PDA

View Full Version : JPFO ALERT: How the War in Iraq Hurts Gun Owners


SemiAutoSam
03-14-2007, 11:44 AM
I thought you all might find this interesting.





ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

March 14, 2007

JPFO ALERT: How the War in Iraq Hurts Gun Owners

Since the US launched its invasion in March 2003, the war in
Iraq has been controversial to say the least. Politicos,
pundits, and average American citizens have debated both its
advisability and morality in the media and on the internet.
Yet one particular aspect has received very little coverage:
how the war affects gun owners.

At first glance, the two issues seem utterly unrelated. Yet
research reveals a sobering fact: soldiers from rural America
are dying in the Iraq war at a much higher rate than their
urban brethren. In fact, nearly _half_ of the military
fatalities in Iraq have come from towns with a population of
under 25,000, and one in five have hometowns of less than
5,000 ( http://tinyurl.com/2kqzbb ).

What's the connection, you ask?

Rural residents are far more likely to be gun owners. One
study in the medical journal _Pediatrics_ showed that rural
households are nearly three times more likely to have
firearms than urban households ( http://tinyurl.com/2tk6he ).
The 2004 National Firearms Survey backs this up, stating
that "(f)irearms are most likely to be owned by white men
who live in a rural area"
( http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15 ).

If this information is accurate -- and we have no reason to
believe otherwise -- then statistically speaking, it is
probable that more gun owners than non-gun owners are dying
in the war.

That means there are that many fewer Americans who actively
support firearms ownership. That many fewer Americans who
understand the necessity of these useful tools. That many
fewer Americans who know about their right to keep and bear
arms. And -- given the average age of these war casualities --
than many fewer Americans who will in turn have children of
their own to whom they will teach the value of firearms
ownership.

We mourn not only the loss of our fellow Americans, but the
loss of their influence on one of our most important,
fundamental rights. If you belong to a gun club or range
group, or simply wish to help honor these brave men and
women who have sacrificed themselves for their country,
consider perhaps teaching a class, giving a talk, or
otherwise educating a youth group on the importance and
value of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. In
doing so, perhaps in some small way we can make up for
the loss of an American who can no longer do this for his
own children or community.

- The Liberty Crew


Related Links:

The Forgotten American Dead:
Rural America Pays the President's Price in Iraq
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=160190

Texas Hispanic Soldiers Dying at Higher Rate:
Iraq Toll Falls Unevenly on Latinos, Rural Whites
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/02/27wardead.html
or http://tinyurl.com/y4w2m3

xenophobe
03-14-2007, 11:51 AM
It's very sad that American Soldiers are dying over there, but they're doing their job and most feel they are doing the right thing and that risking their lives for this mission is worthwhile. But, the numbers lost are statistically insignificant when it boils down to 2nd Amendment rights.

bwiese
03-14-2007, 12:28 PM
It's very sad that American Soldiers are dying over there, but they're doing their job and most feel they are doing the right thing and that risking their lives for this mission is worthwhile. But, the numbers lost are statistically insignificant when it boils down to 2nd Amendment rights.

Correct, and I think it was in bad taste of JPFO to use these stats which don't show up in really electorally measurable amounts.

Right now we have ~3100 KIA (sorry I forget exact #). That's spread across a country of 300 Million folks. What JPFO says about distribution likely has at least a measure of truth, but I think that it's really a core urban vs suburban vs rural breakdown. (.mil enlistment increases as you move out of a city center, and suburban areas are significantly higher by other accounts)

But that still says these 3100 are out of a pool of, say, 175 million if you subtract out urban cores and the immediate metro ring around them. Distributed over, say, 30 states, that's on avg 100 difference per state.

This also makes the assumption that such folks all vote pro-gun on their return, which could be doubtful. Many of these folks come from heavy union areas, where union arm-twisting could turn progun sentiments into a vote for a union-backed antigun candidate.

What does this mean? It's all a wash with the numbers even 5X greater, and the JPFO just wanted some attention for a press release to help drum up funding for their one-man show.

GJJ
03-14-2007, 01:06 PM
This war will cost gunowners because it is percieved as a Republican war. Of course, the democrats went along with it. But, GWB gets the credit for one of the stupidest decisions of all time.

Long term, it costs us $12B a month with an estimated cost of up to $1T. Guess what boys and girls, wars aren't free. Eventually, the USA will go bankrupt just like the USSR due to our addiction to military spending and debt. It is a certainty.

You can't borrow $1.5B a day and expect to not have a day of reckoning. It is common sense.

SigShooter
03-14-2007, 01:53 PM
Correct, and I think it was in bad taste of JPFO to use these stats which don't show up in really electorally measurable amounts.

Right now we have ~3100 KIA (sorry I forget exact #). That's spread across a country of 300 Million folks. What JPFO says about distribution likely has at least a measure of truth, but I think that it's really a core urban vs suburban vs rural breakdown. (.mil enlistment increases as you move out of a city center, and suburban areas are significantly higher by other accounts)

But that still says these 3100 are out of a pool of, say, 175 million if you subtract out urban cores and the immediate metro ring around them. Distributed over, say, 30 states, that's on avg 100 difference per state.

This also makes the assumption that such folks all vote pro-gun on their return, which could be doubtful. Many of these folks come from heavy union areas, where union arm-twisting could turn progun sentiments into a vote for a union-backed antigun candidate.

What does this mean? It's all a wash with the numbers even 5X greater, and the JPFO just wanted some attention for a press release to help drum up funding for their one-man show.


I agree... kinda ticked me off a bit.

The main way the war is hurting gun owners... IT'S RAISING THE COST OF AMMO. All that .223/5.56 & .308/7.62 going over there is forcing me to pay out my nose for 1/2 way decent ammo.:mad: