@oralloy,
So "small minority" means what? 40%? 30%? 67%?
Obama and his policy advocates seem to be ignoring the
disproportionately large problem of gun homicides for blacks.
1. The rates of gun-related homicide, suicide and accidental death have decreased by 44 percent, 19 percent and 69 percent respectively since 1993 (for all races and ages).
2. After declining substantially over 10 years, gun suicides rates have significantly increased each year since 2006 (for all races and ages).
3. Since 1993 the rate of gun suicides has been higher than both gun homicides and accidental gun deaths combined (all races and ages).
4. The ratio of gun suicides to gun homicides for white Americans is 3.1 to 1 and is the highest across all races, with whites aged 15 to 34 being most at risk.
5. Americans aged 15 to 24 are the most at risk for gun homicide, but the ratio of gun homicides to accidental deaths for this group was just 1 to 3 (all races).
6. The majority of American gun homicides (54 percent) take the lives of black Americans, who constitute just 14 percent of the total population.
7. Homicide is the leading cause of death only for black Americans aged 15 to 34, with 87.4 percent of all homicides for this group caused by guns.
8. The ratio of gun homicides to gun suicides for black Americans is over 6.1 to 1, but for non-black Americans it is just 1 to 3 (a difference of nearly 20 times).
9. The ratio of gun homicides to deaths from flu/pneumonia for black Americans is 1.1 to 1, for non-black Americans, it is just 0.1 to 1 (a difference of 10 times).
10. The ratio of gun homicides to accidental death not due to firearms for black Americans is .50 to 1. For non-black Americans, it is just .05 to 1 (a difference of 10 times).
@H2O MAN,
From the same source as quoted above (Center for Disease Control. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related)
Gun rights advocates clobber gun ban proposal
Quote:Assault weapons that can fire numerous times in seconds are designed for only one thing: killing large numbers of people. The military and law enforcement officers need that ability; ordinary law-abiding citizens do not.
Get that? Law enforcement officers "need" to be capable of "killing large numbers of people." What part of maintaining law and order requires mass slaughter?
If there is any conceivable scenario in which law enforcement officers need to kill "large numbers of people," then "large numbers of [we the] people" need as much firepower as we can possibly acquire.
Continuing their attempts to bypass the US constitution and disarm law abiding Americans
leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals and the federal government, Mr. & Mrs.
Obama plan to exploit and politicize the death of that one girl from Chicago Tuesday
night by having the mother of that child present. Pathetic!
@H2O MAN,
Those are some specious statistics.
let's simply collect 15 instances where a civilian fired on someone and then claim they were stopping a shooting rampage.
*edit - let me correct that statement. In the 15 instances where civilians "stopped a shooting rampage" only twice did a civilian actually fire a gun. In one of those instances the ONLY person killed was the person that supposedly stopped the attack. In most instances the person stopping the attack was unarmed.
@H2O MAN,
And the updated
statistics numbers show an unarmed civilian is more likely to stop a "rampage" shooter than an armed civilian is.
It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
@H2O MAN,
Quote:It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
Nonsense. Often a bad guy with a gun will stop another bad guy with a gun.
