Whenever I want to be taken seriously in the absence of any evidence that I should be, I just preface all my sentences with “Gabby Giffords says…” That way, no matter how ludicrous what follows may be, nobody’s listening anyway because they’re all genuflecting to the virtues of brain damage and victimhood or something.
Seriously, why is this news?
Giffords and Kelly visited the Hearst headquarters in New York on Monday morning to speak with Ellen Levine, editorial director of Hearst magazines. During their presentation they revealed a number of startling facts: American women are eleven times more likely to be killed by guns than in any other high-income country, and every month, nearly 50 women are shot to death by a current or former partner. The campaign by Americans For Responsible Solutions intends to reduce gun violence and support candidates that advocate for stricter gun control.
A woman whose sole claim to fame is that she was shot in the head by a crazy person gets rolled out for the cameras at a midtown limos-and-champagne celebrity event, and it’s all we’re allowed to read about – besides Hillary’s latest book tour event of course – for two days.
Of course it is. It’s important. Being Gabby Giffords means that when she recites bogus statistics some ad executive made up, they magically become ‘startling facts.’ I confess I genuinely was startled by that second number, though. I was startled that they didn’t choose a larger number because my immediate reaction was “Really? Only 50?” You can read about that many gang-bangers getting shot on a single bad weekend in a single city we all know about – but you can’t read about them in the progressive press, which isn’t interested in that kind of ‘gun violence.’
A ‘women’s issue?’ What does that even mean in this context? In media-speak, a ‘women’s issue’ is a societal problem with women as its unique victims, which is extra-special bad, which is why we’re all supposed to treat breast cancer as something worse than, say, prostate cancer. But this doesn’t seem like a good fit as a ‘women’s issue.’ Who’s really going to buy that women are somehow uniquely at risk for ‘gun violence?’ It’s incoherent. Maybe that’s why they gave it to Gabby Giffords to say.
ETA: People claiming to speak for women say that women are uniquely at risk for ‘gun violence.’ I dunno – because they’re too weak to pull a trigger or something.
Sure. Like in these cases in which armed women
were helpless against shot the living hell out of their attackers.