Previous Post
Next Post

Words matter, we’re told. Which is why I had to play this anti-attack ad attack ad twice. First time through I thought Virginia Senate hopeful Glen Sturtevant was anti-gun rights. When I heard the closing comment “As parents, we support zero tolerance for gun violence” I just assumed he was an anti. I mean, I’ve never heard the pro-gun rights side use the term “gun violence” like that. I like it! We’re anti-gun violence, too! More than you! Don’t create laws on gun purchases. Enforce existing laws against gun violence. Punish the offenders! That approach steals the antis’ thunder and focuses attention on those who commit the violence with firearms, not the guns themselves. It’s so simple, it just might work! Your thoughts?

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Note that when the woman used a car to commit mass murder in OK they didn’t call it car violence. They called it murder.

      • Definitely noted. It wouldn’t change if murder and suicide by car surpassed the use of a gun. Many people with common sense have assured me that death from any device that provides convenience and is not designed to kill is both acceptable and far better than death by gun.

        • That’s because, you know, like, we really need cars; so we have a safe place to text.

          And go shopping.

          And be seen in all the right places.

          And hang-out with friends.

          And go to political fund-raisers.

    • The problem with this is the term “gun violence,” as dumb as it is, has entered the political and media lexicon. Once it’s in there, it’s pretty much impossible to remove it. People think “gun violence” is an issue, and they want solutions. If we ignore the term, and don’t offer solutions (like strict punishments for offenders, better access to mental health care, etc.), we allow the antis to write the narrative. At our peril.

      • For those demanding a “solution” to gun violence, a solution is not what they want. The simply want the entire matter to just go away. They want to rush back into their comfortable life where bad things are not allowed. The solution they want is the complete removal of guns in the hands of law-abiding people. They do not want to solve the problem of gun violence in the inner city. Inner city violence is not their concern because they aren’t “those kinds of people. Inner city violence is not their concern because they don’t “go down there”, and thus cannot be affected. Gun violence by bad people is not their concern. They want to never again see/hear/read reports of some once sane person killing innocent people in a place the gun-grabbers often find themselves. That is what they fear. That someone will kill them in a nice place, where the grabbers think because they are good people they should be free of risks.

    • If he is running in a Republican or rural Democratic district it will work, otherwise it won’t

    • There’s a strong parallel between the use of the terms, “Gun violence” and “Black lives matter.” If one says, “All lives matter,” it is rebuffed by supporters of the original intent of specifically singling out a particular group over all others.

      When they say, “Gun violence,” their point is guns in particular, not violence in general.

  1. Well, if they say, “I am against violence perpetrated with a weapon.” Then some one might ask, “Does that mean you are for violence perpetrated without a weapon?”

  2. OK. We got something that might change some minds, without screaming at the gun-grabber terrorists. A national voice using the reverse tactic could bring media attention, just because the terms would confuse them. A national organization might have the resources to investigate the number of crimes unpunished because authorities refuse to enforce existing laws. An emotional appeal questioning of why people continue to allow unnecessary deaths because their elected leaders do not care enough to use existing laws.

    • You mean like some of the illegal aliens who were released instead of deported and latter shot folks with stolen guns?

      • If you are talking about the incident in San Francisco, the defendant was handling, perhaps trying to unload, the weapon when he discharged it., and the evidence is consistent with his statement. The evidence shows that the young woman was hit with a ricochet off the pavement. Right now, it looks that the evidence will at most support a negligent homicide conviction.

        • does the evidence also fit the theory that the illegal was unfamiliar with handguns, and was firing into the crowd and hit the pavement instead?

  3. First, we must agree on the definition of the term, gun violence. Those who wish to disarm the law-abiding include suicides and accidental deaths under the term gun violence, when in reality, the term gun violence should only include intentional homicides.

    Second, it is more beneficial to position ourselves as supporters of liberty for the law-abiding, and opponents of violence of all types against the law-abiding. I have no desire to become the United Kingdom.

    • As usual, Chip is spot on.

      Suicide by firearm is certainly a “violent” act which, no doubt, would be the defense of those who include suicides in the term “gun violence”. In the war of words, perhaps something like “gun assaults” would be more appropriate in isolating suicide from the conversation.

      • The Japanese have no firearms. When they want to punch their ticket, they like to jump in front of oncoming trains.

        I would think that “train violence” is considerably more ghastly than “gun violence” when considering suicide – especially given the extremely public nature of the former. I suspect that most people who commit suicide via firearm do so largely in private.

    • I see no reason to define what words are used. The only words necessary are citizens have the right to lawful self defense By any means, to stop the threat.

      That’s it…no anti, violence, something conversation for position in a debate because when a citizen is being assaulted, raped, robbed or murdered words do not matter.

  4. I am all about taking their terms and using them in new ways that support our side. If we argue over the words, the fence sitters would just think we are splitting hairs instead of proving a point. Using the term gun violence (as much as we know guns dont commit violence) by stating that we should stop “it” by enforcing the eisting gun laws and look at ways of helping those with mental illness takes the focus off the term and onto our point that “guns are not the problem, misguided or mentally ill people are”. It definitely steals the thunder and impact of the term from the antis and redirects it to our point.

  5. “We’re anti-gun violence, too! More than you! Don’t create laws on gun purchases. Enforce existing laws against gun violence. Punish the offenders! That approach steals the antis’ thunder and focuses attention on those who commit the violence with firearms, not the guns themselves.”

    That approach certainly seems to have some merit.

    • A lot of merit, uncommon_sense.

      I’d say most antis have hardly any concept or understanding of the implications and repercussions of even a slam dunk justified defensive shoot. The fallout can be a lifelong exercise in negative consequences even if the defensive shooter did everything right including trying to avoid use of deadly force.

      No law abiding gun owner in his/her right mind voluntarily goes down the defensive gun use road. Most gun owners/users/carriers have – or should have – given great thought to the potential consequences and want to avoid that situation so as to not experience such an ordeal.

      Simply by the antis’ own rhetoric it is apparent they have no clue as to the mindset of the vast community of law abiding gun owners, they only envision the bad actor hotheads and lunatics that they see in the news. And since criminal acts involving violence including guns are so often in-effectively enforced, bartered down, and bad actors put back on the street to prey again, the antis’ solution is just another utopian wet dream: confiscate them all.

      ‘It’s not the guns, stupid’, is the reality. There are plenty of tools in the Penal Code tool box to use against those who use a gun for violent unlawful purposes, and no more are needed. What IS needed is the political, judicial will to effectively use those ‘tools’. Rather than pandering for political purchase and creating more legislative hammers to pound on law abiding gun owners, the various law making bodies should be using our tax treasure to advance effective enforcement of the laws already in existence!

  6. Gun Violence is Orwellian Doublespeak.
    Really, guns are violent?
    This is a definition to deflect a crime problem from violent people onto an inanimate object as the liberals state that it is easier to control guns than it is people.
    Of course what they really mean is that it is easier to control law abiding gun owners than hardened criminals.

  7. Criminals are violent.

    Guns are inanimate objects.
    As are cars, knives, hammers, baseball bats, swords and bowling balls.

    Here’s a silly idea society might try……

    How about we use the laws already on the books and actually PROSECUTE the offenders, then allow these violent people to serve their sentence. Nah……too difficult, let’s harass those who are not the problem…..

  8. We are against violence, and of course as responsible gun owners and supporters of self defense and the second amendment, we do everything in our power to promote safe and responsible ownership and use. Since it is the right thing to do, and since it seems to reflect badly on us when firearms are used to commit violence, we demand that existing laws be enforced to remove violent offenders from the streets and reduce the amount of violent crime further than it already has been.

  9. Like you could really change an anti-gun persons mind. C’mon, tell me another one, because this isn’t about guns, just look at the UK or Australia. This is strictly about control, period.

    • There are the hard core anti-gun people, like J*sh S*g*rm*n and and Sh*nn*n W*tts from MDA. Yeah, those people will never be persuaded.

      The real issue–and our target of persuasion–is all the millions of people who can be persuaded one way or the other, and are likely to vote for whoever appears to be putting forth the stronger argument. There are more of them by far than there are hard-core lying sack-of-sh*t gun grabbers, and their votes are just as good, singly, and much more powerful, in the aggregate. Many of them can be persuaded by intellectual argument, but many, honestly, will respond to the best bumper-sticker-length slogan. These are people who can be swayed by hijacking language. That’s who we are talking about here. We would be counter-jacking the language if we adopted these tactics.

  10. “Gun violence” can just as easily describe self-defense shootings. Malcolm X’s statement notwithstanding, they are violent and involve a gun. We know anti-gun people are against both kinds of “gun violence.” Make them say it, as Evie Hudak did, to her downfall.

    On the one hand, I do not like to let the other side set the terms of battle. On the other, co-opting terminology has worked well for the LGBTQ crowd. The 10th Senate district of Virginia encompasses rural, suburban, and inner city populations. My guess is Sturtevant is speaking to the Richmond City voters, not that they’ll vote for anyone without a (D) behind his name.

  11. Sounds like typical liberal media coverage of a non gun friendly Candidate And him trying to cover up the fact that he stands against people owning guns under the Constitution that protects us from tyranny Along with our firearms I call a big bullshit on this one.

  12. The phrase “gun violence” has become synonymous with “we hate people who legally own guns.” That’s all there is to it.

  13. Arresting and jailing criminals who commit crimes when they violate already existing laws? Who’d have thunk that? It seems to be a hard concept for some to grasp.

    I will say that unmasking Bloomberg’s involvement in anything is a good step in the right direction. He is a person who’s contributions can be used as a weapon against the people he supports. Spinning it as a freedom grabbing carpetbagger meddling in your state” should be used to maximum effect.

  14. RF, yes, words matter. The ad for Sturtevant appears to be carefully crafted to reassure moderates and soccer mommies in his district, while containing the necessary props to gun-rights types at the very end.

    A better approach would be to simply tell the truth in a powerful way.
    Unfortunately, most of the GOP RINOs dont have the confidence in doing so. That means you have to go outside their captive PR wonks.

    Here is my favorite- PJMedia:

    Here is Bill Whittle on guns:

    Spread the word.

  15. I reject the term “gun violence.” First because it ascribes violence to an inanimate object instead of to the people who actually commit violence. Second because it’s a byword that the antis use evoke the image of crimes committed with guns, but they always include suicides in the numbers for good measure (and often police and self defense shootings as well). “Gun violence” is a propaganda term. It is deliberately designed to create fear of guns, which is why they count every gun death regardless of context. The term is tainted beyond redemption, in my opinion.

    I suggest we use “gun crime” as our term of choice instead. Along with that we should attack the deliberate ambiguity that the antis load into “gun violence” in order to make the problem appear bigger than it is.

  16. The primary obstacles to putting criminals who use guns in jail for a long time are the same people who want “reasonable gun control”. You see, the problem is that one their favored demographics perpetrates a disproportionate amount of the violent crime in this country. If you’re a politician in a “vibrant urban community” and advocate sending that demographic to jail, the Reverends might have trouble getting their Mamas, Aunties, Sisters, play-cousins and what-not to the polling places to vote for you. You also risk disrupting the narrative of the Social Justice Warriors that the violence of the violent demographic is really not their fault.

    Fortunately for these people the NRA exists. This gives them an outlet for what must the incredible psychological stress that must arise from the cognitive dissonance of being unable to direct their anger at the source of violence in their communities due to ideological canon. This seems the most rational explanation for their hatred of law abiding citizens and tolerant attitude towards the actual perpetrators.

    • Nice job.

      Liberalism is a mental disorder and will get us all killed.

      How ’bout this….

      We will consent to a discussion of “common sense gun control” when the control crowd can point to a 12-month period where no “gun violence” occurs in (name a liberal big city) that is traceable to criminals, criminal activity, gangs?

  17. “Gun violence” misattributes blame to the gun, so the ad creatively reworks the phrase. Too bad “criminal violence” is kind of a mouthful.

  18. NO, NO and NO! There are already far too many onerous gun laws. We need to repeal some of them.

    My honest reaction.

  19. Enforce existing laws? Why bother when we can pass new laws that we won’t enforce!

    Seriously, anybody ever heard of Chicago not even locking up,gun-weilding criminals? Or that pesky little line between the US and Mexico called a “border”?

  20. Meh. I just see a middle-of-the-roader politician mouthing the faulty “let’s enforce all existing gun laws (bad as well as good)” and “let’s do *something* about the mentally deranged.”

    Ah, but wait… come before us now the high priests of the mentally deranged, saying “such people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.” (

    Quickly, who can provide this guy with a more “correct” platitude to trangulate to? 🙁

Comments are closed.