Example of Brady Campain deception


PDA






Zen21Tao
March 4, 2006, 04:26 AM
For a laugh I was looking around the Brady campain where I wound this article:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=728

AN EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY IS DEAD, AND MICHIGAN LAWMAKERS SET PLANS TO MOVE DANGEROUS "SHOOT FIRST" BILL
For Immediate Release:
02-16-2006

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Detroit, MI - In a city growing ever more weary of gun violence that has repeatedly taken the lives of children, another child died yesterday. Tyshawn Stinson was an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire when someone chose to meet force with force and fire bullets into the child’s house. [Emphesis and Underlining added]

The morning after, in an amazingly vulgar display of bad timing, the House Judiciary Committee of the Michigan Legislature announced plans to hold hearings on a dreadful gun industry bill that would encourage people to use deadly force in public if they feel threatened.

“It makes me sick to my stomach that Michigan, a reasonable state full of reasonable people, would even hold a hearing on this horrible piece of legislation,” said Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “And to take it up right after the death of a child is absolutely appalling.”

“We are urging the Legislature to reject this bill totally and forever,” said Shikha Hamilton, President of the Michigan Million Mom March Chapters of the Brady Campaign. “To even consider this bill is ridiculous. People - and children - are dying in Detroit. If this bill passes, we are all a little more likely to become innocent bystanders, like Tyshawn Stinson.”

The “Shoot First” bill, SB 1046, was introduced by Senator Alan Cropsey of DeWitt. It is scheduled to be considered by the Judiciary Committee Tuesday. It very closely tracks legislation passed in Florida last year by the National Rifle Association that police leaders and prosecutors around the nation have derided as dangerous and unnecessary.
The conservative Arizona Star newspaper called it “poorly thought out, unnecessary and potentially dangerous.” The Miami Herald said “people involved in violent clashes -- ranging from criminal activities to domestic disputes that escalate -- now have another justification for killing.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote “under this broad law, a bar fight over a football game could legally end in gunfire and death if one of the combatants claimed to fear bodily harm. A gang member could legally shoot and kill a member of a rival gang, claiming he felt his life was threatened.”

Supporters of the legislation claim it is necessary to guarantee that people can defend themselves. But there are no individuals in jail anywhere in the U.S. for acting in legitimate self-defense. The only individuals this legislation can conceivably benefit, therefore, are individuals who would otherwise be convicted of a crime. “This will make our jobs 10 times harder,” said Randy Hillman of the Alabama District Attorney's Association. “It will confuse jurors in criminal trials and give criminals more of a defense.”

Police leaders have expressed concern that the law will send a message of empowerment to the most aggressive individuals in society - that rather than serve to defend people who use deadly force in a truly life-threatening situation, it will serve as an excuse to edgy individuals. The record so far bears this out: In its first Florida application, the law is being cited as a defense for a tow truck operator who killed the irate owner of a car he had just towed. “Everyone is apparently safer in Florida,” wrote the Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial board, “now that there's one fewer illegal parker roaming the streets.”

America’s police officers undergo months of intensive training to learn the judicious use of deadly force in a public setting. They learn, through that training, that the use of deadly force in public is excruciatingly dangerous, and that innocent bystanders can easily be injured or killed.

These bills immediately deputize anyone with a weapon to take on a criminal in potentially crowded public settings. It’s extraordinarily ill-advised and irresponsible.

After reading this story I looked up an actual news report on the incident found this.
http://www.wxyz.com/wxyz/nw_local_news/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15924_4472223,00.html

It turns out that this boy was killed when rival gang member were blasting away at each other during a turf war. This is hardly a case of an innocent civilian "standing his ground" defending himself. I find it pathetic that Antis have to be so deceptive to try and convience others that law abiding citizens being armed is a danger to society. They tried to convience Floridians that our Castle Doctrine would result in OK Corall type shootouts. Well, that hasn't happened yet.

If you enjoyed reading about "Example of Brady Campain deception" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Warren
March 4, 2006, 04:39 AM
I'm shocked that the upstanding citizens at The Brady Campaign, who are just looking out for all of us, would stoop to that level.

migoi
March 4, 2006, 05:37 AM
that the NRA had been granted the ability to create new laws:

It very closely tracks legislation passed in Florida last year by the National Rifle Association

I was under the impression that the state legislatures were the ones that did that.

migoi

sctman800
March 4, 2006, 12:58 PM
Same thing happened to me last week, when talking to the "issues contact" for an Illinois state representative about the proposed AWB in Illinois.

Me) Isn't this just another version of the expired federal AWB that had no real impact on crime?
IC) You can't say there was no impact because the crime rate went down during those ten years.

Me) Then how do you explain the fact that the crime rate has continued to go down in the 18 months since it's sunset?
IC) Well I didn't mean that was the only reason for the decline.

That is not exactly word for word but it the theme of the conversation. Anyone who doesn't ask the second question will come away thinking the AWB caused the decrease in crime. Jim.

Zen21Tao
March 4, 2006, 02:52 PM
It very closely tracks legislation passed in Florida last year by the National Rifle Association

I live in Florida and remember when the Castle doctrine extension was passed. All it did was eliminate the "duty to retreat" requirement in public places. However the Brady folks and VPC came to Florida airports as well as other airports with Florida detinations and handed out pamphlet telling tourists they need to be especially carefull and not get into any arguments with locals because locals in Florida can now gun them down in the street if they give the local any reason to feel "threatened." This included a rediculous list of "things to do around locals" that included things like keep hand were they can be seen, move slow, never make eye contact, etc.

sctman800:
Same thing happened to me last week, when talking to the "issues contact" for an Illinois state representative about the proposed AWB in Illinois.

Me) Isn't this just another version of the expired federal AWB that had no real impact on crime?
IC) You can't say there was no impact because the crime rate went down during those ten years.

Me) Then how do you explain the fact that the crime rate has continued to go down in the 18 months since it's sunset?
IC) Well I didn't mean that was the only reason for the decline.

That is not exactly word for word but it the theme of the conversation. Anyone who doesn't ask the second question will come away thinking the AWB caused the decrease in crime. Jim.

I guess these leftests have never heard of the difference between Causation and Correlation. Just becasue two things occur together doesn't mean the one caused the other's occurance. Ask that person, "So if I drink a cup of coffee and it starts to rain did my coffee cause it to rain"?

bumm
March 4, 2006, 03:31 PM
>I guess these leftests have never heard of the
> difference between Causation and Correlation.
> Just becasue two things occur together doesn't
> mean the one caused the other's occurance.

The steady decline in violent crime also started in 1991, several years BEFORE the AWB and the Brady Bill passed. There was no detectable change in the rate of decrease when the new laws took affect. It's amazing that these people, who evidently believe so strongly in their cause, resort to such gross distortions when trying to make their case.
Marty

Standing Wolf
March 4, 2006, 09:24 PM
These bills immediately deputize anyone with a weapon to take on a criminal in potentially crowded public settings.

Wow! Free CCW badges, too?

Henry Bowman
March 4, 2006, 09:46 PM
I was under the impression that the state legislatures were the ones that did that.Now ya know.:rolleyes:

ABTOMAT
March 5, 2006, 01:49 AM
HCI (I refuse to use the new name) put paid ads in newspapers about the FL law. Many US papers (including mine, I saw one), and at least when I read about it they were planning on doing the same in Europe and Asia.

The whole nine years--locals will kill you if they're nervous or threatened, avoid all contact with people in public places, a vacation in Florida would be safer spent in Sudan, etc. Gimme a break.

HanksterV
March 5, 2006, 03:14 AM
I would have thought that her Cancer would have killed her by now.....wonder how she justifies smoking round her hubby...threatening HIS life with her killer cigarettes......hmmmmm

azflyman
March 5, 2006, 08:16 AM
The conservative Arizona Star newspaper

That is absolute crap. The Arizona Daily Star is know as "The Red Star" by those around Tucson, AZ. There are two Tucson Papers, the Citizen (more conservative) and the Star (left wing commie trash). I wonder how much Brady paid for that article?

Vermont Guy
March 5, 2006, 12:29 PM
There is a basic principle underlying this post. Stuff is often misquoted. This happens so often it is probably a method taught in journalism school.

You have to go back to the original source to see it.

The notorious 43 to 1 is an example. One has to go back to the original paper to see that defense uses are way undercounted for example. And Miller is often misquoted to limit RKBA to the National Guard.

I once read and article about the 13 children killed by guns in St. Louis during the previous year. Thanks to the magic of the internet I was able to go back and read the stories of each one of those deaths. What a collection of tragedies. None of which would have been affected by gun control short of making possession a capital crime. And worst of all, two young children that were specifically mentioned in the article, were drowned, not shot. And the event was one where the mother could have defended them and herself if she had been prepared.

So, go back to the source and don't trust quotes.

Justin
March 5, 2006, 02:49 PM
Wow! Free CCW badges, too?

And a decoder ring! What a deal, eh?

PlayboyPenguin
March 5, 2006, 02:53 PM
And a decoder ring! What a deal, eh?
Cool, I have always wanted a decoder ring. :)

progunner1957
March 5, 2006, 03:00 PM
I would have thought that her Cancer would have killed her by now.....wonder how she justifies smoking round her hubby...threatening HIS life with her killer cigarettes......hmmmmm
Cigarette smoking is the cause of 440,000 deaths EACH YEAR in the United States alone - more than 10X the bogus, inflated 30,000 deaths HCI claims are caused by guns.

My question is - WHY ARE THEY NOT CRUSADING TO BAN CIGARETTES INSTEAD???? Because banning guns is not about saving lives, period.

If you enjoyed reading about "Example of Brady Campain deception" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!