Dan Wos, Author of – Good Gun Bad Guy
USA -(AmmoLand.com)- The term “gun-violence” is at the center of the political left’s anti-gun fear-campaign. The entire gun-grab agenda is based on this one nomenclature. Sure, they use several other talking points like “assault weapon,” “weapons of war,” and “high capacity,” but the term “gun-violence” is the “big Daddy” term that get’s the most attention. How did the term “gun-violence” become such a talking point in our culture even when it doesn’t actually exist? What is “gun-violence” anyway? First, let’s get some clear definitions of the words themselves.
Gun:
n. A portable firearm, such as a pistol or revolver.
Vi-o-lence
n. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.
So if “violence” is a behavior; what is a behavior?
Be-hav-ior
n. The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli.
In other words, a reaction to the conscious or subconscious thought of something occurring, either in the mind or the external world. “Behavior” is the point where physics and thought intersect. Can a gun think? When we put it with the word “gun” before “violence” we have to assume that a gun has “behavioral” tendencies and can take action on its own, otherwise, the term “gun-violence” falls on its face.
As Albert Einstein said, “nothing happens until something moves.” So what causes the gun to move? Is it able to “behave” and take action, or can behavior only be an attribute of a person or animal?
We often hear the saying “ I left my guns home alone all day and they didn’t move.” Sir Isaac Newton agrees. He said, “Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.”
So, in order for a “gun” to be “violent,” it must behave in a certain way and act on its own free will or something must move first to cause force to be impressed upon it. I know this might sound obvious and I’m sure you get my point by now, but remember, there are many people who actually believe that guns can act on their own. They hear stories of guns mysteriously “going off” by themselves or they believe guns can bounce down a staircase spraying bullets in all directions killing people as we saw in the 1994 movie True Lies. Even worse, the anti-gun fear-mongers can encourage the irrationally-fearful to believe that guns can somehow cause people to become violent, (in other words, “the gun made him do it.”) but most likely, they have attached the word “gun” to their own internal definition of the word “violence” and built imagery and beliefs about guns off of that.
When faced with this logic, the Anti-Gunner is forced to admit that what they mean when they use the term “gun-violence” is “people using guns to be violent” but that argument is debunked when we look at the overwhelming number of lives saved by the presence of a gun.
Knowing that we all have about a 1 in 300 chance of being the victim of a violent crime and knowing that guns are used to save 2.5 million lives per year in America we can see that the term “gun-violence” is nothing more than an unfounded, emotional ploy to scare people into supporting gun control.
Any logical thinking person understands that guns can’t pull their own triggers and act on their own, but regardless of reality, people can be very emotionally-driven and willfully-ignorant when it comes to things they have been conditioned to fear. Therefore, the term “gun-violence” is the perfect motivator for politicians to work their potential voters into a fearful frenzy. I hate to break it to the gun-grabbers, but there’s no such thing as “gun-violence.” If politicians and media were honest, they would talk about “human-violence” but they don’t, for a few reasons. If we were to discuss the causes of “human-violence, we would have to expose the failed policies of the very people who want to ban guns. Rather than discuss welfare dependency, open borders, drug use, gang violence, sanctuary cities, gun-free-zones, left-wing terror groups and criminals released from prison for political reasons, the gun-grabbers would much rather re-direct your focus to guns and wrap them in the fearfully-delicious fantasy of “gun-violence.”
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
www.goodgunbadguy.net
About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years. Firearms cannot think, they feel no emotion; no hatred, envy, jealousy or fear and no uncontrollable sexual desire. They have no urgent need for a drug fix. They have no pressing debt. Firearms have neither a mind or a brain, no muscles or nerves; they cannot be violent – it defies all logic and physics to believe otherwise. The elephant in the room is human violence, arguably due to mental illness. Until this issue is faced we cannot begin to effectively reduce violent behavior by, humans against other humans. As for… Read more »
“The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.”
A profound statement that I intend to plagiarize…my abject apologies up front.
Once again we are put upon to prove what is common sense. In the land of leftist utopia. Common sense just doesn’t exist.
Thanks for the logic.
It seems when ever a group prepends a word to something, they have alternative motives or ideas.
Gun violence instead of Violence
Social justice instead of Justice
Common-sense gun laws instead of gun laws
Always question people’s ideas when they start playing with wording.
Well done. Well done. The prohibitionist instinct of American Progressives leads them to believe that it is the implement and not the intent that counts. From alcohol and drug use through crime they ignore the corruption of temptation and avarice in favor of blaming the inanimate object. This was the driving force behind the prohibition movement in the 19th century. We are all burdened with original sin. Temptation leads us astray. Lacking anything else a rock or stick will suffice as an implement of destruction. The motive force of destruction lies deep in the soul.
Whenever I have a conversation with a city dweller (liberal) and they tell me about the violence around them in the city I always say “you should carry a gun” and they will almost always respond ” I don’t trust myself with a gun”. Because they do not trust themselves, they will not trust anyone else. No trip to the gun range can fix that. They are afraid and live in fear and usually not just afraid of guns.
A clearly articulated stance, problem is that the antis will not even listen to it nor would they accept if they did.
I’ve been saying the same thing for years (decades) that guns are inanimate objects (tools) and as such cannot commit ANY act except in the hands of the person wielding it.
musicman44mag, Awesome Comment, I would like to add that 98% of Public Mass Shootings occur in “GUN-FREE ZONES”. The other 2% occur in areas that were immediately Adjacent To “GUN-FREE Zones” (such as Parking Lots just outside the building). These Killers target locations where Guns are Not Allowed because they feel safe.
a firearm is an inanimate object that requires human interaction to function, whether for good or evil.
Firearms are tools, just like hammers, CNC machines, vehicles, college degree, etc. It is what the INDIVIDUAL uses the tool(s) for that makes the difference. They call it Gun Violence and a National Health Crisis when in reality the INDIVIDUAL is the problem. They don’t call it vehicle violence when a citizen decided to drive DUI or DWI. They don’t blame the empty bottle of liquor when a man consumes it and then attacks his spouse.