“Gun Violence”: A Muddled Concept

Advocates of gun control measures frequently use the phrase “gun violence” as a shorthand designation of what they believe gun control measures are intended to address. The phrase is a muddled concept because it forces disparate problems under a single rubric. A closer look at the matters usually included under the phrase “gun violence” raises questions about the coherence of that phrase. 

The phrase “gun violence” is used to cover a variety of situations, including (1) guns used in the commission of crimes, (2) guns used to commit suicide, and (3) the accidental or negligent use of guns that results in injuries or death. If there is a logic to combining those three categories under the phrase “gun violence,” then why not apply that logic to other things that are involved in similar situations? Motor vehicles have been used as weapons to intentionally strike and injure or kill people. Motor vehicles have been used to commit suicide. Careless or negligent use of motor vehicles has caused injuries and deaths. Yet there is no push to categorize those situations as “motor vehicle violence.” 

The word “violence” refers too deliberate, intentional acts — not inadvertent or unintentional acts. Accidents and mistakes that result in injury or death are not ordinarily categorized as acts of violence. Consider the following examples of actions that result in injury or death, but are not ordinarily called acts of “violence”: (1) A driver loses control of a vehicle because the driver is driving too fast on a wet or icy road and the vehicle strikes another vehicle, causing injury or death; (2) A person does not know how to properly use an emergency generator,  causing lethal fumes to accumulate, resulting in injuries or deaths; and (3) A health care professional accidentally gives a patient the wrong medication or the wrong dose of the correct medication, and the patient suffers injury or death.  Since accidents and mistakes that result in injuries and deaths are not ordinarily categorized as acts of violence, there is no sound reason for labeling accidents or mistakes involving a gun as acts of “gun violence.” 

Next, consider intentional acts of violence against another person. Acts of violence against people can involve use of a wide variety of forms and methods of violence. Wars and criminal cases provide numerous examples of acts of violence. People have been attacked or assaulted by assailants using only their fists or feet. People have been bludgeoned by a variety of blunt weapons and blunt tools and objects. People have been stabbed or slashed by a variety of sharp weapons, sharp tools, and other sharp objects. People have been wounded and killed with a variety of projectiles in war. We don’t use the terms “hand violence,” “foot violence,” “bludgeoning violence,” “stabbing violence,” or “projectile violence.” Why use the term “gun violence?” 

Similarly, consider the category of suicide. People attempt or commit suicide by a wide variety of methods, not just with guns. If suicide is deemed a form of violence, then why are suicides involving methods other than guns not labeled as “[suicide method used] violence?”  

Accidents, violent crimes, and suicides can result in serious injury or death.  But accidents, violent crimes, and suicides are very different types of problems. Why use labels that obscure or ignore significant differences among the three categories? Accidents are caused by carelessness, ignorance of dangers, mistakes, or negligence. Violent crimes and suicides are the result of deliberate or intentional decisions. And the types of deliberate or intentional decisions leading to violent crimes are different from the types of decisions that lead to suicides. 

The problematic nature of the phrase “gun violence” is aggravated by the typical response to incidents where serious injuries or deaths have been inflicted by a person or persons using guns. Regardless of the specific circumstances of the incident or incidents involving guns, the same generic proposed solutions are advocated, despite the fact that the proposed solutions would not have prevented or meaningfully addressed the particular incident or incidents that triggered the renewed calls for gun control measures. 

Whenever there is an incident involving a gun many gun control supporters repeatedly invoke a familiar litany of proposed gun control measures — (1) regardless of whether the gun was used in a crime, whether the gun was used to commit suicide, whether the gun was accidentally fired, or whether the gun was negligently fired; (2) regardless of whether the gun was a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun; (3) regardless of whether the person who fired the gun was illegally possessing it or legally possessing it; (4) regardless of whether the person using the gun: (a) had a long history of criminal behavior; (b) is seriously mentally ill or deranged; (c) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; (d) was motivated to seek revenge against a particular person or persons; (e) has a history of domestic violence; (f) had a history of violent, non-domestic violence; (g) is a terrorist; (h) acted negligently or carelessly; or (i) regardless of whether some combination of the above happened. The same litany of proposed gun control measures is proposed repeatedly without any serious attention to the specific facts and circumstances of the incident or incidents that provoke the calls for gun control. 

Why should people pay serious attention to proposed solutions that do not give meaningful consideration to the particular facts and circumstances of the problems their proposed solutions are supposed to address? Why should people pay serious attention to proposed solutions that are often irrelevant or otherwise inapplicable to the specific tragedy that triggers the proposed solutions? Why should people pay serious attention to proposed solutions that are often supported by little more than frustration with recurring problems that triggers a “don’t just stand there, do something” response? 

Lumping three different types of problems together under an ill-fitting label and trying to use the same solution or solutions to address them is not likely to solve the problems. Solutions aimed at reducing accidents are not likely to be relevant to reducing violent crimes or suicides. Solutions aimed at reducing violent crimes are not likely to be relevant to reducing accidents or suicides.  Solutions aimed at reducing suicides are not likely to be relevant to reducing accidents or violent crimes. Proposed solutions that ignore or fail to take into account the facts and circumstances of the particular problems they are supposed to address are not likely to be effective.  

Use of guns in the commission of crimes, use of guns to commit suicide, and the accidental or negligent use of guns that results in injuries or deaths are serious problems. Those problems need serious attention and serious efforts to reduce or eliminate them as much as possible. But meaningful solutions to these serious problems are not likely to be found by lumping them together under a single label that fails to recognize significant differences among them, and proposing solutions that disregard or ignore those significant differences.