Millions of dollars requested for gun violence research

Yup. You heard it right! Democrats are now asking Obama to designate $10 million towards researching gun violence. Nevermind that our country is already trillions of dollars in debt! What’s another $10 million to conduct research that we already have conducted?

It takes almost nothing to access FBI local and state databases and run comparisons. This has already been done but information was tossed aside like a piece of trash because it didn’t line up with their argument. Do you think that if the objective research convinces them that guns protect more than harm that Democrats will all of a sudden agree and get off this frustrating gun control kick? Absolutely not. This money isn’t to do “research”, it’s to advance a long standing discrimination campaign of lies against gun owners and produce biased information because they are searching so desperately for the credibility they need to ban guns. For them this is about control and nothing more. Want further proof? Do you honestly think that if a gun control supporter’s family was in real danger, that they would yell to the cop “No! Put that gun away! You’ll hurt somebody!”? I’m 100% positive that in a life threatening situation, you wouldn’t hear an argument in favor of control from them.

The scariest part of this is, Obama is the puppeteer for all of his little puppets. He says dance, they dance. He says “guns are bad!” and they all jump ahead to fight this battle for him. He doesn’t want to look like the bad guy here. He wants you and everyone else to think that he has your best interest at heart. If that’s true and he thinks guns are so horrible then why is he surrounded by armed forces every second of every day? If your safety is truly his concern, why is he freeing murderers from prison at an unprecedented level due to “overcrowding” instead of releasing more non-violent criminals instead? It is because he has an agenda. What do you think Obama will do first once these criminals that HE RELEASED starts harming someone? He is going to yell “See!? We told you. Gun crime is increasing, we need to disarm the public.”

DR.Gary Kleck, Criminologist, at the University of Florida, shared his Government funded research to show that firearms are used for self defense over 2 million times a year. Just imagine what the homicide rate would increase to if those people and future families didn’t/won’t have a gun to protect themselves. What’s you next step then Obama?

Guns used in self-defense are by Americans who have a LEGAL right to carry with a LEGAL license or permit. Guns used for violence are by criminals with an ILLEGAL right (most likely because they failed a background check) with ILLEGAL guns (stolen, unregistered, and foreign) who shoot UNARMED innocent people. Hmm. So let me get this straight. Obama wants to disarm Americans who are using their guns in a legal fashion yet he won’t do anything about controlling the border to stop foreign criminals from invading America and using their illegal guns to do so? Do you honestly not see a problem with that?

If he really cared about the safety of US citizens, he would start by putting this $10 million dollars towards border control and getting criminals off the streets.

Don’t think criminals are the only problem? Really? That’s interesting. All it takes is to look at cities and states that have banned guns. Look at Illinois (mainly Chicago and East St. Luis, which by the way is #1 on the most dangerous cities in the US in 2013 list), Massachusetts, and Michigan in cities like Detroit, Saganaw, and Fint (all list in the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US). You already know how dangerous Chicago and Detroit are. You hear shootings on the news on a weekly basis. So let’s look a little into Massachusetts shall we? MA banned all guns in 1998. Legal gun ownership has dropped from 1.5 million to less than 200,000. This resulted in 300% higher crime rate and 200% more hospital visits due to gun related injuries. Can you imagine what this would do to an entire country? Anyone who thinks that Obama doesn’t realize this either thinks he is an idiot or is an idiot themselves. So what is his agenda?

Let me give you an example. Let’s say there is a neighborhood street with 2 houses. For the sake of an argument, we’ll say they are both nice houses with expensive things. Both have children and beautiful wives. One house has a man outside cleaning his guns on the front law once a week when he gets back from a hunting trip. The other is an anti-gun activist who likes to display signs in their yard that guns should be banned. If a killer/robber/rapist walks up to this street, which house do you think he’ll go to? The one that doesn’t threaten him because they are unarmed or the one who has an armed man who knows his way around guns? YOU and your family are being put at a disadvantage by not owning a gun. Once killers/robbers/rapists know that no one has guns, what’s stopping them from committing MORE crime?

Switzerland is a country that has the LOWEST crime rate in the entire world. Why? Several reasons. One being that the vast majority of men between the ages of 20-30 had to undergo military training, including weapons training. Another reason is that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with 45.7 out of every 100 citizens owns a gun legally.  But noooo, the fact that they have the lowest crime rate in the WORLD is just a coincidence.

Wake up America. You’ve heard it before and you’ll hear it again. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Disarming Americans will lead to MORE gun violence, not less.

Stop asking questions like:

“Who will conduct this research?”

                             “Where is the money coming from?”

And start asking WHY Obama is so eager to disarm us and in a way that turns Americans on each other instead of on him.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Millions of dollars requested for gun violence research

  1. This is a classic false-equivalence formal fallacy. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this argument is spurious at best.

  2. This is a pretty decent article with some good points. And “false-equivalence formal fallacy”? First of all, stop trying to use big words sweetheart. False-equivalence literally means that it is a logical fallacy so no need to say it twice. Second of all, there was logical equivalence in this argument. Don’t disagree? Then don’t shoot down the article by saying that her argument was irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s