Friday, February 17, 2006

The Answer to the Cheney Shooting?

More "gun control," of course.

Marta Cook has a great future as an evil propagandist, don't you think?
Posted by David Codrea at 2/17/2006 08:57:00 AM

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sadly, she probably thinks she is erudite and irresistably eloquent in her drive to deprive. When in actuality she is just a common ordinary garden variety liar.

2/17/2006 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...

I wrote the editor and calmly emphasized the point that *all* of the "facts" and statistics quoted by Marta Cook come from radical anti-gun organizations (e.g., VPC). She could have at least made an attempt to be fair by either referencing "unbiased" gov't studies from the FBI and USDOJ or presenting some numbers from the other side that refute the anti-gunners. Let the reader decide. Instead, she found the "facts" to buttress her arguments, not the other way around. Isn't there a psychological term for that?

2/17/2006 10:48 AM
Ben said...

Positively Pavlovian.

2/17/2006 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...

David,

For the health of your readers please put a RCOB warning (red curtain of blood That moment when all you see is red from something read. Term coined by Kim du Toit) before such links.

The mind numbing stupidity of this woman is shocking even in the GFW world.

ARGHHHH!

OK, I'm better now.

2/17/2006 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...

Perhaps the most condensed piece of gun grabbing propaganda I've ever read. I can't believe that people still spout "facts" about dead children and "a gun is 22 times more likely to kill its owner" when all of those statistics have been debunked over and over again.

2/17/2006 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...

Speaking of the Cheney Shooting...

What do you make of this ballistics test?

It seems to show the shooting couldn't have happened the way Cheney claims...

2/17/2006 4:52 PM
E. David Quammen said...

Stopped reading the article after...'but the Brady Campaign reports'...

2/17/2006 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...

putrimalu

"[injuries] .... when in truth they were grevious."

Somebody is lying, I saw Mr. Whittington giving a press conference today. He looked (and talked) pretty good for being grieviously injured and on death's doorstep.

It would be interesting to know the truth. My initial reaction was to accept the explanation that the birdshot had "moved" through vascular means. I did not believe it would have been possible for that gauge and load to penetrate clothing or muscle tissue deep enough to reach the myocardium ... certainly not at the stated range. I've reached the point where this is a non-issue to me. Mr. Whittington isn't alluding to any criminal intent on the VP's part and ..... blah, blah.

By the way, regardless of what you want to believe, the linked video is incredibly flawed for this incident and is not scientific for this incident. A truly scientific recreation would use the same style gun, chokes, load (not just the same gauge) as well as ballistic gelatin (as opposed to a rubber dummy). Also, the linked video makes the claim that "the VP said he rotated 180 degrees" before firing. I reviewed the unedited transcript of the interview and the VP never said he turned 180. He said, "bird flushed and went to my right, off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird," If the linked video is making claims that are easily proven untrue, it looses credibility. It makes me wonder what other claims or demonstrations have been stretched.

2/17/2006 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...

Sort of make you wonder, Wild Deuce why they didn't do a full court press and plant explosives on a pickup gas tank for their "recreation", doesn't it? That would have really enhanced the story, oh wait.......they already did that on another story,didn't they.

2/18/2006 2:41 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)