This week, Joe Bissonnette (a Canadian, who comes from Canada [much like the right's Ted Cruz, who is also a Canadian who comes from Canada]) name checks the Kardashians twice in his piece "David Hogg: Oracle, or Useful Idiot?"
"Unlike the Kardashians, social media, gender studies, or anything sold by Starbucks, the Second Amendment is not some fraudulent circus scam designed to deceive, corrupt, and impoverish. Peace, order, and good government have had an amazingly long run in America, but they are fragile things, and the United States Constitution did not secure them by chance." Kardashians AND gender studies AND Starbucks?! If only he'd mentioned quinoa or renewable energy, he would have had BINGO.
He's alluding to the thoughtfully determined balance of power, and the series of checks each branch of government has on the others.
JK, he's totes about the guns and how guns are the most important aspect of the Constitution and how a world without guns would be the worst world because we'd all be victims to all the things that are bad. Guns are the only thing between us and oblivion.
Did you know that there have only been 35 kids and 6 adults killed in school shootings since 2013? Only 35!!! That's practically none and when you consider the fact that there are about 51 deaths from lightning strikes per year, really, the odds of dying in a school shooting is basically 1/6th of the odds of dying from a lightning strike which is logic too brilliant to ever contend with.
Sure, you might say that by going back just one month more into the past you would increase the number of dead by more than 50% (December 2012, Sandy Hook [totally a false flag thing by Obama as a run up to when he took all the guns]), but how would that help his argument? It wouldn't.
Or you might say that the venue for mass shootings doesn't have to be schools. Something tells me these kids are eager to stop mass shootings even if they're at movie theaters, malls, or on the streets of Las Vegas.
You might also say that maybe it's not just the death toll, but the compounded trauma from the injured and the PTSD for survivors and their families and a town forced to confront the awful reality, but that would be ignoring how towns are also traumatized when someone is killed by lightning, which, I'm sure they are to a certain extent, but it is entirely possible that they are processed with a different magnitude.
Okay, I went to fact check the dude's 51 deaths per year and that is just bullshit sloppy writing. That's a 30 year average but since we are only going back to 2013, the numbers average 26.2 per year. That just makes his point all the most relevent-er if you don't think about it. Sure the difference in odds got larger when we account for Sandy Hook but now they difference shrinks to smaller than it was when we cut the annual deaths in half--I'm helping!!!
Apparently the number of deaths per year from lightning strikes is a threshold for which anything less likely needs to shut the fuck up. Or within a multiplier of 10. Don't come for my guns.
And if you're not dead, fuck you.
But the most interesting of the various reasons people are even talking about this staged shooting filled with paid crisis actors is that "everybody knows that schools are sociopathic, outdated, Industrial Revolution–era warehouses" full of angsty teenagers who, frankly, deserve to get shot up by a white male with a gun, apparently (I'm not sure of the logic that gets us here, but I'm sure "freedom" is part of it).
Also there has never been a grizzly bear attack of an online classroom, Take that Wyoming schools.
The writer does mention this:
"A psych study a few years ago had a large random sample describe a facial expression in a picture. The vast majority of children and adults identified the facial expression as neutral or positive, while more that 70 percent of teens identified the facial expression as negative, hostile, and judgmental."
And I'm just dying to know which group was actually correct (or if all grouops were wrong). He didn't source the
alleged very real study. Which is a shame because in the very objective realm of drawing inferences from facial expressions, someone has to be 100% right and others have to be wrong.