Darrell Scott’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee

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.

darrell scott

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%?

the NEW American slavery

Prison.

I like Quentin Tarantino. If you don’t like film violence, boycott his movies.

Freedom from speech.

That’s your right.

I heard Tarantino recently interviewed on NPR Fresh Air — he came off very badly. Still no good argument FOR the ultra violence. After 20 years.

I’d like to see him direct a film without that crutch.

But Tarantino brought up a very good point in another interview. The many parallels between the American prison population and old slavery.

Click PLAY or watch it on YouTube.


 

Obviously the U.S.A. has to find a way to reduce the number of those in prison for marijuana possession. It’s no more dangerous than legal alcohol.

related – Django review by By Jim Emerson

(via Upworthy – How To Enslave A People When Slavery Is Already Illegal)

my gun stance

In Yemen.

Rick gun

Guns are tools. Tools that can be used for right or wrong.

The nations with the most guns / capita:

United States 88.8
Serbia 58.2
Yemen 54.8
Switzerland
Cyprus
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Finland

More guns = more accidents. More gun murders.

Everyone mourned the 20 children of Newton. Know that 260 school children were killed in Chicago over a 3yr span. It happens all the time.

But doesn’t hit the mainstream media each time.

Still, the U.S.A. is only 10th on the list of firearm-related deaths. Switzerland is 5th. Mexico is 9th.

It’s not an exact correlation. Guns in the U.S.A. prevent some killings.

Dana and Fred recently moved from Vegas to Regina, Canada. There’s far less chance for their son to be hurt by guns in Regina than Vegas. I really believe that.

… If I could wave a magic wand and render all the hand guns in the world ineffective, I would. There would be a net calming effect, I predict.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

In any case, there is no magic wand. We must deal with the cards on the table now.

Actually, I don’t believe the pro gun nuts and the anti gun zealots are all that far apart.

Aside from the worst extremists, the majority would agree that it should be legal for hunters to own hunting guns. That it should be legal for people to defend their families and homes.

Most would agree there’s no need for an assault weapon for hunting nor home defense.

Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee:

“An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47 . . . these high-capacity [guns] . . . you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel.”

Speaking at a news conference with Rep. John Conyers and myself, Chief Godbee expressed dismay that there has been no action to revive the assault-weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2004 when George W. Bush was president. …

Police chiefs are right: Ban assault weapons

That ban should be put in place. And enforced.

Penalties should be very strict.

Release the marijuana smokers from U.S. prisons to free up space for those carrying illegal weapons.

Bring the troops home. Use the money for Home Defence. Especially defending Americans from assault weapon attack.

Use the money to take better care of the mentally ill.

Use the money to improve the lives of the poorest of the poor in the U.S.A. 

Not family handouts. But improved schools.

We’ll still have mass shootings, but hopefully fewer.

Personally, I feel it’s time for the N.R.A. to moderate their positions.

Critics of the N.R.A. have some very good points.

I admire George H. W. Bush for resigning from the N.R.A. in 1996.

He was right.

In fact, looking back with 20/20 vision, George H was more often right than wrong. His son, just the opposite.

biggest winner last night – Nate Silver

… Silver runs a blog called FiveThirtyEight, which is licensed by the Times. In 2008 he called the presidential election with incredible accuracy, getting 49 out of 50 states right.

But this year he rolled a perfect score, 50 out of 50, even nailing the margins in many cases. His uncanny accuracy on this year’s election represents what Rowinski calls a victory of “logic over punditry.”

… What does it mean when some punk kid baseball nerd can just wade into politics and start kicking butt on all these long-time “experts” who have spent their entire lives covering politics?

It means something big is happening.

… The age of voodoo is over. The era of talking about something as a “dark art” is done. In a world with big computers and big data, there are no dark arts. …

Read Write Web – Why Nate Silver Won, And Why It Matters

The fact check sites have helped. But what we really need are the facts.

It’s time to take down bloviating pundits in the USA, Dick Morris often being listed as WORST.

It’s Moneyball time. 🙂

Economist magazine endorses Obama

I concur exactly with the fiscally conservative news magazine out of the U.K.

America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill

… A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two questions: how good a president has Mr Obama been, especially on the main issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat narrowly deserves to be re-elected.

… The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal. “Obamacare” will correct that, but Mr Obama did very little to deal with the system’s other flaw—its huge and unaffordable costs.

Above all, Mr Obama has shown no readiness to tackle the main domestic issue confronting the next president: America cannot continue to tax like a small government but spend like a big one. …

far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). …

… the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap

The devil we know

We very much hope that whichever of these men wins office will prove our pessimism wrong. …

Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. …

Our American endorsement
Which one?

It’s well worth reading every word of that article. They nailed it.

It may not matter which is President. The next 4yrs will be far worse than the last 4yrs.

Both parties are unwilling to raise revenue, very reluctant to reduce spending. The children of this generation are the ones left in the rubble.

how’s that WAR on Drugs working?

Looks like at least $1.5 trillion mostly wasted, so far.

I HATE right wing politicians who trot out this dead horse as a diversion from bigger issues.

The War on Drugs (December 14, 1914 – present) is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid and military intervention undertaken by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, and the stated aim to define and reduce the illegal drug trade. …

… In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that “drug abuse is public enemy number one” …

On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), signaled that although it did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, the Obama administration would not use the term “War on Drugs,” as he claims it is “counter-productive” …

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. …

Obviously, governments have to look at alternatives.

(via Boing Boing)

on child brides …

Gandhi and his wife, from affluent families in India, were married at age-12. That was the tradition in the 1800s.

People died young in that era. They wanted to have children as quickly as possible.

In his autobiography, The Story of My Experiments With Truth (Kindle $.99), Gandhi is eloquent on what a mistake that was for him and his wife.

Of many problems in the developing world, the FIRST solution is education of girls & women.

Girls should be in school, not becoming brides & mothers too soon.

Click PLAY or watch it on YouTube.