To be clear, this author has no axe to grind and is not opposed to gun control legislation. However, the closely timed shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde, and South Street Philadelphia (of not too long ago) revealed just how corrupt the phrase “gun violence” is, as our press and politicians attempted to assign this phrase primary moniker status over all three of these (very different) events at the same time. Professional standards and semantics aside, there are serious consequences to this decision. Time is the enemy of nonsense, and now is the time to talk about this.
The pathogenesis behind the (in part) racist mass shooting in Buffalo; the school shooting in Uvalde; and yet another shootout on the streets of Philadelphia have – I think I can safely say – little to nothing in common other than those important questions around “easy access” to the hardware used, and the fact that the shooters were clearly troubled by something. The gun debate is an important one, and it should certainly take place at the same time, but let’s not kid ourselves about what’s actually going on with “gun violence”.
The category of violence far outstripping the others in terms of “lives lost”, “quality of life”, “ruined local economies”, “loss of job opportunities”, “the promotion of racist attitudes”, the public’s “tax dollar”, and the “likelihood that anyone you know might be affected”, is of course the category represented by the South Street shootings in Philadelphia. I might also mention that Philly had 36 reported shootings and 13 deaths the prior weekend as well. This category of violence is also the one most underserved by the press’s adoption of the phrase “gun violence”.
In fact, as I edited this essay yet again – also in reference to Philadelphia – I had to wonder what will happen, statistically speaking, regarding the more recent killing of a 75-year-old man who was beaten to death, for no good reason, by teenagers and a traffic cone. Under what tally, if any, will this particular murder appear? Should media rhetoric be focused on “access to traffic cones” in this latest story, or could there possibly be an overriding cultural component that deserves more attention? If this murdering mob had been white instead of black – with all else remaining the same – surely the “culture” leading up to the death of this elderly black man would have been the major point of discussion. We would also then expect to see widespread protests and much more media discussion focused on the killers than we’re seeing now – despite the much higher degree of rarity this hypothetical would represent. I think it’s safe to say that our rhetorically-privileged “gun violence” thespians on “the left” actually would have the situational and professional awareness to avoid heading in the “less access to traffic cones” direction should the question come up, and perhaps even if this scenario – like the “knockout game” of a few years back – actually became a trend. Nevertheless, with any discussion around “statistically higher levels of dysfunctional culture” off the table, many fingers are surely headed toward the sand right now in order to further plug already buried ears as I present the following food for thought.
If there is any doubt as to the existence of a “cultural” aspect to much of our violent crime here in the U.S. – a simple comparison to Japanese society should clear things up. In Philadelphia, the aforementioned violence represents a daily occurrence. An update to my “update” could point to the video just broadcast over our Philadelphia airwaves showing the merciless beating of a young male by a mob of ten or so. In Japan, attacks such as these are essentially unheard of, with the thought of committing such behaviors for the purpose of gaining “respect” among one’s peers, even less fathomable.
However, I want to also point a finger at some on “the right”, where we can imagine a person chiming in – as happened to me – that “the reason why this type of violence would never happen in Japan is because the culprits would be too fearful of the harsh punishment dished out”. This notion is equally absurd as it assumes there are thousands of Japanese walking around – in fact, so many that they would have the ability to locate likeminded individuals before then roaming the streets together – who would surely give in to their urge to beat elderly strangers to death but for their fear of the legal system! Those with any familiarity of Japan or the Japanese are sure to be thinking that this “cure for crime” might say more about the person proposing it than anything else. Much more likely of course, is that the pointless nature and “shame” behind the committing of such acts would be the only deterrents needed in their (very different) culture. This said, someone in our logic-deficient local environment is surely now screaming “What about the unquestioning loyalty with which many Japanese soldiers participated in the atrocities of World War Two?! To this I say – “Thank you! Thank you for making my point about “culture”! Traffic cone or not, gun or no gun, the rebranding of what’s currently going on – to the extent that “culture” is completely set aside – is a very “silly”, “irresponsible”, “callous”, not to mention “popularly accepted” thing.
In actuality, all that is needed to shoot down “gun violence” is for us to consider – in purely technical terms – whether the phrase passes muster in the first place. This then brings us to the obvious question as to why the press – of all the possible organizations in the world – has chosen to hitch its wagon to a phrase that is so clearly ambiguous, so unduly exclusionary, so consequentially deflective, and so oddly euphemistic?
Beginning with “ambiguity”, let’s consider the fact that “gun violence” offers little clue as to whether the speaker (let’s say “Philadelphia television news anchor”) is actually referring to “easy access to guns”, “violence” in general, or only to “that violence involving guns”. In fact, these users often don’t know themselves. Coming to mind is the news anchor who was thrown for a loop, in midsentence, as he reported the latest numeric milestone in Philadelphia’s “gun violence” totals at the same time he realized the latest killing was not actually by “gun”! Like paper straws sold in plastic wrapping – I would be laughing if I wasn’t already crying.
The “unduly exclusionary” nature of this phrase can be seen in reporter lead-ins such as “There was a public meeting today on the issue of gun violence”, only to be followed by video footage of citizens confronting their representatives on all kinds of lawlessness without limiting themselves, in any way, to the topic of “guns”.
And, although it may not work so well on victims and other affected citizens, the “deflective” powers of this phrase are surely appreciated by ratings-focused news outlets and vote-conscious politicians as they seek to – very inappropriately – omit simultaneous mention of endless other forms of violence in cities such as Philadelphia. Not necessarily involving guns, these include the endless stream of “hit and runs”, “car-jackings”, “stabbings”, “brutal random assaults”, “anti-Asian” attacks, “off-road vehicle mobs taking over tourist locations such as the Art Museum steps and City Hall’s Dilworth Plaza”, “flash mobs ransacking convenience stores” and so on.
Fourteen years ago, the top story in Philadelphia was exactly the same as it is now – except with much less “gun violence”. No doubt, if it had been a large number of suburban white kids who drove into Philly over the course of the last year before then shooting the exact same 2300 citizens and killing the exact same 500 – we would still not be hearing much about “gun violence”. And then of course, when it comes to “police shootings”, we have yet to hear about “gun violence”. This last observation brings to mind what one of my debate opponents finally said in response to my attempts to get him to admit there are cultural differences (in terms of overall violent street crime rates). He brought himself so far as to say “Well they’re angry!”. I realize this may have just been another white guy assuring himself that he’s a good person while propagating an excuse for which our black citizens will pay the highest price – but couldn’t many of our unappreciated (and in some cases criminally violent) police officers make the exact same claim?!
For those “gun violence” fans still a bit slow on the draw, what I’m suggesting (or more accurately “stating”) is that “gun violence’s” genius lies in the unspoken way in which it provides an “out” for news agencies and politicians at the same time it provides lazy listeners the false impression that something (I’m not exactly sure what) is being taken seriously. Because all of this is unspoken, each party will interpret the phrase however they want, with no requirement or discussion as to whether they are even on the same page, and no feet held to the fire. News organizations can pretend they’ve reported the story, while politicians can go off about “guns” to the extent that they appear to be taking action. Any constituent tempers raised around this “gun debate” – “pro” or “con” it doesn’t matter – are sure to serve the real goal which is to avoid any discussion about “culture”.
When investigating such a serious and far-reaching problem as “violent crime”, one that is so easily identified as disproportionately originating and affecting a particular segment of the population (over many decades, different geographical locations, and in very high numbers) – the denial of this most basic of factual observations is not what any scientist, reporter, or politician would be doing if they were serious about attempting solutions. I am quite sure that if a loved one of any of those in these groups fell victim to one of these violent or deadly attacks, the first thing they would want to know is “Who did it?”, and any refusal to answer by way of “gun violence” would not be accepted.
edmundmiller 