Another Look at 'Gun Violence'

I am aggressively interested in family history, but I have yet to turn in a DNA sample.

The reason is that I fear somewhere along my ancestry line, one side of my family got crossed with a bulldog. That’s no doubt why I refuse to stop refuting the ongoing allegations that “gun violence” is a problem and that “gun control” will solve that problem.

The American Public Health Association misleadingly says: “Guns kill more than 38,000 people and cause nearly 85,000 injuries each year.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an antigun federal agency, does explain the reported deaths and injuries involve firearms, but does not say firearms cause those deaths and injuries. That is a huge difference when we talk about “cause.”

On its website the Department of Justice (DOJ) says it is taking steps to help address the continuing epidemic of gun violence affecting communities across the county. The agency’s focus on “extreme risk protection orders,” regulation of stabilizing braces on firearms, and “ghost guns.”

In one of its factsheets, the DOJ says:

In May 2021, the Department launched a comprehensive violent crime reduction strategy to protect American communities from the increase in violent crimes—including the gun violence that is often at its core.

I would ask Gun Talk readers if they believe “gun violence” is a cause of crime increase, and also about their current level of trust with the DOJ.

And as we see daily, politicians and the lamestream media maintain the key to stopping gun violence is gun control. But as noted often, how does any agency or legislation get guns out of the hands of criminals? Perhaps banning all firearms might work, but there’s that prevalent U.S. Constitution standing in the way.

I recently received an e-mail from James Burnett at The Trace.

The Trace is described as is an American non-profit journalism outlet devoted to gun-related news in the United States. It was established in 2015 with seed money from the largest gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and went live on 19 June of that year. The site's editorial director is James Burnett.

The e-mail asked about questions on gun issues and noted “One of the ways we do that is through our Ask The Trace series, which is powered by reader queries. Is there an aspect of the gun issue that’s always confounded you? Looking for a statistic or data point you haven’t been able to track down? Submit your question here and our team may answer it in a future article.”

Well, that aroused the bulldog in me, so I submitted the following:

A myriad of agencies, organizations, including The Trace, and the liberal news media note the prevalence of so-called gun violence. I would like for The Trace to explain how an inanimate object, a tool such as a firearm, can create gun violence.

As the American Public Health Association claims: "Guns kill more than 38,000 people and cause nearly 85,000 injuries each year." Guns do not do this on their own.

A similar analogy is vehicle deaths and injuries. Vehicles need a human operator and cannot, of their own volition, create death or injury.

To assume that a gun has a mind of its own and can willfully cause death misses the fact that a firearm requires human intervention to discharge a round. In my more than 60 years of firearms ownership and use, not one of my firearms has taken it upon itself to cause death or injury.

Would it not be more accurate, credible and correct to speak about "criminal violence" or a "firearm-related death or injury" when describing gun violence?

In today's liberal and politically charged atmosphere, I would think accuracy, backed by realistic facts, would be a goal when speaking or writing about gun violence. However, that apparently is not the goal or even relevant,

Instead, misleading by inference and supposition that gifts a firearm with human abilities and characteristics does not describe gun violence and focuses the problem on a tool, not the person using that tool.

This is the rallying call to ban guns. Guns are not the problem. We have a people problem.

Until we address key issues surrounding violence of any kind, the people problem will continue to drive so-called gun violence, and other violence as well.

‍

So, far I have not heard back from The Trace. When and if I do, I will pass information along, hopefully with a realistic definition of gun violence we’ve been seeking, rather than political talking points.

Some of us Gun Talk folks have seen or been the victim of people-caused gun violence, and know the reason to carry. We also see the need to separate fact from fiction.

Until we have agreement on a palatable definition of gun violence, antigun bureaucrats will continue to make it more difficult to Stay safe, be prepared. ~ Mike

‍

‍

Mike Sampson
Mike now calls Northwestern Arkansas home, but has lived and worked in several states and internationally. He has been an independent contractor and consultant since 2006 specializing in risk management, emergency management and training. In addition to work as a law-enforcement planner and technical writer with the Boise, Idaho, Police Department, he has experience in journalism, crop and animal agriculture, dryland farming for 20 years in western Kansas, plant and animal diseases, pandemic influenza, agroterrorism, bioterrorism, food safety and healthcare marketing.

He has a journalism degree from the University of Missouri and has newspaper and agency writing and editing experience. At Washington State University in Pullman, he earned a master’s degree emphasizing adult education and communications.

While living in Lander, WY, Mike provided photographic coverage of the One-Shot Antelope Hunt for three years, and got to meet and accompany folks such as Chuck Yeager, Carroll Shelby, Buzz Aldrin, Dale Robertson and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf on their hunts. He also worked as an outfitter’s guide.

‍