Skip to comments.Framing the danger of guns as a public health risk will change the debate over gun control
Posted on 05/05/2014 8:19:37 AM PDT by rktman
Messaging matters in every political issue. On the issue of guns and violence, its importance is measured in lives saved or lives lost. The last year has shown conclusively that from a messaging perspective, progressives are losing the gun debate. B y reframing the debate, it is possible to choose a winning message and make Americans safer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How about an active link:
So message it as a public health issue without addressing the positive effects on crime with armed citizenry? NAH! Let’s just cherry pick our statistics. The idiot, drooling masses don’t need to know the truth.
The message hasn’t changed since 1968.
With regard to Obamacare, we are told “it’s law of the land... stop trying to repeal it”.
With Climate Change, we are told “it’s settled science”... stop denying it.
But, despite multiple Supreme Court rulings, multiple “laws of the land”, liberals never give up trying to eliminate firearm rights.
.....Which will all FAIL.
Make everything on the Liberal wish list a matter of "public health risk."
That way they can do anything they want and nobody can stop them because if you try you want to endanger the public health!
True, but at least they have a professionally done guide on how best to frame their message, thereby confusing low/no info voters without “offending” gun owners.
No it won't.
It's been tried for over a decade, and it hasn't worked yet!
Remember Joycelyn Elders' "safer bullets?"
The danger of gun confiscation is even a greater health risk.
And what does gun rights or gun safety have to do with getting our economy back and getting people employed, Danny Franklin?
DEAL WITH IT!!
This idea is a retread.
Correct! The Bill of Rights are inalienable.
As usual with these liberal meme pieces the first sentence is wrong.
Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate
Hasn’t this been tried before? When it was tried before wasn’t it shown that statistics were manipulated to present conclusions that did not stand up under scrutiny?
The only “risk” to health, is NOT carrying, or, challenging someone who is.
Correct. And here is an important part of the proof/reasons why:
20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE
Yup, and this assclown is still using the “xx times more likely to injured with a gun in the house” crap. What an idiot.
“a comforting story progressives tell ourselves to avoid facing the fact that the country trusts the NRA more than us on this issue. “
That is because your “solution” is always the same; gradually disarm law-abiding, private citizens until only criminals and the iron-fisted government have guns.
Like they themselves, it's a loser.
Also, I’m sure once they have the APA completely on board, they’ll require mental health evals from all gun owners, and they’ll find that those who have conservative Christian views will be determined mentally ill.
bo-care’s emphasis is on “Preventative Medicine”
So carrying a gun is a positive health care measure.
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1963 a radical left wing communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
On June 5, 1968, Sirhan Sirhan, a psycho islamo killer shot and assassinated Robert Francis "Bobby" Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. The shooting of Robert Kennedy took place shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968.
In 1975 a two wing radical Democrats fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States in separate acts of mental illness.
In 1981 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
In 1984 James Huberty a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherril a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In March 1991, a lefty psycho, John Hinckley, now 58, fired a hail of bullets at the late president in March 1981, in Washington, seriously wounding him. Three others were badly hurt including press secretary James Brady, now 73.
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Lubys cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech .
On February 12, 2010, Amy Bishop a left wing psycho professor went postal with her fellow professors. When she had finished, six people had been shot, three of them fatally. Bishop had killed her brother with a shotgun over 20 years ago and the liberal police chief in her home town dismissed the case. Amy is still in prison and loves Obama.
March 2010: John Patrick Bedell shot two Pentagon security. A right-wing extremist, media asked? (A registered Democrat and 9/11 Truther.)
In 2011 a mentally ill, registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The pot smoking Loughner killed 6 and wounded 18 in another liberal shooting tragedy.
In 2011 another mentally ill and registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a Colorado movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
On September 16 2013, Aaron Alexis another pyscho Democrat killer slaughtered 12 innocents at the US Navy Yard. Alexis before his slaughter of innocents Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis had complained his brain had been targeted by low-frequency waves weeks before the slaughter.
12/14/2013 Karl Pierson entered Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Co. armed with a shotgun with intent to kill one of his teachers. He shot Claire Davis, a senior, @Arapahoe High in the head. Yes, Pierson is/was another mentally ill liberal punk.
April 2014 Mohammed Whitaker arraigned on 18 felony charges in series of highway shootings in Kansas. Mohammed appears to be another SOB, aka Son Of Obama..
We could go on, but you get the point, even if the media and the anti gun pyschos in Congress do not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats, AKA, the mentally ill having guns or being around them.
No NRA members, No Tea Party members, or No Republican conservatives are/were involved.
Political correctness and leftist policies are to blame in these mass shootings:
If Seung-Hui Cho had been institutionalized for mental illness, 32 people would still be alive at Virginia Tech.
If Jared Loughner had been institutionalized, 6 would be alive in Tucson.
If James Holmes had been institutionalized, 12 lives spared in Aurora, CO.
If Adam Lanza had been institutionalized, 26 would still live in Newtown, CT.
If Nidal Hasan had been properly reported, investigated, and discharged from the Army, and institutionalized, 13 would not have died at Ft. Hood.
If we really want to improve safety, keep criminals in jail, terrorists out of the U.S., and people who are mentally ill/deranged in institutions.
Again, It should be illegal for any Democrats to own guns or be around them.
Used to be that I thought that the crap science that the Public Health journals would be allowed to be published, and the crap research that the CDC and the NIH would fund, were examples of how political preconceptions could color the perceptions of even the most conscientious.
That was before I learned about the political corruption that lead to the public health community’s adoption of the low-fat, high-carb, added sugar and industrial seed oil processed food diet as the new standard for a “healthy” diet.
And realized that the growing health crisis of the last 40 years, with it’s dramatic rise in rates of obesity, diabetes, dementia, heart disease, and the other “diseases of civilization” is not an accident, it’s a direct result of the diet that our public health professionals have been trying to convince is is “healthy”.
Tens of millions dead, hundreds of millions doomed to lives of chronic misery, because the public health community allowed itself to be manipulated by industrial interests into adopting exactly the wrong answer, within their area of expertise.
And I’m supposed to listen to them on something about which they have no expertise?
I thoroughly disagree that “America is finished”.
This “we are the unstoppable wave of the future!” cr@p began with the Bolshies in 1917. The USSR flourished in its evil way, then it collapsed. Sure, Putin wants to rebuild it & then some, but “in order for evil to triumph, it is only necessary that good men do nothing”.
Same here in America. The people who love it are arming themselves to the teeth & Bunkersville AZ is only the beginning. It’s far from over.
It helps if the men first become good by calling and relying again upon the Lord. Otherwise we are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Heaven allows for men to get into messes, hoping they will get the hint. At the risk of sounding flippant, we need more OMG’s.
If we call upon the Lord and rely upon the Lord, I guarantee from personal experience we will have many, many occasions to say, “Thank you, Lord!”
If we call upon the Lord and rely upon the Lord, I guarantee from personal experience we will have many, many occasions to say, “Thank you, Lord!”
And you’re just bearing witness to the promises that are already documented in the bible. Nobody has to be anything more special than a human being to take advantage of the promises. Let their sins be as deep as a hole dug to China and God will still be of aid once called upon.
The author says that a gun in a household is twelve times as likely to be used on a household member as an intruder.
Leaving aside the definition of “used” (shot, fired at, threatened by), I might point out that women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by anyone else.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, or any woman in particular, is more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by a stranger. If a woman has an excellent marriage but lives or works in a dangerous environment, she is more likely to be killed by someone other than her husband.
And it certainly doesn’t mean that women should forego marriage or intimate relationships, as a matter of public health. (Non-marital sexual relationships have higher rates of violence and murder.)
It means a woman should choose her partner carefully, and conduct herself with care. If she always seems to pick bad and dangerous men, maybe she SHOULD forego relationships.
Something similar holds with guns. If someone in the household is short-tempered, impulsive, suicidal, if there is a history of domestic violence, MAYBE the household should be without guns. On the other hand, if someone in the household needs protection from someone who is violent, maybe that person should have a gun.
I would rather make that call for myself, than have the government, or a collection of academics, or a public relations person/lobbyist like Mr./Ms. Franklin make it for me.
For the husband, or for the firearms.
But, but, how can this be when there are so many more guns in society? Similar to, how can crime be dropping when so many more people are in prison.
Ya gotta love leftist thinking.
Forgetting that an intruder needn’t be shot to be helped on his way out of the premises by the sight of a gun; also that hunting uses aren’t counted (the gun might shoot far more deer and game than people and they wouldn’t care).
Come to think of it, don’t more auto accidents harm the people in the auto than people outside the auto? Why not ban automobiles?
But doesn’t the “in the house” argument hold true for any injur? After all we spend more time in our homes than elsewhere. So change the item and I bet you could write,
“xx times more likely to injured with a power tool in the house
“xx times more likely to injured with a kitchen knife in the house
“xx times more likely to injured with a candle in the house
“xx times more likely to injured with a baseball bat in the house
“xx times more likely to injured with a dipwad reporter in the house
Summed up in one. Great post.
If gov. was concerned about “public health risks”, they’d outlaw homoseuality.
“...Third, it would focus on successes, not failures. Since 1993, the rate of gun homicides has dropped by a third while the number of nonfatal gun crimes has dropped by 69 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. On every metric that matters, we are safer from guns today than we were 20 years ago....”
But wait! Since 1993 the number of firearms owned by Americans has skyrocketed! During the Clinton (1993-2001) and Obama, we have had year after year of increased gun sales. 1993 to the present has seen a rapid rise in the number of firearms, and yet according to the “gun grabbers” gun violence has dropped.
How can this be? It is because good guys with guns are not the problem, it is criminals with guns that are the problem and criminals don't obey old or new gun control laws.
I’m still looking to see how many firearms were sold in the US between ‘93 and 2011 so I can make a chart for future use when the NV legislature again convenes. The bloomin’ idiots have vowed to return to push for more gun laws. Again. Just lining up ducks early.
The anti-gun people would say that cars have a valid use, transportation, and we have many laws and regulations to make them as safe as possible, and we accept the deaths because transportation is essential.
But guns have only one purpose, killing people or animals, and that is not essential. And why do we gun nuts fight so hard against common sense safety regulations, like trigger locks and background checks, and smart guns, and bullet limits?
George Zimmerman wold be in far worse health today if he had not been carrying on the night when he met St. Trayvon of the Skittles (SBUH).
Bump for later!
We also have a professionally done guide: It’s called the SECOND AMENDMENT.
And the international statistics (over 200 million dead at the hands of their own governments) SHOULD BE all the evidence needed. If and when Americans are no longer intelligent enough to grasp the WHY of the Second Amendment, this place and all the freedoms from tyranny it once represented — will deserve to perish.
And it will!
If safety is the issue then the research prove that more guns equals less crime and more lives saved.
Now this business of focusing on success might be good advice in the absence of the track record of gun control in this country. The author bewails the progress gun freedom has made of late and then offers this:
Since 1993, the rate of gun homicides has dropped by a third while the number of nonfatal gun crimes has dropped by 69 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. On every metric that matters, we are safer from guns today than we were 20 years ago.
Correct, we are. And yet there are more of them about and gun control is losing in the polls and the legislative houses. What to make of that? Why, frame it as a record of success for gun control! Sorry, bud, nobody's buying.
The anti-gunners have been trying this for about 15 years now and it is going nowhere. But they still keep trying. They will try any gimmick they can think of. Still the same base sides with them. However the same base sides with the other side. One difference, the other side is truthful!