leaders on both sides need to realize that there is no evidence suggesting more guns keep us safer and less guns keep us safer. Find new way— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) June 12, 2016
Wow. Just wow.
And it gets worse, because if you check the Twitter thread you will find it thick with people offering exactly the kind of evidence that Mr. Dowd insists does not exist. Like this for instance. He bats all of it away by either declaring it somehow irrelevant to the experience of the United States or constitutionally impossible to replicate, or he just ignores it.
Mr. Dowd is is also clearly aware that the reason better, up-to-the-minute statistical evidence of the effect of gun control in the United States is not readily available is precisely because the NRA-owned Republican congress refuses to allow the NIH to study the problem.
He simply doesn't care,
Because Mr. Dowd fanatic. A dangerous fanatic. And there is clearly no combination of facts and logic and history and preventable carnage that will ever put a dent in his fanaticism.
8 comments:
"...and less guns keep us safer."
in the words of Stannis Baratheon, "fewer."
jeez, you'd think a guy who made his living writing speeches would know that. but then, we are talking about someone who worked for W.
Mr. Dowd:
There is evidence fewer guns leads to fewer mass murders.
It's called AUSTRALIA after 1996.
Mr. Dowd deserves to lose his job by the end of this week.
there is no evidence suggesting more guns keep us safer and less guns keep us safer. Find new way
Wait! That's true! There's evidence fewer guns keep us safer, but no evidence more guns do! There's evidence only one side is right!
Find new evidence!
Dowd does care, but not about the facts, the standards, nor the results. He cares deeply about maintaining his voice of authority.
I can only assume that Ron "Severe Dementia" Fournier promptly retweeted this gem and perhaps even added a "THIS."
For chrissake. That's on the same level of willful delusion and/or stupidity as saying there's no evidence for global warming. There's a metric fuckton of evidence that stricter gun laws can and do reduce gun violence.
It's all well and good to think about what types of gun laws are likely to pass 2nd Amendment muster, but that wasn't what Matt "COME ON GUYS I'M SO NOT A REPUBLICAN ANYMORE" Dowd's tweet was about, and using it to defend the baseless and ridiculous "both sides are wrong and I'm right because I'm a wise Centrist" premise is pathetic, even for him.
Just like everyone whose salary is contingent on maintaining the "both-sides" fallacy, Dowd calls for evidence. And when evidence is given, immediately shifts to "but we can't do that."
That's a different subject, whether we can implement changes. Dowd should ADMIT that evidence exists that fewer guns makes a population safer. But he can only tap dance about the 2nd amendment, and shuffle along to the next subject without analyzing his serious fraudulent statements.
Just like a real journalist. His college professors must be so proud...
Dowd is clearly handsomely rewarded by the gunz 'n ammo industry, who never let a grand slaughter of US citizens go to waste. Nay verily, as soon as the bodies starting adding up in Orlando, the digital hordes were out in full force adjuring that IF ONLY every single person dancing or working at Pulse had been packing heat, why everything would've turned out just fine and jim dandy.
No matter how many humans are sacrificed to Wayne LaPierre and his paymasters, it's NEVER a good time to discuss gun controls. NEVER. Morloch must be fed. Why some "innocent" somewhere may not be able to buy a gun, and that would be horrifying and abrogate his precious Second Amendment "Rights."
MY right to live? Eh? I should go fuck myself.
You can almost see Dowd logging on to check his bank account right after tweeting that to make sure that the deposit $500 from "W. La Pierre" cleared before wondering where he was going to eat dinner tonight.
Post a Comment