Imagine a bullet fired from a semiautomatic pistol, moving through the night darkness faster than the speed of sound—more than 1,200 feet per second or four football fields end to end. Now imagine that bullet slamming into the body of a child like a brick through a picture window.
I-ma-gin-na-a-a-tion...
We've explored your kind of diseased imagination before, Marian Wright Edelman, and it always,without exception, proves to be a nightmare.
That's why you need to avoid a critical examination of real-world results, and rely on emotion and misleading your readers to set up your thesis.
Let's examine some of your dishonest technique:
First, you present the readers with the "Leave it to Beaver" empathy ploy--your initial examples are exclusively confined to young children, as opposed to unsympathetic adolescent and young adult gangbangers with violent criminal histories.
While I was unsuccessful at finding news accounts of the child in Chicago who you say accidentally shot himself, it cannot go unchallenged that handguns are banned in that city--at least ones not registered in 1982 and every year thereafter (unless you're an alderman). Do you think it's safe to make some assumptions about the household involved, particularly one that would leave a loaded gun in reach of a 5-year-old?
And what makes me think two men "playing with a gun" in the Bronx indicates compliance with the myriad of NYC "gun control" edicts? Ditto, news for the Grand Rapids child is also impossible to verify without more information, but it should be noted your topic is "Child and Teen Deaths," so throwing injuries into the mix seems like padding--kind of like mixing "accidents" involving young children, which are rare, with shootings resulting from intent, including those involving young adults. And likewise, without fleshing it out, we can't know the circumstances of the Durham shooting.
But funny-- a little bit of poking around makes me wonder why you didn't share more of the Long Island story with your readers. You didn't think it relevant to tell them the boy's father attacked two men with a machete, or that 15 fighting dogs with open bite wounds were taken from the property?
Somehow it's not relevant to bring that to your readers' attention?
So when you ask "Is any child in America safe from gun violence?" you don't think it fair to examine if the circumstances you avoid discussing to make your case are representative of the general population?
You don't think that's unethical journalism, Marian?
And you don't think you represent the type of political advocacy that enables and ensures more, not less violence of all kinds?
You've already proven that we can't interpret what you say without peeling back the surface and examining what you haven't said. So when you go blathering about "common sense gun safety measures," why would anyone not believe you're holding back on critical facts necessary to make an informed evaluation?
Intentionally distorting reality? That's more twisted than your imagination, Marian.
We've seen the results of your kind of "thinking," Marian. And we see where it has the potential to lead us.
Why are some of us not surprised your delusions will lead to nothing but more misery?
I don't know why it continually stuns me that people fall for this crap.
ReplyDelete"the absence of handguns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective method to prevent firearms-related injuries to children and adolescents."
I say; the absence of swimming pools from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective method to prevent swimming pool-related injuries to children and adolescents.
Of course, I also treat my swimming pool similarly to the way I treat my firearms. That is to say, I have a 3 year old and so I prevent access to the pool by locking up the entrance and fencing it off. But I also take my 3 year old for swimming lessons (In fact, I am in the pool with him, to teach and be a part of his education). 1) He should know how to swim and avoid drowning. 2) When he's old enough and strong enough he should know how to help someone in trouble through strength and training to rescue a drowning victim.
When he is a little older and able to safely handle a bb gun, I will teach him in much the same way that he is learning to swim. 1) Learn how to handle a firearm responsibly and safely so that he doesn't injure himself or others. 2) When he's old enough and responsible enough, teach him to use a firearm to protect himself AND others.
What is so hard about this?
" Now imagine that bullet slamming into the body of a violent assailant like a brick through a picture window."
ReplyDeletethere, fixed it for you.
You touched on a good point of what unfortunately is the "norm" today.
ReplyDeleteEmotion over logic
Image over Substance
Fashion over Function
Just mentioning that he is relying on emotion reminded me of the points above that are all too common in the world now. Ambivalence and apathy rule.
Funny how the Other Side never provides links to PRO-rights websites, unless some agent provocateur is stealing the show. Then they call them a typical gun owner. They're so afraid people will find us to be caring and reasonable and normal.
ReplyDeleteThe emotional development of the average liberal is about 8th grade level.
ReplyDeleteLately, on several different blogs, and on several different subjects, I have posted opinions different than the blog's owner.
In the case of conservative or libertarian blogs, I was treated with intellectual and scientific rigor, respect, and courtesy.
On the liberal blogs, I was immediately attacked, and I calculate that the invective and insults were approximately at the developmental level of 13 to 14 year olds.
Or, as Dennis Miller put it, they start yipping like a satanic Chihuahua under a strobelight.
It's true, from my experience and perspective, that liberals are unable to dissociate their emotional immaturity from their intelligence quotient, leaving them prey to hysteria, cognitive dissonance, and magical thinking.
There's really no point in entering into a discussion with them. The only thing that works is to engage the uncommitted but capable thinkers with the facts, and encourage THEM to join us to vote the yipping Chihuahuas down.
Hmmmm 1200+ fps?
ReplyDeleteSound barrier - 1129 ft/s
The most common 9mm round is the Winchester 115gr FMJ.
Muzzle Velocity is only 1190 fps.
I suppose with +P ammo or a cartridge like the FN 5.7 you could get up there.