Friday, September 07, 2018

Well, Feinstein's a lying, corrupt politician;

you expect anything better of her?
Even if Feinstein had in mind a broader definition of school shooting, it is hard to see how she could get to "hundreds" involving "assault weapons." By her own count, 385 people were killed with "assault weapons" from 2004 through 2011 (which is about 0.5 percent of gun homicides during that period), and the vast majority of those murders did not occur in schools. If we assume that something like 16 percent of them did (in line with the Mother Jones numbers), that would be 60 or so murders involving "assault weapons" at schools over eight years, and the number of separate incidents would be even lower. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Feinstein was just making shit up when she referred to "hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history."
'Making shit up' is what the anti-rights people do.  You could say it's their central principle.

1 comment:

Phssthpok said...

Seems like the easiest way to counter this type of thing is to say something to the extent of:

"I do not believe the statement you just made regarding (X) is accurate. You have made the claim, the onus is now upon you to PROVE it."

Had Cavenaugh said that, to her face immediately following her statement, what realistic option would she have? She would be hard pressed to take affront at being called a liar because, well, he didn't actually say she was lying...merely that he did not 'believe' her statement to be accurate. (This allows for the possibility that he, himself, was/is mistaken.)

At that point she can either roll back the claim, or produce her evidence.