“Reagan” by Killer Mike

“Reagan” by Killer Mike

“Reagan” by Killer Mike

How To Respond To An Anti-Conspiracy Theorist

How To Respond To An Anti-Conspiracy Theorist

Article From:
http://www.tomatobubble.com

“You sound like a conspiracy theorist.”
RESPONSE: “Conspiracy Theorist? Now tell me the truth, where did you hear that term…on TV? (Laugh.) …So let me get this straight. Are you saying that men in high positions of power are not capable of criminal activity and telling lies to the general public? Are you really that naive?” (Laugh as you say this.)
.
“I’m not saying that governments don’t lie, but a conspiracy like that would have to involve 100’s of people. You can’t hide something like that.”
RESPONSE: “You’re absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. It is impossible to totally cover up a conspiracy so massive. That’s why I know about it! What you must understand is that they don’t have to cover it up totally. Even a bucket that has a few leaks can still do the job of carrying water from here to there! They only need to fool 80% of the public, which isn’t hard to do when you control the major networks and newspapers. The 10-20% that do figure it out (and the fewer still who will dare to speak their minds about it) can be very easily marginalized with the propaganda label “conspiracy theorist.” The 80% + never take us critical thinkers seriously because they want to be part of the majority. This is known as groupthink. (*Note: When saying “conspiracy theorist”, always hold your two hands up as you make sarcastic quote marks with your fingers.)
.
(The Ridicule Trick) “That’s ridiculous (as he rolls his eyes). Do you really believe that nonsense?”
RESPONSE: “Can I ask you an honest question?” (Wait for “yes”) Do you consider yourself an open minded, critical thinking person – yes or no? (Wait for “yes”) Then how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven’t even done 10 minutes of research into the matter? That’s kind of ignorant don’t you think?” (Wait for response.)
. “Not
“Not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy!”
RESPONSE: “Not everything is a conspiracy, but nor is NOTHING a conspiracy either. Wouldn’t you agree that we should evaluate each case independently and with an open mind?” (Wait for response.)

.R
“Governments are so incompetant that they can’t even deliver the mail on time or balance a budget. They couldn’t conspire their way out of a paper bag!”.
RESPONSE: “Don’t confuse your incompetant, dim witted Congressman or Senator with the shadow government. The dark covert elements who stage these events are very skilled at carrying out, and concealing, their plots. Take for example the Manhattan Project. Hundreds of the world’s top scientists were holed up in a desert for months as they worked on the Atomic Bomb. This conspiracy was so secretive, that when FDR died and Vice President Truman became President, FDR’s advisors had to inform him of the Project’s existence! So you see, the shadowy intelligence element of the government is VERY capable!”
.
(The Unresolved Detail Trick) “If this is a conspiracy then explain to me how they managed to do x, y, and z?”
RESPONSE: “I don’t have every missing piece of this puzzle. But I have enough pieces to KNOW that the government-media version is false! Imagine if I gave you a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, and told you that the image is of a beach in Hawaii. But after snapping 30 pieces together, you notice polar bears, snow capped mountains, and men covered in furs. Although there are still 70 missing pieces, you already have enough to KNOW that the image is NOT that of a beach in Hawaii. It’s the same with solving conspiracies. I may not have all of the details, but I have laid out enough pieces to know that the official story is a lie. Does that make sense to you? (Wait for response.)
..
“So what? just because “x” happened, or “y” said this, it doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. You’re taking a few coincidences and making a conspiracy out of it. ”
RESPONSE: “If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomolies, the law of statistics PROVES that they can’t all be just “coincidence”. For example, if we’re playing dice, and I roll a “7” to win. That doesn’t mean that my dice are rigged. It’s just a 1 in 6 coincidence. But if I roll a “7”, eight times in a row, then that’s a 1 in 150,000 “coincidence”. You would have to be a fool not to question the integrity of those dice! You do understand probabilities don’t you? (Wait for response.)
..
(The Isolated Piece of Evidence Trick) “Other than citing some historical events, you still haven’t shown me one piece of evidence that this was a conspiracy. Tell me just one thing that most proves a conspiracy.”
RESPONSE: “That’s a trick question! If I tell you “just one thing”, you’ll just climb on your high horse and dismiss it as a “coincidence”. What I want to show you is TWENTY THINGS! But you’re too closed minded to consider the case in its totality! You won’t even watch a You Tube video let alone read the case! I sure hope you never get selected to serve on a jury! You want everything boiled down to a simplistic media sound byte. Unless you will commit to a few hours of study, I’m wasting my time with you. Why are you so afraid to study this? (Wait for a response.)
.
“If this were true, the media would be all over it! It would be on the front page of every newspaper in America.”
RESPONSE: “The media, the government, the International bankers, Hollywood, and academia are all part of the same incestuous complex. The media is part of the conspiracy, so why would you expect them to tell you the truth?” (Wait for response.)
.
“You wouldn’t be able to corrupt so many people. Every reporter and politician would have to be “in on it” in order to cover it up.”
RESPONSE: “The corruption doesn’t come from the outside-in. It comes from the top-down. If the ownership of a major media organization decides that a certain story is to be spiked, or if another story is to be hyped, then the rest of the organization follows. If a low level reporter decides to defy his bosses, he will lose his job and be blacklisted. Remember Helen Thomas? After 50 years as a White House Correspondent, she was dumped like a hot potato for publicly criticizing Israel. The same fearful top-down control works in government and academia as well.
.

“This is crazy. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.”
RESPONSE: “You don’t believe it? Or You don’t WANT to believe it? There’s a big difference between the two. The human mind is filled with complexes, one of which is the desire to shield itself from unpleasant truths. You’re afraid that if you look into this, you might see that it’s true. And you’re especially afraid that if you come to agree with me, you too will then become marginalized as a “conspiracy theorist.” It is FEAR that is causing you to close your mind and act like a sheep. Grow a pair and stop being so closed minded!”
.
“Conspiracy theories appeal to uneducated people because they provide simplistic answers to complex events.”
RESPONSE: “Exactly the OPPOSITE is true! The evaluation of conspiracy theories not only requires much time and study, but also applied logic and critical thinking. It is intellectually lazy people like you who choose to swallow and parrot whatever simplistic narrative that the TV feeds you. Do you ever question anything that the TV feeds you?” (Wait for response.)
.
“Conspiracy theories appeal to people because they are comforting.”
RESPONSE: “Exactly the OPPOSITE is true. It is far more comforting to believe that certain tragic events happen exactly as the TV says, than to believe in monstrous internal plots beyond our control. Do you actually think that I enjoy believing that such evil exists? You think I like being ridiculed by simple minded family members and friends? Take it from me, the life of a “conspiracy theorist” can actually be quite stressful at times!”
.
“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
RESPONSE: “I don’t believe everything that’s on the Internet. But apparently you believe everything that’s on the TV! I only believe those things which are verifiable, and consistent with my own sense of reasoning and logic. The beauty of the Internet is that, unlike the TV that you worship so much, all sides of an issue are presented on the Internet. It allows a critical thinker to figure out what the true story is. The TV doesn’t give you that option. Do you really believe that the media presents the whole story? Are you that naive? (laugh) Remember the fairy tale of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The media shoved that lie down our throats. So why do you trust the media so blindly and not the Internet?”
(Wait for response.)
.
“Some conspiracy theorists still believe Elvis is still alive.”
RESPONSE: “So, according to your twisted logic, because some theories are false, therefore ALL theories are false? I’m astonished that you could make such a stupid and offensive anology! Is that the best you got?” (Wait for response.)
.
“You don’t have any respect or compassion for the family members of the dead.”
RESPONSE: “I am honoring the dead by pursuing the truth as to who killed them! If someone in your family was killed, wouldn’t you want to know who the true culprit was?” (Wait for response.)

How To Respond To An Anti-Conspiracy Theorist

US High in Gun Ownership, Low in Murder Rate

US High in Gun Ownership, Low in Murder Rate
Sourse
http://www.Newsmax.com

Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides.
Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with an estimated 270 million civilian firearms, in addition to those used by law enforcement and the military. That’s according to the Small Arms Survey of 178 nations conducted by the Switzerland-based Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.
In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2 nation, surprisingly, is India with 46 million, followed by China (40 million), Germany (25 million), Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15 million).
The United States also leads in gun ownership rate, with about 88 firearms per 100 people, according to the most recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007.
That is far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55 firearms per 100 people. Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people, followed by Finland (45), Serbia (38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35), and Iraq (34).
But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25.
According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.
The highest rate by far can be found in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia (27).
For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.
It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list.
“The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”
But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”

US High in Gun Ownership, Low in Murder Rate

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment

Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment

The Link Between Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings

The Link Between Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings

The truth is slowly coming out that guns are not the problem, mental health is. The current U.S administration knows this but is continuing to use the murders of children to push the disarmament of American citizens. The word “slaughter” seems to be sicko liebermans favorite word this week. Listen to how the anti-gunners speak, they have such a lack of empathy.

Take a close look at all of these connections between the drugs and school shootings at this link.
http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Dr. Rima Talks

Gun Deaths Set To Outstrip Car Fatalities Within 2015

Gun Deaths Set To Outstrip Car Fatalities Within 2015

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html

KEY POINTS OF THIS ARTICLE THAT THE TITLE DOESN’T CONVEY:
60% OF THESE DEATHS ARE SUICIDES
A THIRD OF ALL MASS KILLINGS DO NOT INVOLVE FIREARMS

ADDED NOTE: JAPAN HAS TIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON GUNS AND SUICIDES ARE DOUBLE THAT OF THE U.S

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and reported by Bloomberg News.

The CDC estimates that auto-related deaths–long on the decline as more motorists wear seat-belts and face harsher penalties for drunk driving–will fall to 32,000 in 2015. Deaths from firearms, which include suicides and accidents, are estimated to rise to 33,000 over the same period.

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides. This figure is still lower than 1993’s peak in gun deaths (37,666), but has risen significantly since firearm deaths reached a low in 2000 (28,393). The data goes back to 1979.

Meanwhile, USA Today, which looked at FBI figures, reports that 774 people were killed between 2006 and 2010 by a mass killer, defined as a person who kills four or more people in one incident. The figures show that mass killers strike on average once every two weeks. A third of the 156 mass killings did not involve firearms, but rather fire, knife or other weapon. Almost all of the mass killers in those years were men, and their average age was 32. The dozens of deaths caused by mass killers represented about 1 percent of all homicides between 2006 and 2010.

Gun Deaths Set To Outstrip Car Fatalities Within 2015

Assault Weapons Bans Are Ineffective Studies Show

Assault Weapons Bans Are Ineffective Studies Show

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Assault Weapons Ban (2004) Expiration and effect on crime

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because “It was drying up supply and driving up prices.” [6]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”[8]

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[10]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[11]

The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[12] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates

. Lott’s book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott’s looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott’s research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, “in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime.”[14] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he “can in no way vouch for the validity” of the report.[15]

——————
The weapons bans clearly are more to do with making citizens defenseless than with preventing crime.

Assault Weapons Bans Are Ineffective Studies Show