NRA rolls out new ads

[LOki]

Where did you get those bogus numbers.

Click below to read the real numbers.....

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

Overall Firearm-Related Deaths

Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Handguns were used in more than 650,000 of these fatal shootings.

In 1997—the most recent year available—there were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a firearm death every 16 minutes.

In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.


Handguns and Homicide

On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.

From 1990 to 1997, handguns were used in a majority (55.6 percent) of all homicides; that is, they were used in murder more than all other weapons combined.

From 1990 to 1997, there were 293,781 firearm deaths—homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

From 1990 to 1997 in the United States there were more than—


160,000 homicides

110,000 firearm homicides

89,000 handgun homicides

Handgun homicides hit record highs in the early 1990s, peaking in 1993. That year there were 13,258 such killings—out of a total of 16,120 firearm homicides.
As part of an overall drop in crime, in 1997 handgun homicides fell to 8,503.


Suicide

The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.

About six out of 10 suicides are committed with firearms.

For firearm suicides, it is estimated that handguns are used twice as often (69 percent) as rifles and shotguns.

For all suicides, it is estimated that more than four out of 10 were committed with handguns.

From 1990 to 1997—


there were more than 147,000 suicides committed with a firearm

an estimated 90,000 involved a handgun

People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home.

Self Defense

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—


1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides

37 suicides

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.

Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.

Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.

For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.

Costs

For every firearm death, there are nearly three gun injuries requiring emergency medical treatment.

By conservative estimates, gunshot injuries cost about $4 billion a year in medical expenses.

This all looks like people killing people--show me how guns have killed anyone.

 

[Caligirl]

Yep. It's just the Constitution. Which obviously means little if any more to you and your ilk than a roll of Charmin.

No one is going to do anything to the second amendment. It is a complete nonissue.

Why are you clinging to it?

 

[Navy1960]

As one of those so called "clinging to your gun types" I don't see a reason why, weapons such as an M107 .50 Cal and heavy caliber weapons and semi-automatic assault weapons cannot be permitted in a stricter manner. However, if someone is hit in the head with a glock 23 vs. a M107 they are going to be just as dead, just less left over with the M107. Thats not the point though, the point is, it's the person on the "trigger" together with the gun that makes it a weapon. So if you plan on banning weapons, when do we start banning the people on the "trigger" who don't deserve to own them? i.e. the irresponsible ones? When you have someone, that uses a gun no matter what it is to commit a crime, then rather than blaming the gun, you need to prosecute the person and not the gun. Just a thought!!

 

[Ninja]

No one is going to do anything to the second amendment.

In post #28 I listed draconian gun control measures that are on the table at the federal level. Some of them have already been enacted at the state level.

As I said, the 2A isn't going ANYWHERE, and the Democrats know this, so they'll follow the Brady Plan of neutering it into obscurity and irrelevance.

 

[elvis]

Didn't Obama say that they cling to guns and religion as a voting issue, because they had become convinced that the bigger issues (jobs, opportunity) were never gonna change?

If ya, then the ads are a little ironic.

In the same speech, he said people cling to anti-trade. Of course Ohioans cling to antitrade because "free trade" sent half the steelworkers' jobs to Mexico.

 

[elvis]

One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.

How many fatalities have there been in automobile accidents since 1960? Maybe we should outlaw cars, too.

 

[Caligirl]

So I went to fact check .org and as suspected the NRA ads are complete poopaganda.

FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

 

[Modbert]

So I went to fact check .org and as suspected the NRA ads are complete poopaganda.

FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

Of course, any viable President Candidate whoever wants to run for public office can't say they will ban guns completely. Even the most Right wing Republicans are smart enough to know that.

Obama doesn't want to take your guns away, he wants to make sure people who shouldn't have guns by law shouldn't have them.

Though looks like it might be a little too late for that.

 

[Caligirl]

Are you saying the ads are accurate? Factcheck.org says they are not.

 

[Ninja]

Are you saying the ads are accurate? Factcheck.org says they are not.

I'm much more versed in the subtleties of gun control and what Obama's proposed than anyone at factcheck.org.

The ads are accurate.

P.S. Robert - Your are a little gun ignorant shit. Save face and do not debate this with me.

 

[Modbert]

I'm much more versed in the subtleties of gun control and what Obama's proposed than anyone at factcheck.org.

The ads are accurate.

P.S. Robert - Your are a little gun ignorant shit. Save face and do not debate this with me.

These ads aren't accurate. Now your accusing factcheck.org of being wrong?

Even YOUR Messiah John McCain and Sarah Palin misquoted factcheck.org in order to make themselves look better on something.

I'm not a little ignorant gun shit either. I believe people should have a right to own firearms, however I don't believe everyone does.

 

[Ninja]

FactCheck.org compares the NRA's claims to the positions posted on Obama's website (which of course are based on political expedience).

I compare them to his voting history, statements he's made in public and questionnaires he completed while running for the Illinois State Senate.

FactCheck.org exposes their bias as soon as they call SB 2165 (which the retards couldn't even get right - they referred to it as AB 2165 - nice fact checking, FactCheck.org) a "loophole."

TELL HALE FUCKING DEMAR SB2165 WAS CREATING A FUCKING LOOPHOLE!!!!!!!!!

Personally I think the NRA pulled it's punches. They were SOFT on him. The ads don't even touch the tip of the iceberg with regards to this no-talent ass clown's gun control hard-on.

 

[Modbert]

FactCheck.org compares the NRA's claims to the positions posted on Obama's website (which of course are based on political expedience).

I compare them to his voting history, statements he's made in public and questionnaires he completed while running for the Illinois State Senate.

FactCheck.org exposes their bias as soon as they call SB 2165 (which the retards couldn't even get right - they referred to it as AB 2165 - nice fact checking, FactCheck.org) a "loophole."

TELL HALE FUCKING DEMAR SB2165 WAS CREATING A FUCKING LOOPHOLE!!!!!!!!!

Personally I think the NRA pulled it's punches. They were SOFT on him. The ads don't even touch the tip of the iceberg with regards to this no-talent ass clown's gun control hard-on.

Gun Control is not taking away your guns.

Though feel free to complain when someone breaks into your house and harms your family or yourself because they were allowed to get a gun because of no gun control laws.

Tell me how you'll feel then.

There are certain people in this country who either have lost the right to own a gun, aren't fit to have a gun, or have abused their right.

 

[Ninja]

Gun Control is not taking away your guns.

Though feel free to complain when someone breaks into your house and harms your family or yourself because they were allowed to get a gun because of no gun control laws.

Tell me how you'll feel then.

There are certain people in this country who either have lost the right to own a gun, aren't fit to have a gun, or have abused their right.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. But whatever, I'm always down to send a snot-nosed brat running to his Power Rangers action figures for comfort after having his ass handed to him.

In Obama's ideal world we'd be able to have bolt-action rifles - HE HAS INDICATED IN THE PAST THAT HE'D SUPPORT A COMPLETE BAN ON ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS - and break-open shotguns -
so that Biden would be able to keep his overpriced Italian piece of crap. That WOULD constitute taking away my guns so you've already been proven wrong. Besides which, for the umpteenth time, I've already enumerated various GUN CONTROL measures - if that makes you happy - that are currently on the table at the federal level (some of which have already been enacted at the state level) because you fucking libtarded idiots have realized that in the wake of Heller an outright ban is impossible. Not to mention that more than ¼ of the States would tell the gun banners to go fuck themselves if a repealment to the 2A ever came up for a vote.

Banning firearms because they have certain aesthetic features that do nothing to to enhance a bullet's ballistics or lethality, WHICH IS WHAT OBAMA HIMSELF ADMITS HE SUPPORTS, will do nothing to keep me or anyone else safer. Deadbolts, a guard dog, and a girlfriend who's a dead-aim with a 1911 keep me sleeping sound.

Golly, if only we could outlaw bayonet lugs. Imagine how many drive-by bayonetting that would prevent! Imagine if we could do away with $0.99 injection-molded plastic pistol grips - that would make AR-15s so much safer! How many kids need to die before we ban collapsible buttstocks and barrel shrouds, Robert?

The solution is simple but it'll never be enacted because Obama and his ilk are beholden to the ACLU and their medical privacy wacko buddies.

 

[Modbert]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. But whatever, I'm always down to send a snot-nosed brat running to his Power Rangers action figures for comfort after having his ass handed to him.

In Obama's ideal world we'd be able to have bolt-action rifles - HE HAS INDICATED IN THE PAST THAT HE'D SUPPORT A COMPLETE BAN ON ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS - and break-open shotguns -
so that Biden would be able to keep his overpriced Italian piece of crap. That WOULD constitute taking away my guns so you've already been proven wrong. Besides which, for the umpteenth time, I've already enumerated various GUN CONTROL measures - if that makes you happy - that are currently on the table at the federal level (some of which have already been enacted at the state level) because you fucking libtarded idiots have realized that in the wake of Heller an outright ban is impossible. Not to mention that more than ¼ of the States would tell the gun banners to go fuck themselves if a repealment to the 2A ever came up for a vote.

Banning firearms because they have certain aesthetic features that do nothing to to enhance a bullet's ballistics or lethality, WHICH IS WHAT OBAMA HIMSELF ADMITS HE SUPPORTS, will do nothing to keep me or anyone else safer. Deadbolts, a guard dog, and a girlfriend who's a dead-aim with a 1911 keep me sleeping sound.

Golly, if only we could outlaw bayonet lugs. Imagine how many drive-by bayonetting that would prevent! Imagine if we could do away with $0.99 injection-molded plastic pistol grips - that would make AR-15s so much safer! How many kids need to die before we ban collapsible buttstocks and barrel shrouds, Robert?

The solution is simple but it'll never be enacted because Obama and his ilk are beholden to the ACLU and their medical privacy wacko buddies.

You should get that foam off your mouth first off.

Second, in Obama's ideal world and reality are two different things. In someone's ideal world, we would have no need for guns but that doesn't mean they don't support them currently.

Stop trying to scare people with fear tactics. Barack Obama isn't going to try and take away your guns.

This is for you Ninja, your right to bear arms.

 

[Ninja]

Not even an attempt to refute my assertions.

Damn, this little bitch gave up easy.

Why? BECAUSE I HAVE THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH ON MY SIDE

Go watch Care Bears or something.

 

[Modbert]

Not even an attempt to refute my assertions.

Damn, this little bitch gave up easy.

Why? BECAUSE I HAVE THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH ON MY SIDE

Go watch Care Bears or something.

Why waste my time refuting bullshit, drivel, and more bullshit?

What YOU consider the truth and what is fact is two different things.

I do love however your trying to make me seem like I'm anti gun. I'm pro gun, but I want gun control laws.

I've seen the types of people in this country, some shouldn't even have the right in the first place to have guns, some have lost their rights to have guns,etc.

Unless you want to be able to give those lovely violent felons a bunch of guns?

 

[Navy1960]

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Here is a little something about Obama's views on gun control , for everyone to take a look at.

 

[Ninja]

You've been vanquished on the FACTS and now you've resorted to fallacious arguments. Typical liberal

Unless you want to be able to give those lovely violent felons a bunch of guns?

 

[Modbert]

You've been vanquished on the FACTS and now you've resorted to fallacious arguments. Typical liberal

Fool, posting a little tidbit of my entire post means nothing.

I've addressed your points, you can think all you want that Barack Obama is going to take away your guns but have fun living in delusion land.