The Best Mother's Day Gift of All
On Mother's Day, May 14, 2000, approximately 750,000 individuals, led by mothers concerned about gun violence, gathered on the National Mall in Washington, DC to demand sensible gun laws. Across the country, an additional 150,000 to 200,000 people marched in their own communities.
Marsha McCartney and her family, including two grandchildren, marched on Mother's Day in 2000 at the local event in Fort Worth, Texas. Marsha went on to become a member of the Brady Campaign Board of Trustees as well as the Chair of the National Council of Million Mom March Chapters.
Concerned about the violence in our country, Marsha left the May 2000 events ready to do what she could to help make her community safer. Now the co-president of the North Texas Brady Campaign Chapter based in Dallas, as well as state president of the Texas Million Mom March Chapters, Marsha believes that one day her state will strengthen its weak gun laws, and that Texas communities and families will be safer because of it.
Marsha sent me the following column she wrote for this Mother's Day, and I wanted to share it with you:
The Best Mother's Day Gift of AllThis Mother's Day, millions of American moms will receive flowers, gifts, and the special attention of loved ones.
But approximately eight moms will receive something else - the news that one of their children has been killed by a gun. Another 48 moms will learn that a child has been shot, but has survived. On an average day in America, 56 children and teens are the victims of gun violence - and eight of those die of their injuries.
That's every day of the year, Mother's Day included.
And those figures don't include the 76 adults who will be killed by a gun, or the 148 other adults who will be shot and wounded on Mother's Day. Each of these victims is someone's child, too.
Why does this happen? Because right now, it is far too easy to obtain a gun in America. In most states, even convicted felons and the dangerously mentally ill - like the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre - can walk into any gun show and buy any weapon from an unlicensed seller without anyone checking their background. Or even asking them any questions.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Effective gun control legislation works. The Brady Bill, which was passed by Congress in 1993, has kept at least 1.5 million dangerous people from purchasing firearms. Think of how many moms have been unknowingly spared the pain of losing a child simply because the law prevented the purchase of a gun by someone who has no good reason to have one.
Unfortunately, the Brady Bill contained a loophole. The sensible and effective background checks imposed by Brady cover only sales by licensed gun dealers, but are not applied to the significant share of guns that are sold every day by unlicensed sellers at gun shows. It doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out that if you want a weapon but can't pass the background check, you go to a gun show.
What can we moms do? One common-sense step we can take is to help close the gun-show loophole. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to do just that, and all three of the leading presidential candidates have previously voiced their support of the idea. But our elected representatives need to hear from every mom, loudly and clearly, that we support this bill and that we will keep pressuring them until it is passed and signed into law.
Getting gifts on Mother's Day is wonderful. But imagine if every mother in America joined together and persuaded Congress to close the loophole that makes gun violence against our children so prevalent.
That means eight more moms may get to kiss their child good night on Mother's Day. That means another 48 moms might get to tuck their kids into their own beds instead of spending Mother's Day at a hospital bedside.
Now that gift would be priceless.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Want to compare NOLA to DC?" -Jade
Sure, lets do!
One city suffered a natural disaster followed by a mass exodus and a total breakdown of civil service during which the mayor ordered the confiscation of firearms from remaining law-abiding citizens, leaving many defenseless against violent threats.
The other city has suffered no such debacle, but has effectively banned possession of operational firearms for decades and, in spite of said ban, continues to list a murder rate several times greater than the national average.
One could logically state that your comparison illustrates that strict gun control laws and bans do nothing to curb violent crime, and may even contribute to it, while the breakdown of law enforcement coupled with the disarming of good citizens leads to an almost certain explosion of violent crime.
Was that what you wanted to talk about?
In the hope that nobody would read further into the blog, and just take his word for it, Jade said:
"We've established the NRA parrots weren't telling the truth when they claim Chicago's (sshhhh, don't talk about NYC) homicide rate was rising because of gun control laws."
Baloney. Sure Jade, things are just peachy in Chicago. That's why Mayor "Little Bonoparte" Daly is issuing fully automatic M4 rifles to the Chicago PD. Likewaise, Washington DC is such a gun-free Utopia, that the DC police are following suit:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/METRO/970320295/1001
Have you ever been to Chicago, Stones? I thought not. Street crime is out of control. Gangbangers mug people, break into businesses and cars with impunity, and commit forcible rape on the El platforms in front of dozens of witnesses. They DO NOT CARE. The Chicago PD are too busy collecting graft from the bar owners on Division St. to have time to deal with anything as unprofitabe as enforcing the law. Daly's governmemnt is a joke, and a national disgrace.
Yeah, those gun bans are just the ticket.
I agree. I lived in Chicago for most of my life, on the North Side. As a matter of fact, I've spent some time on Division St. What you say is true. I rarely saw the CPD on patrol in my area, Lincoln Park. I did see plenty of street crime, though.
MM2 mentioned Cabrini Green, also on Division, earlier. You really can hear gun-fire coming from there on a regular basis. It's like an armed fortress. The police only ever show up there for photo-ops, when Daly wants to make it look like he's doing something about crime.
Kelli - I know you have the National Guard on speed-dial, but at least let me address your last musing.
"More misunderstandings." What? The only thing being "misunderstood" is your failure to understand that 2 is a bigger number than 1. If you can understand this basic principle, then you should be able to follow the analysis conducted on your cited study. I was not ambiguous or vague with anything I wrote.
We don't have to "agree to disagree" - the numbers tell the story. you just don't want to hear it. (This phrase is usually introduced in a debate when one side is losing ground on their position. Interesting that you've never "agreed to disagree" before.)
And asking you direct, relevant questions is not "goading" a response. It is just as it appears to be: a direct question seeking a direct answer. Nothing more, nothing less. And regarding my "piles of posts", where do you think the ammunition is derived from? Answer: your deranged, inane ramblings.
*crickets*
Surprised? Not really.
We've established the NRA parrots weren't telling the truth when they claim Chicago's (sshhhh, don't talk about NYC) homicide rate was rising because of gun control laws.
Let us now look at what the NRA cultists wish to imply: that a lack og gun control laws will lead to safe and lawful city.
We already addressed that canard by comparing Chicago (don't mention NYC) to Houston. Look what happens when we compare Chicago (NYC, what, where?) to another city that has virtually no gun control laws.
http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Chicago&s1=IL&c2=New+Orleans&s2=LA
Why is it that all these cities with little or no gun control laws have higher homicide rates than Chicago?
True Story: Roy Kubicek claims all firearms were confiscated from New Orleans after Katrina.
You can't make this stuff up.
And Jade continues to present red herrings and ad hominems when the facts don't equate to his "reality".
You can't make this stuff up.
"We already addressed that canard by comparing Chicago (don't mention NYC) to Houston. Look what happens when we compare Chicago (NYC, what, where?) to another city that has virtually no gun control laws."
Since you wish to set the tone of making comparisons between a city's crime rate and gun control laws, shall we also include Washington DC in that comparison?
It is worth noting that your link shows the murder rates for Chicago and Houston rather closely matched (16.4 and 18.2 per 100k respectively) and both are radically higher than the national average.
And again, your link, shows NYC (a place where guns are still legally available) very closely matched with the national average,(7 per 100,000) while DC (where guns are effectively banned) is radically higher (29.1/100k).
The correlation you are trying to make isn't supported by the numbers.
Sure, Marko.
Want to compare NOLA to DC?
Didn't think so.
All registered firearms WERE confiscated by order of the mayor. Still no national news on he Moons of Nebia, huh?
And who was talking about New Orleans, anyway?
We have lots and lots of gun laws in NJ, Jade, including that ridiculous Smart Gun Law that you're so fond of. We also have Camden (2 time winner of the coveted 'Most Dangerous City In The US, Trenton, Newark, East Orange, etc.
When can we expect you? The Welcome wagon is all warmed up.
MM2--looks like we have another IHOPer to pair up with our favorite journalist--milady timealone, I hope you are not to possessive
All we need is to realize that Jade is trying to red herring the conversation away from being called on his superior math skills as shown here:
"Better math skills, please.
Illinois has a population of 12.8M. 9.7M of these folks live in Chicago.
In 2004, there were 770 murders in Illinois, 449 in Chicago.
If we go the calculator, we see Chicago contains about 75.7% of the state's population. We also see that Chicago accounts for over 58% of the state's total murders.
How that translates into "5x the murder rate of the rest of the state" is bizarre."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/the-gun-lobby-tries-to-fo_b_98628.html
Who can show the basic numbers that are fabricated here?
Hint: This is from his very own areaconnect link:
Population: 2,857,796
Hi Jade -- you are right. And you might find this tidbit interesting: I remember talking with one of our legislators about the NRA & she said that they were some of the 'meanest' and nastiest people she'd ever dealt with. I think the gun manufacturers, by the way, must hate Chicago and Cook County (LOL) & most of the suburbs; because of our strong gun control legislation. Good to see your posts -- they are refreshing, after reading so many crazy comments by the guncrowd who can quickly make you feel disgusted & nauseous.
Take care.
How can they hate it Kelli? Gun control has worked so well in Chicago that Daley has introduced a plan to arm all 13,000 CPD w/ assault rifles.
Do you support that plan?
Odd thing there Kelli, that your browser only shows posts that you agree with, disregarding the multiple posts - addressed solely at you - seeking an answer or defense of your position.
What gives? Are you intentionally avoiding questions posed to you? Or maybe that "position" you took turned out not to be as strong as you thought?
"disgusted & nauseous"...I must admit...*sniff* that brought a tear to my eye.
Awwww... Like I told you before - if you're gonna battle in the trenches, you're gonna get dirty. Either act like an adult, answer the questions posed to you (in defense of your position) or head back to the sandbox, where the children can talk amongst themselves! (And surely, your inner-child will survive intact!)
When debating the adherents of the NRA, one immediately notes a number of things. One, their "facts" are almost never facts--they are opinions, hearsay, or, very often, outright fabrications.
Two, standards only apply to the gun control side of the argument--never to the NRA's minions.
Case in point: Big city gun laws.
Much is made of big cities that have more restrictive gun laws. Often an NRA quisling will point out a big city, like Chicago, and claim the gun laws have lead to high homicide rates.
In reality though, Chicago's homicide rates have been declining very slowly. Thus, it cannot be logically said that Chicago gun control laws are adversely affecting the city.
Of course, NRA quislings don't like to mention cities like NYC where homicide rates have dramatically declined *and* have stricter gun control laws.
And it goes without saying that NRA minions won't compare a Chicago with, say, Houston, where gun control is virtually nonexistent. Why?
http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Chicago&s1=IL&c2=Houston&s2=TX
And can you show the historical data that states that the "gun control laws" have decreased crime? What then explains that Chicago has a murder rate 5x the rest of the state?
Of course Jade claimed that Chicago has a population of 9.7 million people to make up his numbers.
I can't believe the nerve of this guy. Is he even capable of telling the truth, about anything?
It appears that in jaded's 9.7 million population number, what she is actually referring to is Chicagoland (which includes residents of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana). Doesn't seem that residents of other states would be effected by Chicago's gun ban so why would someone include those numbers for comparison, unless they were engaged in blatant, deliberate dishonesty?
"Thus, it cannot be logically said that Chicago gun control laws are adversely affecting the city."
Can it be logically said that Chicago's gun control laws are positively affecting the city?
Can you show irrefutable, factual proof?
Or are your "facts", as you describe, "opinions, hearsay, or, very often, outright fabrications"?
Marko: Why change the subject?
*Note this is an almost certainty when the NRA minions' lies have been exposed.
Let's review: NRA zealots claim Chicago homicide rates are climbing because of gun control laws. When it's pointed out that the homicide rates are actually decreasing, the zealots wish to talk about something else.
Fact: in 1992, Chicago had 943 homicides--in 2007, they had 435. For math-challenged bookeepers, that's a decline of over 500 homicides.
OTOH, what evidence have the NRA quislings offered? Well, they lied about Chicago's homicide rate climbing.
I say we take Jade up on his offer. Let's compare the socio-economic factors involved? Howabout legal firearm ownership as a percentage of the population? Gangs? Drugs? Illegal immigrants?
One immediately notes that when Jade is called on to support himself after his own fabrications, that he does the same thing he accuses the "pro-gun" side of doing.
One recent weekend, Chicago had 36 shootings and 7 murders. This was all in one weekend.
It would seem the Chicago gun ban is not working very well.
One might say the Chicago gun ban may have turned Chicago into a giant victim disarmament zone. One might also say the Chicago gun ban has turned Chicago into a giant criminal protection zone. In other words, the criminals are free to rape, murder and rob with impunity.
{{It would seem the Chicago gun ban is not working very well.}}
This is called "cherry-picking."
Example: On a recent weekend in Houston, there were 8 murders/non-negligent manslaughter.
Seems that lack of gun control isn't working out.
NYC has restrictive gun laws and their homicide rate has dramatically declined. But NYC had essentially the same restrictive gun laws when their homicides skyrocketed to record highs. So I am willing to agree that restrictive gun laws may have no major effect on homicides.
If that's the case, why bother?
{{But NYC had essentially the same restrictive gun laws when their homicides skyrocketed to record highs. So I am willing to agree that restrictive gun laws may have no major effect on homicides.}}
You also are willing to lie with abandon.
In 1990, NYC had its highest recorded number of homicides--2,245.
In 1994, NYC, under Police Chief Wm. Bratton, implemented a crackdown on guns, gun sales and gun trafficking. As a result, homicides were under 500 in 2007.
Thought I'd help Kelli out a bit since these questions were all posed directly to her, challenging a stated position (and this is just from this one blog post):
"...why do a Diane Feinstein or Eleanor Roosevelt deserve to carry a firearm for self defense but someone working...at a 7/11...with a carry permit is cause for you to start screaming that the sky is falling? -djkrlsn
"...how gun lobby/gun rights advocates continue to put forth their rights...as superior to everyone else's rights & concerns regarding firearms and safety and availability, etc." No one has put forth the notion that it be mandated by law that Kelli MUST own a gun. You have, however, condoned the idea of complete disarmament, thus infringing on others' choice to be armed. So I ask, who is "put[ting] forth their rights as superior to everyone else's"? -tadees
Finally, I think pro-gun advocates need to look less at firearms from mainly an individualistic view and more at what's best for society, as a whole. Consider gun controls that can do 'the greatest good for the greatest number' of people. "How is it a quote? You didn't attribute it anyone, use quotes, and you started off the sentence with "I think..." -tadees
"If the intent is clear, either to take one's own life or another's, how then could you blame the tool used to commit the act? If this same group conducted a study about screwdrivers, would you then support banning screwdrivers and other flat-bladed objects?" -tadees
"And how many times are we supposed to post the same stats for you to ignore? And how about answering a direct question for a change? How many of these "children"(tm) were actually young adults who were engaged in criminal activity?" -mm2
"define "children"." -to many times to count!
T--good questions all, I wonder when Drurylane will answer in an open and honest manner?
I think we all know better. (Direct questions are often viewed as harassment)
Drurylane, I saw the nice little blurb about the importance you place on free speech and the free exchange of ideas in your profile. While I don't remember who said it--but the best evidence of how important you view the use of all freedoms and civil liberties is how hard you work to protect them for people whose views you dislike. By that standard, with your history of trying to silence the opposition, you don't come out with a very good score.
I suspect that you're just trying to create or escalate tenions with such a post. I've got to get back to work -- and until a decent comment is made here, it's "Drurylane Out."
Paul & the BC -- Looking forward to your next entry.
Drurylane--I am not the one trying to do a Kelli and get people that disagree with me banned from Huffington Post. But good luck with the distract and divert tactics.
drurylane: "Paul & the BC -- Looking forward to your next entry."
Me too -- really.
"Gun control" blogs that accept comments are RARE.
An acquaintance, who resides outside of the People's Soviet of Illinois, knowing that I am a firearm enthusiast, told me that he was working on purchasing his first handgun. Being that he doesn't have a history of the same enthusiasm about them as I have, I jokingly asked him if he was planning on getting his CCW license as well. To my surprise, he replied "Yes".
My acquaintance is an Elder in his faith. After the Colorado Springs shooting and the other tragic events at VT, NIU, etc, he and the other Elders decided to take a took at the security of their church. Already a "Gun Free Zone", they recognized that the ONLY situations where the shooters were stopped before the end of their rampage were the ones where the people actively took measures to defend themselves. Their conclusion was to quietly establish an armed security detail made up of fellow church members and to get them trained to respond in case of an emergency.
Paul and his ilk instead advocate disarming them in all situations, leaving them helpless, and relying exclusively on the authorities in the hopes that a sociopath doesn't manage to circumvent one of the countless laws that are already on the books or one of the constant "just one more" laws that the Brady's et al. say will stop crime in its tracks.
Mothers (and Fathers) protecting their children against the evils of this world.
That is the best Mothers Day Gift of all.
Good for your acquaintance--also good point on the good guys defending their families and fellow church members from those who would do them harm
I'll preface this by professing weariness, as my day was a lot longer than I thought it would be and a lot busier than it was supposed to be. If I'm reading something incorrectly, don't hesitate to point it out.
Paul, what in God's green earth would possess you to cite a woman who has different numbers on a subject you hammer so often? Your organization says 32, the column says 8. Why the discrepancy?
Now stop pounding the nonsense about a "gun show loophole". As part of a contract between the United States and federally-licensed firearms dealers, FFLs are required to keep very, very meticulous records (and even that often isn't enough to keep the ATF from breathing down one's neck). You aren't required by law to acquire appropriate business licenses to sell private property (whatever that property might be, provided it is lawfully-owned property), so why does this change when speaking of firearms? Cars kill more people, especially due to negligence, for example. The "loophole" being described does not exist.
And someone should inform MissMcCartney that the vast majority of firearms used in the commission of a crime were acquired illegally outside of gun shows, which themselves contribute a statistically-insignificant number of firearms eventually used in the commission of crimes (trace data suggesting most of those were not even by original owners, which bespeaks of firearms thefts).
Quickly ...there's no great mystery here, Sneaky.
Just google National Facts on gun-related deaths & injuries of U.S. kids and you'll see a great deal of information & relevant stats. There's not enough space (or time) to include them all here, and I don't know Marsha's specific sources for her lovely Mother's Day column ... but it's simple for anyone to find desired references on their own.
For example, I found that "[e]veryday, 8 children aged 19 and under are killed with guns ... A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to be used in self-defense ... Generally, before age 8, few children can reliably distinguish between real and toy guns or fully understand the consequences of their actions ... Children as young as age 3 are strong enough to pull the trigger of many of the handguns available in the U.S." & so on.
And on the Brady Campaign website, it says that "32 Americans are murdered each day by guns." It's referring to fatalities ... not both injuries & fatalties, Sneaky. I also think that it's obvious why Paul H. would want a Mom to write a column for his Mother's Day blog.
Lunch break's over.
"For example, I found that "[e]veryday, 8 children aged 19 and under are killed with guns ... A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to be used in self-defense ... Generally, before age 8, few children can reliably distinguish between real and toy guns or fully understand the consequences of their actions ... Children as young as age 3 are strong enough to pull the trigger of many of the handguns available in the U.S." & so on."
This "43 times more likely " stuff is Kellerman nonsense, again. It's been debunked so many times, it's like an old, bad joke. Why do you and Helmke continue to cling to it, like drowning people to a deck chair from the Titanic?
"8 'children'(tm), age 19 and under. And how many of theose "children"(tm) are 16-19 year old gangbangers who were killed while engaged in gang/drug related activity? How many of these "children"(tm) are criminals themselves?
Haven't we been over this ground a few dozen times before?
That's what I don't get, though. Her numbers, even if right, don't match his numbers. His numbers, even if right, are statistically insignificant (no less tragic, but all the same statistically insignificant) when actual instances of violence are examined and when compared to other forms of death per day by specific "things". Case in point, the vast majority of homicides committed with handguns are criminal-on-criminal, where one criminal with an unlawfully-possessed firearm uses it illegally to murder another criminal; this is important because most of THOSE shootings (read: the majority of shootings in that category that is the majority of crimes committed with firearms) are gang-related, wherein the age becomes extremely misleading. It's terrible that 15-19 year olds die as often as they do due to crime, but the sad fact is it's usually gang crime, and rarely is even one party is innocent. Another example to support my second point is that cars and pools kill many, many more people per day than do guns.
The problem with those references is that they're presented as if completely isolated from other facts. 32 death per day sounds terrible if you forget the thousands of other deaths per day and their causes. 3,000 deaths per year similarly sounds terrible if you omit the huge difference in population between our nation and those nations being compared to. See what I'm saying? To represent only one side instead of providing analysis of openly-presented data is intellectual dishonesty.
"On Mother's Day, May 14, 2000, approximately 750,000 individuals, led by mothers concerned about gun violence, gathered on the National Mall in Washington, DC to demand sensible gun laws."
I watched much of it on television, and it was educational to see how much of the gun banning agenda came through despite the official goal of "sensible gun laws." One example was the actvists from Dunblane Scotland who spoke at the march. Organizer Donna Dees Thomases wrote: "They were shining examples of what we were trying to do in the United States." What was it that the speakers from Dunblane did in Great Britain? They successfully lobbied to have all handguns banned and confiscated.
Jay--why is it the only people that do not understand that the Brady Campaign is an organization devoted to the complete banning of civilian ownership of firearms dancing progressives from Al Capones' stomping grounds?
An interesting observation given so many anti-gunners insistence that completely disarming the citizenry is not the end goal. I was going to add something about learning to "read between the lines" but when they make it so blatantly obvious, I don't guess there's much need.
So, a guy walks into rob a donut shop...with a BB gun...in Texas...this ain't gonna end well!
http://cbs11tv.com/local/donut.shop.shooting.2.719855.html
Stupid got its just reward
You don't get it Tadees. This poor fellow was a victim of "gunnastiness". Where is your compassion for the criminal? Are you unwell?
"You can't fix stupid".
But I do know a good way of "curing" rapists and child molesters--it is tough to rape someone if you look like a Ken doll or mannequin (no "plow" and no family assets), problem solved
I can tell you about an incident from the Darwin Awards:
The robber tried to rob a gun store. This was a bad idea in itself.
There was a sheriff's car parked in front. This made the robbery attempt an even worse idea.
The robbery attempt occurred in Washington State. Washington State was one of the first to have shall issue legislation. The customers could be expected to be armed.
The robber fires a gun into the ceiling and announces it is a hold-up.
The store owner fires. The deputy fires. The customers fire.
The would be robber has earned a Darwin Award for removing himself from the gene pool.
Let's do take a closer look at your cited study Kelli. From http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm ...
Quick caveat that these numbers are a bit dated - statistics from 1999, report from 2002.
"In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 were killed with a gun." "The 3,385 deaths breaks down to: 214 unintentional, 1,078 suicides, 1,990 homicides..." "Of the deaths...2,896 were 15-19 years old."
These numbers tell us what we already know, some just choose to ignore. 86% of all the cited gun-deaths were between 15-19 years old. Almost 60% were homicides. When do you think young (predominately) males are most active in gang life, or drug-dealing, or other unsavory lifestyles Kelli? Answer: 15-19 years old.
I figure you'll discount that argument, so let's take a different approach: 214 unintentional deaths caused by firearms during the cited period. Out of 3,385 deaths, 214 of them were unintentional, meaning that 3,068 (91%) were committed on purpose with a specific intent (there were 103 "other" deaths). If the intent is clear, either to take one's own life or another's, how then could you blame the tool used to commit the act? If this same group conducted a study about screwdrivers, would you then support banning screwdrivers and other flat-bladed objects?
In the end, this study does not support any claims made by you or the BC that gun control is the answer.
Tadees, like I keep trying to tell you--for Kelli, it is always the firearms fault--no guns--suicides and murder would magically cease.
djkrlsn: "for Kelli, it is always the firearms fault--no guns--suicides and murder would magically cease."
That's only part of the delusion. The other part is: Pass anti-gun laws, and the existence of guns would magically cease.
Keep goin' ... there's much more information than just this, in the U of M health system link on safety issues, guns and kids.
A good site!
Drurylane, thank you for allying yourself with the NRA, GOA and JPFO, since Tadees established that it is not "firearms" or "accidents" that caused 90% of these deaths but deliberate acts of young adults, when can we expect your assistance in passing nationwide shall issue laws for concealed carry pistol starting at 18?
I think ladyshooter put it best with regards to you Kelli: You are outclassed, outwitted, unprepared, uneducated and simply unable to defend your position when given objective proof (even given YOUR OWN source!). There's no shame in realizing you are beaten - maybe it's just time to call it a day? (You're embarrassing yourself.)
(some posts have *poofed*)
It is not hostility Kelli, it is complete disdain! I do not care for nor appreciate anything you stand for or any group you purport to represent. Do not misunderstand, it is not you personally, but every single thing you represent.
Please tell me where I have asked you to stop posting your opinion. I have not. Actually, please continue posting. More, actually! As often as you find the time - please post any and every fleeting thought that crosses your mind.
Regarding the "facts" of your cited study...I noticed you did not refute a single statistic I mentioned. Kinda hard, huh? Given I used YOUR STUDY! However, I admire you vain attempt at a jadegold, tossing that herring out there as if the only persons that should be stating their opinion are the HP mods and staff, and you!
I believe we have a dictionary definition of the term “Elitist” I will draw your attention to the Sixth Amendment of the bill of rights.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
But this should come as no surprise to anyone. As the person posting that, Harlon Carter-is a convicted child killer. Is a known shill for groups that wish to abolish the Second amendment, the First followed by the Fifth?
I wonder how the Poster would feel if they were tried exonerated, and then call a Child Killer. This is not what Americans do.
But let’s face it the very group that sponsors this blog hates the Bill of Rights and would like nothing more than to destroy the document. They basically want to wipe their noses with the Bill of Rights. America needs to wake up and stop the groups who want to deny the rest of the American population the very rights we have enjoyed for over 200 years
I think what you're defining here Melody is not elitist, but "troll."
Same Difference....
Too weird for me.
No, Drurylane, the only thing weird here is why someone would let hoplophobia blind them so thoroughly that Drurylane would rather believe fairy tales than truth.
Soooooo the Bill of Rights is too weird...................Wrong answer...Time for you to go to Cuba
May I suggest "Hooked On Phonics".
Drurylane--I must thank you for the compliment. I must be doing some right for you to mistake me for the fine dvcrsn, who showed extraordinary patience in dealing shedances for the few weeks he was posting in November and December
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
