Is the Phrase "Gun Violence" Confusing? It's Designed To Be! Part 6 in The Right Response?

Gun control advocates like to use the emotive slogan “gun violence.”  Why? This misleading phrase is purpose designed to blur the distinction between self-defense and murder. Since "gun violence" takes no account of the difference between self-defense and a murderous attack, it increases confusion between the two. Hence it advances the gun ban agenda.

Question: If the Sandy Hook principal had been armed and, instead of being murdered, had managed to shoot the deranged killer, would anyone say that the mentally disturbed killer was a victim of gun violence?

Do Gun Control Advocates Understand the Issue?
But the wider question behind the advocacy for gun control is far more important: Do those who rail against "gun violence" really understand the issue? Those looking at ways to curb “gun violence” suggests they either don't understand the distinction between a murderous attack and self-defense - or don't care.

The aim of anyone deliberately ignoring this crucial distinction therefore cannot be their stated goal of reducing the use of guns against the innocent. What is their real goal?

Biased Judges Recuse Themselves
President Obama recently ordered lifetime armed protection for him and his family . He has guards armed with guns to ensure his protection.

President Obama's order will protect his family , as a very astute politician he undoubtedly understands the gun control issue. But why does he want gun bans which will reduce protection for others, but not for himself?

In law, judges recuse themselves, they decline to take part whenever they have a bias on an issue. Similarly, all and any politician enjoying any form of armed protection ought to admit their bias. Integrity demands they recuse themselves from gun law changes, especially ones making it more difficult for civilians to have the armed protection they themselves enjoy.

What is their Real Agenda? What can the real agenda be? Why the enormous attempts to take advantage of these dreadful mass shootings to restrict gun ownership by responsible citizens?

Politicians in Australia and Britain also used massacres by deranged individuals to severely restrict gun ownership. Yet, as we saw in How Effective are Gun Bans Overseas? Article #7 in the Right to Protect Yourself series*, the results of these two countries restrictions are the opposite of those desired:

Far stricter gun laws in Britain and Australia have neither made their citizens safer, nor have they prevented massacres. But they have increased crime. The two major countries held up as models provide evidence that making gun laws even more strict do NOT solve the apparently obscure problem: criminals and deranged individuals do not obey the law.

These results highlight a very important question: Which issues are anti gun violence politicians actually trying to address? Is there a rationale for their evident desire to disarm the law-abiding? Will yet more firearms restrictions in the USA decrease - or increase - the slaughter in armed deranged attacks on students and teachers?

There's a Good Reason for the Second Amendment The Second Amendment is in the US constitution because America had just fought a war of independence against the legal government oppression of England's King George III.

Despite the widespread claims of gun control advocates, the language and supporting arguments made at that time make the aim of entrenching individual gun ownership in the constitution abundantly clear. As US President Thomas Jefferson explains, it was to "prevent homicides."

© Copyright worldwide Cris Baker, www.LifeStrategies.net All rights reserved. Republishing welcomed under Creative Commons noncommercial no derivatives license preserving all links intact, so please +1 and share this widely!

Food for Thought "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man ."

Thomas Jefferson – 3rd President of the United States, American Founding Father, principal author of the Declaration of Independence

* How Effective are Gun Bans Overseas? #7 in the Right to Protect Yourself series, is at:

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/how-effective-are-gun-bans-overseas-p...