Gun Control Group Lists Tamerlan Tsarnaev As Victim Of Gun Violence
For some reason, a group in favor of gun control is listing one of the two Boston Marathon bombers as a victim of gun violence:
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun violence group on Tuesday held an event reading out the names of victims of gun violence since Newtown — and included Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Today, Mayors Against Illegal Guns told The Atlantic Wire that the group made the mistake of calling the deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect a victim of gun violence because his name was on a list posted on Slate.com.
Tsarnaev’s name was read aloud during a stop on the group’s “No More Names” bus tour in Concord, N.H., prompting loud shouts from the crowd, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader. Several protesters shouted “he’s a terrorist” when Tsarnaev was named, the Union Leader reported on Tuesday.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns told The Atlantic Wire in a statement Wednesday that they “relied on the public list compiled by Slate.com entitled ‘How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?‘, and his name was on the list.” The group said his name should have been deleted, called Tsarnaev’s inclusion a “mistake” and apologized.
Yea I would think so. Listing Tsarnaev as a “victim of gun violence” is about the same as listing Mohammed Atta as a victim of an airplane crash.
So you say the name was included “for some reason”, but the group explained the reason (a mistake)?
What’s your point exactly?
Well, if they can’t vet the list for the names of famous terrorists, can we have any assurance they didn’t list the names of others whose “gun injuries” resulted from justifiable self defense? Either by the police or private citizen?
The reality is MAIG wants to stigmatize self defense and deny individuals the right to act to save their own life or the lives of others.
Talk about grasping for straws…
Oh, it was a “mistake.” That makes it all better.
This shows a bit of the dishonesty and ignorance at the core of the anti-gun crowd. They have their big numbers of people killed by guns, but it’s meaningless. As this demonstrates, some of the people killed by guns deserved to be killed. They were killed while resisting arrest, while endangering others, or in other circumstances where they were taking actions that justified their deaths.
This brother was the one talk radio’s nicknamed “Speedbump.” He was shot by police and run over by his own brother while fleeing arrest. His death wasn’t a tragedy, it was justice. Oh, and comedy, too. I gloat over how his fellow terrorist gets to live the rest of his life knowing that his last victim was his own big brother.
And, I sincerely hope, will be charged for Tarmerlan’s death under the “felony homicide” law. Please, please charge him.
There’s a saying in Texas: “some people just need killing.” The gun-grabbing mayors (who themselves represent a significant criminal element among themselves) reminded us of this by having their moment of silence for one of them.
Let me add this: the NRA has a regular feature called The Armed Citizen, where they list stories of people using guns to protect themselves and others. That’s a good list of the type of “victims of gun violence” who don’t deserve any sympathy.
@Jenos Idanian:
Hey, they could run those kind of stories in Somalia and Iraq too, where seemingly, everyone is armed. I’m sure there are a lot of heartwarming stories of people using guns to protect themselves and others.
@al-Ameda: I realize that you’re reality-challenged, but 1) this isn’t Somalia, and 2) this isn’t Iraq.
To quote a great American philosopher:
@al-Ameda: And let me head off your next flight of fantasy: one of the core concepts of libertarianism is individual responsibility. Somalia’s current state isn’t the logical conclusion of libertarianism, but of anarchy. Its roots are in movements like Occupy Wall Street — which was embraced by so many Democrats.
Turns out they do include a lot of police shootings in the list of gun violence. I guess police having to kill a man in Alabama who had killed 3 people and confronted police with an “assault rifle” is a victim of “gun violence” of a sort.
I just picked a few entries and checked their links. all the ones I checked went to news stories about people being shot by police. So the inference is there is a serious problem of police gun violence across the country or the compilers believe that even police using a firearm to defend themselves is a bridge to far?
@JKB: If that guy in Alabama didn’t have access to a gun, he’d never have ever tried to harm anyone ever. So, therefore, he’s a victim of gun violence.
That’s gun-hater logic.
By the way, why are these guns so violent? Mine just sit around collecting dust most of the time. Even when I want them to make a ruckus and throw things, I have to point them in the right direction then squeeze until they go off.
Do these guns who are so violent come from bad homes? Were they neglected? Perhaps they didn’t have good roll models when they came out of the box?
Why do we not put these guns on trial to hold them responsible their violence? Could it be that rational, non-superstitious, people know that inanimate objects cannot act of their own volition? Contrary to what gun controllers believe and promote there are no witches imbuing guns with evil spirits. Nor will typing the incantation “911” into your cell phone effectively ward off a person intent on doing violence to you.
@Jenos Idanian:
It’s true everywhere that guns are not responsible for violence, people are responsible for violence. It’s true in Somalia, in Iraq, and in America.
And yet on the list they include many who used a tool (gun) to stop those individuals who were doing intent on doing violence. Someone intent on doing violence who is stopped by someone with a firearm is no a victim of gun violence but a perpetrator.
@stonetools:
@pylon:
Does that excuse work the same for pro-life Republican who say something mistaken about Rape?
@Paul L.: Does that excuse work the same for pro-life Republican who say something mistaken about Rape?
Of course not, woman-hater. And you’re probably racist, too.
Oh, my word. I was trying to explain Reading 101 over at the Atlantic.
The Slate list is “people killed by guns,” period. Not “people killed by guns (and who didn’t have it coming to them).” You can argue whether that’s an interesting statistic, but that’s what it is.
Now, if Bloomberg’s group was calling all those people “victims,” that’s their problem.
There is a point to be made about police shootings: in countries like the UK where police aren’t usually armed with guns, there’s the occasional killing of a police officer or a suspect, but the body count stays lower on both sides.
@Anderson: You’re semantically correct, but the inference is that these are all victims. Especially when the presenters are so clearly partisan on the issue of guns as Bloomberg’s gun-grabbers.
Apparently the list was even more entertaining. In addition to Speedbump, it also included the late rogue LA cop Christopher Dorner…
@Paul L.: If they say it was a mistake, I guess. And not just “you misinterpreted”. Good luck with finding those examples.
Oh, lookie here… it turns out Bloomberg’s group, officially an “independent” organization, gets its web hosting courtesy of New York City.