Thursday, January 17, 2013

2 Effective Plans Of
Action In The On-Going
Gun Control Debate
For Conservatives

Plan #1
We Need To Stop Letting The Gun Control Hysterics Set The Terms Of The Debate By Using Emotive Terms Like  "Assault Weapons"

We are still using the Left's language every time we say 'Assault Weapon' even when correcting them

Americans do not have or want 'assault weapons'. They want DEFENSE weapons. CRIMINALS want assault weapons!

We think we are answering the argument when we explain it's not an assault weapon, it's a semi-auto rifle or handgun. But are we really?

They choose to constantly use the world ASSAULT for a reason

"Why do you need an ASSAULT weapon?" The emotive term 'assault' is picked very carefully.

They are ginning up hysteria based on hoplophobia which is a fear of weapons and THE PEOPLE WHO CARRY THEM.

"You want that weapon so you can ASSAULT people with it if you feel like it!" That's what they mean when they say 'assault weapon'.

This is why they constantly gin up this fear that gun owning Americans are gonna FREAK OUT at any moment and whip out their gun & shoot

'Assault weapons' are for ASSAULTING people, so the only reason you want 1 is because you are some kinda unstable nut hoping to shoot someone.'

So here's what we need to do. Here's our plan of action: WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE TERM 'ASSAULT' AWAY FROM THEM.#DEFENSEWEAPON

Every single time some gun control hysteric says 'Assault Weapon', you say 'Defensive Weapon'. We're going to stop using THEIR language.

They say 'Assault Rifle'? You say 'Defensive Rifle'. Because that's what it is. It's a weapon for DEFENDING yourself with.

Every single time they say 'Assault' you say 'Defense'. CCW holders do not carry guns to ASSAULT people with. #DEFENSEWEAPON

We can no longer allow them to frame the debate as if we are trying to justify ASSAULTING others as a right. #DEFENSEWEAPON

THAT is what they are constantly claiming: we are trying to defend a right to ASSAULT. Actually, we are talking about a right to DEFEND.

But as long as we let THEM set the terms, they are going to continue their hysterics.

Make a commitment, Twitter & anywhere else you see a gun control hysteric saying 'Assault weapon' you will fire back 'Defense Weapon'

You know why Chicago has the rate of gun crime/murder that it does & Houston - with 20x the # of guns in it - has far less?

Because in Chicago it's the CRIMINALS using the guns to assault people. 1,000's of people walking armed around Houston AREN'T criminals

It's who HAS the guns. Houston will have many, many x the # of guns that Chicago has, yet gun crime is 1000% lower. Why?

If GUNS themselves are the problem, you have to explain why CCW red state cities don't have horrific gun crime/murder rates of blue cities with the nation's strictest gun restrictions & bans.

Because in red states most of the people carrying the guns are carrying them as DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, not for crime to assault others with.

Yes, you actually have to explain this to Liberals.

Criminals DON'T carry their guns for self defense. THAT'S why deep blue cities with strict gun control have the high crime/murder rates. The only non-cops on their streets carrying guns - the criminals - ARE carrying them to assault other people with.

This is why Chicago can have 190 shootings in a month & 22 dead people in 11 days and Houston will have something like 50 shootings and 10 gun murders a month.  In 2011 Houston had a historic low 195 murders that year, and of course not every murder was committed with a firearm.   That same year Chicago had 448, over 80% by guns.

Both cities have over 2 million people in them (Chicago 2.7 mil, Houston 2.1), but they have VERY divergent violent crime rates, especially when it comes to gun crime and homicides.

By constantly using the term 'Assault weapon' gun grabbers try to give the impression you are just like a CRIMINAL who wants a gun to assault others with.

But you 're NOT a criminal. You don't have a gun or carry 1 to ASSAULT other people with. You have it to defend yourself & your family with it if need be

So be clear in these discussions: "This is NOT an 'assault weapon'. This is a #DEFENSEWEAPON. There's a difference. I'm not a criminal"

We don't go around looking for opportunities to ASSAULT with our weapons like criminals do. STOP CONFUSING US & OUR GUNS with CRIMINAL PREDATORS.

The gun control crowd has been building the case that 'you want an assault weapon for assaults. That makes you unstable, dangerous!'

Use your OWN language, not their loaded language. "I have a gun for defense. I'm not walking around looking for people to attack."

"CRIMINALS walk around looking for people to assault with their weapons. I would only DEFEND myself. Are you confusing me with a CRIMINAL?"

Force them to recognize we are not criminals looking for victims, and our guns are #DEFENSEWEAPON

Here's your Twitter hashtag for demonstrating  you are joining the movement to take away the gun control mob's illegitimate use of the words 'Assault Weapons':  #DEFENSEWEAPON

Plan #2: 

Make them defend gun restrictions/bans on purely utilitarian grounds.  In other words, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY MAKE PEOPLE SAFER OR NOT. 

The other night Piers Morgan held a 'town hall' on gun control on his CNN show.  

At one point, a lady asked a VERY pertinent question about the kind of gun bans/restrictions Piers and others are presently clamoring for.   Cities have ALREADY enacted very strict bans.  Have they worked? 

Did these incredibly strict gun restrictions/bans make these cities safer? Did the gun crime and murder rates go down or up after the  new laws were enacted? 

Piers Morgan obviously knows the answer, because he couldn't dodge the question by changing the subject fast enough. 

Washington DC and Chicago are the prime examples that anyone who follows the gun control debate knows about.  The results of their gun bans are well know.  

DC's gun ban isn't as strict as it used to be after the Heller decision in 2008.  What happened after Washington DC's unconstitutional total ban on gun ownership was struck down by the Supreme Court? 

The murder rate plummeted from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012.
Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.
As the author noted, many predicted murders in Washington would EXPLODE once the gun ban was ended.  Instead, the EXACT OPPOSITE HAPPENED. 

In Chicago? The politicians in that city have confidently predicted after each new round of restrictive gun control legislation that a big DROP in their gun crime/murder rates was just around the corner.  

Instead of the predicted drop in gun crime/murder however, what results is a continuing INCREASE.  They keep getting the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they predict.  

In both cases, the gun control advocates are proven wrong by the facts. They predict a drop in gun crime after their ban is enacted and then end up staring at a marked increase; when their gun ban is ended, they predict a huge increase in gun crime and stare in shock at a big drop the rate instead.  

So based on what we've seen, here are the 5 Questions to ask someone advocating gun bans/restrictions on law abiding American citizens as to whether these kind of laws actually bring about the intended results or not: 

1. Is there any EVIDENCE gun bans/restrictions make citizens safer?

2. Which cities in America HAVE the strictest gun bans? Did these cities see their gun crime/murder rates DROP or INCREASE after the bans/restrictions were enacted? If not, why not?

3. Has enough evidence been compiled as to whether strict gun bans reduce violent gun crime in America? If so, have you investigated such evidence?

4. If gun bans & restrictions work, why ISN'T Chicago the safest city in America right now?

5. If gun bans/restrictions work, why did Washington DC see it's homicide rate drop from 186 in 2008 to just 88 in 2012 after the Supreme court ended the cities unconstitutional total ban on handgun ownership?

Asking these questions will force the gun control advocate to focus on the EFFECTIVENESS of what they are advocating - a subject many of them try to avoid like the plague.  

Amazing to consider, but I've seen this time and again. They advocate passionately and often angrily for these supposed remedies to the problem, yet clearly DON'T want to discuss if these measures actually DO make people safer or not.  

Yet this really IS the only thing there is worth discussing, isn't it? If they're pushing for new laws/bans/restrictions to be made, of course they SHOULD be willing to discuss how well these things have worked in the past.  

But they will dodge the question of utilitarian effectiveness IF YOU LET THEM.  

DON'T let them dodge the actual RESULTS of what they are advocating.  

So here's your other hashtag:  #WHATARETHERESULTS?

No comments:

Post a Comment