Heh...
I got bored...
Bogie bored is a bad thing.
======
I'm guessing that someone is guilty of the sin of omission and didn't adequately consider that before they managed to get this uploaded...
Let's look at his major talking point:
1,000 people/day die due to "guns?" I suppose that the people holding onto 'em and yanking on the triggers of the "deadly, unethical" inanimate objects are then completely blameless... Time to retake that class in critical thinking...
But then again, let's look at that number... A thousand a day? Campers, we're looking at some _serious_ headlines. That's 365,000/year, with no time off for Christmas! Now, granted, after one digs to the END of the piece, and actually goes to a different web site, one can learn that our scribbler is bemoaning an alleged international state of affairs. And war. Sigh... He's not talking about the roughly 15,000 US homicide victims (altho the omission of attribution leads one that way), or the approximately 68% of those who were shot (ditto, and my source is the FBI, 2005 data, which he probably doesn't like either). And we're not going to get into the number of these murders that were essentially the result of criminal-on-criminal violence... That's not really within our time scope.
Nope. Let's focus - He's upset over a thousand folks a day who are killed by boomsticks. He doesn't voice concerns over territorial tribal warlords, government-caused genocide by famine, or many of the other not-so-noisy ways in which folks in not-even developing nations have been figuring out to kill each other. Maybe he should consider "machete control," or the novel concept of air dropping AK-47s and RPGs to the populations which are being targeted, so that they may have a chance of defending themselves, and the next shipment of airdropped food, when the lowlifes show up to steal it (so that it can be sold so that the neighborhood territorial warlord can have a nice new gold-plated toilet seat...). But I suspect that may cause a cranial vapor lock in our scribbler. Pity.
Also, I think he's going to need to repeat a history course. Or maybe math...
300 years ago, when "guns were necessary" in the Appalachians and in the west... Okay... Math-time: 1706... Boone, Harrod, Kenton and crew didn't get a successful community founded beyond the Cumberland gap until 1774... Of course, that _was_ the west at that point.
Maybe bigger numbers just sound more important...
And 172 percent? I'd _really_ like to see how he arrived at that one... According to the FBI's numbers (which I feel somewhat confident in...), approximately 1,200 women were murdered in 2005 (maybe 10% of the male figure, but then most - obviously not all - women are generally smart enough to not hang around with guys who are dealing drugs or committing other crimes...). Now, there's about 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Notice the difference in numbers... Now, it's been a long time since stats class, but I did routinely figure errors in a lab for 10 years... Can you say "microblip?"
In the approximately 6% of cases where the assailant uses only "fists and feet" as weapons (FBI, 2005), I'm sure that if the victim had had the mechanical means to resist, the situation would have changed greatly - but then only someone with philosophical blinders on would insist that a 120 pound woman should be required defend herself against a 240 pound attacker using only her fists, feet, and maybe a set of car keys...
I suspect that our scribbler should be required to do a bit more research on Somalia, Darfur and the environs before another rant is considered.