"Millions of kids shot down by assault rifles"

Status
Not open for further replies.

dakota.potts

New member
Another fun piece for you. Here we have New York representative Charlie Rangel on the Assault Weapons Ban being removed

"“We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons,” he continued. “Were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue…”

I just don't understand how these stereotypes get passed around. Kids are targeted in one attack (which we won't discuss further here out of respect for the forum members unable to and the rules stating as such) and suddenly millions of kids are dying.

He also refers to hunters not needing "automatic military weapons" as if there are people out there hunting with M60's or automatic M4's.

The article is quick to point out that in 2011, 323 people were killed with "assault weapons" where as 728 people were killed with "fists, feet, hands, etc." and 6,220 killed with handguns. No distinction is made between intentional homicides and suicides, negligent discharges, etc.

Am I alone in thinking we need *more* anti-gun politicians to talk out of their rear end this way?
 
Rangel has never "gotten it".

Anyone who speaks about the 2A as if it has anything to do with hunting immediately "tips their hand" showing that they haven't the foggiest notion what the 2A really means.

Rangel's 'math' is also little suspect since it is hard to see how he gets from 323 people (if that is even true) to "millions of kids shot down by assault rifles".

The sad thing is that there is an entire constituency willing to take it as gospel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rangel's 'math' is also little suspect since it is hard to see how he gets from 323 people (if that is even true)

323 is the number killed in 2011 by rifles of *all* types, not just ones that could be described as "assault weapons".
 
Last edited:
Sorry Scott, that was my poor interpretation that got that number.

Are shotguns also considered rifles? If so 323 actually seems a little low statistically
 
If it's misdemeanor to lie to a cop, and a felony to lie to congress, shouldn't it be a capital crime to lie to the American people? ;)
 
Kids are targeted in one attack (which we won't discuss further here out of respect for the forum members unable to and the rules stating as such) and suddenly millions of kids are dying.

Since he went on to rant about hand guns in the inner cities, I suspect he wan't talking about kids in schools, but kids on the street. But he still exaggerates.
 
Since he went on to rant about hand guns in the inner cities, I suspect he wan't talking about kids in schools, but kids on the street. But he still exaggerates.

That's a good point. Depending on which anti-gun group is massaging the stats, "kids" can cover victims up to 25 years old.
 
"Millions"? Seriously!?!?!?

I doubt that "millions" of children have been killed by even something so common as auto accidents in the last 50 years! If you ballpark it at 50K deaths (all ages) annually, and multiply that by 50, you don't get 3 million ...... unless you do some serious statistical gymnastics (such as claiming 25 year olds are children) you don't get "millions of children" killed in auto accidents.

Grandstanding for the Low Information Voters, pure and simple.

Sadly, that's all it takes.
 
If Rangel said it, it must be true. I enjoy listening to him on Fox when he's not necessarily speaking to the choir. His views on gun control are not fact based and Biden wants the facts to speak for themselves in the gun control issue.... that along with shooting through doors with a shotgun to scare away an intruder or shoot a couple shots (or as he says "blasts") into the air. Of course, it is illegal to discharge a firearm inside city limits in many cities. What is a fella to do? I know believe everything that CNBC/MSNBC reports.
 
Question for Mr. Rangel:

How many children die of SNAP induced diabetes related disease annually?

The gubberment creating a problem? Hurting the people they claim to help? Unlikely! Look at all the successes of the social programs from the 60s! Just a little more time and money and maximum control...I mean assistance can be realized!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top