Streak's blog misses Streak, but less sad.
That map isn't too bad, but I am not sure what point it is trying to make. The author even admits at the end that the murder rate has sharply declined. The other problem is that they link to one that is absolute shit. I am talking about the 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook. While there have been a few media outlets that have done some fact checking, an unfortunate number have just reprinted it without even bothering to see if it was true. Someone went through and dug up all the news reports and found that more than a few "school shootings":1. Didn't happen on school property.2. Involved suicide attempts.3. Were accidental discharges and no one was hurt.4. Didn't happen when school was in session.You get the picture. Intellectual dishonesty at it's best, though I would simply call them liars.
Since I didn't post the 74 shootings story, not sure your point. And also not sure why suicide attempts don't matter. We know that guns make suicides worse, though gun people refuse to acknowledge that. Seriously, with your insistence on defending the NRA, I am not completely sure you want to call them liars. Not that you are lying. But you aren't being intellectually honest.
Suicides do matter, but the gun is a tool in the suicide. It isn't as if a non-suicidal person picks up a gun and decides to kill themselves. There are countries with higher suicide rates than the US that ban guns. Can you point me to some non-opinion claim by the NRA that is a lie? I am willing to give a pass to anti-gun groups when they make some broad statement like "guns are dangerous" or something similar, but they have a long history of stretching the truth to inflate the numbers. Besides the aforementioned link from the article you posted, they have included adults up to age 25 in looking at "children" killed by guns.Incidentally, I read an article a few days ago that discussed gun violence research. It refuted the claim from numerous groups that research has declined because of legislation passed by the "gun lobby." It turns out that this is not true. The total number of studies had actually gone up between 1996 and 2010.
Non-opinion? So them endorsing torture doesn't count? Got you. Your blind spot for the NRA is intact.
Wow that is a stretch.Non-employee makes speech that gives an opinion that supports torture at an event = Official press release from a group making a false statement?Got it.
So how far will you go to defend the NRA? Racist rants from prominent board members? Cheering crowd for that non-employee embracing torture? Calls for more and more people to have guns, because, evidently, more guns are better--no matter what? Oh, and of course, the one that you swore they didn't defend, yet they did--their complete capitulation to idiots who carry assault weapons into restaurants. I would really like to take you seriously. By all accounts you are a responsible person and a responsible gun owner. You, personally, are dedicated to gun safety and usage. Yet, you bend over backward to defend the idiots in the gun culture. And worse, you refuse to even see it.
I haven't defended them on any of those things. I have been critical of all of them and have spoken out against that as much as possible.I am pragmatic in this regard. I wish there was an effective gun rights group that I could agree with 100% of the time. There isn't.
No one is holding up the 100% standard. I am suggesting you are defending an evil organization at the political level. They aid and abet evil, and did so in a public fashion with a loud cheering crowd of NRA people.
Post a Comment