Since the President started his efforts to impose gun control and gun bans on us I've been paying close attention to the way the media talk about the issue. One of the most interesting things is how the media refer to violent acts using firearms as "gun violence." Gun violence sounds like newspeak to me. Guns don't do violent things. People do violent things. What if the media used this rhetoric when talking about violence perpetrated with other tools? Here's how the headlines might look.
- Two killed in car violence today. A crazed driver purposefully crashed his car into a crowd at the corner market . . .
- Fifty-nine murdered in bomb violence. Fifty-nine died and dozens more were injured when a suicide bomber wrapped himself in dynamite and blew up a wedding party . . . .
- One killed in paper weight violence. Woman kills abusive husband with single whack on the head with a paper weight . . .
- One killed in water violence. Police say a crazed swimmer killed his swimming coach by holding him under water for four minutes . . .
- Two killed in stapler violence. A man killed two people today with a metal stapler . . .
- Three killed in bat violence. A man used a baseball bat to bludgeon three pedestrians to death . . .
- One killed in knife violence. A woman stabbed her boyfriend to death after an argument . . .
- One killed in fist violence. Former boxer bashes buddy to death in fisticuffs frenzy . . .
- Seventeen killed in fire violence. An arsonist killed seventeen people by setting fire to their apartment complex . . .
Why do the media use different language when speaking about violence done with firearms than violence done with anything else? I suspect it is because most folks in the media are opposed to the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment that protects that right. Using newspeak helps the media frame the debate in the negative.