I've noticed that politicians have a tendency to conflate several issues or at least imply things without technically claiming them.
My question for meta is, are these claims strong enought to be debunked by Skeptics?
For example, I the wake of the Newtown massacre, on BBC Newsnight, 17th Dec 12 (I think), there was a gun lobbyist claiming the having a gun in your house makes you safer. I am very sceptical of this. The lobbyist citied aggravated burglary statistics. Apparently, the lower rate in the US means they are safer.
Or at least that is what it sounded like to me. However, IIRC (I couldn't find a recording), the language he used was more about "feeling" safer. In the end he was cut off shouting at Paxman, "Would you not feel safer with a gun to protect your family?" In this case, the claim is a presupposition of that question.
Should these claims be ignored because of the use of these weasel words?