What Exactly Is ‘Gun Violence’ According to the Gun Grabbers?

There are a few terms used by the gun-grabbing citizens of this country that I truly despise. Such terms, like “gun violence” are cringe worthy and are about as accurate as a .25 ACP micro-pistol at 500 yards. What exactly is gun violence? What does it mean? Who made up this ridiculous term? Let me try to take a shot in the dark to see if I can wrangle up its meaning.

Gun Violence:

This is the notion that, by some miracle, guns are responsible for death. If we, people with fully-functioning brains, were to go by some of the news coverage or listen to some politicians, they'd have us believe that the gun just decided to one day grow a set of legs and rob a liquor store all by its lonesome. In the words of one of my favorite childhood actors whose name flees my mind right now …

“Whatchu talkin' bout Willis?”

A gun cannot rob the liquor store because, by itself, it can do NOTHING. By itself it sits there unable to move. No legs, no arms, no thoughts of crime. If the pistol cannot conjure up a thought to commit crime, nor can it wander to the store where the crime is committed, it cannot actually commit the crime. Why? Because all by itself, it is just a tool.

A gun cannot be violent:

Rather, it's the sick, demented individual who believes that it's okay to hurt others, who is violent.

And yet, when the cars or alcohol aren't blamed for the drunk driver taking a life, the guns are blamed for the violent criminal who takes a life. When the pen isn't held responsible for the nasty, hurtful letter, the guns are blamed for the the times they are used in crime.

Finally, when the knife isn't blamed for the stabbing but the gun is blamed for the shooting, it's safe to say that all common sense has left the building.

Nor is it the spoon's fault that I'm fat:

Personally speaking … I've never blamed the ice cream or spoon for making me 300 pounds. The spoon doesn't hold me hostage, right?  Nope. It's my stomach or brain that makes me want to eat the ice cream. It's also, therefore, my brain or stomach making me overweight. How could I blame the inanimate objects for something I (the person) chose to do?

If we don't blame these other inanimate objects, that, when you look at them under a microscope are nothing but tools, why would we place blame on other things–other tools–that, in all reality, aren't that different?

After all, spoons, pens, knives, cars, alcohol, and everything else ever used to hurt people are not blamed. Yet, it's the guns that are violent. It's the gun's fault! Let's blame the guns! People die from guns! Let's take away their guns!!!!

Again, no … guns are not violent.

I do concede that guns are used in crime more often than other tools. It would be asinine to suggest otherwise. But, let me retort by saying, when was the last time you saw a spoon protect someone's life? A car? Even a knife? Can it happen? Sure, I personally know how to turn the average ice cream eating tool into a weapon. I was also trained in the USMC how to “knife fight” under the Marine's martial art program.

But nobody in their right mind is going to bring a knife to a gun fight unless it's a last resort. It doesn't make sense to think someone would, or even should. So instead, decent people also carry guns to equalize their chances against crazy folks wishing to do harm. They end up bringing guns to gun fights, and a lot of the time, they get to live to tell the tale because they were prepared to defend themselves with the right tools instead of the wrong ones.

But, that's the other point. A majority of the time, these stories are never properly reported on. These stories are not heard by most Americans, so they are clueless about just how often guns SAVE lives.

Given human traits:

So, while the gun is given the human trait of being “violent,” they never get labeled with a different trait, known as “hero” even though they save thousands of lives each and every year.

Labeling guns as such would go against the overall agenda to remove arms from American citizens. To the gun grabbers, “guns are violent” because it humanizes them just enough to allow folks to hate them more easily. When was the last time a person hated a car or truck? A steak knife? A baseball bat?

Sure, we may like one brand more than the other, and if your car breaks down all the time–I get it–but to hate something?

On the flip side, when was the last time someone hated our president? Or, the previous president? Or, the opposing football team? Or any person who doesn't stand for what we stand for? It's easier for humans to hate other humans, so we humanize the things we want to hate. Guns are given a human trait and called “violent” for that reason, and that reason alone. It fills an agenda and allows gun-hating politicians to stack American citizens on their side who are uneducated on the real crime numbers.

Oh, and why are they uneducated on the real numbers? Because unfortunately, the media outlets don't report on each time a man or woman saves his or her own life with a concealed carry firearm. In fact, a majority of these circumstances go un-reported altogether.

In conclusion:

One thing remains certain to me, guns are not violent. They are tools. Firearms are inanimate objects capable of nothing on their own. They cannot get angry or sad. They cannot grow legs or spontaneously come to life. They are a tool, meant to be the great equalizer in defense of life. And, if you ask me, they fill their purpose well.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with me? Am I totally off base this time? Let me know in the comments below.

Also, I spoke a lot about gun-hating, gun-grabbing politicians, etc. Even though Donald Trump is in the White House right now, they are still out there. No matter what your thoughts on the NRA are, they are still one of the best chances we have at keeping our Second Amendment from being further eroded. If you're not a member, here is the link where you can sign up for NRA Membership.