By Budd Schroeder

The misnomer of "gun violence" keeps running through the liberal media and is voiced in the broadcast channels as buzz words to take the focus off criminals and place it on an object which, in reality, is a tool. Most tools can be used violently as weapons such as an ordinary hammer. Using it to build a house makes it a tool. Using it to crush someone's head makes it a weapon. Whether the criminal uses a gun or a hammer as a weapon the result is a dead person. 

Granted, there have been no reports of hammers being used in mass murders, but the concept remains that no tool is a weapon unless an evil person takes control of it. One of the largest number of victims of a mass murder was caused by a Molotov Cocktail in a social club in the Bronx a couple of decades ago. Close to a hundred people were killed in that crime. 

Recently, in Europe, many people were killed by an evil person driving a truck through a heavily populated section of the city. The victims were equally as dead as those who were shot in Paris. The tool is only an instrument. The violence is strictly a human caused event. There is no argument that there are too many evil people in society. No evil, no violence. Maybe, but the liberal left will argue that if we had stricter gun control laws, we would have less violence. 

Those who argue against that premise will claim that horrific violence occurred throughout history long before the invention of firearms. The Bible tells how the Kings of Israel killed people by the tens of thousands. While it could be argued that the numbers don't matter because God commanded the Kings to "slay His enemies." When it comes to a report of deaths in that way, the tellers usually shy away from using the term, "murder." 

Regardless of whether or not the killing was sanctioned by a government or was committed by a criminal, people died. There is only one degree of death. A person either is or isn't. Near death is "still alive." "Recently died" is still "totally dead." Death can come in many ways from many actions. Medical malpractice on an annual basis, by a huge margin, exceeds the death by gunfire. Deaths caused by accidents, illness and substance abuses are responsible for more deaths than gunfire. 

So, is there a solution to the problem of the "gun violence?" If there is one. it has to be focused on people, not guns. The term should be changed to "criminal misuse of firearms." That would be much more accurate and place the focus and efforts on those who misuse firearms for violent and evil purposes. 

There is a problem with trying to convince criminals not to be violent. In the first place, many murders are "crimes of passion" or "they didn't think they would be caught" and commit the crime. Some sociologists think the crime is a result of society not dealing with the problem which involves the study of family structure, poverty, or other excuses for bad behavior leading to violent actions. 

Regardless, the focus is on more "gun control" and even if it doesn't work, the liberal politicians and media try to convince the public that such things as universal background checks, banning certain guns because of their appearance or features and even banning high capacity magazines will reduce the number of homicides. They conveniently overlook the obvious problem that criminals don't obey laws. 

If bans worked, Prohibition would have successfully ended drunken fights, alcoholism, and the other social problems that involve alcohol, like drunken driving, as well as the illnesses associated with alcohol. 

Illegal drugs are banned, so we shouldn't have any problems with drug abuse, right? Try again. Drug overdoses account for far more deaths than homicides involving guns. Obviously, gun control laws don't affect criminals either. So, the answer has to be people oriented and the focus should be on discouragement for the use of guns in crime. 

Using simple math of the number of guns and gun owners in America versus the number of people misusing firearms, the misuse comes out to about one-quarter of one percent. That's a real minority of problem people who own guns. 

A thought that might be much more effective is to amend the criminal justice laws regarding violent crime. Presently, if a person commits a violent crime with a gun, the charge may be increased a degree or two regarding the length of the sentence. In other words, if a criminal robs a bank or a person the charge increases the length of the sentence. 

What would happen if that was changed to a charge that if a gun was used in a violent crime, there would be an additional five years added to the sentence for the robbery or assault? It would be one charge for the crime without the degrees presently used. No, buy one, get one free, in the sentencing. 

The second thought would be to add to the list of conditions that make a murder one charge, the crime of a drive by shooting that results in a homicide. What can require more intent than talcing a gun in a car to drive around for the purpose of killing someone? If Greg the Gunslinger does this, he will never get out of prison. That could be a real incentive to not do it. It also could give powerful leverage to the DA if he wanted a plea bargain and save the taxpayer the cost of an expensive trial. 

Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control would make more sense.