I'm not a huge fan of Wonkette, mostly because she reminds me too much of the right wing blogs that contain a lot of wacky, ideological nonsense. But her recent piece on just how irresponsible Americans are with guns is right on the mark.
In other words, you can literally misplace your 9mm pistol in the waistband of your one-year-old’s diaper (please don’t!), and most jurisdictions in this country won’t bring criminal child neglect or endangerment charges. Which is exactly what the founders intended.
On this issue, we need to see more stuff like this. This is the only language the Gun Cult understands. Anything less is like bringing a knife to a gun fight (pun intended).
And, if you think the stories related in this piece are anectdata, think again. We have over 200 children under the age of 18 killed or injured and accidental shootings outnumbering defensive use by 54 incidents already in 2015 with next to nothing being done about it in terms of gun safety.
The responsibility for next to nothing being done lies solely at the feet of the gun lobby and the cult that believes everything they say. Shedding a light on this simple fact, as Wonkette does in her gun violence pieces, is completely supported by this site.
11 comments:
Just a reminder - a defensive gun use does not require a dead or wounded assailant as a result.
over 200 children under the age of 18 killed or injured and accidental shootings outnumbering defensive use by 54 incidents already in 2015
Hey! Way to merge two different things into one sentence in order to cloud what the real numbers are.
Your topic is accidental shootings.
200 children (under 18) killed or injured isn't 'accidental shootings' and you know it. This number also includes 16-18 y.o. gang members and other criminals. Don't need to break it down, because if your topic is accidental shootings, the ONLY number with any relevance is the accidental shootings number.
I guess this doesn't count as a defensive gun use to Progtards since no shots were fired and nobody was killed or wounded, but it sure looks like a defensive gun use to anybody with more than a squirrel's nut for a brain. I can come up with a couple of hundred more of these examples, but it wouldn't convince the sort who willingly swallow obviously absurd statistics the way street-corner whores swallow their 'clients' loads at night. Fluffers for the Almighty State is all Marksie and Nikto are, egaer fluffers for the Almight State.
GD, the nature of each shooting is sourced on the GVA. Did you bother to read through each of the incidents? Here you go...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports
GVA is not an unbiased source.
How exactly are they biased?
Did you not understand the simple words I wrote?
Let's try it again:
You are making a post. The post is about insecure gun storage and gun safety.
The only numbers of deaths or injuries relating to said topic are those DIRECTLY attributed to guns that were improperly secured or due to improper handling.
You then used a conflated set of numbers in one sentence to 'prove' you point.
You used the number of accidental shootings. That has relevance to your subject.
You also used number of people 0-18 shot. That number does not have anything to do with accidental shootings.
Merging to unrelated numbers into one sentence is a shady attempt to conflate and increase the supposed impact of those numbers to make your point appear more 'dire'.
Well, this comment breaks all four of the rules for you, GD. Oh well...
M (condennse)d: squidink!
Here's another example of a "non-defensive gun use" according to the disengenuous bozo's at GVA and the mouth-breathers that repeat their obviously skewed numbers Police: Concealed permit holder stopped armed robbery of Vernal restaurant. No shots were fired and no one was killed or wounded, so it won't show up on their board. M furiously flaps arms and squeaks, "But they're non-partisan liars, they're merely issue-oriented and that's entiwely diffewent and totally okay with fluffers around the world!"
Well, this comment breaks all four of the rules for you, GD. Oh well...
And that is a completely unsupported assertion. From now on, any Markadelphian assertion provided without support will be considered automatically false.
Look dickhead - you asked a specific question, to wit: GD, the nature of each shooting is sourced on the GVA. Did you bother to read through each of the incidents? Here you go...
I provided a very specific response to your question. Do you not like it? Too fucking bad. Do you not agree with it? Great - explain why - using facts and figures and logic and stuff that you apparently can't do.
I explained why your post above is misleading. Rebut my post, if you can't then apparently Your post is misleading.
Post a Comment