If you’re on Facebook you can’t avoid seeing Mr. Darrell Scott’s impassioned words after his daughter had been killed in the Columbine shooting.
He defends the NRA. And says:
… “We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. … “
I respect Darrell Scott’s position. And am wounded by his loss.
But the testimony has been much warped over time, having been so often spun by Gundamentalists.
Here’s one version of Snope’s clarifications:
That Darrell Scott spoke the words attributed to him is fact. However, the opening and closing comments appended to the Internet-circulated version of them are misleading and erroneous….
Darrell Scott didn’t say anything to our “national leaders,” nor is it true that his testimony was “not received well.” Scott was not delivering testimony to a crowded House chamber full of incredulous, unprepared, and shocked Congressmen; he was talking to a few sub-committee members and a stenographer. He was only one of many people who gave testimony to the Subcommittee on Crime, and it’s unlikely that most Congressmen heard what he said, or even knew that he had testified. His words certainly didn’t prompt outrage from an unreceptive audience, as implied here….
“The media” didn’t prevent anyone from hearing Mr. Scott’s speech; most news outlets simply didn’t give it much coverage because it wasn’t particularly newsworthy.
… Mr. Scott really didn’t offer much of substance, and what he did have to say had already been said earlier and louder by many others. Also as noted above, Mr. Scott was merely one of many people who gave testimony in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime in the wake of the Littleton shootings. Other parents of shooting victims spoke as well, but you won’t find that fact acknowledged here, much less any indication of what they said. Why should their words be any less important than Darrell Scott’s? (Perhaps the reason they’re not mentioned is because their opinions didn’t agree with Mr. Scott’s, and therefore didn’t agree with the opinions of whoever wrote the prologue and coda to this piece.)
… Darrell Scott’s speech was reported by the Associated Press and picked up by several big-city newspapers, hardly evidence of a hostile “media” conspiracy to suppress it and thereby prevent the world at large from hearing it.
read more on Snopes
DON’T GET YOUR FACTS FROM FACEBOOK.
It’s more crap than fact.
A Time / CNN poll mid-January found that 55% of Americans favor stricter gun control, 44% are against.
It’s a good idea to restrict assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
The argument that Americans need defend themselves against the U.S. Army is delusion.
What percentage of American soldiers would be unwilling to invade Texas? … For example.
50%? … 70%?