The above ad is an interpretative dance/rap/musical performance calling for civilian disarmament in the name of the 33 firearms-related homicides that occur in America each day. So . . . what about the 2,379 Americans who use a gun successfully to defend themselves and/or their family every day? What about the millions of Americans who are safe from criminal predation on a daily basis because bad guys know they may face resistance from armed civilians, or have been been permanently removed from society by armed civilians? What about the tens of millions of men, women and children who breathe the air of freedom each and every day because gun owners protect society from government tyranny? Click here for my idea of a dance celebrating #fight4yourlife

62 Responses to Thirty-Three Firearms-Related Fatalities A Day? What About . . .

    • I thought Shannon said 38 the other day. See, the crime rate IS falling.

      And any band with a tuba can’t be all bad.

  1. The saga continues ever expanding as the government slaves and sycophants do the master’s bidding.

  2. The other stats you mentioned are meaningless because they DO NOT inspire fear and don’t fit the anti agenda.

  3. Nothing changes the world like interpretive dance. In fact I am looking forward to “Eric Holder and Fast and Furious on Ice” this summer. I hear the ATF agents dance the crap out of gun running.

    On a serious note and a rebuttal to the woman in the ad, everyday Congress breaks its promise to enforce our borders, hold corrupt government officials to account, and spend more than they take in. Congress fails to act on important issues everyday, but the only one you care about is a Constitutionally protected right. What if I made an artsy dance video about Congress failing to act to stop voter fraud by passing “common sense” voter ID reform?

    • “In fact I am looking forward to “Eric Holder and Fast and Furious on Ice” this summer.”

      I was working on something snarky…but I can’t top that. :^D Nice.

  4. “33 firearms related homicides”? No info on how many of those are justified police shootings?

  5. How about we just ban stupid people? Seriously, the fact that this music video even exists shows just how desperate the anti gun lobby is, our side keeps pointing out that guns are used in a more positive aspect more frequently. And yet, our fellow Americans across the aisle keep thier blinders up, it’s no different than denying that the human form has changed over the years, look at the average hight of a male from 200 years ago verses today.

  6. Those foolish gun control advocate allowed YouTube ratings and comments. The video is being lambasted. Go to YouTube and make a comment – while you still can. Mine’s there.

  7. We’ll fight violence with… DANCING!

    In their defense, that’s as good an idea as any other they’ve ever had.

  8. “Congress Broke a promise?” She must have meant that Congress failed to up hold their Oath of Office the protect and up hold the Constitution. I couldn’t wait this video after a minute.

    • Here ya go (sorry, Mel):

      MAIG was having trouble
      What a sad, sad story
      Needed a new leader to restore
      Its former glory
      Where, oh, where was she?
      Where could that woman be?
      We looked around and then we found
      The mother for you and me

      And now it’s…
      Springtime for Shannon and Ev’rytown
      Bloomberg is happy and gay!
      We’re marching with our bogus stats
      Look out, we’re here to take your gats!
      Springtime for Shannon and Ev’rytown
      Gun grabbin’s in fashion once more!
      Springtime for Shannon and Ev’rytown
      Watch out, patriots
      We’re going on tour!

  9. 2,379 sounds a bit high, especially if they are counting some of those 33 as “victims” of a successful DGU.

    • How do you figure it seems high?

      2379 DGU’s per day x 365 days / year = 868,335 DGU’s per year

      This is consistent with lower end estimates even the grabbers will admit to for DGU’s.

    • No. It’s simple math.

      2379 DGU’s per day x 365 days / year = 868,335 DGU’s per year

      This is consistent with lower end estimates even the grabbers will admit to for DGU’s.

      Other estimates are even higher…1-2 million per year (5479 per day for 2 million).

      • Nope, the lower end estimates are 50-80k, and those are the numbers anti’s will generally admit to.

        • Not the ones that have any serious credibility at all. They usually run the mid six figures. I’m reasonably sure the lower numbers you are mentioning come from “pull it out your butt and hope someone believes it” land.

          There have even been grabbers that complain Lott’s numbers are too and the “real number” is closer to ONE MILLION per year. So,yeah; the quoted value per day is consistent with a LOT of claims and is not at all unbelievable.

        • I’m not debating you on credibility or motive, I’m telling you that low end estimates start in the 50’s, and that those are the numbers the anti’s use.

          In regard to analysis, I’d agree that the low end of five figures is low, but the high end of estimates in the mid 1 to 2 millions is also ridiculous, with unrealistically small sample sizes and poor methodology. The best research seems to indicate an actual number of 3-800k.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

        • I can claim only one person used a gun for DGU in 2013 and that does not make it true.

          Credibility in this kind of debate is everything. You don’t just get to make up numbers and I don’t give a rats backside what wikipedia has to say on ANY subject.

          But, let’s go to the wp page you linked. There is ONE researcher that claims 55,000-80,000 and every other study referenced is SIX OR SEVEN FIGURES.

          Let’s also note that the researching claiming that low-ball number is cited as published in 1997… 17 year old data that is inconsistent with what, 20 or 30 other studies done at that time and since then?

          Come on.

          Best guess at this time puts the annual number of DGU’s conservatively at around 1,000,000 plus or minus a few hundred thousand. If you don’t like that, tough. If you are just being pedantic because I ignored one outliar study from nearly twenty years ago, find another hobby; this one does not pay well.

        • What numbers did I make up? If you don’t care about what Wikipedia has to say (nevermind why you don’t care) why did put so much into responding? Nevermind actually, I don’t care. If you had a point you’d have made it by now.

        • I did not mean you made numbers up, sorry. I meant that particular “you” as the rhetorical you. Maybe should have said, “One does not get to make numbers up” but some find that awkward.

          More generally, I was responding to your statement about credibility:

          “I’m not debating you on credibility or motive”

          I was saying that believing numbers just because someone claims them is pretty pointless in this discussion.

          I don’t care about wikipedia because it is a crap – Pure. Adulterated. Crap. – source of information.

          The reason for my response was simple. Other people will read this discussion and see our little disagreement regarding the low-ball estimates of DGU’s. I want those people to get good information that is verifiable in by CURRENT research on the topic.

          That one Northwestern University researcher in 1997 did a study that by far lies outside even the wings of the distributions of every other study done then and since is no basis on which to draw conclusions.

          I did not want misinformation go unchallenged on a topic that is very important to gun rights. So, don’t think of it as me responding to you personally.

  10. As of right now, dislikes outnumber likes by over 2:1. I’m betting that’s not the response they were expecting.

  11. It doesn’t sound too high to me, Does that count the police killing all the pet dogs, whether they are at the correct address or not? I suggest the people stay armed & the police get unarmed!

  12. Vast majority of the “33” take place a) in cities that b) liberals/Progs/Dems have run into the ground. Black on black quite frankly.

    To hide the unmitigated disaster their failed social engineering has yielded, in true Alinsky Fashion, freeze the target: the gun, not the user and the environment that spawned them, is to blame, leaving the Libs blameless.

  13. Good point. I’d like to see the stats for murders committed with firearms not counting urban minorities. I’d guess the number would be pretty damn small. Is it racist if its true?

    • I’m not sure what you mean by “urban minorities” – is that opposed to rural minorities? Regardless a third are committed by whites, another third by blacks and further third by other groups or assailants of unknown race. So it’s not true, and it (what you said) is racist.

      • Good grief, this has to be a joke. Urban minorities are members of a minority population that live in urban locations. And yes, those would be different from rural minorities since they, by definition, live in rural locations.

        Take a look at some crime statistics…real data, not fantasy…and see if you can discern any differences between rural and urban locations in regard to violent crime.

        And while you are there, take a look at crime stats by race/ethnicity.

        Here’s the link to get you started:

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime

        • Seriously, you’ve got to be the most priggish person I’ve encountered on these boards. If you’d literally scrolled down one comment rather than racing to prove me wrong you’d see that A) I’m right, and I’ve already cited the statistics you posted, and B) You are indeed defending a racist. All you end up doing is arguing against yourself.

  14. I mean fn BLAX!! And yea it’s different from rural minorities bc they kill each other in the cities, not Kansas. It is true. Stop trying to make excuses. I used to have liberal tendencies in that regard but got sick of their bs.

    • Next time just say “I’m an idiot”. It will save me the trouble of responding and attempting to introduce data into a debate with someone who can’t write “blacks”.

    • They’re white according to genetics, but the statistics I cited broke out “Hispanic whites” and “non-Hispanic whites” and I only included the latter group, so regardless, you’re wrong. And an idiot.

  15. Questions:

    33 deaths from guns out of how many total deaths in a day?

    33 deaths from guns compared to how many abortions in a day?

    Of those 33, how many were crimes? How many accidental? How many self defense?

  16. That was so bad, I can’t even think of a way to accurately describe it that would not inevitably be replaced with “COMMENT MODERATED”.

  17. What a bunch of expendable rabble! More like “interpretive dance for transferring ever more power to the scumbuckets who pay the guys who have been indoctrinating us on the taxpayers tab for the past century or so.”

  18. Outstanding post however I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic?
    I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further.

    Kudos!

  19. Unquestionably imagine that which you said. Your favourite reason seemed
    to be on the internet the easiest factor to have in mind of.
    I say to you, I definitely get annoyed whilst other people consider issues that they plainly don’t recognize about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top and outlined out the entire thing with no need side effect
    , other people could take a signal. Will probably be again to get more.
    Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *