NOM Invents Religious Groups Forced to Hold Same-Sex Marriages »« Boy Scouts Considering Major Rule Change

Gov. Scott Walker Makes Up Bow and Arrow Fatality

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was asked at a press conference about three weeks ago about gun violence and he responded by saying that the focus shouldn’t be on a gun because, “We just had someone last week in Neenah near a school kill someone with a bow and arrow.” Turns out he made it up.

There was only one problem with Walker’s statement about the bow and arrow murder.

It never happened.

We asked Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie to explain the governor’s comment the day after he spoke. He responded three days later with this emailed statement:

“The Governor misspoke when he said someone was killed. I believe he was referring the recent standoff that involved a bow and arrow.”

What actually happened was that a father and son got into an argument and the son shot an arrow at the father. And missed. And it happened 2.5 miles from a school. But other than, he was spot on.

Comments

  1. says

    When someone is able to kill several dozen people in just a few minutes using a bow and arrow, I’ll take Gov. Walker’s comparison into consideration. But last time I check, Hawkeye was a fictional character, and nobody in the real world could shoot people with arrows as fast as they could with an assault rifle.

  2. serena says

    *cue scene of Legolas speedily infinite infinite arrows at waves of hundreds of orcs*
    “Don’t let this happen in your schools!”

    In retrospect this comment seems crass, but I have to admit it was the first mental image that cropped up.

  3. says

    Hey now, in Skyrim, I can totally kill people with an arrow if I shoot them when I’m stealthed. Also I slow down time and can zoom in to see them more closely. I can also shout some words in dragon tongue and make time go really slowly and shoot a whole crowd of enemies in a blur!

    Bows and arrows are dangerous, kids.

  4. oranje says

    I had a class where a group argued about gun rights. The main stance of the group was that the 2nd amendment was put in place to keep any weapons restrictions away and help us protect ourselves from our government. They must have missed the well-regulated bit.

  5. TGAP Dad says

    Scott Walker channeling Jan Brewer, and her claimed beheadings in the desert, by (illegal, duh) immigrants.

  6. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    This quote, of course, was “not intended to be a factual statement.” But, IOKIYAR, so it’s all good.

  7. eric says

    Riiiight. Similarly, the focus of traffic laws shouldn’t be on cars because there’s some guy in podunk who drives a hovercraft.

  8. bcmystery says

    An aide later clarified: Walker’s statement came after he finally cleared out his DVR with an all-night “Arrow” marathon. No comment on the guilty pleasure of watching a hot, often shirtless One Percenter doing battle with other One Percenters.

  9. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    By the way, when I visited the link in the OP, I got this message:

    Reported Attack Page!

    This web page at http://www.politifact.com has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

  10. matty1 says

    I’m ready to be contradicted on this but my understanding of what the 2nd ammendement meant at the time is.

    1. We don’t trust standing armies (a common 18th Century view) and want instead a militia called out as needed.

    2. The militia should supply their own weapons and know how to use them and have other basic military skills including discipline (well regulated).

    3. To make sure 2 is possible the government must not take away from potential militia members the weapons it would then ask them to show up with when called on.

  11. says

    @8:

    “not intended to be a factual statement.”

    does not exactly trip off the tongue, nor does its acronym, NITBAFS*.

    I’m thinking, “Not Really Being Questioned”, NRBQ. Oh wait, that won’t work.

    * Well, “Nit Baffs”,\? Hmmm, maybe it does have a certain batshitKKKrazzeepants sorta resonance

  12. matty1 says

    @12 I got the same from the link but weirdly not if I type politifact.com directly into the address bar. Maybe its a Republican conspiracy targeting sites that ‘attack’ them with facts ;-)

  13. says

    Matty1:

    Even more betterer.

    At least some of the states had pretty stringent regulation of those militias and members were subject to inspection IN THEIR FUCKING HOUSES of their arms and required to show up for drills/to fight against invaders or them pesky redskins.

    As Shay’s rebellion (not a bunch of gunzloonz, but starving/bankrupted farmers and others revolting agains the STATE of Massachusetts, not them commonist feds) amply demonstrated, the “well regulated militia” was pretty much non-existent.

    There is a meme in the new WWW* that all of the veterans of WWII, Korea–those few that are still capable of carrying and operating a firearm–Vietnam, The Mayaguez Incident, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them against the nancybooted jackthugs being Black-O-Coptered in from the ObamaFEMA death camps to take away teh gunz! I don’t know a whole lot of people that were over in Iraq and Afghanistan but the ones I’ve talked to are not nutty enough to think that they would prevail in a pitched battle against the U.S. military (there is also the fact that, in my area, they’d be fighting against the 10th Mountain Division which most of them served with). Aside from the almost certain, “Suicide by Abrams, A-10 or other REAL military weaponry”, anyone who’s seen what internecine conflict does to a society is not sanguine about its outcome.

    Stupid fucks will be stupid fucks, but we can hope that there numbers are smaller (and I think that they are) than they seem to think they are.

    * Weekend Wankinst Weaponeers

  14. glodson says

    Let’s say that he was right, and this actually happened. A man was killed with an arrow shot from a bow. The follow up question to Walker should be “how often does that happen?” I mean, I’ll bet we can find someone who was bludgeoned to death with a book, but if there’s one such death a year… who cares? It isn’t like people die by the thousands each year from guns. I can’t find any statistics, but I would imagine that deaths from bows occur a much lower rate. I would guess that we could count the deaths on our hands, each year. Maybe even for a number of years…

    And @ Katherine Lorraine, I killed more people with my Dragon Shouts. But remember, Dragon Shouts don’t kill people, Dragonborn do.

  15. says

    “I used to take care that the statements I make are factually true, then I took an arrow to the knee.”

    I know its not perfect, but I couldn’t pass this up.

  16. Roger says

    Apparently “misspoke” now means: “I said something really dumb, got caught, and now I’m trying to save my ass from getting in more trouble.”

  17. Michael Heath says

    matty1 writes:

    I’m ready to be contradicted on this but my understanding of what the 2nd ammendement meant at the time is.

    1. We don’t trust standing armies (a common 18th Century view) and want instead a militia called out as needed.

    2. The militia should supply their own weapons and know how to use them and have other basic military skills including discipline (well regulated).

    3. To make sure 2 is possible the government must not take away from potential militia members the weapons it would then ask them to show up with when called on.

    You’ve essentially nailed what history teaches us as I casually remember it, but this is certainly not the view which currently enjoys Supreme Court precedent.

    Instead Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller currently holds. That opinion asserts that an original intention of the 2nd Amendment is that our individual right to own and bear arms is constitutionally protected partly to enable the people to revolt against their own government. That opinion relies, IIRC, solely on non sequiturs to tie J. Scalia’s evidence to this conclusion.

    The entire majority opinion is one of the most defectively crafted arguments I’ve encountered out of any appellate ruling – gut cringingly bad; which is illustrative on how fierce ideologues simply can’t think straight on the positions they hold passionately.

    In Heller J. Scalia tells some stories reporting that some people were motivated to better protect their right to revolt by numerating a right to own and bear arms for such purposes. And then out of thin air asserts this proves what the framers of the Amendment intended; where we have substantial evidence of what the framers intended via J. Stevens’ dissent. J. Scalia hypocritically counters the evidence in the dissent by proclaiming it should be ignored in this case.

    Yes, an originalist albeit a textualist, claiming we shouldn’t use original intent as a premise for the proper conclusion. That’s in spite of the fact we can’t determine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment using textualism alone, which even J. Scalia concedes). And all that’s coupled to the fact we have original writings of those framers’ actual intent in drafting and passing this Amendment in the Congress as reported in J. Stevens’ dissent which reconciles with your understanding.

  18. theguy says

    Again, I wonder why the people of my state elected this clown.

    The scary thought is that it only took one bad election for Republicans to take control over the Governorship, the State Senate, State Assembly, and the State Supreme Court (although I don’t know if the courts were already Republican).

  19. says

    When someone is able to kill several dozen people in just a few minutes using a bow and arrow, I’ll take Gov. Walker’s comparison into consideration. But last time I check, Hawkeye was a fictional character, and nobody in the real world could shoot people with arrows as fast as they could with an assault rifle.

    Lars Andersen: 10 arrows, 4.9 seconds

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g&feature=em-uploademail

    Not sure how long it takes to “reload the clip” though.

  20. dingojack says

    Teutonic Knights defended their castles using crossbowmen. A well-trained team of three could keep up a steady firing rate of 6 rounds a minute, for several hours if necessary.
    Dingo

Leave a Reply