When a police officer shoots an unarmed man you blame the police officer. When a horrific school massacre occurs, you blame the gun. Please explain this logic. Tomi Lahren, 18 Feb 2018, 9:57 am, via twit
I should be better than this, but you know what? I’m not.
Dear Tomi,
When a Police Officer shoots an unarmed man he is at fault because in our society (and other countries do it differently, in Britain they do the same job with only a whistle, a radio, and a baton) the gun is given to the Police Officer to enable them to confront armed criminals, not to kill random (but mostly Black) individuals who happen to be mentally ill, or spit on the sidewalk, or even call the Police Officer’s Mother heinous names.
That’s the law.
In horrific massacres (of any type, say the kind that take place at Country Music Concerts in Las Vegas) we have factual evidence that the criminal (he just murdered 59 people and injured 851 more, it’s a crime) would not have been able to kill so many so fast (10 minutes) at such a great distance (490 yards) if he had been armed with a Bow and Arrow or a Knife, even a really big Knife, instead of a gun.
I hope this solves your puzzle.
Sincerely,
ek hornbeck
Look, I feel I’m being totally polite, even Brooksian. I have provided information that I think directly responsive to the question posed without condescension.
Ok. Maybe a little condescension.
(h/t Doktor Zoom @ Wonkette)