900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama

And how many innocent babies have been aborted through planned parenthood funded by Washington Mr. President?

Falling coconuts?I'd have to move.To easy of a target.I got a big melon,lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

His teleprompter was acting up. What he meant to say was 1MoreGoodGuy has personally signed up 900 new NRA life members since the Sandy Hook incident.

---

:danceban::danceban::danceban:

Here is what he said:

Quote:

---

In the month since 20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us at Sandy Hook Elementary, more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun — 900 in the past month. And every day we wait, that number will keep growing.

---

I'd like to see the full list with a description of each incident.

course at least one of those 900 was this BG shot by a good guy with a gun....if he had not had the gun then the count would have been 901.... I hate to think what the out come would have been with bad guys with say 13 round mags and the good guy with 6 7 or what ever "they" deem a safe number for the law abiding to have....cause the BG sure don't care about no stinking limits....

Homeless man thwarts robbery in Hollywood - Hollywood - MiamiHerald.com

If all Zero's proposals, and Frankenfeinstein's, and Schumer's and McCarthy's were actually implemented, and the law abiding public abided by them to any significant degree, what would the monthly firearm homicide rate climb to? 2000? 3000?

Because the only people will obey these new laws are not the people committing robbery and rape and murder. But that matters not to those who think were are just the pee-ons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smolck

King Obama today said in his little speech that 900 people have died at the muzzle of a gun since the Sandy Hook incident (some 30 days) and cited it as a reason for more laws. Well, I did some research I thought I'd share with all of you to cite to your anti-gun friends (or foes).

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

---

Not to be a stick in the mud, you cite 2011 data to show deaths in the last 30 days......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QKShooter

Approximately 3,000 Men, Women, & Children are killed in hippopotamus attacks in Africa every year.
Mostly women and children.

---

I'll bet this guy wishes he had a 50 bmg pistol
Google Image Result for http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/24/article-1208479-06277465000005DC-843_634x399.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BugDude

I saw where one of the northerly states was now talking about banning pitbulls. I guess they are now "Assault Dogs?" Are they going to ban all dogs over 7 pounds? I mean, nobody really NEEDS a dog, eventhough they can be effective security.

Where does this line of thinking stop?

---

I live in a city that bans Pit Bulls. It is a disgusting practice that again punishes law-abiding citizens, and worse the dogs, for the actions and irresponsibility of a minority of bad owners. When the ban was reinstated in Denver thousands of dogs that even just looked like Pit Bulls were rounded up and executed by the liberal stronghold of Colorado. Law-abiding citizens that owned Pit Bulls had to either give away their dogs or move from the city. Strangely, I personally knew several people I would consider of low moral character who openly bragged about their Pit Bulls being in Denver. Oh yeah...criminals don't follow laws by nature. Hmmm...

When I first read the title I thought that maybe Rahm was trying to "gin up" a new record for his buddy in the White House. I hear that those Chicago gang members can be quite accommodating when it comes to this type of statistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BugDude

I can just see liberals demanding they do something about the hippopotamus violence.

---

Bloomberg already did. He banned high capacity soda cups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smolck

...

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

---

I did a little more research into the top 10 causes of death from other than natural for 2012 a week or two ago, and I think the number is around 550 a day. IIRC firearm related was not even in the top 10. Binge drinking for those in the 20 -30 y/o age group had a higher number of related fatalities every year than firearm related if you remove suicide (they were going to end up in one of the columns one way or another).

I was not about to try to dig up the number of "children" [0 -18 instead of the Brady Bunch 0 -26] fatalities from other than natural causes. I suspect that Traffic Accidents, and the flu would top firearm related.

So, I guess it's time to pipe up about internet-lingo. The OP is engaging in what's called concern trolling, or at least it's close enough that I can go on to describe the phenomenon without insulting anyone here. A concern troll seeks to criticise efforts to fix something by implying that there is a worse problem that needs to be dealt with. Now, obviously, encouraging people to think about opportunity cost when it comes to charity efforts is a really good idea. If the goal is to save lives, then one of the metrics should be efficiency. What makes the concern troll a 'troll' is two things: a hostile audience (which is not present here, since the idea of 'gun regulations to save lives!!!!' is not really considered) and hypocrisy (i.e., they bring up these other issues, but don't do anything about it). The weakness of concern trolling criticism is the implication that we cannot work on multiple things at the same time. One can fight drunk driving and gun-related deaths at the same time.

I have no idea if the OP actually spends any of their own efforts fighting cancer or hippo deaths, obviously. I do know that you can save children's lives very effectively by supporting anti-malaria efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CanuckQue

So, I guess it's time to pipe up about internet-lingo. The OP is engaging in what's called concern trolling, or at least it's close enough that I can go on to describe the phenomenon without insulting anyone here. A concern troll seeks to criticise efforts to fix something by implying that there is a worse problem that needs to be dealt with. Now, obviously, encouraging people to think about opportunity cost when it comes to charity efforts is a really good idea. If the goal is to save lives, then one of the metrics should be efficiency. What makes the concern troll a 'troll' is two things: a hostile audience (which is not present here, since the idea of 'gun regulations to save lives!!!!' is not really considered) and hypocrisy (i.e., they bring up these other issues, but don't do anything about it).

I have no idea if the OP actually spends any of their own efforts fighting cancer or hippo deaths, obviously. I do know that you can save children's lives very effectively by supporting anti-malaria efforts.

---

Aren't Canadians forbidden from discussing anything related to American politics or current issues? I think you just trolled the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheConcealer

Aren't Canadians forbidden from discussing anything related to American politics or current issues? I think you just trolled the OP.

---

Huh? No, I've not criticised the OP. The OP is not 'concern trolling' for this type of forum. It would be concern trolling if it was posting in an anti-gun forum, or something.