January 02, 2010
Violence Policy Center Still Can't Tell Difference Between Living, Dead
This is getting rather ridiculous.
Weeks ago in a Pajamas Media article I eviscerated the shoddy "research" of the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun group President Obama repeatedly helped fund while a director of the Joyce Foundation.
In that exposeé, I highlighted the fact that VPC couldn't even total the number of deaths they reported correctly, "double-dipping" to create a higher false number of fatalities. But among the the biggest, most glaring weakness of the VPC report was the claim that at least one person they listed as killed, was never shot.
The VPC claims:
On March 8, 2008, Christine Burroughs, naked and covered with blood, ran to neighbor Alice and Lance Lather’s house seeking refuge from her enraged husband, Arthur Burroughs. Burroughs followed his wife to the home, fatally shooting Lance Lather. Burroughs then barricaded himself in the neighbors’ bathroom with his wife. A SWAT team and hostage negotiator were called to the house, but Burroughs shot and killed his wife and then himself. Christine Burroughs had previously told Alice Lather that her husband wanted to kill her because she wanted a divorce. Burroughs had been previously employed in loss prevention and security for T.J. Maxx and had possessed a concealed handgun permit since at least 1999.
As noted by citing several news accounts, including two that interviewed Christine Burroughs after the shooting, Mrs. Burroughs survived her husband's rampage. She was never shot. Period.
Gun control organizations routinely engage in hyperbole, fear tactics, and falsifying claims to pursue their political objectives. Still, even by the low standards of gun control groups, isn't claiming that someone died when they did not far over the line of acceptable behavior?
This presents quite a quandry! If she was dead she could vote Democrat in all future elections. since she is alive, does she get to vote at all? Just curious!
Posted by: The Dude at January 2, 2010 05:47 PMWhy would they do this? Simple but tragic. Statists/socialists/communists (take your pick, they're one in the same) do not believe in or recognize the inherent value of individual lives. All must be subordinated to the glory of the state, administered by self-proclaimed elites with the correct pedigrees. Thus can they happily enact health care measures that will not, in fact, care for the health of individuals, while establishing death panels (while simultaneously denying they exist) to ensure that millions will die by bureaucratic whim (while trying to enact legislation that will permanently enshrine the death panels they claim don't exist and make it impossible for the nonexistent panels ever to be disbanded).
If one does not recognize the inherent worth of individual lives, there can be no right to defend such lives, devoid of meaning as they are, and the means to defend them must be seized and regulated lest those who do value their own lives, and those of their families, take offense to the dictates of the state and actually try to do something about it.
In the pursuit of such noble communist goals, truth is whatever the scientific communists say it is and issues such as embarrassment and shame enter into their thinking not at all.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at January 2, 2010 06:28 PMI smell a fat settlement if she wanted to sue them.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 4, 2010 12:21 AMThe numbers "crunching" formula used is identical to the process to determine Gorebal warming!!
And now do you understand?
Posted by: Dell at January 5, 2010 08:58 PM
