Washington Post Crowdsources 'Gun Violence' Stories for Sandy Hook Anniversary

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/11/WAPO-Submit-Your-Gun-Violence-Story-For-Sandy-Hook-Anniversary

Washington Post Crowdsources 'Gun Violence' Stories for Sandy Hook Anniversary
169 0 63 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email ArticlePrint article
Send a Tip by AWR Hawkins 11 Dec 2013 399post a comment
The Washington Post (WaPo) is asking readers to submit their "gun violence" stories for the first anniversary of the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary.
In a story titled, "What's your gun number? Share your gun story," the WaPo provides a form readers can fill out and submit online.

The form asks questions like, "How many people do you know who have been killed or injured by gun violence?" and "If you were in charge, how would you change gun policy in the U.S.?"

Additionally, the form asks people with gun violence stories to take pictures of themselves holding their "gun numbers" and submit them via social media. The photos will be compiled and made available for readers to show how many "gun violence" incidents have taken place.

The Washington Post Magazine did this same thing in March with a story titled, "What's Your Gun Number?" The central question in this article was, "How many people do you know who have been shot?"

The "gun number" project's inventor, an Asheville, NC, political science professor, originally asked the question on Facebook with the words "No politics... No judgment. Just a number."

The Washington Post printed its own coverage in connection with articles on the surrounding politics of gun control. Its March story came out just before the Senate bill concerning universal background checks was debated and defeated.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

**Manchu**

What's your propaganda number? How many times have you been subject to media spin?

I don't know if I can fit in the picture with that number ...

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
What's your propaganda number? How many times have you been subject to media spin?

I don't know if I can fit in the picture with that number ...

Thou doth needeth to restate thineself as doth question doth confuseth both the divine and the damned.

**d-usa**

Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

**BrassScorpion**

Leave it to gun-nuts and extreme Righties to be more concerned about their guns than child murder victims.

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/video-new-study-shows-close-200-children-have-been-shot-dead-year-newtown-massacre

New Study Shows Close to 200 Children Have Been Shot Dead in the Year Since Newtown Massacre

The true toll of our runaway gun culture is likely even higher.
December 11, 2013 |

In the year since the Newtown school massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, at least 194 children aged 12 and under have been killed by guns. That is the latest figure according to a new special report released by Mother Jones.

The publication analyzed these tragic and avoidable deaths across hundreds of news reports spread over 43 states.

Amongst the key findings the study found that: 127 of the children died from gunshots in their own homes; 72 of the victims pulled the trigger themselves or were shot by another kid; and at least 52 of the deaths involved a child handling a gun left unsecured.

Even more unsettling, only 6 percent of adults were held criminally liable for the incidents.

In fact, a recent study of pediatric records by Boston physicians reveals that the true toll is in fact probably much higher. The research found that about 500 children and teens die each year and 7500 are hospitalized from gunshots.

Still, the NRA continues to downplay the dangers that firearms pose to children going so far as to claim that arming more adults is the solution to protecting children. This is the despite overwhelming data pointing to the contrary.

This week, as we commemorate the anniversary of Newtown, the question remains: how many more children must die before our gun laws are amended to protect our children once and for all.

**Alexzandvar**

I have an uncle that used to be massive Pro-gun and pro no gun restrictions (He believed that there should not even be laws mandating proper training or securing of guns).

But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.

Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Go to the WAPO site. I like that there's a poster bombing the comments with story after story after story where firearms saved someone from harm.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Go to the WAPO site. I like that there's a poster bombing the comments with story after story after story where firearms saved someone from harm.

Doesn't change the fact that the DakkaDakka OT is a site where conservatives crowdsource for stories to post while bashing another site for crowdsourcing liberal stories.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Thou doth needeth to restate thineself as doth question doth confuseth both the divine and the damned.

I think the Washinton Post is full of gak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:
But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.

Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons

So he concluded from failing as a parent himself that the government should act as parents to adults?

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Go to the WAPO site. I like that there's a poster bombing the comments with story after story after story where firearms saved someone from harm.

Doesn't change the fact that the DakkaDakka OT is a site where conservatives crowdsource for stories to post while bashing another site for crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Someone has to. These stories don't crowdsource themselves!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thou doth needeth to restate thineself as doth question doth confuseth both the divine and the damned.
I think the Washinton Post is full of gak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:
But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.

Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons
So he concluded from failing as a parent himself that the government should act as parents to adults?

Its very annoying. WAPO could be a great paper if it got off the incredible slant it has. Rachel Maddow? Seriously?

**-Shrike-**

Frazzled wrote:
Manchu wrote:
What's your propaganda number? How many times have you been subject to media spin?

I don't know if I can fit in the picture with that number ...

Thou doth needeth to restate thineself as doth question doth confuseth both the divine and the damned.

This completely cracked me up, have an exalt, good sir!

**Alexzandvar**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thou doth needeth to restate thineself as doth question doth confuseth both the divine and the damned.
I think the Washinton Post is full of gak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alexzandvar wrote:
But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.

Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons
So he concluded from failing as a parent himself that the government should act as parents to adults?

More that it should be a law that people in general should not leave dangerous weapons laying about the house. And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.

This is far more about doing a good for the general public and less moral shaming through legislation.

I civil war reenact, my family owns lots of guns, but we make sure everything is secure, and everyone should have the right to expect that of us. Iv seen far to many people in my area die because of improper gun safety to call this government overreach

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Go to the WAPO site. I like that there's a poster bombing the comments with story after story after story where firearms saved someone from harm.

Doesn't change the fact that the DakkaDakka OT is a site where conservatives crowdsource for stories to post while bashing another site for crowdsourcing liberal stories.

No more than liberals crowdsouce for stories to post here as well...

This is the Thunderdome brah!

**Alexzandvar**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Go to the WAPO site. I like that there's a poster bombing the comments with story after story after story where firearms saved someone from harm.

Doesn't change the fact that the DakkaDakka OT is a site where conservatives crowdsource for stories to post while bashing another site for crowdsourcing liberal stories.

No more than liberals crowdsouce for stories to post here as well...

This is the Thunderdome brah!

Calling this the thunder dome of political debates would be like calling an angry child's fight on the elementary school playground the greatest hard fought battle in history

**daedalus**

I was kind of picturing a fight between a clone of Steve Urkel wearing a shirt with an elephant and a clone of Steve Urkel wearing a donkey.

**Alfndrate**

With both of them going, "did I do that?"

**whembly**

Alexzandvar wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Conservatives on DakkaDakka crowdsource stories to post on DakkaDakka from various conservative blogs while complaining about another site crowdsourcing liberal stories.

Go to the WAPO site. I like that there's a poster bombing the comments with story after story after story where firearms saved someone from harm.

Doesn't change the fact that the DakkaDakka OT is a site where conservatives crowdsource for stories to post while bashing another site for crowdsourcing liberal stories.

No more than liberals crowdsouce for stories to post here as well...

This is the Thunderdome brah!

Calling this the thunder dome of political debates would be like calling an angry child's fight on the elementary school playground the greatest hard fought battle in history

That's true... we don't see the minds change around here...
*shrugs*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alfndrate wrote:
With both of them going, "did I do that?"

I "heard" that in that screechy voice...

**Frazzled**

More that it should be a law that people in general should not leave dangerous weapons laying about the house. And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard,

No it pretty much screams nanny step because your relative or whatever drank from the shallow end of the gene pool and can't properly store firearms or control his Damian like children.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
I was kind of picturing a fight between a clone of Steve Urkel wearing a shirt with an elephant and a clone of Steve Urkel wearing a donkey.

no no no, not enough neckbeard and Dorito stains.

**Manchu**

Alexzandvar wrote:
And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.

Many, many things in your house can maim or even kill you and your family if you happen to be a pack of irresponsible fools.

Alexzandvar wrote:
I civil war reenact, my family owns lots of guns, but we make sure everything is secure, and everyone should have the right to expect that of us. Iv seen far to many people in my area die because of improper gun safety to call this government overreach

It sounds like you are surrounded by morons. I have been around guns my entire life, with my immediate and extended family and all their friends owning firearms, including a fair few reenactors (I grew up and live in Richmond, VA). I don't know a single person who died because of carelessly handling or storing firearms.

**cincydooley**

Alexzandvar wrote:

More that it should be a law that people in general should not leave dangerous weapons laying about the house. And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.

This is fething ludicrous. Storing your firearms properly is fething simple. If your kid shoots himself with your unsecured gun, it's you own fething fault and you should be held responsible.

I civil war reenact, my family owns lots of guns, but we make sure everything is secure, and everyone should have the right to expect that of us. Iv seen far to many people in my area die because of improper gun safety to call this government overreach

It's not th governments responsibility to ensure that you're a responsible gun owner, but it is on them to hold you accountable when your irresponsibility ends in a casualty. Quite frankly, I'm appalled anyone would even suggest that the government should legislate how your store your firearms in your own home. Absurd.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:
Leave it to gun-nuts and extreme Righties to be more concerned about their guns than child murder victims.

Give me a fething break. Sensationalize much? Over half of those "murder victims", according to the article, were killed in their own homes due to negligent firearm safety and parental irresponsibility.

Is it sad some kids have died? Sure. But I'm a ton more sympathetic to the parent of the kids that have cancer than the ones that had kids due because they're too fething stupid to store their firearms properly.

**Alexzandvar**

Manchu wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.
Many, many things in your house can maim or even kill you and your family if you happen to be a pack of irresponsible fools.

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

**Frazzled**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.
Many, many things in your house can maim or even kill you and your family if you happen to be a pack of irresponsible fools.

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

Really? Have you tried it? How do you know? Have any of your relatives tried to kill their pets with one yet?

**daedalus**

Alexzandvar wrote:

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

Are we talking deliberately or accidentally? If you were a resident in my house, and I had inclination, I could probably kill you quite easily with a toaster. Also, I note that you said butter knife, but not steak knife.

**Manchu**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something.

I think what you mean is, the consequences of irresponsibly handling a butter knife are on the whole less serious than those of irresponsibly handling a firearm. What I am trying to explain is that there is a difference between making it illegal to be irresponsible and punishing people whose irresponsible behavior has actually resulted in crime. Even putting aside moral objections to making irresponsibility illegal, there are some pretty important practical concerns about how such a law could be enforced.

**cincydooley**

Alexzandvar wrote:

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

And we regulate this how? Monthly in home visits by an agent of the state to ensure your firearms are stored properly? Random firearm audits?

It's shocking you don't see how moronic and untenable that idea is.

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

And we regulate this how? Monthly in home visits by an agent of the state to ensure your firearms are stored properly? Random firearm audits?

It's shocking you don't see how moronic and untenable that idea is.

I think about the same procedure that we need to drive a car would do. A permit to use (although not necessarily own) a gun. You have to show you know how to use a gun and the proper safety procedures. After that you might have to renew your license (like you renew a car licence).

**BrassScorpion**

And still nothing is being done due to corrupt political payoff money from the gun manufacturers. Until the 1970s the NRA was an actual gun safety organization, since then they're just a lobby organization paid for by arms makers.

Mass Shooting Epidemic Continues One Year After Newtown
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/11/mass-shootings-since-newtown/

**DarkTraveler777**

cincydooley wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:

Its much harder to kill your son/dog/cat/pet rock with say a toaster or a butter knife than it is with a device meant to killing/maim something. This isn't like we are talking about restricting your right to OWN them, we are talking about ensuring people treat those firearms correctly.

And we regulate this how? Monthly in home visits by an agent of the state to ensure your firearms are stored properly? Random firearm audits?

It's shocking you don't see how moronic and untenable that idea is.

Here in California you cannot leave the store with a firearm purchase unless you buy a trigger lock or can prove you have a safe at home. Is that requirement present in other states (honest question)? Because how I read Alexzandvar's original post the uncle in question desires that is the sort of mandate. Correct me if I am wrong, Alexzandvar.

Obviously you cannot enforce how people use and store their firearms minute to minute, but if you require the bare minimum of safety at the time of purchase (i.e. requiring a trigger lock or safe) surely that is better than having no requirement at all and leaving storage up to the individual owners. I own two guns, I have trigger locks for them, and I have a gun safe in my house. I don't find those precautions to be outrageous given that I have tools that can quickly and efficiently take life.

**easysauce**

this is also the aniversary of the time that CCW lady stopped a "sandy hook" esque mas murder with her pistol... the crazy dude had 1000's of rounds of ammo, and was going to kill everyone in a church.

yet no media reports, nothing...

so the lesson learnt is:

be a scumbag mass murderer, get your 15 minutes of fame, give the antis some more bodies to dance on.

be a hero who saves dozens of people from a scumbag mass murdered, and get swept under the rug because your story doesnt further the anti gun agenda.

10 mass murders alone prevented by lawful citizens with guns... this is not an exhaustive list... there are many more examples of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.

yet not one peep from the grave dancing gun grabbers, because it isnt going to sell as much news, nor further their agenda.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/jeffrey-meyer/mystery-man-tops-10-mass-shootings-prevented-gun-owners

**Frazzled**

BrassScorpion wrote:
And still nothing is being done due to corrupt political payoff money from the gun manufacturers. Until the 1970s the NRA was an actual gun safety organization, since then they're just a lobby organization paid for by arms makers.

Mass Shooting Epidemic Continues One Year After Newtown
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/11/mass-shootings-since-newtown/

NRA has about 4mm members too. don't forget that part.