“The ease with which one can acquire automatic weapons and cop-killer bullets in the United States has created a very violent country. It makes sense, then, that rational citizens would want practical regulations limiting access. No non-uniformed person should have automatic weapons, and basic restrictions for those who’ve shown a proclivity to violence, have a history of mental illness, or have failed to receive proper training and instruction should be tightened. In fact, poll after poll show an overwhelming majority of Americans share the same view – numbers north of 90 percent.” – Zachary Dominitz, Lessons, Guns and Money: Why Bloomberg’s War on the NRA May Change the Face of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex [via huffingtonpost.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Ignorance Is Anti-Ballistic Bliss Edition
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I don’t know anything about guns here’s some anti gun rhetoric.
That’s literally the summary of the article.
It’s more :”here is some regurgitated and false anti gun rhetoric”
– Zachary Dominitz, Lessons, Guns and Money: A book about not researching your topics.
You forgot to comment on the faux-intellectual and academic-sounding title incorporating “big words”(tm).
Now, look at this baby.
Man, where can we get some of those fully auto weapons? I thought the Justice Department was too busy deporting them to Mexico. Just another idiot with no facts. Even with several disarmed mega cities we are still like 30th worldwide in violent crime. Course with owning more guns than any other country, and the rest of the law abiding world being effectively disarmed, we would have a higher rate of gun crime, though I bet our nailbat crime rate is well below the UK.
Nailbat would be an awesome name for a punk band!
You have to wonder where they come up with their statistics. How easy lying comes to these clowns is astonishing.
First, consider the source…Huffpo makes USA Today (McBirdcage Liner) look like journalism.
Second, IIRC from that class I hated in grad school, its called false consensus or something like that. If I believe it to be true, then everyone else does too.
After all its for the children
Are you talking about the Big Lie?
Pauline Kael syndrome.
I hear the overwhelming majority of them lie north of 90 percent of the time.
…wow, that is easy. I should make up numbers more often. So much easier than doing research and…ugh…thinking about stuff.
Gallup is showing that the number supporting any additional gun control is 31% and falling. About 40% want no changes. and about 16% and increasing want less gun control.
The only item polling reflecting 90% on ANYTHING gun related are polls showing over 90% of self identified Democratic women believe gun murder is up (Pew Research)
“The only item polling reflecting 90% on ANYTHING gun related are polls showing over 90% of self identified Democratic women believe gun murder is up (Pew Research)”
We can all thank Rahm Emmanuel, Gary Mccarthy, and their cronies in Chicago, IL for that . However, it is noted the Poll is ‘self identified Democrats’, so there just might be a “smidgen” of anti-Second Amendment bias in there.
FASLEY believe gun murder is up.
Huffpo speaks to an audience who believes that emotions = logic. When emotions are involved all reason and rational thought is then removed so there is no point in truth, facts or logic. One is then allowed to simply make stuff up to satisfy the “emotional IQ” of the crowd.
The tag line for Huffpo should be “Yellow Journalism Practiced Everyday”
This is pretty much their problem. “I’m a smart person so whatever I think and feel must be true and right for everyone, if they don’t agree they’re simply not as intelligent and refined as I am and are simply speaking from ignorance”. Intellectual bias is a killer for actual intellectual thought and reason. It has lead to the mockery of many a scientist and scholar that exchange their hubris for actual results.
Well, let’s amend that a bit:
HuffPo’s audience is exceeded in their gullibility only by the people who write for HuffPo.
When Arianna Huffington started a web site, she suckered a whole lot of people to write content for her website for free.
Then she sold said website for big bucks… and all the bloggers and splenetic leftists airing their most recent intellectual onanism on HuffPo got (wait for it) nothing.
Then a blogger sued Huffington, claiming their due a cut of the $300+ mil that Arianna scored for HuffPo. Who would pay $300+ mil for this website and their demographic is beyond me, but hey, Arianna was shrewd enough to pull it off.
This says quite a bit about HuffPo and their audience.
Arianna was brilliant in this; she gave a bunch of know nothing but highly opinionated people who’d been run off of every forum an blog due to their ignorance and constant assertion of their false beliefs a place where they could vent and she could make money on it. I wish I’d have thought of it “disaffected morons of the world, ye who are misunderstood and mocked for your (false) beliefs, come tell me all about it (while I collect advertising fees on your content)”. It’s actually a brilliant plan.
“Who would pay $300+ mil for this website and their demographic is beyond me…”
AOL. The same outfit that’s been affectionately known for decades as “Azzholes On Line.” Suckers!
90% of the time people make up statistics 40% of the time. Or something like that
Research shows that 73% of people who use the term “research shows” are just making shit up.
A recent Dads Dodging Demanding Dames poll showed 4 out of 5 Mike in the Box employees prefer the new Bloomburger with cheese and Monsanto fries to being locked in the walk in freezer “for their own safety.”
No non-uniformed person should have automatic weapons,
Did you want to mention why not? COMMENT MODERATED
Somebody needs to tell a$$head that, except for squad weapons, individual weapons are no longer full auto….they fire single shot or 3-round burst. And they are still running on this ‘cop killer bullet’ thing. These people are too stupid to continue being allowed to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time.
Shhhh… Don’t interrupt the adversary while they’re making a mistake.
I’m curious which cop killers he’s referring to. Does he mean the steel cored armor piercing ones, or the hollow point armor piercing ones?
(Yes, many gun-banners think that hollow points are designed to penetrate armor.)
Hmmm… The off-kilter ball cap and pants drooped a foot too low constitute a uniform of sorts.
Do they ever tell the truth? Seriously even once
They do, but only when it fits their political agenda. Huffpo believes they are an extension of the DNC and thus whatever propaganda is good for the DNC, is good for them. Counter agenda, they lie – Pro-agenda they tell the truth or at least spin it that way.
Let me point out, this is an opinion peace and on the Huffpo, it can be all over the place and sometimes free of facts or logic regardless of the topic or agenda
I need to go to a uniform shop and buy one so I can then have an automatic weapon.
Who would have thought?
That is brilliant! It doesn’t even have to be a police uniform (and it shouldn’t, you know, because jail.) I could get a job and a local fast food joint and my automatic weapon is on the way!
Was this a junior high writing assignment? It disturbs me that anyone could write that scattered, rambling article and think “nailed it!”
You got it, most of the commenters here write better when they’re drunk than this idiot.
Basic restrictions….also should apply to the first amendment, in that if you have no clue as to what you are writing about, you should be forced by law to shut the f*ck up. I bet he wouldn’t go for that one.
I quit reading after “cop killer bullets”.
Must be the ones that will ONLY kill cops….
Oh, that’s good!
Seriously. 1993 called, dude. They want their nonsense gun control argument back.
Those are the armor piercing hollow points, in black ‘natch.
Are those the ones with a garlic core and titanium nitride coating, with a Teflon® sabot and “I hate cops” micro-stamped on the primer…?
Secret Service doesn’t wear uniforms. He doesn’t want the president protected. Did he suggest disarming the secret service when Bush was president? Must be a racist then. Good, I can ignore evrything he wrong after he proved he was a racist.
Wow! Playing the race card is really easy!
Excellent work, sir!
There are at least two divisions of the Secret Service, one uniformed, one not. The uniformed division provides guard service to a number of facilities, especially operations in Washington of foreign governments.
Given the balistic performance we see from the uniformed members (police) of society I don’t think it is a good idea to given them access to any firearm.
The canine community supports this statement.
For the puppies!™
“No non uniformed person”, because police are –
1. Always there to stop the crime in progress
2. Would never abuse their position of power
3. Always know whats best for you and me, and how to protect our families/loved ones
4. Are so well trained to utilize said firearms
These idiots are all about the gun grab until they are beat to shit in some ally, or their home is ransacked or loved ones are attacked, and then, well then, its the police’s fault for not being there. I guess they are convinced that the government is going to protect them from bad people doing bad things all the time, everywhere.
And “cop killer” bullets, love it, so if a cop is stabbed in the side with a long knife, or in the chest and misses the steel trauma plate but goes through the kevlar and kills him, is that knife now classified as a “cop killer knife”?
“2. Would never abuse their [police] position of power”
Thank you. I was going to call out Mr. Dominitz on that premise. I have yet to identify the pixy dust or supernatural incantation that magically prevents all law enforcement agents from acting unethically, immorally, illegally, or negligently.
People are people no matter where they are in life, that’s why I carry.
5. Never show a tendency to loose track of said Automatic weapons.
Since when are police ‘uniformed’ on the pics of the raids I they appear to be a ragtag mob. Disarm them first, then I’ll think about it.
From what I know, regular bullets work fine. Don’t need special cop killer bullets to kill one. As long as your bullets work against animals in the 80-100 kg category they should work for cops too.
They’re all “cop killer bullets”. To the extent they’re designed to give up their kinetic energy quickly on impact, they cause larger wound channels and more tissue damage and are thus “cop killer bullets”. To the extent they’re designed to hold together on impact and retain their kinetic energy, they’re more effective in penetrating body armor and are thus “cop killer bullets”.
He probably doesn’t know which one he means, but he does know the difference doesn’t matter to him.
If I’ve been following anti-gun agitprop correctly over the years, I believe what they commonly refer to as “cop killers” are standard hollow points. You know, because they’ll punch through body armor…
Well, yes, now that they’ve already gotten the other end of the spectrum banned under the guise of being the exact same thing.
I recall also that they were special Teflon coated bullets that could magically penetrate anything except Kryptonite.
Wasnt the only murder using an automatic firearm commited by a cop that shot his wife? Pretty sure that little fact would make his head explode.
Not his wife, but a drug dealer.
So, how do the manufacturers get these “cop-killer” bullets to target law enforcement specifically? Being a techno-geek, I’m rather curious about how the technology works. *rolls eyes*
You know, like they said above: If it expands it’s a cop killer and it if doesn’t it’s a vest penetrator and thus a cop killer.
I wonder if it’s occurred to anyone that a person who suspects cops will be the people they have to shoot may have been training to shoot the groin and head since the late 80’s?
It is not anywhere near easy to acquire an automatic firearm. It is ridiculously hard and expensive as all hell. Cop killer bullets? I have only seen hollow points referred to as cop killer bullets. First of all there is nothing unique about them that makes them “cop killers” they are equally as deadly for any human. Also, cops often wear protective vests, which hollow points are actually less effective against than FMJ rounds. Just goes to show how uninformed and intentionally ignorant anti-gun people are.
Oh and anyone who says “No non-uniformed person should have automatic weapons” giving extra rights to those with a uniform might as well support fascism. We are ALL equal (or we are supposed to be) in America. Uniform or not.
I’m guessing you’ve tried only legal channels then?
I states (like mine) with AW Bans it’s flat-out impossible, and has been since the early 1990s. There are a few lucky souls who have them grandfathered but that’s it. They can’t be transfered in-state to another non-FFL, even with all the Federal paperwork.
If “no non-uniformed person should have automatic weapons…” – then why would uniformed persons need automatic weapons? – so no automatic weapons for the Secret Service or undercover DEA etc…
This man is a “non-informed person”.
He forgot to say “Look at this baby”.
If you read the whole thing, you get the clear impression that he believes passing a UBC bill in the states could potentially end hunger and disease in Africa. Not kidding.
Summary of this article in hash tags:
See, Bloomberg? I can come up with hash tags for MUCH less than you’re spending on your social media leaders (who try to invoke the “Comic Sans is evil” meme on a font that isn’t Comic Sans).
Well, in fairness, Comic Sans is pretty evil….
Computer Modern. Not just for LaTeX anymore. 🙂
@Aaron, ya gotta admit, it has a pretty mouth.
Would somebody please tell me where I can get all the easily had automatic rifles he is talking about?
Maybe from Holder?
That’s what I was thinking, where can I get these automatic weapons? Last time I checked they were expensive, not produced since May of 1986 and required a lengthy NFA process to acquire. Huh, these guys must know something I don’t.
Cop killer bullets? I guess any bullet potentially could be but isn’t that more about the user of the firearm than the firearm? Probably, yeah.
If you can pay in pesos Senor…
Just buy them directly from the ATF in Milwaukee.
Leland Yee might be able to hook you up.
Was going to comment on the sad state of “journalism” but he’s not:
Just another ignorant piece of opinionated trash that so frequently clutters editorial pages nationwide.
You’d think they’d feel some shame in putting their ignorance on display for the world to see and mock.
In other words, he’s a struggling spin doctor trying to jump on Shannon’s coat tails to get some recognition. A genetically male Shannon wannabe.
As a former corporate work horse I can tell you that with his tag line he’s unemployable. Tell me how to use business to make money, not to do good. He might as well have a neck tattoo.
More like he’s an unemployed Journalism major from a no-name commercial college who’s trying to find a paying gig while being based out of his parents’ basement.
His bio really sounds like he IS a Hippie. Amazing! [shakes head in disbelief]
I was shocked; I read the comment section at Huff post. Pretty much every comment was pro-second amendment and tore this “writer” a new one, with facts, not ad-hominems. I was expecting the comments to be blocked if they were pro-gun.
actually I’ve noticed that most anti-gun articles on Huffpo are drowned out in the comments section, and a lot of the pro-gun commentators are regular posters there, not just fly-by-night commenters.
That’s the norm, there, actually. There’s a dedicated little community of pro-rights people who pretty much take over all the anti-gun threads at HuffPo. I used to be one of them, until I was banned for some unknown reason. There are some really good folks on those threads.
But it’s so much easier to spew out nonsense about things he knows nothing about in order to be perceived as compassionate by his clueless leftist friends. Cop killing bullets? Over the counter full-auto rifles? I think he’s the one with history of mental illness.
No ad hominem attacks please
Yes the country has become very violent and a lot of the fire power is in the hands of the bad. So why cant the people who follow the law have the means to protect them selves ,property, and loved ones with just has much fire power? Why concealed carry not open carry?
“It makes sense, then, that rational citizens would want practical regulations limiting access.” — Zachary Dominitz
As usual, the other side immediately attacks our character. Note the three key words that I highlighted in Mr. Dominitz’s statement: “sense”, “rational”, and “practical”. Do you see what Mr. Dominitz did there? He is saying that anyone who disagrees with him has no sense, is irrational, and impractical — in other words crazy. And we should never listen to crazy people, right?
Progressives always do the same thing. They immediately attack our character claiming that we are either stupid, crazy, or corrupt (which includes evil) so that people dismiss us. They really have no other play since the facts and reason are against them. Learn to recognize this and call them out on it.
Ardent’s Axiom: All illogical arguments can be traced to one or more of three things: Ignorance, dishonesty or insanity. The left has known for years that characterizing the opposition as one or more of these three is effective in discrediting them but EVERY idea of the left comes from one of the three. I challenge anyone to offer a leftist ideal that isn’t either dumb, duplicitous or insane.
An uninformed opinion by someone with NO knowlege of subject matter in question…………..Next
“In fact, poll after poll show an overwhelming majority of Americans share the same view – numbers north of 90 percent.”
Try running a poll asking people why the sky is blue, or where to locate Portugal on a map. Then you could run the headline, “90% of Americans don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”
such knowledge polls have already been done when it comes to gun issues. Pew found over 90% of female Democrats and about 50% of male Democrats don’t know gun violence and gun murder is DOWN. Conversely about 5% of US men think gun murder is up, and about half of women do. This ignorance translates directly into the numbers you see of about 1/3 of Americans wanting more gun control.
This is also why the polls show those advocating more gun control are 18:1 women v men. The guys advocating more gun control tend to be exceptionally ignorant on the facts, or on the make somehow (like this spin doctor authoring a huff post article trying to get Bloomberg funding).
Women are not generally dumber or more ignorant, but they are exceptionally dumb and ignorant on gun violence and gun control facts
The US is so inherently violent that violent crime has been steadily dropping. Makes total sense!
In theory… If one drive-by from a BG then kills 5 other BGs… Not that they would actually hit their target though.
Yet another ignorant anti-rights fool who wears his ignorance like a crown. Next!
Sigh……… so much fail.
The day I lost hope was the day when I realized more peole believe the intellectually dishonest than don’t.
Let me make sure I have this right:
America has become an oligarchy; power, influence, and integrity for sale! How horrible!
But the prime oligarch, Bloomburg, himself; he is a benevolent master! He only wants what’s best for you!
It’s those millions of evil NRA supporters that are the real threat! Everyone else is crazy and selfish; out of the goodness that springs forth from his majestic heart, Bloomburg will save you from yourselves!
Apparently, this is the quality of our self-elected enemy: childish, two-faced mythomaniacs who get on their knees for billionaires.
Although he’s a lying, ignorant statist, he’s right about the lame branding of Bloomberg’s groups and some of the other non-profits.
When he says all the NRA has is passion, he’s partly right. We have the facts on our side, but we have most of the passion too.
Once you get by the simple-minded repetition of the already discredited 90% lies meme that Zach assumes everyone knows is true, and auto matic weapons, cop killer bullets, etc what this comes down to is a somewhat panicky bleat from Change.org that the branding and message at MAIG/MDA/Everytown is just not working with the key prog-tard targets that everyone wants: the 55 yr old women with a little money. HuffPo is figuring out that gun owners have and spend money too, if they are allowing comments not to be filtered.
I say great. Looks like the desperation we are sensing on the left is proving out since they are confirming Bloombergs money is being wasted and the paid spinners are all turning on one another.
Press On telling the Truth About Guns, here, RF and posters.
if they are allowing comments not to be filtered.
They may not be filtering them, but from where I’m sitting they’re making it damn near impossible to actually post one.
It is quite comical seeing Anti’s discuss gun control. It is like they are in the their own echo chamber nodding with one another telling themselves there is no way their argument can lose, how everyone will obviously see the light to their rational way of thinking. Kind of like the 2008/2012 GOP presidential campaigns (*palm meet forehead*).
Yup me too. No workee via twit, fake, or create own huffpo. Looks like their tech is failing. I’m giving PuffHo’s about six months before the go the way of Newsweak.
“The ease with which one can acquire automatic weapons and cop-killer bullets in the United States…..”
Really?!?! I’ve never seen full auto weapons OR cop-killer bullets at my local gun shop. Are they kept behind the counter where you have to ask to see them? If you can get “cop-killer bullets” do they make thug, gansta, and armed-robber killer bullets also?
Where’s my flying car? Where’s my house on the moon? And WHERE is my easily acquired automatic weapon??? And my super fantastic cop killer boolits? Whatever…it’s HuffPoo.
If criminals use cop killer bullets, do cops use criminal killing bullets? AND what kind of bullets do law abiding citizens use???
That’s easy: Spherical soft-lead balls, about .732 caliber, fired down a smooth bore by a charge of loose black powder ignited by sparks from a flintlock. Haven’t you been studying the 2nd Amendment? It’s all spelled out in there, clear as day.
He says automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds have created a violent country, but those are only involved in less than 100 deaths a YEAR…
His major umbrella point is so full of crap that his supporting points are superfluous.
I don’t know what this supposed to be. Is this an actual person or what? This quote reads like a caption beneath a single panel caricature meme mocking assinine anti-gunners. All that’s missing is the obligatory “It’s for the children! Won’t somebody please think of the children!”
Wow, talk about uninformed…it’s rants like this that make everyone look bad…what a dolt…
1. I want to see those polls.
2. He obviously doesn’t know the amount of red tape a person is required to wade through to get a true automatic weapon. Although he is probably talking about a semi-auto AR.
What’s this then? If by ‘automatic weapons’ the author means semi-auto then yes, these are easily obtained. If fully automatic or select fire is what he means then he speaks of a rare thing, not easily obtainable and outrageously expensive while at the same time never used in crimes.
If by ‘cop killer’ bullets he mean ammunition that will penetrate the armored vests typically worn by LEO’s then yes, virtually every rifle round in existence qualifies as a ‘cop killer’ and we’re steadfast in the refusal to eliminate them. At the same time rifles are virtually never used to kill anyone, let alone LEOs. Fists, feet and common objects are used to kill far more people than rifles of any kind.
The notion that the US is ‘very violent’ is opinion at best and not a very good opinion compared to many locales. The concept that the availability of guns and ammunition has made the US a violent country is simply false. In many countries with stricter gun laws the murder rate is far higher (note Mexico with a murder rate of 23.7 per 100K Vs the US with 4.8 per 100K). Comparing the US to Europe is a farce, the top ten most violent countries outside of Africa are contiguous to the US and that the crime from these countries spills over is demonstrable and obvious to any observer.
Adjusting for reporting differences the gun free ‘utopia’ of the UK reported 775 violent crimes per 100K while the US turned in just 383 per 100K. Given that in the UK lawful self defense with a firearm is non-existent and actual self defense with a firearm nearly the same one could readily argue that the estimated 2M defensive gun uses in the US per annum and the deterrent provided by the fact that many citizens are armed accounts for the difference.
To go a step further, the population of the UK is largely heterogeneous (over 87% white) while that of the US is a ‘melting pot’. More specifically the US is host to about 39M African Americans who while encompassing only 12.6 % of the population, accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008 according to the US Department of Justice.
This alone demonstrates the lie behind the concept that the US recognition of the natural right to keep and bear arms makes the difference in homicide rates. That the UK is higher in overall violent crime is no surprise given that its subjects are essentially unable to defend themselves in fact and by law.
Given that laws regarding the acquisition and more importantly the bearing of arms in the US have been greatly relaxed over the last 25 years while the violent crime rate has plummeted one could make a powerful argument that more guns equal less crime. Given this, it would not make sense for rational citizens to be interested in restricting access to guns, but rather, even short of causation evidence, the correlation suggests that rational citizens concerned about crime would advocate for more guns in more hands and places. In contrast to the authors inaccurate statement, in fact concerned citizens have called for more guns in more hands in more places and have effected that through the legislatures of their states and the courts.
To address the authors other spurious claims, practical restrictions already exist for ‘those who’ve shown a proclivity to violence’ since convicted felons are disallowed to posses firearms in the US already and those mentally ill who are determined to be a threat to themselves and or others are involuntarily confined to a place of treatment.
I haven’t an idea from the article what sort of training the author things one should have before possessing a firearm, the natural and constitutionally enshrined right of every person, and so I won’t speak to it until such time as he clarifies his statement.
The author suggests that no one who isn’t a member of law enforcement or the military ought to possess an ‘automatic’ weapon. I’d argue that so few do that it’s inconsequential and given the rate at which such weapons are used in crimes one would do better to worry about lightening, asteroids, or even alien abduction that be concerned about automatic weapons.
I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the author that he means by saying “No non-uniformed person should have automatic weapons, and basic restrictions for those who’ve shown a proclivity to violence, have a history of mental illness, or have failed to receive proper training and instruction should be tightened.” that he means to make a distinction between automatic weapons and those that operate semi-automatically and otherwise. First one wonders, if one was to put on a uniform would the author then be for them possessing an automatic weapon? However that is a digression based on his wording (throughout fairly poor) and at any rate beside the point. One is however left to wonder what sort of training and instruction the author thinks one ought to have before possessing a firearm of non-automatic type and therefore exercising a natural and constitutionally enshrined right. From reading his vaguely written article I believe the author ought to take some instruction before exercising his 1st amendment rights again in written form both for the good of the general public and to spare himself further embarrassment but I wouldn’t advocate for legislation to that effect.
Finally the author offers the now ubiquitous 90% argument suggesting that most people want more gun control. This number derives from a severely flawed poll that only regarded background checks to begin with and which has no relevancy to whether one is ‘uniformed’ or not.
It makes sense then, that rational citizens would decry this screed as inaccurate and insulting.
Differences in “violent offences” between the UK and US are largely driven by different definitions: comparing FBI reporting totals to the UK’s Office of National Statistics come out a lot closer than your figures. The US “aggravated assault” is better compared to the UK’s “actual bodily harm”; once you strip out the UK’s “common assault” (which doesn’t involve weapons, or any significant injury) the rates are pretty even between the two countries.
Also, we’re quite able to defend ourselves: you can expect to explain yourself if you shoot, stab or bludgeon someone in the course of defending your home, but the case law’s solid that unless there’s clear evidence of premeditation and ambush or of obviously excessive force (chasing the burglar down, dragging him back inside and administering a further punishment beating is the textbook case for ‘excessive’) you’re legally fine: didn’t Massad Ayoob warn that even in the US, if you shoot someone you can expect to spend the night in custody?
This is not to recommend UK gun control in any way for the US, just to keep the facts straight; claiming that “the UK is a crime-blasted post-apocalyptic wilderness because of their gun controls!” is too easily disproved on the statistics and I’d prefer my POTG cousins to have the facts firmly on their side.
There is an easy way to get automatic weapons? When did this happen? I’ve been saving thousands of dollars, and setting myself up for a year long wait for nothing? Damn, don’t I feel stupid.
From the article:
If we’ve learned anything from Newtown, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Aurora it’s that guns + schools = very happy children.
This is somewhat telling. The 2012 shootings in Aurora, CO occurred in a movie theater, not what most of us would call a “school”. Perhaps the author learned everything he knows about firearms from Hollywood – thus, a movie theater is, for him, an educational institution (i.e. a “school”).
I think it’s more likely that he knows very little about any of the attacks he mentions, except to know that they’re magic buzzwords that can be invoked to make his agenda sound reasonable.
I guess I’ll have to start calling my outfit a schlub uniform then…..
They say 3 percent of the people use 5 to 6 percent of their brain
97 percent use 3 percent and the rest goes down the drain
I’ll never know which one I am but I’ll bet you my last dime
99 percent think we’re 3 percent 100 percent of the time.
64 percent of all the world’s statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4 percent of people believe ’em whether they’re accurate statistics or not
I don’t know what you believe but I do know there’s no doubt
I need another double shot of something 90 proof, I got too much to think about.
– Todd Snider (Statistician’s Blues)
I left this comment, and it was deleted. Not very often I see that from HuffPo.
“The ease with which one can acquire automatic weapons… and basic restrictions for those who’ve shown a proclivity to violence, have a history of mental illness…”
You mean like the local law enforcement check, the NICS check, and the felonies involved for all of those when it comes to illegal possession? The very same felonies Federal LEO refuses to prosecute?
“Cop killer bullets”? What are those? Please post an example of specialized cop-killer bullets.
“Automatic weapons” are easy to buy? Again, beyond the ATF stamp and the local LEO check, they cost a fortune. The easiest way to get one is when the BAFTE loses one, or sells them to a criminal.
Sigh. HuffPo, another article filled with no real data.
I’ll Huffington, and I’ll Puffington…
There’s that smug, self-satisfied smirk. I keep seeing it. Come a little closer, friend. I want to see if those earrings are real!