Gun control fanatics like the emotional phrase "gun violence". Yet this misleading slogan seems designed to blur the difference between self-defense and murder. Since gun violence takes no account of the difference between self-defense and a murderous attack, it advances the gun baners' agenda.

The Gun Free School Zones Act, introduced by Democrat Joe Biden and signed by Republican President Bush in 1990, ensured that Dawn Hochsprung the murdered Sandy Hook principal was defenseless. If she'd been armed and had shot the killer instead, would anyone say the deranged killer was a victim of "gun violence"? Hat-tip to Tim Lynch for this insightful question.

1. Britain - The Violent Crime Capital of Europe

Now that the UK government has clarity on the result of the near-total British ban on guns, the British Telegraph newspaper reports the European Commission finding that:

"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America."

"The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

Gun bans overseas have increased violent crime dramatically, reports the Wall Street Journal.

2. American Mass Shootings

There were 18 random mass shootings in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 random mass shootings in the 2000s. In 2012 - not a whole decade - there were 14 mass shootings in just one year (fourteen, that's not a typo), see Mass shootings continue to increase.

With the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, introduced by Democrat Joe Biden and signed by Republican President Bush, teachers are defenseless. At Sandy Hook, it's reported that the principal "lunged" at the killer. How many children would still be alive today if Dawn Hochsprung had been able to defend them with a gun? Would they count the killer's death as "gun violence" if she'd been armed? Gun control advocates simply refuse to even look at, let alone answer such inconvenient questions.

3. Biased Judges Recuse Themselves

In law, judges recuse themselves, they decline to take part whenever they have a bias on an issue. Similarly, all politicians 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.

President Obama ordered lifetime armed protection for him and his wife. He has guards armed with guns to ensure he is protected for the rest of his life. His order protects his family, as a very astute politician he clearly understands the defensive value of guns. Why does he want to implement gun bans to eliminate protection for others, but not for himself?

4. Do Gun Control Advocates Understand the Issue?

But the real question behind the desire 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 don't understand the difference between a murderous attack and self-defense - or they don't care.

How can anyone deliberately ignoring this crucial distinction pretend they want to stop the use of guns against the innocent? Do they have another goal in mind?

5. What's their Real Agenda?

6. 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 misleading claims of gun control advocates, the language and supporting arguments make the aim of entrenching individual gun ownership in the constitution abundantly clear.

As US President Thomas Jefferson explains in the Food for Thought section below, the Second Amendment is for your protection - it enables you to defend your loved ones against violent attackers and prevents homicides.

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

This is an updated version of the article originally published at selfgrowth:

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/is-the-phrase-gun-violence-confusing-its-designed-to-be-part-6-in-the-right-response

** Your Next Step **

The violent crime reductions benefit everyone when law-abiding, responsible citizens are encouraged to be able to defend their families and themselves from violent criminals, rapists, refugees, and terrorists. When women and seniors are armed, they can defend themselves from attacks by usually young, male and stronger violent criminals.

Of course, there’s no sanction or penalty if you choose not to be able to defend yourself. Despite misrepresentation and media misunderstanding, Discouraging Criminals is neither Mandatory Gun Ownership nor Compulsory Gun Ownership, it's simply your choice.

All our products are fully guaranteed, these time-tested secrets of success are delivered electronically - no waiting for delivery.