I was reading some violent crime studies. One of them began with this sentence: “Gun violence is a public health problem.” It is a simple statement that hides an incredible amount of complexity. I do not know if the authors intended this or not. Let’s go through this sentence.
First, the word “violence.” What does this word mean to you? Well, I suspect most people encountering the word “violence” in this sentence would think of crime. Creating the phrase “gun violence” seems like criminals with firearms attacking people and injuring them. As a test, think of “drug violence.” I think most people would have an image in their mind of criminals protecting their distribution network for illegal drugs. Interestingly, something like “alcohol violence” really doesn’t have the same impact. This phrase may have caused different images in one’s mind during Prohibition, but for now, the phrase “alcohol violence” may result in someone asking you for clarification on what you mean. Do you mean a bar fight, or perhaps a father who comes home from work, gets loaded, and then beats up his family?
“Drug violence” is also not completely transparent in meaning. Imagine if one of your friends told you “drug violence” is getting out of hand. You ask, “What do you mean?” He says that his grandpa came home and committed suicide by overdosing on his prescription pills. I suspect that wouldn’t quite ring true to you as being “drug violence.” This raises a question that may not have occurred to you: What is meant when someone says: “[inanimate object] violence?”
The phrase “[inanimate object] violence” is generally confusing. Inanimate objects are, well, inanimate. They don’t jump up and do things on their own. People are required. When people are involved, intention matters. For example, a person who is practicing fast draw and accidentally shoots himself in the foot. Is that “gun violence?” Similarly, a justified homicide by a woman who used a firearm to avoid being raped by a larger unarmed man. Is that “gun violence?” Lastly, a homeowner who pulls a gun doesn’t shoot it but is able to make an assailant run away. Is that “gun violence?” Sadly, people who use a phrase like “[inanimate object] violence” mean that they do not see any use for that inanimate object, so anything that happens with it is “violence.”
When you read a statement like “Gun violence is a public health problem,” and you think that they mean, “People using firearms to engage in criminal activity is a public health problem,” you would be wrong. What they actually mean is this: “Any person using a firearm that results in intimidation, injury or death, regardless of intention, is a public health problem.” This includes suicides, accidents, justified homicides, and the like. It should include defensive gun uses as well, but some people don’t find defensive gun uses to be a valid category, and they do not want to call attention to them.
Also, the words “public health problem” should cause concern. In the article I saw, there was no footnote indicating a reference. Unfortunately, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) articles on gun violence read like anti-gun propaganda. Ultimately, until a source recognizes the following essential points, you should take what they say with a grain of salt.
- Intention matters. Accidents, suicides, and justifiable homicides are not instances of “gun violence.” Just as a wrong drug prescription in a hospital that results in death, a person taking their life by deliberately overdosing on their prescription drugs, or a hostage killing their kidnapper with a prescription drug overdose are not instances of “drug violence.” Furthermore, a mountain climber accidentally hanging himself with a rope, a person who deliberately hangs themself with a rope or a violent crime victim who defends herself by strangling her attacker with a rope are not instances of “rope violence.” Merely reflecting a bit on what possible meaning “rope violence” could have should make you wonder how the term “gun violence” was even established, much less given such a distorted meaning.
- Defensive gun use is a valid statistical category where the latest research shows an estimated 1.67 million violent crime victimizations are prevented each year.
- Injurious aggravated assault, injurious robbery, and rape rarely involve firearms.
- Criminals injuring/killing other criminals by using firearms represent a different cause than guns. America is in a Prohibition-like environment when it comes to illegal drugs. The buying, selling, and distribution of illegal drugs represent a highly profitable enterprise that criminals are willing to protect and expand. That will include carrying and using their firearms against other criminals, as well as against law enforcement officers or anyone else who negatively impacts their enterprise. To think that criminals will abide by gun laws when it comes to protecting this profitable enterprise is to simply be foolish.
- The ownership and bearing of arms is constitutionally protected in the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states via incorporation. Hence, the following two statements are equivalent:
- Laws that restrict and limit the firearm ownership of law-abiding citizens are allowed if “violence” is reduced.
- Laws that enable law enforcement to search the homes and seize law-abiding citizens’ property unreasonably are allowed if “violence” is reduced.
- Both of these previous statements should strike fear in your heart if you value the protections of the Constitution.