[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: WaPo fact check: Rubio’s right that gun-ban laws would have no impact on recent mass shootings He added, “This terrorist that was able to access these weapons is not someone that would have wound up in any database and this is one of the risks of home-grown violent extremism. These are not people that have done anything before who suddenly become radicalized and within months are taking action.” “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us would gun laws would have prevented them,” Rubio continued. On Thursday, the Washington Post decided to fact-check Rubio’s claim. Glenn Kessler approached his claim with an appropriate level of skepticism for a fact check, and covers the circumstances of several such massacres in detail. Instead of Pinocchios, Rubio came away with the rare Geppetto check mark: Gun-control advocates often point to the experience in other countries that have enacted gun laws that heavily restrict gun ownership; as we have shown, quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., “mass shooting”), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark. If Rubio earns a rare confirmation from Kessler, the rest of the debate has been embarrassingly unschooled and incoherent. In an LA Times column yesterday, Adam Winkler lamented the fact that gun-control advocates end up showing that they know so little about the subject that they inevitably wind up with egg on their face: The nationwide federal ban on assault weapons did accomplish one thing: According to the 2004 study, fewer of the banned guns were found at crime scenes (down from 2% of guns recovered to 1%). Although this suggests that gun laws affect the inventory of guns in the marketplace — again, contrary to the claims of the NRA — the study’s authors concluded that criminals had just switched to other guns. America’s gun debate suffers because of unreasonable, extreme positions taken by the NRA. But gun control advocates who push for bans on one kind of rifle primarily because it looks scary also contribute to the problem. Such bans don’t reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA’s claim that the government is coming to take away people’s guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country. Plus, Winkler fails to mention that these bans are offered as a “solution” to mass shootings, when it’s clear that the policies espoused would have done nothing to prevent them, as Rubio notes. Popehat’s Ken White followed up at the LA Times on that point, and argued that the debate on the nature of rights is similarly ignorant, But it’s his metaphor on banning “attack dogs” that’s the best part of his argument: You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog”? Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. You: Huh? Pit bulls aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs. You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now. Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. You: Hounds? Seriously? Me: OK, maybe not actually “hounds.” Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with violent dogs the way you are. But we can identify breeds that civilians just don’t need to own. You: Apparently not. Be sure to read it all, and pass it along the next time someone proposes an “assault weapon” ban. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
Great observation. Lest we forget, we had a nationwide "Assault Weapons Ban" from 1994 to 2004 -- much more strict than anything being proposed today. It had ZERO affect on gun crime.
I liked the sweeping way the article was written. He's a good writer, day in and out. I was very impressed with how Rubio handled a hostile panel though. He really can turn on the smooth and he is very well-prepared. I didn't see where they scored any gotcha points on Rubio even with switching topics rather quickly and trying out some of their higher-caliber gotcha questions that they reserve only for GOP candidates. I don't like Rubio but he has some political chops on the Tube.
I disagree. i didn't think Clinton was good either. I guess I can just see through them too good.
Rubio is what -- Cuban-American? From Florida, a heavy Cuban/Hispanic state. Jeb Bush, married to a Mexican and from a heavy Cuban/Hispanic state. Ted Cruz, a Cuban-American, from a heavy Hispanic state. Seems to me the GOPe is going after the Hispanic vote in a very obvious way. Pandering. Why would a Hispanic vote for a pretend friend when they can get the real deal with Hillary?
As compared to Trump? GatewayPundit: Kids Scream “I Want to Kill Him!” While Beating Trump Piñata to “Stop Hate” My fave was the kid that kept pounding Sex Doll Trump in the nuts.
Stop the hate by beating a Trump effigy with a stick? Reminds me of that 60's saying: "Fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity".
You have to admit it was creative.
The effigy or the little kid yelling "I want to kill Trump"? I hope he's an anchor baby.
|
|||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|