Thursday, May 19, 2011

Joanna Malloy's baffling anti-gun column in the NY Daily News

Here are a few highlights (emphasis all mine) of the article, reflecting her poor understanding of what she wants to ban, and just as offensive, her butchery of the English language:
Anything less then [sic] a ban on these bulk bullet clips, like the ban proposed in bills before Congress, "is reckless ... and wrong," Bratton says.
What is a bulk bullet clip? 

Bratton has teamed up with former Manhattan prosecutor Richard Aborn, who must feel like trying to pass the ban is like déjà vu all over again.
That sentence is just awful. 
As head of the Brady Campaign, he helped write the assault-weapons ban that got passed under President Bill Clinton. Congress and President George W. Bush let it end in 2004.
When the Brady Campaign writes legislation, it's to save the lives of police officers.  NRA-sponsored legislation seeks to increase the blood-profits of their gun industry patrons. 
Like Jared Loughner, who killed six people and wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others with 30 bullets in 15 seconds in January.
I can fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds from my Ruger SP101.  You don't need a big bullet blasting box to fire two rounds per second for thirty seconds.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would "definitely support a legislative ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines," said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne. "We in the Police Department don't even use them."
Is Kelly actually saying the NYPD limits their officers to 10-round magazines in their Sig, Glock, and S&W autoloading pistols?  I've sent an inquiry to Kelly to see if he was misquoted.  I would be amazed if Malloy is accurately representing what Kelly actually said. 

No other civilized country allows this. Every country has crazy people; America is the only one that arms them.
America doesn't arm civilians.  Is there some gun welfare program I don't know about.  
Let's get sane, and click our support for the large-capacity ammunition magazine ban at
A political appeal for meaningless action following an appeal-to-emotion, fact-free argument.  Though it would be generous to call it an argument, especially toward the end of the column where it just broke down into non-sequitur Brady Campaign talking points.  Joan Peterson writes more coherently than this. 

You're better than this, NY Daily News.  Or, maybe not. 

No comments:

Post a Comment