gun violence normalized
courtesy Herald Mail Media

A town meeting in Hagerstown, Maryland regarding guns and violence – because, let’s face it, there is no “gun violence” just violence with various tools – made one thing clear. Although people absolutely should band together they should also back legal gun owners and legit self-defense method. Ever hear of fighting back?

“Everybody has the right to live in a safe community,” said [Renee] Burgan, a social worker and a member of the community center’s board of directors. “… In this country, gun violence has become normalized. It doesn’t have to.”

“Violence creates violence,” said Hagerstown Police Chief Capt. Paul Kifer. He suggested that residents step outside their houses, getting to know their neighbors. It’s the first step in making a neighborhood safer for children, he said.

“No one here is alone,” [Burgan] said. “It’s important we come together as a community.”

– Sherry Greenfield for Herald Mail Media, Hagerstown Meeting Examines How to End Gun Violence

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

49 COMMENTS

  2. Why is a town with 0 murders holding town meetings like this? I bet that social worker is trying to bolster his resume to get a better paying gig outside of that mostly poor town.

  3. The only violence I see being done to my country is by worthless, commie deamonrats. pugsly from commiefornica and the ratface occasional-cortex and the self stuffing slime chucky scumbag. If I have managed to PO a lefty today I will consider my day well spent. UK doesn’t have “gun violence” it has “Knife violence” the favorite weapon of devil spawn muzzies.

  4. Dimwitocrats and their radical masters become more mentally unstable every week. But…they are cunning, devious, deceitful and effective at weakening American culture. Do not underestimate these people. Even though they lack a moral compass beyond, WIN, they can invent “rights” based on the moral superiority of their vision of themselves.

    • “violence creates violence”
      “?”

      Simple, you don’t hit me, and I won’t hit you. If you do hit me, I will retaliate in kind (violence creates violence). It is the violent act, not the corrupt nature of humans that is responsible for an unsafe world. Remove the violent act, and peace and safety reign. From this reasoning, one arrives at the core belief that guns cause violence because guns are used for violence. Remove the guns, and the catalyst for violence disappears.

      The above is a modern illustration of the old adage, “Nothing is settled by violence”. Of course, people who believe that have never met a citizen from the nation of Carthage.

      • Ok, I think I get what you’re saying, essentially that the fella is implying that gun ownership and defensive usage of guns are invalid or part of the problem, or a bad form of violence. I’m trying to read the above article and imagine that I’m coming at this from a gun-grabber perspective, seeing the object as an object of violence, evil etc. I”m still not sure I understand how the listener is supposed to get to his B from A.
        I’ll have to think about this to try to grasp the mechanism. Thanks.

        • “gun ownership and defensive usage of guns are invalid or part of the problem,”

          Actually, not part of the problem…is THE problem.

          Underlying all the anti-gun rhetoric, the grabbers fear the public. They do not fear the hardened criminal, or ganger (or terrorists). They fear the “normal looking” person suddenly going berserk and shooting up a “nice place”. The grabbers are quite content to allow inner city killings to continue apace because they are comfortable that “the right people” are being killed.

      • “the old adage, “Nothing is settled by violence””

        I seem to vaguely remember something about NAZI and Japanese attacks and the resulting violence that settled their dreams of world domination.

        I’m afraid there is violence in our future that will hopefully settle left wing dreams of world domination.
        Then we might play cowboys and mooslimes.

        • When the leftists don’t want to deal with terrorists, they proclaim that “You can’t defeat an idea”. That is, no matter how many terrorists you kill, radical Islam will live on. Interestingly, they do not see the same outcome for trying to kill freedom and liberty.

    • There’s no edit button, but upon further contemplation, it is true that offensive violence creates defensive violence. That would be the good kind of violence, but after reading the linked article, I still don’t understand the speaker’s intended meaning.

      • “I still don’t understand the speaker’s intended meaning.”

        Violence causes violence; gun violence causes gun violence.

          • “How about violence(you attack me or mine), causes gun violence(me fighting back)?”

            I think you’ve got it.

        • “Violence causes violence; gun violence causes gun violence.”
          That didn’t make it much clearer, but I appreciate your putting time into these responses.

          Regarding your other response, you are saying that the public (and the Grabber politicians/activists) believe the responsible gun-owners are a threat (specifically the main threat). I would state that a good portion of the public and the Grabber activists overemphasize the likeliness of a responsible person going berserk, and under-emphasize defensive gun uses. I would also state (and you would likely agree?) that this activism tries to push people into believing the former, in other words fearing responsible gun-owners.

          I would agree that a lot people read “the numbers”, easily see that identifiable criminals by any sense of the word are the ones committing homicides, and yet blame the responsible gun-owners(for various reasons). Grabber activism/propaganda encourages the above misdirection. I feel that you believe to a greater extent than I do that responsible gun-ownership is unjustly blamed. I hope that you are wrong, but fear you may be right.
          Having said that, I find it interesting that I rarely (probably have never) hear the ~15k “gun deaths” per year countered with recognition of the (very) conservative figure of 50k “gun livings” per year, for an aggregate -35k “gun deaths” annually. The more I type, the more correct you seem.

          • If gun grabbers wanted to reduce “gun violence” overall, they would spend their energies everywhere but fear-mongering about legal gun owners.

            Looking at the national landscape, the overwhelming majority of shootings (of any type) in “normal” places like malls, schools, churches, businesses, nightclubs, are committed by non-minority persons. Note also that there are so few mass shootings in minority dominant schools as to be statistically insignificant. Do you find it curious that the face of the gun-grabber cliques is white?

            As to DGUs, those are abhorrent to gun-grabbers. It is unfair that a private citizen can casually threaten, injure or kill an attacker. The gun owner/user acting as cop, judge, jury, executioner is anti-American. Because the attacker did not get benefit of a fair trial, the defender should be prevented from using a gun in defense. Or, better yet, the victim/defender should accept the risk of attack, and honorably stand up to being nobly killed, rather than become a one-stop justice machine.

            In short: gun ownership caused violence. Removing guns from law abiding citizens (because dealing with crime is just too hard, as is dealing with root causes for evil behavior) will result in only a few thousand deserving criminals being killed. Removing guns from private citizens will end mass killings. Taking guns away removes danger of attack in “normal” places. A gun-free society will restore the natural balance of humans as being non-violent, peace-seeking, compassionate and caring people. And all of this is evidenced by the success of about sixteen non-confiscation laws that have been so effective in reducing crime leading to these shootings of “nice” people in “nice” places.

            Guns have an irresistible power to cause non-violent people to become violent. Killing and injuring by any other tool is just too difficult, but guns make it so easy and convenient. Simple logic – remove guns from all of society, and you end gun violence; no guns equals no gun violence.

          • “Violence is not a Problem on planet Earth. It’s a Feature. Has been for a few billion years.”

            And not enough of it has been applied in the right places for 70+years.

  7. I fully agree there is no “gun violence”. When someone is stabbed, it’s never called “knife violence”, when someone is beaten with a ball bat, do they ever call it “ball-bat violence”? Violent people will use anything at their disposal. The culture should be addressed.

  8. Years ago I used to sell life insurance often in extremely chitty areas. In wonderful West Pullman Chicago a client had a large sign on their porch stating “YOU HIT US WE HIT YOU”. Even in the violent ghetto they didn’t initiate “gun violence”. Why aren’t places like Wyoming awash in homicides?!? Hmmm…

  9. Want not to be a victim of gun violence? That’s easy. Don’t engage in the drug trade, as customer, supplier, distributor, ir anything. Don’t have a criminal record or hang around those who do. Don’t be female in an abusive relationship.

    Exclude those factors from your life and you pretty much insulate yourself from 99.99% of gun violence probability.

    • You forgot to include: having a male family member, friend or co-worker with a mental illness, a fondness for guns, an a history of disturbing and/or violent tendencies.

  12. “Dec. 14 marked six years since [Sandy Hook]…..Since then, 600,000 people in the United States have been killed or injured by guns, Renee Burgan said at a gathering in support of ending gun violence.

    Gah wah? I would love to know what creative math formula she used to arrive at that number…

  13. Black on black crimes involving firearms for example has been normalized for decades.
    However, most other cases involving guns are surely not normalized, quite the contrary as the gun grabbers and mainstream medias use whatever they can for their agenda. They tell you how many people died from gunshot wounds to prove we need more “gun control”, but somehow forget to substrat the suicides from the equation, as well as justified defensive gun uses.

  14. It isn’t just black on black crime, it is gang banger on gang banger crime. These idiots are at the bottom of society, no matter their color.

    There are many neighborhoods in SoCal that are predominately minority where I could live happily(I am white) and safely, there are others that are mostly white where I could not stand to live because of the white gang bangers.

  15. Renee Burgan is right to say,”Everybody has the right to live in a safe community,” but she’s addressing the wrong audience. The people at that meeting are not the ones making the community unsafe. It’s the violent criminals.

    Chief Kifer is half right when he says, “Violence creates violence.” When a violent criminal attacks, the victim fights back unless he’s helpless or a fool. But the chief needs to say it to the violent criminals because they are the ones whose predatory violence creates defensive violence.

    Burgan is wrong when she says, “No one is alone.” Criminals do not attack the community. They attack individuals who are very much alone then.

    • “Renee Burgan is right to say,”Everybody has the right to live in a safe community,” ”

      Do you perhaps have a citation for the source of the right to be safe?

      • See, there’s that “equal outcomes vs. equal opportunity” meme again, which is very popular with the left.

        • “See, there’s that “equal outcomes vs. equal opportunity” meme again, ”

          I actually understand that child-like desire for everyone to have everything for free. But a “right” to safety isn’t anchored on anything.

  16. ” I actually understand that child-like desire for everyone to have everything for free. But a “right” to safety isn’t anchored on anything.”

    Which was what I was implying. Everything has a price, sometimes the price of the “opportunity to seek safety” can be your life.

    • “Which was what I was implying. Everything has a price, sometimes the price of the “opportunity to seek safety” can be your life.”

      Aaahhhh So.

  17. If it weren’t for pizza, lasagna, steak, real ice cream, cannoli, the odd beer now and then, why I’d be a whole lot fitter.

    We really need to do something about all this Food Violence.

    Possibly a law requiring the registration of kitchens? Or at the very least, spatulas?

    • “Possibly a law requiring the registration of kitchens? Or at the very least, spatulas?”

      Spatula City already requires a background check for every large capacity spatula sold. It’s a backdoor universal registry.

      • ““Possibly a law requiring the registration of kitchens? Or at the very least, spatulas?””

        Remember Michelle Obama’s ‘Healthy School Lunches’ bullshit?

        Expect similar fun-n-games with foods in the interest of ‘Fighting childhood obesity”.

        Soda taxes like Philadelphea’s, if they can get away with it.

        Leftists aren’t happy unless they are running your life…

  18. This is part of the great divide in our country. There really are people, Liberals, who honestly believe you should not fight back, with deadly force if necessary.

    It is also why they fear and hate president Trump. Because he fights back.

    Fighting back is not in the vocabulary of a Liberal. As stated by a liberal representative in Colorado a rape victim should urinate on her attacker instead of shooting him with her gun.

  19. He can thank movies, video games and the evening news for normalizing violence while condemning morals and ethical behavior.

    But oh it’s the guns that are the problem, right?

  21. Everyone (sane) has a wish to live safely. Sometimes “safety” is taken away from us by others, n we’re left with do violence or stop living. (The folks who want “everybody” disarmed somehow think violence will never come to them. But how’s that happen? Guards n searches at that Town Hall, perhaps?)

    Here, in the Really, Real World…

    “Safety” is nobody’s “right” or natural state. We form governments to work together to make some safety if we can. Sometimes, when that doesn’t work, we’re still on our own: stop the incoming yourself, or stop living.

    “Gun violence”, meaning violence using guns, happens because they work. BGs choose guns, sometimes. Victims choose guns sometimes — .5 to 2 million times a year in the U S, says the CDC — when the machinery of “safety” has failed. All that’s left them is their own violence, or die.

    The 2A says “arms”, not muskets. The point is parity. Let’s not take away from lawful people their last ditch shot at staying alive after ” safety” is long gone, after the social enginering n policing have failed. That law is only: if BGs can get it, peaceful people can have it. (The flood of illegal guns into the UK continues. So, who’s disarmed there? How’s that gun violence reduction working out?)

    When “Antifa” riots burn blocks, or a mob comes to Tucker Carlson’s home, a med-power, semi-auto carbine w pistol grip, flash hider, n box mags seems the minimum prudent choice. That is until phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range become common. We need to ban these because of what the BGs do? The BGs already have them, despite being prohibited.

    “Gun violence” isn’t “normalized.” Best tool violence when safety has failed is “normalized”, or ought to be. Which is exactly what they don’t want. Your fighting back when their “safety” has failed is the last thing they want. Armed, you more likely might succeed. You might figure out that they are useless, you are competent, or both.

    Town Hall Person doesn’t much like the world as it is. I get that. When she can actually make the world “safe”, maybe we get rid of all the guns. Until then, here, in the really real world, violence at need using guns is, well, sometimes all the “safety” there is.

  22. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the language we use, or don’t use, can really affect the trajectory of a discourse. Or keep it from being a discourse at all.

    I’m experimenting with a different way to respond to people’s comments and questions about guns in order to get the language out of their sphere and into one that’s more accurate.

    Example: “Gun violence is a problem.”
    Me: “Are you saying that you’re concerned about violent people? Is that something you’re worried about in your life right now?”

    Really, if a person is legitimately concerned about violent people, we can have a talk about that. That’s a legitimate concern. But I do want to know how that applies to their actual, everyday life that it would be a “thing.” Most of the time, it probably won’t.

    I have been noticing how non gun owners try to get me on the defensive by portraying me as paranoid and misguided in my thinking. Usually this is in the form of suggesting that there is no legitimate reason for me to own a firearm. To me what’s interesting about this is that it’s usually coming from someone who doesn’t understand what I do for a living or the things I deal with as a female motorcycle rider on a pretty regular basis.

    So when that comes out, I have a few choices. I can take the bait and start arguing with them.

    I can sit back, say, “Well, it’s interesting to me that you think you know enough about my life to decide for me what I do and don’t need.” Because, honestly, if they’re in that mindset, we’re not in a discussion anyway. I am in a lecture, or a monologue, and I should put on my headphones, or better yet, leave.

    Or I can, if they actually stop and realize what they’re doing, leverage that hesitation to create some understanding.

    I’ve been thinking about how gun owners in general are dealing with what, as a woman, I’ve been dealing with my whole life: Other people telling you what they think you need, who they think you are, and trying to decide for you the path that your life or actions should take.

    This is where being a feminist really comes in handy. You just use all the same tools you use for other kinds of condescending fucks. Interestingly, the attitudes I encounter come from folks identifying both as left and right. There isn’t that much difference. The one thing they do all have in common: They’re not gun owners or users and don’t know anything about them.

    • Oh, the language matters: once you accept their framing of the issue, you’ve already lost. That’s the point; their point.

      For the “useful idiots”, their payoff isn’t convincing you, or learning something. Maybe the frission of righteousness for a moment. Social signaling. A payday. You are fodder for some process they want: you might as well not be there. Not as a person, anyway.

  23. ” He suggested that residents step outside their houses, getting to know their neighbors. ”

    Well, there is something to be said for this. In my 60+ years puttering around the planet, I’ve noticed that things started going to hell about the same time that front porches started disappearing from houses. Who knows… maybe there is a connection.

  24. The primates at the beginning of Kubricks’ 2001, shave their faces, make ’em walk a little straighter and put ’em in suits. I really don’t see myself or any other sierra delta any other way. Use the weapons most effectively, first, get to live on in the gene pool. Everybody else is for the kettle. We are the culmination of generations of winners. Suck it up and live like it. Either be the one eating the fries or be the one asking, …”you want fries with that?” There is no third option, there never was. -30-

Comments are closed.