fauxpolitics replied to your video: On this episode of the Hero Report podcast, we…


Here’s one case of a guy stopping a shooter. Although I’m not really compelled. Just thought I’d throw it in for reference.


This nifty little post has been making the rounds over the past few days as a good example of why we need more guns to combat school shooters rather than gun control.
The whole thing begins with “Ever heard of the Pearl River, MS shooting? Probably not.”
The hope of whomever created this little piece of pro-gun propaganda is that you’ve never heard of it and that you won’t Google it. Because the vast majority of the information presented here is factually incorrect.
First of all, this case is being presented as some sort of response to last Friday’s shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, even though these events in Mississippi took place in 1997. Since it happened in 1997, why would “the mainstream media” talk about it now? I guess because it’s the one good example of someone stopping a school shooter, right?
After all, it is very true that the assistant principal stopped the shooter by pointing a gun at him. But “stop” is being used pretty loosely here.
The assistant principal stopped the shooter after he had already killed his mother and two other students, and wounded seven others. And was attempting to leave the school grounds in a car. That’s what five seconds of internet research turns up.
So, no, I’m not buying that we just need more assistant principals with handguns to keep our kids safe.

fauxpolitics replied to your video: On this episode of the Hero Report podcast, we…

Here’s one case of a guy stopping a shooter. Although I’m not really compelled. Just thought I’d throw it in for reference.

This nifty little post has been making the rounds over the past few days as a good example of why we need more guns to combat school shooters rather than gun control.

The whole thing begins with “Ever heard of the Pearl River, MS shooting? Probably not.”

The hope of whomever created this little piece of pro-gun propaganda is that you’ve never heard of it and that you won’t Google it. Because the vast majority of the information presented here is factually incorrect.

First of all, this case is being presented as some sort of response to last Friday’s shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, even though these events in Mississippi took place in 1997. Since it happened in 1997, why would “the mainstream media” talk about it now? I guess because it’s the one good example of someone stopping a school shooter, right?

After all, it is very true that the assistant principal stopped the shooter by pointing a gun at him. But “stop” is being used pretty loosely here.

The assistant principal stopped the shooter after he had already killed his mother and two other students, and wounded seven others. And was attempting to leave the school grounds in a car. That’s what five seconds of internet research turns up.

So, no, I’m not buying that we just need more assistant principals with handguns to keep our kids safe.

# guns # Mississippi # Connecticut

The headline accompanying this photo over at CNN.com is What happened to and what’s next for failed personhood measure?
Weirdly, the answer to these questions isn’t simply, “Mississippians cogently explained to other Mississippians what a disaster this policy would be and how this understanding of personhood makes a mockery of biological science.”
Instead, there are three possible answers put forward by the piece:
People began asking questions about the language of the amendment.
Media organizations from across the country descended on Mississippi in the week before the election to cover the controversial issue.
Key figures voiced concerns right before the election.
Now, in making the case for #3, the piece explicitly references #1:

Gov. Haley Barbour in the middle of last week  could have been part of what swayed the vote. As the debate about the proposed amendment bubbled to the national level, the fiercely conservative governor came out and did something not many expected: He expressed that he was undecided about the issue, saying it was “too ambiguous.”

Of course, Barbour then publicly said he believes that life begins at conception and intimated that he’d gone ahead and voted based on his belief. Thus, if Mississippians were really concerned about what key figures thought (#3), Barbour was effectively telling them to support the initiative and not to worry about the ambiguous language (#1).
So, then, is it #2? Is CNN saying that the media frenzy (of which it was certainly a part) caused people to rethink what they believed or to change their minds about legislating something like this? If so, how would they demonstrate such a thing? Fear not, they don’t really even try; they’re content to suggest that their presence might have alerted people to #1 and/or #3.
This leads me back to my own position, namely that the people of Mississippi ought to be given more credit by everyone than they have been. I’m perfectly willing to be the first to congratulate Mississippians for coming to what I regard as the right conclusion without any help from me, from the media, or from Haley Barbour.
Whether or not I’m right about that conclusion, it’s interesting to note that the group behind the ballot initiative — Personhood USA — isn’t daunted at all by the fact that Mississippians rejected it. In part, they seem to view the rejection of the initiative as further proof that the group just needs to keep forcing this erroneous conception of personhood on people who have made up their mind that they don’t want it, which seems very much in keeping with the whole tone of Personhood USA:

"We recognize that the right time to end abortion in Mississippi is now, and that is why the citizens of Mississippi will attempt a personhood ballot measure again – and again, if necessary – until every person’s life is protected,” the group said.

So many people in this country didn’t think much of Mississippians before the ballot initiative failed, and interestingly this organization doesn’t think much of Mississippians after it failed either.

The headline accompanying this photo over at CNN.com is What happened to and what’s next for failed personhood measure?

Weirdly, the answer to these questions isn’t simply, “Mississippians cogently explained to other Mississippians what a disaster this policy would be and how this understanding of personhood makes a mockery of biological science.”

Instead, there are three possible answers put forward by the piece:

  1. People began asking questions about the language of the amendment.
  2. Media organizations from across the country descended on Mississippi in the week before the election to cover the controversial issue.
  3. Key figures voiced concerns right before the election.

Now, in making the case for #3, the piece explicitly references #1:

Gov. Haley Barbour in the middle of last week  could have been part of what swayed the vote. As the debate about the proposed amendment bubbled to the national level, the fiercely conservative governor came out and did something not many expected: He expressed that he was undecided about the issue, saying it was “too ambiguous.”

Of course, Barbour then publicly said he believes that life begins at conception and intimated that he’d gone ahead and voted based on his belief. Thus, if Mississippians were really concerned about what key figures thought (#3), Barbour was effectively telling them to support the initiative and not to worry about the ambiguous language (#1).

So, then, is it #2? Is CNN saying that the media frenzy (of which it was certainly a part) caused people to rethink what they believed or to change their minds about legislating something like this? If so, how would they demonstrate such a thing? Fear not, they don’t really even try; they’re content to suggest that their presence might have alerted people to #1 and/or #3.

This leads me back to my own position, namely that the people of Mississippi ought to be given more credit by everyone than they have been. I’m perfectly willing to be the first to congratulate Mississippians for coming to what I regard as the right conclusion without any help from me, from the media, or from Haley Barbour.

Whether or not I’m right about that conclusion, it’s interesting to note that the group behind the ballot initiative — Personhood USA — isn’t daunted at all by the fact that Mississippians rejected it. In part, they seem to view the rejection of the initiative as further proof that the group just needs to keep forcing this erroneous conception of personhood on people who have made up their mind that they don’t want it, which seems very much in keeping with the whole tone of Personhood USA:

"We recognize that the right time to end abortion in Mississippi is now, and that is why the citizens of Mississippi will attempt a personhood ballot measure again – and again, if necessary  until every person’s life is protected,” the group said.

So many people in this country didn’t think much of Mississippians before the ballot initiative failed, and interestingly this organization doesn’t think much of Mississippians after it failed either.

# Mississippi # democracy # science # abortion # politics # news

Share on