The left wing has already started the narrative. In the best tradition of Rahm Emmanuel, they are not letting this crisis go to waste. They are doing their best to push it for all they can in order to get draconian gun control laws passed.
We conservatives have to seize the narrative from the left. They control most of the media but we have social media that we can use to change the narrative.
What is the narrative of this horrible shooting and other mass killings?
The narrative is that mentally ill people kill.
About 77 million Americans legally own guns. None of them went on a shooting rampage on Friday. One mentally ill man did. He was not even a gun owner. He stole those guns from his mother.
Immediately after the shooter was identified as Adam Lanza, a former classmate wrote on Twitter that he was not surprised that it was Lanza.
Lanza had a history of mental illness. According to some reports he had an altercation the day before at the school. The obvious question is why the hell wasn’t that investigated. According to another report after the altercation, Lanza tried to buy guns at Dick’s Sporting Good. Why didn’t this show up on some people’s radar? You have a mentally ill person who has a fight then tries to buy guns?
This is the one area I agree with the gun control nuts. The mentally ill should not be allowed to possess firearms.
But the problem is not guns; the problem is the mentally ill.
On July 20, 2012, James Holmes open fire on a movie theater in Aurora Colorado. 23 people were killed. Before he committed his crime, Holmes was a psychiatric patient. Holmes is being held pretrial and his attorneys are already raising a mental health defense.
On January 8, 2011 Jared Laughner opened fire on an open-air meeting being held by Congressman Gabby Giffords. After his arrest, he was the subject of forced medication because he was mentally ill. Eventually after months of treatment, he became competent enough to enter a guilty plea.
Seung Hui Cho was a mentally ill student at Virginia Tech. On April 16, 2007, he went to the campus and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. He took his own life.
Again, the shooter was mentally ill.
Here is the problem.
We have 77 million legal gun owners. These are not the problem. The problem is the mentally ill. In this nation, it is almost impossible to commit someone who is mentally ill before they commit a crime.
In the 70’s the mentally ill were hospitalizes. In the 80’s the trend became to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill. Today, even if you do pose a threat to someone it is almost impossible to do anything about the mentally ill.
Instead the left wants to strip Americans of their rights. Our founding fathers knew that two types of people want a disarmed citizenry. The first was criminals and the second is tyrants.
The left is going to use this most recent and horrific crime to try and strip our 2nd Amendment rights away.
We need to change the narrative and we can do it through social media.
The problem is not guns. The problem is the mentally ill.
Not ever mentally ill person is a threat. Some lady who is OCD who spends four hours a day cleaning her kitchen is not a threat. But there are mentally ill people who are.
Those are the people we need to watch and in some cases institutionalize.
But one thing is certain. We must beat back the narrative that guns are the issue and we must fight back on that narrative or we will find tyranny taking away yet another one of our rights and our freedom.
Tags: adam, aurora, colorado, holmes, ill, james, jared, lanza, loughner, mentally, More…
Permalink Reply by Catherine on And, I must say, this has gone way off the original topic! Unless we want to apply mental health questions to the current admin which has caused Benghazi, etc.????
Permalink Reply by Lynn Carter on It died when Fox news dropped it
Permalink Reply by Cynthia Catsman on Fox news covered the "findings" on Benghazi yesterday. Not dropped yet, but could be by the presstitutes. Catherine - In my wildest dreams, the majority of Americans have an epiphany and realize that only sociopaths would take America down this road.
Permalink Reply by Catherine on Cynthia, but "the majority of Americans" have to be able to read first and comprehend second - and I am not sure that those skills exist anymore!
Permalink Reply by Lynn Carter on Cynthia,
Yes, Fox did mention it along with ABC, CBS and all the others. But did you notice that it was only a 90 second story? It's just regular news now. No long interviews with Senators. No panels of folks talking about it for 20 minutes.
That is what I mean by dead.....once an issue drops like that it is finished...dead.
Permalink Reply by Cynthia Catsman on Catherine - You are so, so right. That's why I said "dreams"...
Permalink Reply by Nancy on Came across this article and posting for everyone's consideration/input:
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2012/12/media-politicians-stir-up-frenz...
Permalink Reply by Cynthia Catsman on As I recall, there were lulls in the Watergate story, too, but agree that the will to cover this outrage is absent. From a distance, and only going by observation, it seems that a handful of people in DC want answers, but likely are being pressured by the more powerful to back off. With the possible exception of Fox, the media is, as usual, protecting the rot at the top.
Permalink Reply by Lynn Carter on When Fox spends more than 60 minutes per day on it ....it will be alive again....but don't hold your breath.
Permalink Reply by Catherine on Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide
By now, any informed American is familiar with Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.'s famous axiom of "More Guns, Less Crime." In other words, American jurisdictions that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are far safer and more crime-free than jurisdictions that enact stringent "gun control" laws.
Very simply, the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms has helped reduce violent crime in America.
Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.
In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths." In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world's highest murder rate.
To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia's extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.
More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.
For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian."
Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."
Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." In America, on the other hand, "despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s."
Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that "the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world," where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.
Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.
The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.
Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates." According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."
Permalink Reply by Kathryn McEwen on Gerald Celente – National Intel Report – December 18, 2012
|
|
Gerald talks on Trend Forecasting and how the government is using the Newtown shootings as a way to implement gun control, the way the media has portrayed the shootings and information that is not being discussed on the shootings. 18 Dec 2012 |
|
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
