Heartland Patriot wrote:The opponents of self-defense, the 2nd Amendment, and firearms ownership have long stretched the ages of individuals who are shot and killed, calling them "children". One "study" went so far as to label VERIFIED mid-20s gangbangers as "children" (by first calling them "youths" and then implying that youths are simply older children) so they could inflate the numbers of children who were shot and killed in the years covered in said study. People like to believe "experts", but many of the so-called experts these days are FAR from it...and have no more credibility on particular subjects than picking a random guy at a construction site or lady at an office in downtown Dallas and asking them what they think about it. What they DO have is being able to get their position HEARD by the "mainstream media"...and you can look at my posting above to see what I think about them.mamabearCali wrote:I think KoC that the only reason those things are in this conversation is because at first they were scrubbed up and the picture put out of him was several years old. Even I when I first saw it thought a 12 year old had been shot. If those pushing the "innocent black child (6 foot 3 inch is not a child in my book) got shot by big bad whitey" had not attempted to scrub those pictures then I don't think his appearance would be part of this discussion at all.
The cutoff in age for the anti-self-defense crowd is 25....their statistics that cite "children" include everyone up to age 25.