The Gun's are being used by both sides to distract!

The thing about Gun's is really not something for people to be divided about. No one likes the abuse some people do with Gun's. In fact most people regardless of their political affiliation don't like it when someone murders another whether they use Gun's or not. Really the divide comes from who is misusing Gun's and not the desire to eliminate that misuse.  We have to face facts and deal with those facts and not our emotional desire. The truth is we don't have control over what individuals do and trying to get it makes that entire population less safe and not more safe. It really is a matter of who you trust?

One of the facts that I noticed is in researching both liberal and conservative views on Gun's we see a lack in websites that deliver Fact supporting the liberal point of view.

To me this doesn't really mean that liberal don't have a fact based reason for what they believe. It does however make it hard to research the liberal point of view. That being said there are undisputed Gun facts that also does not support the liberal view.  So if we look at some fact from American Gun Facts we will see some facts that some people can't accept because of a political world view. 

 A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally (more guns = less crime).

Excerpt from : American Gun Facts 

The only defense against this kind of fact is to deny creditability to the organization that produced the study that concluded more guns = less crime. That would be Harvard University that supports the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy through grants from agencies. This actually leads back to the people that liberal desire to trust, but can't because of the fact that the agencies have funded the very organizations that have discovered the facts. To be honest I can also establish that the same people who have funded the Republican study also have funded the Democratic world view. Hmmm?

The question then must be asked if the organization is not credible why are its graduates being allowed to practice law or instruct in it? Of course I am not liberal nor am I a conservative. I am just American and go with what I can determine is true. I don't think attacking Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is actually a legitimate argument and I don't think either republican or democrats think it is either. What I do think is that the same people are funding both sides to keep them arguing. Let's look at another claim about gun's.

Nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not in general. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate 3x that of the 9 European nations with the highest gun ownership rate!8

Excerpt from : American Gun Facts 

This being established as the case by Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy one has to now deal with this fact. I don't believe that people who say they don't like Gun's are also saying that they like high crime rates like many republicans claim. I do however think they are trying to create a mental what "if" that has a reality without Gun's in it. Sadly both Republicans and Democrats make the exact same mistake when they use the word "IF" in a sentence.. So before I write anything about that word lets look it up in a Merriam Webster's dictionary.

 1 if conjunction  \  ˈif ,  əf  \   

Definition of if

1 a  : in the event that          

b  : allowing that          

c  : on the assumption that          

d  : on condition that            

2  : whether  asked if the mail had come  I doubt if I'll pass the course

  3   —used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish   if it would only rain

  4  : even though : although perhaps  an interesting if untenable argument

  5  : and perhaps not even  few if any changes are expected

—often used with not  difficult if not impossible

 — if anything      : on the contrary even : perhaps even  if anything, you ought to apologize

Excerpt from : Merriam Webster's dictionary

To be honest I don't actually see a definition. What I see is examples. Within those examples seem to be one real standard that can be applied to "if". The fact that in all cases it is expressing a desire that does not fit the current conditions. So "if" always means the condition doesn't exist and is expressing the imagined condition if it did exist.

Thus to me when we us the word "IF" we are clearly not talking about the fact's as is.

Does this mean that when we use the word "IF" we are admitting that the conditions are not what we want? Are we not also admitting that we are not using logic nor reason when using the word if? After all logic is the conditions we find things in. Thus when we say "if" we are using our irrational mind (imagination) to think about whatever it is. Please don't go off the deep end and think I am saying anyone is crazy. I am not saying that at all. I simply want to remind everyone that you and I, are not subject to anyone's imagination. It is just that to use logic a condition must exist and to use reason we must be able to change a condition to then reason about it. 

Don't we have to deal with the facts?

Doesn't this mean that really "if statements are wishful imaginations and not facts?

It seems to me that "if" statements are really projections of anger onto anyone that does not agree with the individuals utopia ideal world view. What we are doing, is attacking each other when in fact there really isn't a disagreement about the facts. Just a general disappointment in what the facts actually are and the very human habit of blaming the messenger (each other) for those facts. Doesn't this mean that if there is a solution to this problem the human habit of shooting the messenger is what is preventing its discovery? I think it means exactly that.

So really the discussion about Gun's is being used as a distraction by both sides. Neither side wants to concede that one there world view is not what exist and two that the other side might have facts that can be used to manifest what we all really want. Really both sides don't really have a clue what the other side wants, because of this childish finger in our ears behavior being displayed by both sides. The most important fact that neither side wishes to deal with is the fact that it is all being funded by the same people. This is the last thing I think about the word "if". If we don't stop the childish habit of not listening to each others facts than not only will we not manifest the conditions that we all really want, but we will continue with the silly arguments that run in a circle and never get anywhere.

What do you think?

All photo's are from Pixabay.com I am not responsible for if you think, how you think, what you think or do. You Are! If you like my content consider up voting and a follow. Peace. 

---

A way to make free BTC and 4.08% interest in a BTC savings account.

Play games for BTC

---

Interested in joining or supporting the Information War? 

Use tag  #informationwar to post your own stories about the lies and propaganda being pushed on the public.

@informationwar will up vote posts worthy of the cause.  

Join the discord: https://discord.gg/JsXbzFM chat with like minded individuals like myself and share your articles to receive additional support.  

Delegating Steem Power:   Another way you can support the cause is to delegate SP to @informationwar. 

Delegate 25 SP  

Delegate 50 SP  

Delegate 100 SP Note: remember to keep around 50SP in your account so you don't run into any bandwidth problems.  

How to delegate SP, join the fan base and more:   https://steemit.com/informationwar/@truthforce/you-can-make-a-difference-join-the-informationwar-and-help-support-others-today  

Find out more about the Information War. Click Banner!