Vagaries and Abuses of Terminology
By George Devinny. Jan 22, 2024
The following discussion may well be seen as simply 'preaching-to-the-choir' to many lawful gun owning citizens, but nonetheless, it deserves and needs continued exposure in the vain hope that eventually numerous meanings and definitions can be better chosen.
Firstly, a look at the word 'violence' and its potential meanings:
From The Free Dictionary:
vi•o•lence:
1. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury : e.g. the violence of the rioters.
(This example is the most relevant to the discussion - making no reference to specifics and so pretty much everything is on the plate - setting fire to property, robbery of property, "mugging" which may involve physical blows and even use of a knife, club or firearm to intimidate and/or inflict injury. Then we have the specific use of a firearm with the intention to cause anything from grievous bodily harm to outright homicide.)
2.
a. Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena: the violence of a tornado.
(This is pretty much self explanatory.)
b. Extreme or powerful emotion or expression: the violence of their tirades.
( Again fairly obvious - the use of words to cause emotional harm to a victim's psyche.)
3. Distortion of meaning or intent: do violence to a text.
(Probably of lesser importance but still applicable perhaps to the all too common uses of disinformation and misinformation, as practiced by much of main stream media these days.)
Why go through these definitions? Because, it should be apparent that #1 above is where the over used and infamous "gun violence" label lurks! The term is essential property of the anti-gun brigade wherever it can be applied for benefitting 'the cause' of demonizing 'the gun', and it is not the sole property of just the law makers or the media either.
To those with common sense and a rational approach to every day life (vast majority of gun owners), it is blatantly obvious that no firearm has a will of its own - an inamimate object until under human control. To balance the equation, why don't we talk about "knife violence", "pepper spray violence" "club violence", "fist violence", automobile violence", and so on. Some would say this is all semantics but that may well be predictable.
Of course the use of the term "gun violence" is unlikely to be given up - it is too valuable to help scare the public, rather like the constant use of "gun control" - it is not the guns that need controlling it is the criminals who misuse a firearm for nefarious purposes.
Within the same basic investigation of terminology it is worth pointing out, not for the first time, that the word 'shooting' when used in the popular term "mass shooting" is another example of helping blame 'the gun', rather than describing a violent event more accurately as anything from "mass MURDER" (homicide) to perhaps 'firearm induced injury', the perpetrator of an event being an 'attacker' or 'murderer' and NOT a 'shooter'. 'Shooting' is something done when at a range practicing or out in the field when hunting.
Terminology is important and it must not be forgotten also to include the classic and much used "assault rifle" label - so liberally applied to just about any semi-auto ('self loader') which might also be black in color, have a pistol grip and maybe also a fore end grip along with the dreaded 'hi-cap' magazine. Just occasionally, the "assault style" option is used, which is perhaps slightly more palatable but still feeds off the 'assault' word's scare factor.
It would be more than satisfying to see even just the media change habits, using fewer inaccurate and inflammatory terms in favor of more correct examples and cease trying to continually demonize 'the gun' and good people - instead usefully concentrating on highlighting the criminal psyche that can exhibit profligate violence in all its forms.
