Guns

Are Gun Accidents More Dangerous Than Bathtubs to Kids? Depends on the Definition of "Kids"

The politicization of "fact checking" in media and that Daily Show List of Fox Lies

|

Old-ish news made new again by the Daily Show's much-retweeted Vine alleging to show "50 Fox News Lies in 50 Seconds."

I'm just focusing on one, relevant to a longer piece I'm working on regarding defensive use of guns in America and the debate over whether weapons are just too dangerous to be of any "social value."

The folk at Politifact decided to back up the Daily Show with their documentation of the alleged lies, and here's what they said about Tucker Carlson declaring on Fox last August 19 that "Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns."

The Politifact folk give this their harshest assessment: "Pants on Fire." A total lie. Nothing to be argued about or debated.

And here is the data they provide to back it up:

As the following table shows, total deaths for children 17 and under due to drowning in a bathtub were 95 in 2011, the latest year the numbers are available. Total deaths from accidental gun shots were 102. The one age range where Carlson might be able to make a case is for children 0 to 4 years old. For that group, 73 died in a bathtub and 29 were killed by guns. But in every other age group, guns are more deadly than bathtubs.

AgeDrowned in a bathtubAccidental gunfire
15-17 years728
10-14 years1229
5-9 years316
0-4 years7129
Total93102

Carlson didn't say what age children he had in mind, but in the context of the story he was responding to — and his rhetorical question about something "I want to know before I let my child go over to your house" — this is not about children under 4 years old. Parents don't let toddlers "go over" to a friend's house.

For that age range, Carlson's comparison is off by a factor of three. Bathtubs caused 22 deaths for kids 5 and older and guns caused 73 deaths.

The divisions of year ranges are totally arbitrary, note. And also note Politifact claims "The one age range where Carlson might be able to make a case is for children 0 to 4 years old" because that is an arbitrary division the chart makes.

But those of us who can add all the different categories will see that Carlson's statement was true for those 0-14, not just 0-4—the only age range of the ill-defined term "kids" who one would imagine are particularly vulnerable to tub drowning. 

For kids 0-14, from their own numbers, we see 86 tub drowning deaths and 74 accidental gunshot deaths—making tubs 16 percent more deadly than gun accidents for that age group.

Only by bringing in older teens 15-17 do they make Carlson's statement wrong, since for the totality of the 0-17 age group, gun accidents are 9.6 percent more deadly than tubs

Rather than Politifact saying, well, if by "kids" you mean under 14 15, he's absolutely right with his obviously underdefined statement, but if you define "kids" as up to 17, then he's a "pants on fire" liar.

And their own presentation of the facts has a blatant lie, claiming that the "one" age range in which Carlson "might be able to make a case" is 0-4, because that's one of the chart's arbitrary age ranges. I love the "might," instead of outright saying "he's totally right about that age range." He's also totally right about the entire 0-14 age range.

Politifact: bringing you the political facts.

Advertisement

NEXT: You think we have a problem with anti-Americanism? Lebanon has a whole Anti-Lebanon mountain range, partly inside its own borders

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I always thought it was swimming pools.

    1. Even if you allow the entire age range, bath tubs are still just about as deadly as guns in this respect as it is within 9% of the accidental gun deaths.

      1. Yeah, seems like the real conclusion should be that neither bathtubs nor guns are a very significant danger to children.

        1. Yeah, seems like the real conclusion should be that neither bathtubs nor guns are a very significant danger to children.

          Fixed it.

          1. Accidental drownings and shootings do happen. They are a very slight danger, but a danger. As are any number of ordinary household items that no one ever worries about.

            1. +1 Ordinary Household Chemicals

              1. Probably got nothing on stairways or windows. Maybe not even beds. But that’s only as concerns serious injuries. Household chems more frequently cause not-so-serious conditions like vomiting, diarrhea, or an eye that’s sore for a day; if you take those in, they’ll beat beds, but probably still nowhere near stairs or windows.

        2. The real conclusion is that child molesters wielding assault weapons are waiting around every corner to dose your kids with Four Loko and take them to Rainbow Parties.

          1. butt-chuggin’ Four Loko parties that is

            1. If the cops suspect you of Butt Chugging, do they make you fart into the breathalizer?

          2. i don’t know what a rainbow party is- and at this point I’m afraid to ask.

            1. That’s the brilliance of it! It’s a higher breed of thought-terminating meme.

              It’s like “pink slime”. It’s really not very descriptive and not some sin against nature. It’s just non-descriptive and repulsive enough to make you not want to ask questions and hate/fear it.

            2. The Rainbow Party is a mythological teen party where the girls all wear different colors of lipstick and the boys attempt to create a ‘rainbow’ on their junk via blowjobs.

              1. I assumed they were talking about the hippies-in-the-woods Rainbow. I wouldn’t even know what Four Loko is, except that I hitchhiked for a couple of years recently, and the dirty kid travelers subculture has a presence at Rainbow.

                1. Dirty kids? Calls for bathtubs again. Bathtubs rule!

                  http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.htm

          3. Where were they when I was a kid? Sounds like a good time.

          4. So hide your kids in the bathtub, which will deflect bullets & be right next to where they can vomit the 4 Loco.

    2. http://www.poolsafely.gov/drow…..-injuries/

      Seems like nearly 400 children ages 1-14 drown in pools/spas every year.

      Further, roughly 117 million households own guns, while around 13 million households have pools or spas.

      So, if the neighbors have a pool it’s way more dangerous to let your kid go over to play at their house than if your neighbor has a gun.

  2. Look, all you need to know is FAUX NEWS. Obviously you are a shill for the Kochtopus.

  3. “Pants of Fire.”

    Not to be confused with the british porn-musical of the same name

    1. I was thinking of this, actually

    2. Is that a sequel to Terrance and Philip’s movie “Asses of Fire“?

      1. Part of the Pants of Ice and Fire Trilogy

        1. What is our saying, Aria?

          Pants are Coming. . .

          1. The brits use the term “Pants” to mean “underwear” and also a generic term to describe something as “shit, useless, worthless, boring, horrible, a waste, etc”

            e.g. ‘that movie was pants’/’what, this isn’t ice cream? its some frogurt pants’

            I don’t know if it was a more londonism, or irish, or what, but my friends used it all the time as a more-polite way of saying ‘that sucks’*

            (which they thought was rather more vulgar, with the insinuation that ‘sucks’ referenced fellatio)

      2. Are you talking about lighting farts?

  4. Did you tweet them for comment?

  5. For kids 0-14, from their own numbers, we see 86 tub drowning deaths and 74 accidental gunshot drownings?making tubs 16 percent more deadly than gun accidents for that age group.

    I’m intrigued: tell me more about these guns that cause people to drown.

    1. Those were the military-grade super-soakers. Fully automatic. First ones to be banned.

      1. Aren’t all super-soakers full auto?

      2. Nobody needs a Super Soaker that holds more than 7 ounces.

    2. You are unfamiliar with Super Soakers?

    3. Guns can drown you in lead.

    4. You’re seeing things Serious!

  6. You can torture statistics to say almost anything you want.

    By the way, the fact that “Politifact” missed the disparity in numbers when bringing in the oldest age group into the metric tells me they were looking at fudging the numbers. It also means they left the door open to be impugned by Fox News, Carlson or anybody else (maybe even Kennedy).

    They, Politifact, are arrogant idiots.

    1. 98 ? The number of American kids under age 18 who died from accidental shootings in 2010. This is trending down from 150 deaths in 2000 and 417 deaths in 1990. (CDC)

      I’d say as guns get safer bathtubs clearly become more deadly.

      We clearly need laws limiting the capacity of bathtubs. No one should need more than an inch of water to take a proper bath.

      1. i thought California already had this on the books…

    2. They, Politifact, are arrogant idiots.

      That and they know their primary audience is smug progtard douches who will instantly latch onto anything that confirms their preconcieved bias against all things FEAUX NOOOZ!!!1!!111!!!! without a seconds worth of thought. They’re basically just purveyers of “truthiness” for tardos.

    3. “You can torture statistics to say almost anything you want.”

      I loved Statistics class. I had a great time a few years back on a preppers forum with a seemingly-innocuous poll about police and local governments. I kept whipping that poll out and statistically proving every conceivable argument and counter. For a brief window of time, no one talked about “87% of Americans agree with my position according to XYZ polling data…” because they knew I’d show up and check the data and then tie their testicles into knots with it if they hadn’t checked their cite’s math.

      Ah. The good old days.

    4. I smell collusion between Politifact & Fox to boost each other’s ratings.

  7. “74 accidental gunshot drownings”

    Which is this crazy thing, where a person lets a gun go off inside their home? and it hits a water main, and then the room is insta-flooded, Titanic-style, and they drown. But…*technically* its a gun-related death. Crazy, i know.

    1. Doherty fixed it. Move on.

      1. NO! WE WANT TO FLOG IT SOME MORE!!!!

        1. what about a dolphin?

          1. Rape Cave!

        2. There is no sense in beating a dead horse, but for the pure enjoyment of it.

          1. I do hate horses. I wished they tasted better so I could eat them more often.

  8. But those of us who can add all the different categories will see that Carlson’s statement was true for those 0-14, not just 0-4?the only age range of the ill-defined term “kids” who one would imagine are particularly vulnerable to tub drowning.

    Or, you could admit that your categories are just as arbitrary. Kids start off vulnerable to tub drowning and end up vulnerable to being shot by guns.

    Ultimately its a stupid comparison by a stupid talking head that was jumped on by stupid people. Its all (on both sides) just something to score points on.

    Please don’t be stupid by trying to justify any of this stupidity.

    1. They end up being vulnerable to gunshots because their growth increases their gravitational attraction, causing them to lose their super powers. But if they were shipped to a low-gravity planet….

  9. Politifacts, Peanuts

    Rand Paul LIES! because federal government employees only make twice as much as private sector workers if you count their benefits, which all the really smart people know ARE’NT compensation!

    1. This is exactly what the same douche did with Goldberg/Williamson recently. “Sure, the statement is true, but let me interpret it in a way I like and call it false.” To be fair, I bet he didn’t even tweet at Rand for comment, so he’s improving.

      1. goddamn Louis Jacobson is Bo.

    2. good god that was a retarded assessment. I like how at the end of pasing the entire thing they still find federal employees get paid more than the private sector by their own halfwitted metrics but caution they could be wrong see here:

      This would seem to be strong evidence that the federal government pays better than the private sector. But caution is warranted here, too.

      This comparison involves jobs with the same title, but nothing beyond that. And there are any number of factors — employee seniority, job duties and the number of employees in the comparison — that could explain the pay differences in jobs with the same title. So the data is not a perfect match.

      Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, said that “there are certainly many positions where the federal job is compensated less generously than comparable positions in the private sector. These tend to be the most demanding jobs in the federal service — doctors, attorneys, scientists and senior executives. The U.S. Secretary of Education, for example, is paid far less than the presidents of major public and private universities, even though he has far greater responsibility.”

      1. does he actually have a greater responsibility? I think someone’s assuming facts not in evidence…

        1. Who Politifacts the Politifacts?

          1. Dr Manhattan.

            1. +1 Blue Dong

    3. That is one of the dumbest things to insist on. Of course benefits are compensation. If it’s not completely obvious, which it should be, just ask anyone if they would give up their benefits without getting more pay to make up for it. The whole fucking point of benefits is to pay people more without paying as much in taxes.
      Especially when it comes to the retirement benefits, it is just ridiculous. That pension is worth as much as a private sector person would have to pay to get the same guaranteed annuity from a private company. Some goes for health insurance.

  10. And both numbers are so low as to be completely, idiotically pointless. Let’s try and prove some moronic political animist point about guns by citing incredibly low numbers! Hey, I know, let’s start a movement to ban bleach (and the Dead Milkmen) by citing that 3 kids per year die from drinking bleach!

    Guns are a totem to these mongoloid animists. They cannot help but hate them because they actually, moronically believe that guns are a supernatural evil that can shoot people of their own volition, or control the minds of the people who touch them. They actually believe this. This is who you’re dealing with. Realize that.

    1. Guns are a totem to these mongoloid animists.

      Racist!

      1. It’s quite offensive to the Mongols, who despite being animists treated gunpowder very pragmatically.

        1. and I don’t think people with Down Syndrome dislike guns.

          1. Don’t call it Down Syndrome. That’s directionist!

        2. Actually, the Mongols tolerated quite a variety of different faiths so long as you paid your tribute and provided troops.

          1. Mongols were initially shamanists/animists, and their notion of spiritual plurality comes from that early belief. The religious tolerance and different faiths of later Mongols isn’t all that relevant to their initial animist beliefs (and is constantly referenced in the Secret History).

    2. I recently stated that the US was aremarkably safe place to live. Some european twat said, how can that be when you have 5 times the homicide rate of all other 1st world nations.

      I explained that 5×0=0. He said I don’t understand math. I explained that in the US 0.0035% of the population was a victim of violent crime in 2013 and that I think that qualifies as remarkably safe. he said, but what about chicago and detroit.

      I quit.

      1. You could try pointing out that most of the deaths in big cities are violent criminals killing each other. But that’s probably pointless too. If you aren’t a gang member, the US is extremely safe.

        1. Not only safe- but I can still do some things without permission… no one east of the pacific cares about that though.

          1. “East of the Pacific”? Isn’t that where the US is? Perhaps I’m missing something.

            1. Sorry, I use that as a term that’s funny to me- because everything is east of the pacific if you head the right way- so it’s my way of saying nobody cares about it.

              Much like china isn’t the far east, it’s the near west.

      2. he said, but what about chicago and detroit.

        It’s a good thing Charlie Hebdo wasn’t published out of one of these two cities!

      3. Just exclude all the years when there wasn’t an armed conflict in Europe, which probably eliminates fifty years in the last century.

    3. Hey, watch it with the mongoloid. The Koreans’ll get pissed at you too.

  11. Between “politifact” and “vox”, there is a concerted effort by the Left to pretend that they represent ‘Objectivity’, whereas the FAUX NEWS channel is hopelessly perverted by lying liars who seek only to destroy all that is good and right.

    i think that’s all fine… its just when they get all uppity about their integrity that you have to laugh in their face. Some friends of mine in NYC got really upset when i suggested the NYT was even the slightest bit tainted by bias. When provided examples from the previous *day* (i think it was that mark bittman piece where he basically said that we need a race-war in america to end capitalism and also make sure food is more healthy)…they were like, “Oh, please = its just an editorial”.

    The point being, they shrugged off partisanship of their own as ‘normal’, and considered sources that said “gun violence is in fact, Way Down” to be ‘misleading and biased’

    1. uppity= racist… no?

    2. This concerted effort has been going on for a long time. Anyone who can go “Fox is biased!” and not say the same about MSNBC is, frankly, either retarded or a blatant liar. I’ll give most leftists the benefit of the doubt that I give most right-wingers and assume they’re mostly retarded and not liars.

      1. Most of them admit as much about MSNBC. The retarded part is when they claim that the rest of the media is biased towards conservatives. That is what they claim.

        The fact that media outlets even treat opposing view points with anything but other contempt is proof of how biased they are.

        1. No, the latest gimmick is “false objectivity”. The argument is that when you provide a lie the same airtime as the truth, you’re shifting the field on the side of the lie. And since progressives are the champions of the truth…

          1. Yeah, MSNBC is really good at that.

      2. I think nearly everyone who watches fox knows it’s biased. Fox will even admit to this.

        1. I don’t watch any of them very much. But from what I have seen, I don’t see how that is. Their shows seem to consist of two varieties; two guys yelling at each other or some tabloid coverage of the latest missing white girl.

          I have never gotten the “Fox is biased” claim. Rupert Murdoch came out of the British Tabloids. Fox is not biased. They will just cover any story they think will make them money. The only reason anyone could think that is “biased” is because they cover a lot of stories left wing biased sources won’t touch. Their coverage of something like the IRS scandal isn’t biased. It is just the fact that they will mention it at all makes them more right wing than the rest of the media.

          Most of the media’s bias is in its choice of stories more than its coverage. The media just won’t cover stories that are damaging to Democrats or if they do cover it as a horse race “oh those evil Republicans are really making an issue out of this” way. Fox just covers anything if it will get ratings.

          1. I’ve seen a ton of fox news over the years. Most of what Fox news is during prime time is editorializing news from a conservative lens. There really isn’t much of a difference between them and say a cnn when it comes to their straight news shows.

            1. As long as it is obvious that it is editorial and not reporting, I don’t think that makes them biased.

          2. I don’t think their straight news is more biased than anything else, really. I don’t watch it enough to really say, though. But they have a definite editorial slant. Which is fine.

            1. The lack of division between their editorial and biz divisions is the stuff of legend. There are daily memos to all of their “journalists” describing specific words that should be used for the news of the day.
              That said, MSNBC is also laughably biased.
              IMO there is no such thibg as “TV journalism”. If youre watching anything about current events on the box, w/ the exception of the occasional Pro Publica documentary, its going to be a heaping pile of corrupt, yellow, vacuous shit

        2. I’d much rather news organizations openly admit their biases than the ridiculous emperor’s new clothes charade of feigned objectivity.

          1. ^this was basically my point

            they get so frothy and hysterical accusing FOX of being the ONLY BIASED JOURNALISM EVER… when its all hackery, all the way down, and always has been

            I always love to remind people that the birth of the modern ‘newspaper’ came from the most visciously partisan urban broadsheets that openly ridiculed the opposition and printed ridiculous lies all the time just to sell more copy.

            There is little legacy of ‘objectivity’ in news-making at all. What little we have (AP, Reuters, etc) is quasi useful, but it doesn’t sell a channel/paper like partisanship does.

    3. You have “friends” in NY?

      1. Friends of Mine, not Friends of Ours

        Which makes some sense, given i was born, raised, worked in nyc my whole life*

        (*some exception made for overseas job and consulting work, which was done mostly in airports & hotels)

  12. Tucker said “far more”, not “slightly more” or even “more”. “Far more” implies at least double I would guess. Even with the stats you could make the case that is a lie.

    1. Also, every house has a tub, whereas only half of houses have a gun. So that should be a statistical factor as well.

      1. This is an excellent observation. Some sort of tub control is in order.

        1. Noooo! But Frank Schwartz did anticipate the Soap Control Agency regarding my invention ? http://users.bestweb.net/robgood/lather.htm

      2. You *definitely* could not claim that it’s “a lie” with either of your objections. Those are both not unreasonable complaints that the statement is underdefined, but far from worthy calling it a lie or “pants on fire.”

        You really think that if someone says “far more” for something that is only 50% more, it’s a “lie?”

        The point about opportunity is reasonable, but that’s a problem with every single one of the “You are more likely to be injured with X than Y” statements. (E.g., driving on unfamiliar roads is more dangerous, but a much greater percentage of driving, hence accidents, is on familiar roads close to home. Surely much of the statistics about people being sexually abused by people who know them are equally artifacts of opportunity.)

      3. Also, every house has a tub, whereas only half of houses have a gun. So that should be a statistical factor as well.

        Many houses have several tubs! Many houses have several guns too! I know of more houses with more guns than I do of houses with more tubs!

        You get to work on the child/house/tub/gun ratio breakdowns for us, we’ll get to work on the far/slightly/not ratio breakdown!

        1. Whoops! Don’t forget the death.

          I need precise numbers on the child deaths per household per tub vs. child deaths per household per gun numbers on my desk pronto!

    2. You wouldn’t consider 20% far more? Have you ever taken a math class?

    3. or the fact that both are statistically zero. I mean, 0.00002% is close enough for most to consider zero, right?

      1. Oh yeah? Tell that to the parents of children killed by those evil guns, you uncaring monster!

      2. Damn engineers! /Mathematician

        1. It’s all right. The floating point algorithm sucks, so when you calculate the difference it’s never zero.

      3. I think you are off by a factor of 100. Your number is the probability of death, not the percent.

        1. sorry, stil zero in my book though.

  13. Rather than Politifact saying, well, if by “kids” you mean under 14

    Under 15

    1. Indeed, thanks. Fixed now.

  14. whatever

  15. *shrug*

    I think it’s fair to say ‘kids’ if you’re talking about anyone under the legal age of consent (18).

    I do agree with the assessment, that when we think of ‘kids’ being killed by gun accidents (irresponsible gun owners leaving guns in the console of the car) that the figures are definitely higher.

      1. What age is it on that island that Bill Clinton used to vacation on?

        1. I wondered that myself. You would think that would have been the first questions the reporters asked, but you’re the first person I’ve heard bring it up.

    1. And I keep a gun in the console of my vehicle. Just like everyone else here.

      STAY OUT OF IT!

  16. What neither side points out is that the whole comparison is apples to oranges to begin with. It’s stupid to compare raw numbers of kids killed in bathtubs vs kids killed by guns, regardless of what age group you’re talking about, because the pools you are drawing your data from are disparate to begin with. Practically every household in the country has a bathtub, whereas I believe current estimates place gun ownership at one in three households. Therefore, there are a hell of a lot more opportunities for kids to drown in tubs than there are for them to accidentally get shot. A more meaningful comparison would be the percentage of households with both a gun and children (whatever age range you are choosing) in which a kid died from a gun vs the percentage of households with both a bathtub and children in which a kid drowned in the tub. This would tell you the RATE at which each risk factor kills kids. Somehow, I don’t think guns would come out so great in this comparison. At the end of the day, the decision of owning a gun is an individual one in which each person needs to perform their own risk/benefit analysis; statistics should not be the only thing taken into consideration. But cherry picking those statistics with flawed comparisons doesn’t contribute much to the debate.

    1. You make a good point about the various pools. But I don’t think guns would come out badly since all the comparison would say is “guns are more dangerous than bathtubs”, which is not something a reasonable person could deny.

      Ultimately, very few children are harmed by their parents owning a gun and any harm that does occur is entirely within the control of the parents. I guarantee you a higher percentage of children are injured by their parents owning cars than by their parents owning a gun. yet, no one would say owning a car with children is irresponsible or dangerous. They would only say that some parents use their cars irresponsibly. This is because people don’t attach agency to cars like they do guns.

      1. This is because people don’t attach agency to cars pretty much anything like they do guns.

        FIFY

        1. No, they attach agency to drugs, porn, condoms, Wal-marts, pit bulls, and sports too.

    2. I don’t think the comment was intended to pass scientific rigor. It was designed to give perspective to something most people are unfamiliar with by comparing it to something most people are familiar with. Most people are familiar with their exposure to bathtubs, and bathing is considered a mundane act compared to “OWNING A GUN!”

      1. The problem is that there are clear, demonstrable benefits to owning a car or a bathtub that everyone can identify with, whereas the benefits of owning a gun are a lot hazier and difficult to quantify. “Defensive gun use” is a vague and mostly anecdotal concept. Short of statistically recorded incidents in which an intruder or assailant was actually shot (which are pretty few compared to murders and accidental gun deaths), you have individual accounts of “I heard a noise and came downstairs with my gun, then he ran away,” in which it is hard to prove that the person actually posed a serious threat and wouldn’t have retreated as soon as the lights came on regardless of the weapon. Understandably, many homeowners don’t want to sit there and wait for the intruder to prove he’s a serious threat before preparing to defend themselves with deadly force, but in a battle of statistics, it’s very difficult to ferret out and quantify how many times a gun saved a life, while it’s very easy to quantify how many times a gun took an innocent life. And the agency question cuts both ways. If guns don’t kill people, as the old saying goes, nor do they save people. If it’s fair to ask whether a victim of gun violence (or suicide) might have died by some other means had a gun not been available, it’s equally fair to ask whether a defensive gun user might have been able to defend himself by some other means had he not owned a gun.

  17. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  18. It better not be bathtubs, it better not be bathtubs, it better not be bathtubs….

    http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html

    1. Whew, that was close.

  19. During the 2008 campaign, Politifact also questioned Ron Paul’s numbers about the IRS, giving him a “mostly true” when he said if we got rid of it, we’d have as much revenue as we did 10 years earlier. They said he was off by 12%. (Ron Paul did score higher than most candidates when they bothered to check.)

    They completely failed to take into account the savings from not having the employees, buildings, utilities, postage, and other overhead costs of the agency. (Not to mention the costs to taxpayers to comply.)

    http://www.politifact.com/trut…..e-revenue/

    I wrote them to inform them of the error, and they haven’t corrected it in the 8 years, since. Which just proves you can’t simply trust the fact-checkers, either.

  20. No, they attach agency to drugs, porn, condoms, Wal-marts, pit bulls, and sports too.

    To be fair, dogs do have a bit of agency compared to inanimate objects.

    1. I did think about that when I posted it, but couldn’t come up with a short way to express the idea that something in the breeds made them bite people.

      Do bathtubs have agency? How about showers? Bidets?

  21. Ive said it before, and I will say it again: Politifact is a biased, intellectually dishonest tub of horseshit. I wonder home many drowned in tubs of horseshit last year.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.