Another unsigned gun editorial
I think this editorial meets XRLQ’s criteria for being too stupid to fisk.
Update: Well, Phelps did it any way. Golly, you mean those stats from the BATF didn’t come from the, ya know, BATF?
3 Responses to “Another unsigned gun editorial”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 28th, 2004 at 10:10 am
Technically, it does; however, I think we need a gun exception to the “too stupid to fisk” rule. Like flat-earthers in a pre-Columbus world, there are just too many people out there who still believe that crap.
June 28th, 2004 at 10:27 am
It’s interesting that a “ban” that didn’t actually, you know, ban any existing guns, somehow caused the “number of assault weapons traced in crime investigations [to decline] 20 percent” in just one year.
And of course we have the old chestnut about “assault weapons” killing cops, when in fact most cops are killed by handguns, quite a few of which are the cop’s own weapon.
Oh and let’s not forget that teenagers could use “assault weapons” to kill teachers and students, even though they’re probably not even old enough to legally posess a firearm. Of course, they could use sawed off shotguns or 9mm pistols, too, but “assault weapons” are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, unlike other guns that are designed to give the victim a sporting chance.
But what REALLY hacks me off is this litany of “no one needs.” When I see that, I know there’s no point arguing; we’re dealing with someone who is stupid or dishonest. Possibly both.
June 28th, 2004 at 10:56 am
They lost me with the “traced” canard, which tells you nothing about what percentage of any guns were actually used in any crimes, or even what percentage of crimes involved any particular type of gun.