"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," said the 80-page document titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
The guide was produced in 2012, before the Sandy Hook shootings. According to a report posted on NRA News from Examiner.com, not connected to the Washington Examiner, it was developed to help anti-gun advocates in Washington State's effort to control gun purchases, though it clearly has national overtones and uses, especially as groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner client -- expand their fight for gun control.
Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!
The guide spells out how to talk about gun control and when to press the issue, the best time being in the wake of a publicized shooting. For example, it calls on gun control advocates to speak out, "don't wait" for the facts, after a shooting like Martin's heightens awareness of the issue.
"The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts," said the guide.
"A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," added the talking points. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence," said the guide, which also urged advocates use images of scary looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Smoking Gun, So To Speak
The Democrats have actually published a plan for using the emotions surrounding gun crimes to further their objectives - more gun control, of course. They don't mince words:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
...and the problem is?
It's a common tactic used by any good politician. Don't pretend Republicans do it less.
The Leftist Democrat hysterics are well documented.
You gave no examples of Republican counterpoints, only an empty assertion.
Kindly point us to an incident where the Other cynically used a tragedy to become hysterical and demand extra-judiciary justice, and/or marched to demonize a culture which they hate (anti-white rhetoric being the Leftist example).
Is this a textbook example of "tu quoque"?
A fine example of the depths to which the Left will gladly sink. I'm reminded of the Tony Blair administration, and one incident in particular:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1358985/Sept-11-a-good-day-to-bury-bad-news.html
Feast your eyes on the inner workings of the Left.
That histrionics are a common tactic is indisputable, What is disputable is whether a "good" (in the moral sense of being principled and not merely driven by an unbridled lust for power) politician uses such tactics to sway the uninformed masses through inflammation of the emotions. I submit that any politician (regardless of political label) who utilizes such tactics is anything BUT "good" in any moral sense. Cynical manipulation of the emotions for purposes of power and self-aggrandizement is NOT "good."
It's their job... politicians all use emotions... you need to be delusional to require examples showing 1 side to be significantly different on that front.
Click my name on previous post.
CAR KILL KIDS TOO! When they focus on dead kids you need to shut your eyes and remember freedom ain't free. I don't care how many children die I want my guns and Obama is not gonna take them away from me.
What Robert said is correct; both "sides" can use cynical manipulation of the emotions for purposes of power and self-aggrandizement, which is NOT "good."
@Second
You sounds like a poe but the point is often raised by real gun addicts and the answer is quite simple. Cars are highly regulated, rightfully so, and so should guns. You are not allowed to have a car that can go at 300mph yet you can buy almost any crazy machine guns you want. Moreover, cars serve a useful purpose, while non-hunting guns don't. They are a recreational tool (which I think should be legal yet controlled) but not a useful defensive tool. Statistics around the world prove that more guns don't lead to safer cities (which I think raises another point: cities should have different rules since rural regions have good reasons to be more relaxed on gun control.)
LiberalViewer,
Your projection is without any presented evidence or substantiation; the idea that providing evidence to support the veracity of an assertion is "delusional", is absurd on all levels. In fact, it meets the Leftist constraint of rationalization as being more desirable than rationality.
You have referred only to yourself in youtube videos, which is truly a narcissistic referencing system which you have. It is also a combination of circularity with the Appeal To Authority, where the authority is yourself.
I have viewed your videos, and they scream for a response, and not just because they do NOT support your assertion. I will give you a proper response as soon as I have time to do it justice, maybe a day or so.
I really dislike youtube "philosopher" videos, because they are difficult to "re-read", they are never accompanied by indices or references or source info. I.e, they are actually nothing more than opinion rants mixed with unannotated video clips, rather than supported, documented, grounded arguments.
However, even when given the opportunity to do so in writing, your opinion is that providing evidence for your assertion is delusional, so principled grounding is apparently not in your logic system.
LiberalViewer said,
"yet you can buy almost any crazy machine guns you want."
Absolute Leftist Lying Bullshit, demonstrating swallowing the AtheoLeft Narrative hook, line, and sinker. ONLY A VERY FEW HIGHLY REGULATED AND SPECIALLY LICENSED PARTIES OWN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. What the ignoranti want to believe and represent as an evil “machine gun”, is actually NOT A MACHINE GUN. A machine gun is automatic firing; they are illegal for almost all Americans to own, and have been for decades. Do NOT BE FOOLED by this sort of deception.
Sorry for the SHOUTING, but they just don't want to hear any actual facts. A revolver can be shot just as fast as a semi-automatic. (It takes training). Demonizing semi-automatics as "machine guns" merely shows ignorance and hatred for that of which they are ignorant. It should be a HATE crime, since it is an overt attempt to infringe on the civil rights of their cultural enemies.
They love Hate Crimes, the Leftists - there's one that should be on their books. (They'd all be in prison with long sentences, though. So they'd have lots of time on the internet to produce more youtube videos.)
Here's the rationalization which the moralizing Leftist want to put in place: Consequentialism at work:
"Moreover, cars serve a useful purpose, while non-hunting guns don't."
Even if this were true (it is not), it is inconsequential: So WHAT? Neither do neckties, and they can be used to choke you. That is a desperate reach which is so strained that it only the credulous Leftist could actually consider making it. It is not up to the Left to decide what is allowed or not due to its “usefulness”, in their warped opinion.
"They are a recreational tool (which I think should be legal yet controlled) but not a useful defensive tool."
Again, absolute falseness, written by someone who knows nothing about guns or what their capabilities are. All he knows is that he hates them (whatever the are) and needs "reasons" to denigrate them. Further, they already are legal AND controlled. Well, except for the hoodlums generated by the Democrat cities, where the victims cannot legally own guns. Hoodlums seem to have guns regardless of the Leftist laws banning them.
"Statistics around the world prove that more guns don't lead to safer cities'
Another bastardized and false statistic. It has just been shown that the continuing decreasing US murder rate - per FBI statistics - correlates with increasing gun ownership. (And using correlation as causation is logically irrational in both cases - but at least get the statistics right for crying out loud).
"(which I think raises another point: cities should have different rules since rural regions have good reasons to be more relaxed on gun control.)"
Cities should either kick out the Democrats and Democrat Party which has left them in ruins, or at least allow the potential murder victims to arm themselves against the rampant waves of hoodlums who have ILLEGAL weapons. Making weapons illegal is another Democrat program which discriminates against decent people. And American cities are the obvious litmus test for Democrat policy failure, and the consequence of having no fixed morals beyond one's opinion. The corruption of the "leaders" in the Democrat cities is fine evidence of that. And the chaos which the corrupt Democrat "leaders" have left in their wake is actually well deserved by those who vote for them. The waves of murdering hoodlums in Chicago, Detroit, etc. are specifically an artifact of Democrat corruption (talk about perfect correlation!)
I have nothing against guns; your argument fails.
I know fully automatic weapons are already banned; your argument fails.
I will wait for the promised rest of answer.
LibViewer,
You said what you said. Now you say you knew differently from what you said. And now your prior demonizing of "machine guns" doesn't confict with "having nothing against guns".
You are vulnerable to your own internal contradictions. It's a standard problem of the AtheoLeft: where there is no fixed truth, the truth becomes whatever is said at the moment.
The rest of us subscribe to Aristotlian logic, based on first principles and consistency.
Not a chance that you misinterpreted? Please, do tell me more about what I think, what I believe, that I know, what I feel... you seem to know more than myslef!
LibViewer,
You said what you said. Feel free to deny what you said. Either version. Or both, if you wish.
If you have been misinterpreted, you have not indicated how; you have merely suggested error without elucidation. That in itself is a deception, and further indication of inability to defend your internal contradictions.
Perhaps you will explain how you know the following:
"Moreover, cars serve a useful purpose, while non-hunting guns don't."
You might start by answering and explaining how you know the following:
(a) Which guns are non-hunting guns?
(b) Why is your definition of these guns to be considered universal?
(c) Why is your definition of "purpose" universal?
(d) What is your "purpose" for having been born?
(e) How does your answer to "(d)" impact your self-perceived "usefulness"?
I'm sure that your answers to these questions will help clear up your perception of our confusion at your written contradictions, above.
What's the point?
Clearly, you are not interested in discussion and avoid the promised long detailed response based on the original point of this post and the videos you said you watched.
@LiberalViewer: Thank you for suggesting there's no point. But it not due to Stan's lack of interest in your constantly-changing definitions. It's because, clearly, you are engaged in blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Your 'discussion' would turn out to be a simple dance where you refuse to answer simple questions - never mind a detailed response - while the rest of us chased you around the mulberry bush.
Reason and accountability. You either got them or you don't. I don't think you're gonna acquire either very soon, and I REALLY don't think you're going to amount to more than a posturing fly, buzzing around tempting folks to take a swat at you.
You're not here for answers, you're here for entertainment. Buzz off, LiberalViewer. Your name says it all.
LiberalViewer,
Your response is quite clear: you have nothing. You cannot sustain any argument because you have nothing. So you run away with such weeping as "what's the point?" Poor dear, here, let me help once again:
Arguments (meaning statements with proofs) require premises which contain evidence; if the evidence cannot be refuted and if the argument is a properly formed deduction, then a decent argument has been made, meaning that it has "truth value". Now if a person merely makes statements without premises, or worse, premises which he cannot support, or still worse yet, premises which fail the standard tests for deductive viability, then he has nothing to offer. Nothing.
Hope that helps.
Now, to the videos which you posted on youtube: I will need to research your claims since you did not make any attributions, only assertions; that will take some time, which is scarce for me at the moment. Due to time constraints and the nature of your videos, I think I'll respond only to the Palin attack video, that being most egregious.
So stay tuned, I'll get to it. It's just not the most important thing right now. In the meantime, either answer the questions given to you above, or admit that you actually have nothing to contribute here. The quality and length of the discussion is purely up to you.
Answers to question you really (?) care about:
(a) Which guns are non-hunting guns?
(b) Why is your definition of these guns to be considered universal?
(c) Why is your definition of "purpose" universal?
Guns not used for hunting are non-hunting guns; it's a tautology. It was not meant to label certain guns as hunting guns based on their types. It's a simple self-evident statement: all guns not purchased for the purpose of hunting for food are non-hunting guns. They can be used for self-defense or not. My opinion is that they are not useful self-defense tools, even though they are used a lot (even successfully!) for that purpose: they create more problems than they solve.
(d) What is your "purpose" for having been born?
Not my choice.
(e) How does your answer to "(d)" impact your self-perceived "usefulness"?
I don't pretend to be more 'useful' than any other human being. You think you are?
Back to guns. The point is that (a) guns don't make you safer; they only give an illusion of safety and (b) they are too easy to obtain en masse. My mistake, I should not have said 'machine guns'. The point is that you can buy as much ammo as you want and you can actually get insanely deadly weapons. You actually confirmed this point. Thank you. Semi-automatic weapons can be fired quickly enough to be almost like fully automatic ones.
Here are some articles with good references:
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-self-defense-self-delusion/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/23/guns-safety-48182/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
A side point which I find interesting is the notion that pro-gun rights voters give a lot more to political party. We should thus not be surprised if the documentation on the pro-gun rights side is more common; they clearly have the budget to support their cause...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=Q13
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=Q12
"The quality and length of the discussion is purely up to you."
This is not the feeling I get from this blog. Half of what you write is pure rethoric, some sort of insults that have very little value. You appear to be attributing all the worst possible intentions to your opponents, the evil Left.
- The Leftist Democrat hysterics
((( are we all hysterics? you are the one who started to SHOUT, by your own admission... )))
- marched to demonize a culture which they hate (anti-white rhetoric being the Leftist example).
((( who says that I, or any liberal, hate any part of the culture? or worse, hate whites?)))
- Leftist constraint of rationalization as being more desirable than rationality
((( someone disagrees with you, hence you conclude he desires not to be rational. Is that... rational? )))
- narcissistic referencing system which you have
((( sharing my personal opinion is narcissistic? what about your own blog then? )))
- circularity with the Appeal To Authority, where the authority is yourself.
((( yes I am the authority of my own opinions, but not of objective facts I use to support them)))
- your opinion is that providing evidence for your assertion is delusional
((( I can support the assertions I make. you did not address these assertions. you made up lots of stuff here, which is why I didn't see the point of addressing you further. giving it a shot anyway...)))
- the moralizing Leftist
((( as opposed to the non-moralizing Right? give me break... can you hear yourself? The Right (please read 'Conservative Christian Right') is by far more moralizing than any Liberal. )))
- someone who knows nothing about guns or what their capabilities are. All he knows is that he hates them
((( as I said, I don't hate guns, have nothing against guns; false ideas based on wrong pre-conceived notions that you have )))
- Democrat program which discriminates against decent people
((( decent people being defined by the Right I suppose? )))
- It's a standard problem of the AtheoLeft: where there is no fixed truth
((( fixed truth defined by the Right? hence anything that we disagree on necessarily falls on your side? congrat, you always win )))
- inability to defend your internal contradictions
((( correct, I cannot defend contradictions that you made up... )))
LiberalViewer says,
” The point is that (a) guns don't make you safer; they only give an illusion of safety”
Absolutely false; many lives have been and will be saved by countering force with force; the dictated victimhood of gun banishment in certain areas is neither safe, nor an illusion of safety: it is a delusion visited upon potential victims who are unarmed.
” and (b) they are too easy to obtain en masse.”
Pure opinion, which is in the direction of control over decent people (see below for definition).
” My mistake, I should not have said 'machine guns'.”
Accepted.
” The point is that you can buy as much ammo as you want and you can actually get insanely deadly weapons.”
“insanely” is a pejorative in the direction of Poisoning the Well. Very sharp pencils are withheld from prisoners because they are “deadly”. For some, so are shoe laces and string of any type. This comment has no meat. Being deadly does not mean that cars should be banned.
” My opinion is that they are not useful self-defense tools, even though they are used a lot (even successfully!) for that purpose: they create more problems than they solve.”
An opinion without evidence. Correlate the rise in gun ownership and gun murders for the USA, using FBI data, and get back to us. We’ll still be here.
” You actually confirmed this point. Thank you. Semi-automatic weapons can be fired quickly enough to be almost like fully automatic ones.”
Actually, not nearly as fast. And so what? Who determines how fast a defensive firing is needed to save a woman’s life? You? Based on what? Your opinion?
Pro Gun voters do vote; they do so because the Left is constantly trying to eliminate the Second Amendment Rights, including re-interpreting the words as they have done in the First Amendment in order to create an Atheist (secular = Atheism) and variable principled government under the auspices of Leftist-variable consequentialist ethics. And the number of gun owners is rising dramatically, even as murders decrease nationwide. (to give you a hint on the correlation between crime and gun numbers in the population).
”"The quality and length of the discussion is purely up to you."
This is not the feeling I get from this blog. Half of what you write is pure rethoric, some sort of insults that have very little value. You appear to be attributing all the worst possible intentions to your opponents, the evil Left.
The Left provides the evidence; I merely point to it. No AtheoLeftist has claimed that there exists a common morality amongst them, or that it is necessary to have any morality at all. That reflects onto all and every action which the Left takes: it becomes consequentialist. From consequentialism comes a great many evil things, a conclusion even Nietsche derived. In fact, without a common morality, there is no common meaning for either good or evil, truth or falseness, fact or lies. That lack of a solid base is what the Left operates from.
Show otherwise, with evidence and logic, not rationalization and fallacy. We’ll be right here.
<
”- The Leftist Democrat hysterics
((( are we all hysterics? you are the one who started to SHOUT, by your own admission... )))”
The Leftists who make the charges which you and the visible types make are making false charges, backed by the emotional and fallacious charges such as I point to in your video on Palin. That and the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc defamation so common to the Left is symptomatic of hysterical, irrational reactions, which are based on Narrative, not evidence. Prove this wrong.
”- marched to demonize a culture which they hate (anti-white rhetoric being the Leftist example).
((( who says that I, or any liberal, hate any part of the culture? or worse, hate whites?)))”
Why is Leftist demonization always of whites, then? Of American culture as racist? So many examples…
”- Leftist constraint of rationalization as being more desirable than rationality
((( someone disagrees with you, hence you conclude he desires not to be rational. Is that... rational? )))”
Rationalization is a demonstrable defect in logic. Do you need an explanation?
”- narcissistic referencing system which you have
((( sharing my personal opinion is narcissistic? what about your own blog then? )))”
Bull. You seem to deliberately misrepresent by eliminating context in your quotes. Self-referencing as expert testimony is internally non-coherent, and narcissistic. If you wish to reference an expert, pick an actual expert.
”- circularity with the Appeal To Authority, where the authority is yourself.
((( yes I am the authority of my own opinions, but not of objective facts I use to support them)))”
Up to that point you produced no facts, objective or otherwise. You made assertions as if they were facts, but gave no evidence to support them.
”- your opinion is that providing evidence for your assertion is delusional
((( I can support the assertions I make. you did not address these assertions. you made up lots of stuff here, which is why I didn't see the point of addressing you further. giving it a shot anyway...)))”
I doubt seriously that you can support your assertions with fact; that is merely another unsupported assertion. Support your assertion that there is a definable category of non-hunting guns; that those guns have no useful purpose. Actual data, not more assertions that you could, if you wanted to.
”- the moralizing Leftist
((( as opposed to the non-moralizing Right? give me break... can you hear yourself? The Right (please read 'Conservative Christian Right') is by far more moralizing than any Liberal. )))
By which I meant that the Leftists fabricate morality to meet the circumstance, and thus they easily find themselves outraged; the Right does have a common set of moral principles – as I pointed out – and the removal of those principles by the Leftist desire to completely dominate the Right leads to outrage on the Right. The outrage on the Left is trumped up based on volatile “morals”; the outrage on the right is based on the violation of the US Constitution, most generally. The Left is outraged that the Right is outraged.
”- someone who knows nothing about guns or what their capabilities are. All he knows is that he hates them
((( as I said, I don't hate guns, have nothing against guns; false ideas based on wrong pre-conceived notions that you have )))”
I find this claim completely non-credible; actions (including written defamations of, say, specious categories of guns) can commonly refute claims and denials of positions.
”- Democrat program which discriminates against decent people
((( decent people being defined by the Right I suppose? )))
Decent people being law-abiding people who are increasingly losing civil rights to the Leftist Hegellian march to total dominance. Decent people being those who are trapped into the Democrat racist ghetto plantations. Decent people being those who the Democrat Leftist wishes to be disarmed and hence victims not yet victimized.
”- It's a standard problem of the AtheoLeft: where there is no fixed truth
((( fixed truth defined by the Right? hence anything that we disagree on necessarily falls on your side? congrat, you always win )))’
You do not deny the Left’s lack of any fixed truth? Here’s what always wins: logic which is based on fixed truths, as opposed to rationalizing premises in order to preserve a predetermined conclusion.
”- inability to defend your internal contradictions
((( correct, I cannot defend contradictions that you made up... )))
Correction: Your internal contradictions are blatant; I merely pointed them out. That you cannot defend them demonstrates the power of disciplined logic over falseness.
"” The point is that (a) guns don't make you safer; they only give an illusion of safety”
Absolutely false"
” My opinion is that they are not useful self-defense tools, even though they are used a lot (even successfully!) for that purpose: they create more problems than they solve.”
An opinion without evidence. Correlate the rise in gun ownership and gun murders for the USA, using FBI data, and get back to us. We’ll still be here.
Where are your facts?
I posted several links that you apparently chose to ignore.
"Why is Leftist demonization always of whites, then? Of American culture as racist? So many examples…"
Where are your facts?
Show these many examples.
"the Right does have a common set of moral principles"
Where are your facts?
Show consensus among the Right about moral principles...
" You do not deny the Left’s lack of any fixed truth?"
Truth is objective. It's not Right or Left. There is only 1 version. It's not more or less fixed for anyone. Our opinions can differ on what is true or not. Claiming that you care about truth, that your opponents don't or anything similar, does not make your opinions closer to truth.
" Your internal contradictions are blatant; I merely pointed them out."
What you pointed out appears to you as contradictions because of misinterpretation of my position such as 'I hate guns', which I told you is false. Failed mind reading attempts don't get you truth.
Responding to a few of LV's links:
(a) Less than 1% of guns in that state (VA) were used in crimes, especially considering that the same gun probably figured into more than one crime.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/va-gun-sales-rise-firearmrelated-crimes-drop
(b) Crime statistics:
Bureau of Justice statistics:
Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616
FBI Statistics:
In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
(c) Number of new guns:
Gun makers churned out nearly six million guns last year — double the number that they did a decade ago.
60% go to civilians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/
(d) As for the utility of non-hunting guns, Newtown residents apparently think they might have use for them:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324170004578638043641827094.html?KEYWORDS=newtown
****************
Your sources (I don’t have time to analyze them all, but I’ll take them in order until I have to stop)
(1) http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-self-defense-self-delusion/
This starts with a Poison the Well statement, indicating the bias of the article. The data it quotes seem prejudiced in the sense that they talk percents in one place and totals in another, so that the comparisons cannot be made. Example: when they discuss women being killed due a gun in the house, the numbers are in percent increase; the totals are not of that category; also, they seem to give contradictory data:
” A National Crime Victimization Survey report, controlling for many of the methodological problems in Kleck, supported Hemenway, finding 65,000 defensive gun uses per year (NCVS Report, 1997). Current NCVS estimates are in the 100,000 range.”
This is after the following:
”or example, Kleck says guns were used to defend against 845,000 burglaries in 1992, a year in which the National Crime Victimization Survey says there were fewer than 6 million burglaries.
Hemenway put together facts from the well-regarded NCVS—that someone was known to be home in just 22 percent of burglaries (1.3 million), and that fewer than half of U.S. households have firearms—and pointed out that Kleck “asks us to believe that burglary victims in gun-owning households use their guns in self-defense more than 100 percent of the time.””
This, of course, is illegitimate data manipulation. Hemenway cannot know that the caveats he placed on Kleck’s data actually obtain; therefore, they are not legitimate.
Further, statements of opinion are wielded as fact:
”“Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”
Maybe so, and maybe not: no facts there. Just prejudicial maunderings.
(2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Mother Jones as a source: really.
”Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.”
No. they merely want to punish you for possessing and using them. That’s the thrust of Feinstein.
”Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Then people should be outlawed if this is not true. To argue against this is to argue that guns are evil, even in a universe where objects have no moral meaning.
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
American society is not armed; but it is arming in response to the Narrative from the Left. The claim that rising concealed carry licensing increases crime must be false, since gun crime is not increasing, it is decreasing according to DOJ and FBI stats.
Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
I love this one: MJ says this:
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
Both instances are gun-free zones, where concealed carry is forbidden. Sheesh.
I haffta go. The facts are these: there are more civilian guns than ever; there are more concealed carriers than ever; there is decreasing armed and violent crime; mass murderers always victimize unarmed sitting ducks in gun-free zones (almost always).
Post a Comment