Put another way, the number of automobiles in the U.S. is somewhere around 255,000,000. With 32,367 deaths, that would mean that 0.0127 percent of automobiles are involved in a death in 2011. A very small percentage.
With 300,000,000 guns in the U.S., we have 9,835 gun homicides. That is 0.00328% of firearms involved in a homicide in 2011, about one-fourth the rate for automobiles. A very, very small amount.
The rate may be even less due to an error of methodology which favors the automobile: Most gun homicides are of a single person. Automobile fatalities where one automobile collision results in multiple fatalities are common.
The bottom line: Chuckie Schumer, Diane Fineswine, Mayor Boob-berg, the Manchurian Hawaiian, and others of the anti-gun ilk are missing the boat. If they really wanted to save lives, they would get straightaway to banning the automobile.
Sadly, Chuckie, Ms. Fineswine, Boob-berg, the Kenyan-in-chief, and other collectivist totalitarians are more interested in consolidating political power and subjugating the citizenry than in saving lives.
That also explains the burgeoning business in government contracts to supply black pajamas and large amounts of ammunition.
I think we deserve an answer to this question from Reichsfuhrer Napolitano. And not in the form of more demagoguery about right wing extremists like me, gun owners like me, taxpayers like me, non-collectivist/communist/bloomberg-nannyist/democrats like me, nativists like me, and non-obama fans like me. Also not in the form of jack booted thuggery, massive ammunition purchasing, public intimidating, and sexually molesting like Janet's employees.
How about how you are going to enforce the borders, quit allowing the importation of America's enemies, and actually investigate people who tells us that they intend to do harm to America, no matter what color their skin is or if they share the same religion as Barack Obama and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
David Codrea has asked for concerned citizens to comment on Obergruppenfuhrer Sebelius' proposed HHS rule for changes to HIPAA, which would allow access to mental health records as part of a background check for firearms purchases.
Of course, I am opposed to such a violation of citizens rights. My comment is as follows:
How Orwellian. This is the same government that does not vet its presidential candidates, prohibits requiring identification to vote, and does everything it can to prohibit states and employers from ensuring that only US citizens are eligible for legal employment.
It must be tough promulgating such a new rule. While it may not have the support of gun owners such as myself, who are not likely to be communists, er... democrats, don't you think you are risking alienating the mentally ill, who usually are democrats. Cases in point: Christopher Dorner and Jared Loughner. I realize that Christopher Dorner is dead, but when did that ever stop a democrat from voting. I mean, Kathleen Sebelius' career would not have even got off the ground without the dead, mentally ill, and fictional people voting.
OF COURSE I AM OPPOSED TO THIS NEW INFRINGEMENT UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS.
IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT "GUN VIOLENCE", THEN DISARM GOVERNMENT JACKBOOTED THUGS WEARING BLACK PAJAMAS ON THEIR FANTASY RAIDS. THEY MUST BE MENTALLY ILL TO THINK THAT A BLACK PAJAMA RAID IS REQUIRED TO SERVE A SEARCH WARRANT AT A CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (FLYING J CORP) IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.
I WOULD GIVE YOU MORE OF MY TWO CENTS, BUT I NEED EVERY PENNY I CAN GET TO PAY FOR THAT OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBAMINATION, OBAMACARE.
Yes, my comment is a bit extreme. Someone once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." I agree.
I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'–in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government–it doesn't own you.
I would actually rather have the real Lurch as Secretary of State. Lurch and Kerry are like Jekyll and Hyde, with Lurch as Dr. Jekyll. To the best of my knowledge, Lurch never:
--Lied about his military service;
--Protested against his country while the country was at war;
--Was for military action before being against it;
--Has been portrayed as a waffle;
--Voted for Obamacare;
--Voted to disarm Americans;
--Associated with Jane Fonda;
--Spoke French at home; or
--Cozied up to America's enemies.
I hope that Press Secretary Jay Cravenly got lots of overtime for this one. Only he must have been so tired he forgot to airbrush out the steam locomotive coming through the woods. You can see it just behind the barrel of the shotgun.
Note to Loon Gunman: Aim up at the clays, not down at Joe Biden. Naw, I take that back.
Note to Pseudo Constitutional Law Professor from Practicing Attorney who has actually read the Constitution: I can do whatever I want to your photo. It's called satire, dumbass. Satire of a public figure is protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, a document you are utterly ignorant of. Jerry Falwell found that out in 1982 or so when he sued Hustler publisher Larry Flynt. If you were really a lawyer and/or professor of constitutional law, you would know that.