The Elite, all are Sociopaths of the highest order, "Do as I say, not as I do!".
On your Monsanto tangent- Im surrounded by corn fields that grow impotent seeds. Farmers and consumers cannot survive another year without the Borg sending the next shipment cause your prior years crop is the perfect example of what natural selection would not allow to exist in nature!
Most of Our local Farms of over 100 head use BGH and the cows suffer an early death from their glandular systems being put into overdrive. Its said to be undetectable in Milk therefore deemed safe for human consumption. A distributor cant even write that their milk is BGH free because it cant be detected, they also recognize that customers might start asking questions about the possible side effects of BGH down the food-chain (Us)!
Hmm, why do 8 year olds have boobs and periods now? How come so many kids get cancer? Why have autism Rates now jumped to 1 in 56 children?
I digress, back to the thread, If we label it wrong, we will sooner or later see it as right, time has that effect...
Gun control laws that reduce the number of guns overall do decrease gun violence some, BUT, greatly increases violent crimes to the point that it makes things much worse for everyone.
Good post. It's not a trivial issue at all. It's quite important.
Progressives use the term "gun violence" deliberately and for all the reasons you mention. They know that words matter and they know how propaganda works.
If there was no "Bang", they and the useful MSM idiots who support them do not care. It's not about the death and it's not about the injuries. It's not really about public safety either. If it was, then it would matter equally when people are stabbed or bludgeoned to death. After all, dead is dead and people who are killed without a gun are just as dead as those who were shot to death. No, it's about the gun and that's all it's really about.
Here is a piece written by a Can. university prof. some time ago and then uniformly ignored by all of our media talking heads. I saved a copy. You might like it:
The Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage
Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the maximum impact on this shameful problem.
The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like "automatic," "semi-automatic," "large caliber," "deadly," "high powered," or "powerful". Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than two guns should be called an "arsenal".
Try to include the term "assault weapon" if at all possible. This can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of the latest buzz-words like "junk guns," "Saturday Night Specials," and "the criminal's weapon of choice".
Don't worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don't count. The emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions than through logic.
Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing "automatic" weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when reading any crime story.
Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat offender, simply use the term "gunman". This helps the public associate all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns.
Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called "gunmen".
Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as "the gun lobby". If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying efforts as "arm twisting" or "threats".
Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called "gun nuts" if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don't use the word "hunt". Always say that they "kill" animals.
Don't be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even though we don't portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light.
Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or suppressed.
Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to protect their families, you are not doing your job.
Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material.
View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include emotional quotes from the victim's family if possible. If they are not available, the perpetrator's family will do nicely. The quote must blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others.Your story should include terms like "tragic" or "preventable" and mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave.
Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now of equal importance.
Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do something "for the children". Anti-gun spokespersons should be called "activists" or "advocates". If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, "according to gun lobbyist Jones."
Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that are easy to ignore.
Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means.
Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don't worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for more helpful hints.
Professor Michael Brown
School of Journalism, Brady Chair
Vancouver College of Liberal Arts
Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced freely in its full and complete form.
until they address the root cause of violent criminal acts, nothing is going to change. the root of that problem is a person committing a crimanl act! not a gun or any other item, whether it be a bomb or a automobile.
the banning of anything doesn't serve anyone but the politicians and criminals and only takes away the tools the LAC needs to be able to protect themselves.
knee jerk reactions to violent acts, are like closing the gate to the corral, after the horse has already gotten out. the damage is already done. logic dictates that you find the horse put him back into the corral and learn to shut the gate. sheeple like knee jerk reactions and get on board with them no matter how ridiculous or ineffective they may be, simply because they think someone is actually doing something about the problem of violence.
look at the scenarios. GFZ's, defenceless children, unarmed victims. these killers are essentially cowards. most criminals are cowards. you want to stop criminals from committing violent acts? then you stop hindering or restricting the LAC. the more LAC's are carrying and have firearms within their homes, the more states pass Castle Laws and the stricter the punishment is for the criminals, then you will see a dramatic decrease in criminal acts. criminals fear LAC's with guns.
I agree, calling it gun violence detracts from the cause and therefore the solution. There's no such thing as stick violence. If there was I'm sure trees and and especially super tall trees would be legislated right now. They have a higher capacity to make sticks you know?
|All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 AM.|
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.