So much for "Pro-Choice"!

[P@triot]

Is there anything better than an idiot Dumbocrat representative taking an epic beat down from a woman? Especially since dumbocrat men are like muslims - they hate women and look at them as inferior...

?Gun Girl? Confronts Dem. Rep. at Town Hall With Tough Question ? and He Literally Refuses to Answer | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[P@triot]

It's amazing - the left talks about a woman's "right to choose" - but as soon as they choose a gun to protect their body, the left suddenly wants to take that right away.

Can you say Nazi's?

 

[squinch]

It's amazing - the left talks about a woman's "right to choose" - but as soon as they choose a gun to protect their body, the left suddenly wants to take that right away.

Can you say Nazi's?

I can say Nazi's. What do I win?

 

[BreezeWood]

“On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

when a questioner is illmannered and screaming, choosing the next question is the appropriate response.

 

[TNHarley]

Big gov't sucks

 

[P@triot]

“On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

when a questioner is illmannered and screaming, choosing the next question is the appropriate response.

You mean when you're caught contradicting yourself and you're too arrogant to admit the flaws in your view, choosing the next question is the appropriate response?

At no point did the young lady scream or act "ill-mannered" and you know it. She was polite and and professional.

 

[ba1614]

Is there anything better than an idiot Dumbocrat representative taking an epic beat down from a woman? Especially since dumbocrat men are like muslims - they hate women and look at them as inferior...

?Gun Girl? Confronts Dem. Rep. at Town Hall With Tough Question ? and He Literally Refuses to Answer | Video | TheBlaze.com

But it's the blaze so it really didn't happen.

 

[Jarhead]

“On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

when a questioner is illmannered and screaming, choosing the next question is the appropriate response.

I watched the video. She did not scream nor did she show a lack of manners. Why did you imply she did?

 

[editec]

Troll on, dude.

 

[Jarhead]

Troll on, dude.

huh?

You are referring to the OP as a troll?

Why?

The incident happend. The questioner asked a very valid question...one worthy of an answer....and the elected official refused to asnwer the question.

That is a very worthy topic for discussion.

Why did you deflect from it by criticizing the author of the thread?

 

[Misty]

“On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

when a questioner is illmannered and screaming, choosing the next question is the appropriate response.

Lying liberal troll.

 

[legaleagle_45]

It's amazing - the left talks about a woman's "right to choose" - but as soon as they choose a gun to protect their body, the left suddenly wants to take that right away.

Can you say Nazi's?

I can say Nazi's. What do I win?

A brown shirt..

(Sorry could not help myself).

 

[boilermaker55]

Did you win something yet?

It's amazing - the left talks about a woman's "right to choose" - but as soon as they choose a gun to protect their body, the left suddenly wants to take that right away.

Can you say Nazi's?

I can say Nazi's. What do I win?

 

[P@triot]

“On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

when a questioner is illmannered and screaming, choosing the next question is the appropriate response.

I watched the video. She did not scream nor did she show a lack of manners. Why did you imply she did?

Because liberals lie about everything - especially when cornered by their own contradictions!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's amazing - the left talks about a woman's "right to choose" - but as soon as they choose a gun to protect their body, the left suddenly wants to take that right away.

Can you say Nazi's?

That's no different than you wanting to take away a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, while you jabber on and on about gun rights.

 

[Black_Label]

when a questioner is illmannered and screaming, choosing the next question is the appropriate response.

I watched the video. She did not scream nor did she show a lack of manners. Why did you imply she did?

Because liberals lie about everything - especially when cornered by their own contradictions!

You take stupidity to a whole new level and show off proudly what today's GOP is all about, nothing but a bunch of ultra-right wing idiots that obediently obey the bullshit fox and beck feed your feeble mind.

 

[JoeB131]

It's amazing - the left talks about a woman's "right to choose" - but as soon as they choose a gun to protect their body, the left suddenly wants to take that right away.

Can you say Nazi's?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the home than a bad guy.

I've known a woman who had to bury her son after he killed himself with that gun she bought for protection.

 

[legaleagle_45]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the home than a bad guy.

Not having a gun in the home increases the odds of violent death compared to succesful self protection homicide from 43 to one to 99 to one.


This ratio is based upon Kellerman's raw data he used to obtain the 43 to one figure which is as follows:

Gun in the homes violent deaths:

Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
Total firearm related violent deaths 389
Self-protection homicide 9

A ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

Now employing Kellermans own raw numbers for when a gun is not in a home:

Gun not in the home violent death:

Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide 50
Suicide 347
Unknown 0
Total violent deaths in home where firearm not present 397
Total non fiream violent deaths 397
Self protection homicide 4.

A ratio of 397 violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides results in a 99 to 1 ratio, ... So appliing Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1 if you do not have a gun in your home.

All calculations are based upon raw numbers provided by the Kellerman study for King County, Washington between 1978 to 1983 in "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home."