Parade Magazine laments gun rights progress - keep hitting htis poll!

[8th ID]

imported post

8th ID wrote:

OK, theParade article says, "More than 11,500 murders with guns each year." Well, I looked up the stats, and one would have to go back to 1995 to have these numbers be correct. 2007 murders with guns-10,086. And when anti-gun people speak about regulation, the safety of children always comes up: So, let's take a look at those numbers. All these numbers are for children from birth to 14 in 2007: Gun deaths-67, Drowning-830, Choking/airway obstruction-873, Car related-1400 (1/2 were not restrained-parental negligence?), Poisoning-100, Cycling-140.

Why is it that all other child deaths are considered "accidents" and gun deaths are not? No answer needed:cuss:Typical lies...not one bit surprising...

These are HARD numbers from our own Dept. of Justice and safe kids.org. Like someone has already pointed out-the article never gives a source and the sheep will swallow every word-sad little sheep

 

[gsx1138]

imported post

yes 94%

I think people are slowly waking up and smelling the bullsh!t that the antigunners are peddling. They also realize that the police are not there to protect them. There seems to be more sympathy now for gun rights than ever in the last 30+ years.

 

[Riana]

imported post

In that article, Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research wrote:

"It's what happens when a person gets mad and has easy access to a gun. Someone is shot over a game of dice. Had the gun not been in their hands, no one would have died."

What they fail to state is that someone could have died - it would just be more violent, and take longer (it takes a lot longer to beat someone to death than it does to shoot someone, after all).

And how could there be ANY gun-related murder rate in England and Australia??? Didn't they pretty much ban guns there? Using the anti's logic, that would completely eliminate gun crime, wouldn't it?

3:07PM EST

Yes 94%
No 6%

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Riana wrote:

In that article, Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research wrote:

"It's what happens when a person gets mad and has easy access to a gun. Someone is shot over a game of dice. Had the gun not been in their hands, no one would have died."

What they fail to state is that someone could have died - it would just be more violent, and take longer (it takes a lot longer to beat someone to death than it does to shoot someone, after all).

And how could there be ANY gun-related murder rate in England and Australia??? Didn't they pretty much ban guns there? Using the anti's logic, that would completely eliminate gun crime, wouldn't it?

3:07PM EST

Yes 94%
No 6%

Yes and of course, it's always about "gun" violence. They never mention violant crimes committed using other weapons, like, knives, clubs, baseball bats, hammers, and plain old brute force, all of which can cause serious injury and/or death.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

Notice there are no comments to the article? I posted a comment this morning pointing out that their numbers are old and a number of facts from gunfacts.info. They still haven't allowed it to show and I doubt they ever will.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

93%

7%

I bet they will ignore this poll and not print anthing further on this specific poll.

 

[tag]

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

Mike wrote:

-snip-

I think that photo is staged and was immediately reminded of:

That happened to my girlfriend, except she was the one shooting and she didn't take her shirt off.

And, I voted.

 

[nathan]

imported post

Comments are finally up for this article. The poll and article are still available through the main Parade page.

229 comments and they appear heavily in our favor.