U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The term “gun violence” has been deliberately inculcated into the public debate over the last 20 years. It is common in news articles. It has been used in numerous court briefs. It appears in court decisions at the appellate level and in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.
George Orwell, in the novel 1984, explained how language can be structured to eliminate and curtail thought.
“Gun violence” is an Orwellian term designed to structure and limit debate to pre-determined solutions. It is designed to hamper the ability to think about reality in certain ways. The purpose of Orwellian structuring of language is to make it difficult or impossible to think certain thoughts or entertain certain concepts. This is the purpose of the term “gun violence”. The term “gun violence” frames the problem as guns. It frames all violence committed with guns as illegitimate.
Guns can be used or misused. Violence can be legitimate or illegitimate.
Guns can be used for legitimate purposes such as defense, hunting, recreation, and multiple target sports. Guns can be used for illegitimate purposes, primarily for a crime. Guns can be used for suicide. The legitimacy of suicide is a hotly debated topic.
Violence is like gravity. It is neutral. Violence can be used for legitimate purposes and illegitimate purposes. Defending yourself and your country is a legitimate use of violence. Killing animals or plants for food is a legitimate use of violence. We celebrate those who save themselves and others.
Discourage criminal violence. Encourage legitimate violence.
The two sides of the debate on guns are primarily about responsibility and free will vs lack of responsibility and lack of free will. Those who want a disarmed population transfer volition and responsibility to events outside the individual, particularly to inanimate objects. Thus, they remove responsibility and free will from any discussion of how to solve problems. Accepting and using the term “gun violence” as a problem restricts what solutions are allowed and what can be discussed. The term eliminates discussion of legitimate uses of guns, and of legitimate purposes for violence.
Much of the nomenclature about the debate over an armed population has been deliberately created to move people’s thoughts into the channels desired by those seeking to disarm the public.
The National Council to Control Handguns was formed in 1974. It became Handgun Control Inc. in 1980. Handgun Control Inc., later created a related entity, The Center to Control Handgun Violence. In 2001, the name was changed to: “Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence”
Before 2000, what was sold to the public was violent crime reduction. As the number of guns and handguns increased in society, the number of people legally able to carry handguns for protection increased, and violent crime decreased significantly. This phenomenon was clear by 2000. This created a problem for those who wanted to disarm society.
There was, and is, no obvious causal link between violent crime and gun ownership.
Those who wanted to disarm the public changed the publicly stated purpose of what they wanted to do. First, it was to reduce violent crime, which is overwhelmingly committed with handguns. It was changed from reducing violent crime to reducing the Orwellian term “gun violence”. Gun violence was defined to include suicides as well as all homicides with guns and the tiny number of fatal gun accidents. The per capita rate of gun ownership was increasing.
Suicide rates were rising, even as the percentage of suicides with guns was falling.
The new term allowed those who wanted the population disarmed to say “gun violence” is increasing.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics had a similar term, firearms violence. Firearms violence statistics never included suicides, for good reason. The causes and dynamics of violent crime and suicide are very different. The Bureau of Justice Statistics was still using “firearms violence” in 2018.
There is a problem with Orwellian terms. They contradict reality. Legal changes in firearms status has no significant effect on homicides or suicides.
“Gun violence” is a term used to channel concern with criminal violence and suicides into a policy discussion on how to restrict gun ownership and gun use.
What can be done? Do not use the term “gun violence”. Substitute the term “criminal violence”.
When the term “gun violence” is used, point out the Orwellian purpose. Explain the term “gun violence” limits what is allowed in a debate. If you think “Orwellian” is too strong a term, say it is a loaded term. Point out terms such as these are used to shape public opinion. Their purpose is to reduce what thoughts are allowed.
Gun laws do not reduce homicides or suicides. Those bent on homicide or suicide substitute other methods. The purpose of the term “gun violence” is to channel thought toward restricting gun ownership and use.
Guns have been useful for 500 years. They continue to be useful. Safety from accidents is not the same as safety from attack. Fatal gun accidents are rare. Fatal attacks are much more common.
Those who want to disarm you do not have your best interests in mind.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
We have Criminal Violence and Marxists trying to Disarm and Rule us!
Also remember, “gun violence” does not exist. Put a loaded gun on a table with the safety off and see how much violence that gun commits all by itself…
None right? GUN VIOLENCE DOES NOT EXIST.
Why is everyone so terrified to discuss the disparity of crime in terms of ethnicity? We have all these categories – now “gun crime” which is a term for idiots since inanimate objects cannot plan and conduct criminal acts, and we separate everything else in our society nowadays by race and ethnicity, that should be a major part of the discussions.
Maybe “they/them” haven’t conjured up a term/indicator for a way/purpose to define/describe whatever the hell it is that hey/them are trying to indicate/explain to us/ours/who/whom/is/it/he/she/what/were that they are trying to communicate to? Or they are just too damn stupid to handle the simplistic for of speech and to admit they are full of crap and can no longer handle the common sense approach to their end means? The bottom line will ALWAYS be that no matter WHO uses these terms, YOU CAN NOT PROSECUTE AN INANIMATE OBJECT so WHY is society always trying to PERSECUTE INANIMATE OBJECTS?
they BLAME the inanimate object but then turn and condemn they who possess that inanimate object. Its never about the hardware, its always about the software. Instead if “manning up” facing reality and DEALING with it they use the connexion to move toward their goal of total control over any who disagree with them. It is very much like wht King George Three did. Except since he held all the marbles (or so he thought) he had no need to build a false construct and play poitical games. He simply ordered his naif underling Thomas Gage to “disarm those rebellious… Read more »
A whole lot of citizens in this world lack, Truth, Logic, & common sense, mainly the politicians!
That reminds me – I should change my handle to Sir/Mr. DIYinSTL.
cain’t happin cuz woke
I have read that the FBI Crime statistics have been consolidated in some areas. Where once we were able to define violence with a firearm in criminal on criminal action, this is not possible anymore… someone please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
The distinction of crime rates for same race also used to be available, and widely discussed in the media. But they were shelved as the ratio was problematic to their agenda and narrative. Now it is easier to paint the plight of the “inner city victim” as a product of systemic oppression rather than the truth.
The way I’ve always put it is that Obama invented the alternate reality fantasy world propaganda to “transform” the Nation. Reality has no place in the narrative. It is still with us to this day. (Obama is running the White House through Claine and Rice, managing his brain dead mouthpiece, Biden. (Claine and Rice work for Obama) So now, as BLACK CRIME AND VIOLENCE ravages the Nation, Turning cities into war zones, the narrative, pushed through their propaganda media outlets, turns a blind eye, as if it is not happening, espouses “understanding” through “equity in justice”, AND SCREAMS ABOUT WHITE… Read more »
This is all fueled by MEDIA incitement and MEDIA coverups, used to protect Corrupt Politicians and Career Criminals, which, by the way, are becoming blurred definitions.
Great article. Language, word definition and use, it so important with any discussion. Though it is unfortunately framed this way, this is not a left versed right issue. History has shown even fascist and nationalistic right wing dictators try and control the populates use of fire arms. The real issue as Dean so well stated, “those who want a disarmed population transfer volition and responsibility to events outside the individual, particularly to inanimate objects. Rather than the real issue of attacking crime and criminals, its easier to turn the language to attacking legal and responsible citizens. It doesn’t help legal… Read more »
Remember, fascist are people on the left. One of the greatest propaganda successes was to define National Socialists as being on the right.
This only gives a choice between totalitarian nationalists and totalitarian internationalists. Hitler was a man of the left, as was Mussolini.
Conservatives, generally try to preserve limitations on government power. Leftists work to make governments all powerful.
Many leftists were racists before the end of WWII.
Hear, hear! This can’t be said enough, too many people on the right still fall for the lie that fascism is a right-wing ideology. It’s to the right of communism, but that still leaves it firmly on the left with socialism. Kind of like you said, Marxism is international socialism, fascism is national socialism.
Same as the gaslighting that Republicans and Democrats “switched places” on civil rights and racism sometime after the Civil War, like teams at halftime.
As long as we’re referencing things as “Orwellian”, we may as well include what Orwell wrote about the topic. ‘ “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still… Read more »
Yep exactly, been saying for year ” there is no such thing as gun violence ” . Only violent humans . Inanimate objects can not be violent . Gun grabbers like to invent catchy phrases that are pure deception . FJB and all Democrats.
Proper use of language in any discussion about firearms is paramount. There can be no honest discussion when one side continually uses evocative and emotive language applied to inanimate objects in their attempt to assign blame, to the point of anthropomorphic (eg “assault”, “violence”, etc). While there was a buzz in the AP about no longer using the term “assault weapon” there has been no actual application of this. I am always didactic in my discussions on firearms, often accused of being pedantic, because we can not have a fair discussion while talking about different things. Terminology means something, otherwise… Read more »
“our democracy” is another term applied to mislead and limit speech. Anything to detract from “our republic” as defined by “our Constitution”.
Rob – to further elucidate your very cogent points (I can use 50 cent words too 😉 – whoever ‘controls’ the definition of the terms used has by default controlled the discussion and its outcome.
We were able to make this change in regards to “assault rifles”, but only after the gun media stopped using the term. It is great to get public buy-in but it’s Ammoland, Guns and Ammo, Hunter magazines that must lead this change. Then news org’s along with gun owners, before the term changes for the public. And you can bet the other side will have a messaging campaign against referring to violence for what it is and not their made up terms. Expect to get poo poo’ed for a while when you broach the issue.
Doug – the problem was (and is) that libs and their propaganda arm (lame stream media) use the two terms interchangeably – “assault rifles” (nee sturmgewehr – a legitimate military defined term) with the wholly made up (thanks Art Agnos) term “assault weapon” (it is whatever we say it is as per jerry nads) – that term was pushed by josh sugarmann (hack ptui) to specifically confuse people.
This IS the government our Founders warned about…..and, for which they penned the Second Amendment. That’s the why of the Left’s fetish over gun control.
IiberaI vioIence
please excuse my lateness, i catch up on weekends. Regarding term “assault weapon”. during Obama when IRS and other agencies were buying full auto guns, the req forms labled them “personal defence weapons”. when they refer to semi-auto ownend by citizens they use former term. even conservative media and politicians use it. when they do bombard their emails to use the latter. don’t just rant, get in their inbox.
Don’t let them control the language.
Always remember: violence is a value-neutral word.
There is good violence and bad violence.
Self-defense is good violence.
Bad violence is called aggression.
That’s what you need to speak against — not violence.
You need violence sometimes to protect yourself from aggression.
Can’t have a “One World Rule” if American citizens are armed!