Any hot button issue has words and phrases associated with it that are created and used to blur the truth or cause emotional responses.
Where firearms issues are concerned, an example of a phrase designed to create bias is “gun control.”
Author JPFO Liberty Crew explains this clearly in their article “Four Key Points to Defend Your Rights” on USConcealedcarry.com
“To oppose ‘gun control’ arguments, the first approach is: Refuse to use their terms. As explained fully in the book, Death by “Gun Control,” the term “gun control” is Orwellian Newspeak that itself biases the debate. Therefore, we nearly always use the correct terms: “victim disarmament” or “citizen disarmament.” (Read more at USConcealedCarry.com)
In any argument, the best words and phrases to use are the ones that clearly describe the issues being discussed, without casting bias one way or another.
This is why using the expression “citizen disarmament” is accurate, as it clearly describes the purpose of laws being created around the ownership of firearms.
Unfortunately, new gun laws are often attempts to closely regulate the types of weapons that individuals can own and where they can possess these weapons legally.
The general consensus seems to be that banning guns outright simply won’t work, and would cause significant public outrage.
Instead, what you see is a slow process wherein certain types of guns and ammo are deemed “unnecessary,” and are then outlawed for personal possession.
The frustrating thing about this “logic” is that it seems to apply chiefly to firearms. We don’t have government mandates saying that sports cars can only have a certain amount of horsepower. In reality, a car can have as much horsepower as the owner’s budget allows, even though they’ll probably never get to reach speeds of 120 mph without getting a massive ticket.
Here’s the thing: criminals don’t abide by any gun regulations. They use whatever weapons they can get their hands on. That fact coupled with the fact that disarming citizens leaves them vulnerable brings the argument full circle.
There is a need for private citizens to own weapons -- for their own protection and also as deterrents to crime. A criminal will rarely choose an armed victim over an unarmed one. People who choose to carry concealed rarely have to use their weapons. Sometimes, just showing that you have one will put an end to a bad situation.