********************************************People “killed by gun violence” are not killed by people who lack respect for laws and law and order and their fellow man’s right to remain un-shot, un-stabbed, un-beaten, etc. Nor are they civilians who failed to avoid the rabbi’s advice to “avoid stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.” They are “victims.”
From there it’s a short step to removing the word “violence” from “gun violence” and blaming the gun itself. Hey, why not? No gun, no gun violence; no gun violence, no victims of gun violence. Problem solved. Not to put too fine a point on it, “gun violence” is shorthand for “This wouldn’t have happened if the killers didn’t have ‘easy access’ to guns.”
My response:MAIG and other gun grabbers know that the term “gun violence” removes the gunman from any subsequent debate about crime prevention. By pre-deleting criminal culpability, they can highlight the “need” for gun control without raising an entire range of moral, ethical, cultural and political issues that would “cloud the issue.”
Hence the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Stop Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Women Against Gun Violence, etc.
Insidiously, organizations campaigning against “gun violence” are, by implication, OK with non-violent gun ownership. (Just as one supposes that the Mayors Against Illegal Guns are not against legal guns.) In fact, they are not OK with guns, period. The Brady Campaign was formerly Handgun Control, Inc. and the National Council to Control Handguns. Need I say more?
Robert, You’re taking too many leaps there. First, speaking as one who believes gun availability is a big part of the problem, I disagree with your accusation that we want to blame the gun and leave the criminal out of it. Whenever someone commits a crime with a gun there are laws against that, he’s sought by the police, he’s recognized by all as the guilty party. We don’t suggest attacking the gun availability and lettinig the criminal get away with the behavior. These two efforts are not mutually exclusive like you keep pretending they are.
Second, folks who are against illegal guns and gun violence are not necessarily against all guns. You keep saying that, but I honestly don’t hear it from the gun control folks. Speaking for myself, I’d like to see strict enough gun control laws so that gun violence drops, but I figure that would still leave about half the current law-abiding gun owners with all their toys.
And you know what the disarmed half would do? Some of them would go criminal, but the disarmed ones would account for most of the gun flow into the criminal world as well as most of the negligence. The world would be a better place.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Lessee, Isn't Farago's background in the radio industry? I mean how many criminals does he run into on a daily basis? Has he ever been in a prison when it was on lockdown?
ReplyDeleteOr does he just read (and write) a script?
I wrote a post here about how US propaganda isn't as obvious as other countries', but Bobby is too close to obvious here.
Lots of that old emotion.
I found it interesting when how Serr8d chose to ignore that it was indeed the gun I mentioned Kurtis Graves (and this).
Hey, Bobby, killing people is hard to do. I couldn't see a skinny, little twit like you killing me with your bare hands since I could pound the bejesus out of you.
Guns are tools for injuring and killing--that is the reason for their fascination: isn't it, Bobby? It makes you into a big man.
I couldn't see you getting as worked up by pepper spray, which is been used for crowd and riot control by police forces worldwide since the 60s under the brand name MACE.
But when ya "Mace" them, they only cry. When ya shootz 'em, they bleed and die!
ReplyDelete