Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Man tells son to lie about shooting sister, a tally of mass shootings since Newtown, and a letter from Starbucks saying Espresso's and guns don't mix.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

A Wisconsin man is facing charges for allegedly telling his 6-year-old son, who had at least 3 years of firearms training, to lie after shooting his 4-year-old sister in the face with a shotgun. 

In late August, WKBT reported that Jackson County Sheriff’s deputies were called to a home in the Town of Alma, where the 4-year-old girl had been struck in the side of the head with a shotgun blast. 

According to the Jackson Country Chronicle, authorities in Jackson said this week that 48-year-old father Fred B. Maphis had told his son to say that the shotgun had accidentally gone off when he dropped it. But the son later admitted that the father instructed him to lie because he had pointed the gun at the girl and pulled the trigger. 

The boy told authorities that his sister had asked him to aim the shotgun at her, but he had made the mistake of putting it too close to her ear.

 A sheriff’s office complaint said that the mother told investigators that the boy had been training with firearms since the age of 3. She said that he had his own .22 caliber rifle, but he was only allowed to shoot with adult supervision. The father insisted that he had just forgotten to unload and secure the shotgun.

You know I am certainly not an expert in gun safety but you would kind if think that lesson one might be, "Don't ever point on at your sister." I'm just saying. 

And the father encouraging his son to lie indicates that he probably should not be allowed to have children, much less guns.

In other gun violence related news HuffPo has put up a graphic concerning mass shootings that should chill the blood of EVERY American.



That is indefensible. And the fact that we are unable to address this problem like grownups is disgusting. The NRA is responsible for hundreds of deaths in this country, and I for one would like for them, and the gun manufacturers they serve, to be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a criminal activity.

After all, corporations are people my friends.

And finally Starbucks has had enough of being used as the modern day stand in for the OK Corral,

Here is a portion of their open letter: 

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners. 

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. 

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

Okay by a show of hands who DIDN'T think this would be the result of all of those gun nuts walking into the Starbucks with assault rifles slung across their shoulder?

I am guessing that ONLY those gun nuts with assault rifles slung across their shoulders are not raising their hands. And therein lies the problem with gun nuts.

Before I close this post I would also like to address the tired old NRA and Fox News talking point that the Navy Shipyard shooters attack can be blamed on the violent video games that he played. (As voiced by newest Fox news blonde bimbo Elizabeth Hasselbeck here.)

No it cannot.

Violent video games are as omnipresent in every other developed country as they are here in the United States, however guns are not. Therefore THEIR citizens can spend all day being desensitized to gun violence and death, if you believe that is really the result, and yet their neighbors and co-workers can feel safe to work and live alongside them.

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. It's called "math."

27 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:05 AM

    Elizabeth Hasselback has already discredited herself as a policy driver. That her spot was on The View was given to a woman who single-handedly set back vaccination numbers in the world, Jenny McCarthy, speaks volumes as to where these types of women have their roles.

    There have been numerous cited studies that video games don't result in mass shootings - it's the accessibility and no accountability culture of weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:16 AM

    Please don't shoot me because I dare come in and order a white chocolate mocca latte and left my .38 in the safe at home. I promise to share my newspaper...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:17 AM

    Read The Full Letter From The CEO Of Starbucks Asking Customers To Stop Bringing Guns Into Stores

    http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-writes-letter-asking-customers-to-no-longer-bring-firearms-into-the-stores-2013-9

    Why Gun Owners Claim They Need To Bring Firearms To Starbucks

    http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-owners-want-firearms-at-starbucks-2013-9

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sally in MI10:21 AM

    I hope Lizzie keeps tabs on the homes of her kids' friends. There may be no video games, but if there are guns, someone is likely to get shot. And frankly, this is even mroe likely in the homes of the faux Christian zealots who belive God wants them 'armed and dangerous.' Seems as if Elizabeth has pretty extreme views, and is not afraid of having anyone call her out, as she was at ABC. Have fun, Liz. And enjoy those paychecks for lies. Must be a tough way to live, being angry, fearful, and arrogantly self-righteous all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:17 PM

      Emphasis on"arrogantly self-righteous"......

      Delete
    2. Anita Winecooler7:29 PM

      She's found her niche'! Gets to have two idiots drool all over her and no one to keep her in check. She'll stab Walters in the back first chance she gets.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous10:22 AM

    Starbucks gun request brews on Twitter

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/starbucks-gun-request-brews-on-twitter-97001.html?hp=f2

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:41 AM

    In sort-of related news: Having a car accident while black can be fatal.

    Just google: ferrell kerrick

    Or go to CNN, BBC, or Tehran Chronicle. Some reports say that Ferrell was shot "several" times; others let on that the officer fired twelve shots, ten of which hit.

    Ferrell's knocking on the door of a nearby house for help (it was 2:30 am) was likely panicky—see the "after" picture of his car—but the AP quotes the police chief as saying Ferrell was "banging on the door viciously".

    The former FAMU football player died at the scene.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:42 AM

    Dog shoots homeowner in Texas

    http://freakoutnation.com/2013/09/17/ruff-neighborhood-dog-shoots-homeowner-in-texas/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10:43 AM

    Unarmed man killed in North Carolina who was seeking help, was shot 10 times by Officer

    http://freakoutnation.com/2013/09/17/police-unarmed-man-killed-in-north-carolina-who-was-seekig-help-was-shot-10-times-by-officer/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please be careful to tell the whole relevant story. Fortunately the little girl has survived this shooting, however it happened. This fact makes the charges more understandable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:00 PM

      Nothing in the story indicates that the girl did not live. What's important (to me at least) is that the father told his son to lie. That would mean that the boy, and his sister as well, would have to go through their lives knowing that the true story had not been told. That's quite a burden to put on children's shoulders. The father should have encouraged his son to tell the truth. The only charge I would make would be against the parents.
      Beaglemom

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:04 PM

      How are the charges understandable at all?

      The charges should be felony child endangerment.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous11:12 AM

    Ed Schultz was just as fired up about the video games last nite. Ranted about GTA. Said if you allow your kids to play these games, even if they are over eighteen, it is a sign of bad parenting.

    BTW: Beating your wife may be a sign of something bad also, too, Ed. (Maureen Zimmerman)

    The B.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Such a shining example of the proper training and responsibility the NRA claims of their membership.

    Bet that Father and son get awarded a lifetime membership.

    Also goes to show what little regard a certain faction of our population has for their womenfolk.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous12:47 PM

    Fatalities 2008-2012:
    Mass shootings 157
    Dog attacks 152

    While were at it, let's 'ban' dogs too. As with banning guns, good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:57 PM

      How many deaths were caused by "dog attacks"? Just curious.
      Beaglemom

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:58 PM

      Ooops. Didn't see the "fatalities."
      Beaglemom

      Delete
    3. Anonymous1:32 PM

      I see you are a proponent of the guns for lunatics argument. And I suppose you believe that it is enshrined in the constitution.

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous1:49 PM

      The best possible place for assault weapon armed mentally ill people is near you and your children. 1-3 people taken out by such a person isn't a mass shooting, it's just a statistic. That way, the survivors can keep quoting mindless numbers.

      Of course, you may keep your children within 10 feet of your weapon at all times. In that case, they won't become a statistic until they grow up.

      Delete
    5. If the sole purpose of a dog were to kill or injure people then yeah I would probably want to ban them as well.

      However such is not the case.

      The same explanation applies to automobiles as well. Since that is the next logic step for your "attempts to introduce unrelated data into a serious discussion" meme.

      Gotta get smarter trolls in here.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous2:05 PM

      Who said anything about banning guns?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous3:22 PM

      12:47

      What a stupid comparison. If you want a real comparison to dog attack fatalities, look at the total number of gun deaths, not just mass shootings.

      Let me help you:

      In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

      2011: 32,163
      2010: 31,672
      2009: 31,347
      2008: 31,593

      Not quite in the same ballpark as your silly dog fatality comparison.

      Now don't forget to unload the gun before you clean it moron.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous1:38 PM

    The next mass shooting will take place on February 12, 2014, in Spokane, Washington. It will be committed by an emotionally disturbed, 38 year-old white man who will kill seven people and wound six more at a place he used to work using a semi-automatic handgun he purchased legally in the state.

    That, at least, is what a look at the data on past such shootings might indicate. We'll say at the outset: Every assertion in the first paragraph is a function of probability, not fact. The next mass shooting — which will happen somewhere, sometime — will almost certainly not be in that place at that time. But a look at the historic data on such killings, compiled and shared by Mother Jones magazine, makes each of those predictions defensible.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/data-predicts-next-mass-shooting-2013-9

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous1:42 PM

    "The father insisted that he had just forgotten to unload and secure the shotgun."

    Seems to me that's a pretty good reason for charging the father with endangerment or something like that. He left a loaded shotgun within reach of a 4 year old. What else does he leave lying around?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:11 PM

    If you consider that the majority of Police officers never fire their weapon in the line of duty over an entire career, it makes the "I carry for protection" argument of these nuts sound really stupid.

    They are much more likely to shoot a family member or shoot themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous3:28 PM

    The WINGNUTS are LOSING it over this Starbucks deal. The right wing response has been predictable, but what’s notable is it’s not just limited to the standard wingnut sites, it’s practically a web-wide attack on Starbucks::

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/301553_Starbucks_asks_customers_to_le

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.