Thursday, February 15, 2018

Guns In Fiction: Cover Art Follies #1

I've written before about gun use in fiction, especially when they've really screwed it up (I'm looking at you, Stephen King).

After my post the other day, I thought I'd point out all the stupid ways cover art will screw up gun use. Particularly, their obsession with fingers on triggers, an obsession which really bugs the hell out of me.

So here we'll begin a new blog feature I'll call Guns In Fiction: Cover Art Follies.




Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Gun Violence Archive Is Duplicitous and Promotes Biased Data

I've been noticing a lot of references recently to the Gun Violence Archive as being the repository of "gun violence" statistics. In fact sites like Vox, Media Matters, Newsweek, and the Washington Post have pointed to data from the Archive.

Personally, I prefer my "gun violence" statistics to come from the FBI and other law enforcement entities, but I decided to see if they are what they claim.

They are not.

Despite what it claims, the Archive's data is biased and suspect and I will demonstrate here.

According to itself:
The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 2,500 media, law enforcement, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide  near-real time data about the results of gun violence.... The mission of GVA is to document incidents of gun violence and gun crime nationally to provide independent, verified data to those who need to use it in their research, advocacy or writing.

Here's their definition of "gun violence":
Gun Violence describes the results of all incidents of death or injury or threat with firearms without pejorative judgment within the definition. Violence is defined without intent or consequence as a consideration. To that end a shooting of a victim by a subject/suspect is considered gun violence as is a defensive use or an officer involved shooting. The act itself, no matter the reason is violent in nature

However, here's the thing: when the general public hears the phrase "gun violence," the picture that immediately comes to mind is a violent criminal armed with a firearm shooting down an innocent victim/victims in a robbery or home invasion or equally heinous act (for instance, a mass shooting at a mall, school, church, or the like) or causing collateral injury/death to innocent bystanders.

What isn't immediately thought of is a police officer using a firearm in carrying out his/her duties. Nor a citizen lawfully using a firearm in defense of self and/or loved ones.

Yet the Archive's "data" includes officer involved shootings and defense use, per their definition.

It also includes non-shooting incidents.

Here's a rundown of recent data.

This is a screenshot taken on 2/13/18 around 9:30am.



It reports on data from the last 72 hours. The screenshot only captures the first page so we're going to look at these ones.

A total of 25 incidents.

Under the general public perception of "gun violence," 14 of these would fit the description.

Consider, though, what else they included:

5 were non-shooting incidents. Of these, 1 was possession, 1 was brandishing, 1 carjacking at gunpoint, 1 kidnapping at gunpoint, 1 lockdown with no shooting onsite.

2 officer-involved shooting. Of these, 1 was suicide by cop, 1 shots fired but suspect surrendered at standoff.

2 were shots fire with no injury or death.

1 was a defensive gun use by an off duty Border agent.

1 was someone shooting a toilet.

Apologists will no doubt point to this part of their "definition":
To that end a shooting of a victim by a subject/suspect is considered gun violence as is a defensive use or an officer involved shooting. The act itself, no matter the reason is violent in nature [emphasis mine]
If so, why not just report all violent crime since they are "violent in nature"?

Biased data.

And because of this bias, I'd call the Archive's legitimacy and claim of "independence" suspect.

But of course the Anti-Gun Bigots love it.

And why not? It further promotes their illegitimate and bigoted narrative.


Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Guns In Fiction: Cover Art WTF-ery

Whilst cruising the Intertubes the other day I came across a book review of Kelly Gay's The Hour of Dust and Ashes.

And immediately thought: WTF NO NO NO

Wait. Lemme 'splain...

Nothing wrong with the book, the author, or the genre. I happen to be a fan of urban fantasy. And nothing wrong with the blog, the review itself, or the blog owner.

No.

My gripe was with the cover art.

Let me show you it:

Now let me just say that Chris McGrath is a spectacular artist who does phenomenal covers. He's on my Favorite Cover Artists list, right up there with Michael Whelan and Winona Nelson.

Having said that, look at the cover and see if you can spot what prompted by response.


Let me help a little:

Closer look:


Bad Chris.

Please don't do this.

Ever.

Goes for other cover artists, too.

Please please please do not depict your characters using a firearm in this manner.

Thank you.

Here ends this Public Service Announcement.


Monday, February 12, 2018

#Gunsense Bigotry

I've tweeted this before:


The other day, an Anti-Gun Bigot decided to call me out on it:

So let me take a moment to explain why I tweet my litany.

The sole purpose of #gunsense (which is just another name for "gun control") is civilian disarmament. They don't want the general populace to have access to firearms. Which leaves access solely to law enforcement and the military, and likely to private security personnel. This means that only certain people will be armed.

That's elitist.

The general populace includes minorites, women, and LGBT. By denying them access to firearms #gunsense is racist, sexist, and homophobic.

#Gunsense likes to call for "regulations" and "there should be laws" and claims "lax gun laws." But such calls and claims fail to account for 18 USC Chapter 44. Or various state laws. All of which govern who can and can't possess/purchase firearms, among other restrictions.

#Gunsense also throws around terms like "assault weapon," "military grade," and "high capacity clips" which only shows that they do not have a grounding in the very subject they claim to speak on.

That's ignorance.

#Gunsense routinely calls gun owners "ammosexuals" and "gun nuts" and belittle us. They speak of us and to us in a condescending and sometimes patronizing manner. Such behavior highlights a point of view that says we gun owners are tenth-class citizens, that we are "lower than low," that we are less than human.

#Gunsense routinely blames us for mass/school shootings, claiming we are complicit in those heinous acts. They compare us to violent criminals.

In short, they demonize us for exercising our freedom to bear arms.

That's intolerance. That's hatred.

That's bigotry.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Bigots In Our Backyard

Well lookee here!

It's an Anti-Gun Bigot site in our neck of the woods.

How fun!

That's right, Dear Readers. Anti-Gun Bigotry is alive and well in the Evergreen State courtesy of Washington CeaseFire.

According to their website, they were
formed in 1983 in the Seattle area by citizens who had been directly affected by gun violence. From a small group meeting in private homes, it has grown to an organization with more than 5,000 members across the state.
So of course they're here. Seattle is one of the bastions of Anti-Gun Bigotry.

As we're doing with the Bradys, VPC, CSGV, and the rest of their ilk, we'll take a look at their propaganda the info they present and show you how they misinform, fearmonger, spread lies, and essentially work to rob you of your civil rights.

Watch this space for all the fun!


The Core of Gun Control

The basic philosophy of gun control is bigoted, elitist, sexist, racist, and homophobic.

Gun control advocates hate your civil rights and will do everything in their power to rob you of said rights.





Women With Weapons Wednesday: "Xena"

We begin Women With Weapons Wednesday with the woman who, in my mind, personifies this theme:

Xena - Xena: Warrior Princess
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...