Restaurant criticized for sign comparing beer and domestic violence

• 

A Texas restaurant sparked a heaping dish of controversy this weekend for posting a sign on its marquee making fun of domestic violence.

Roots Bistro, an organic, vegetarian-friendly restaurant in Houston, put up a sign outside the restaurant Saturday that read: "Beer should be like violence: domestic."

According the the Houston Chronicle the sign had been up for only 10 minutes, yet it quickly drew criticism on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter as  passersby who took pictures of the sign and posted pictures on the Internet.  

(See an image of the sign.) 

One user, Amanda Nash wrote on Roots Bistro's  Facebook, "Was really disappointed when I saw this...domestic violence is not a joke."

Manager Kenneth Choate explained that the saying was taken off the Internet by an employee who had seen it on an another business’ marquee, the Chronicle reported.

"Everyone makes mistakes," said Choate. "We completely deserved the backlash, and I can't be mad at anyone but myself," he told the Houston Press.

But in another lapse of judgment, the restaurant took down the offensive sign and put up another sign that read: "Seriously, focus your energy on equal rights."

That sparked even more anger.

One used, named Allison Marek wrote: “I'm MOST upset about the second sign that made light of the damage the first sign did. Ya'll are like a little kid that has to be forced to apologize for doing something hurtful.”

By Sunday, the restaurant posted a full apology on its marquee, that read: "Sorry a million times over Houston."

Later and an unnamed general manager at Roots Bistro posted this apology on the company’s Facebook page: "As the General Manager of Roots Bistro I would like to formally apologize for our recent signage . In no way would we ever ever promote violence on any level. We work tirelessly to support the people and organizations in this city and would never want to hurt or offend anyone."

Facebook followers noted that the restaurant finally got it right. Facebook user Jennifer Guerrero wrote, "You shouldn't need to do more you guys are amazing and no matter what there will always be someone upset."

Yet, some said they will continue to protest with their wallets.

Another user wrote: “I think this is a case of crocodile tears in regards to the apology. Even my dark sense of humor doesn't find this funny. Maybe next month, they'll joke about pedophilia or rape. It's too bad-our family makes it a point to look for organic food all the time. We'll go elsewhere.”

View the original article here

Obama criticized for using dated, disputed gun stat to sell background checks

• 

• • 

    Gun control efforts in jeopardy?

  • 

    Is America's appetite for gun control fading?

  • 

    Gun owner on Connecticut's tough new proposals

As President Obama prepares to head to Colorado on Wednesday to push gun control legislation, some are calling into question the validity of a key statistic he’s using to tout his message on near-universal background checks.

During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.

But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.

During a speech last week, Obama asked, “Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?”

The oft-cited figure, it turns out, was pulled from a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice. In the study, researchers estimated about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed gun dealers. The conclusion was based on data from a 1994 survey of 2,568 households. Of those, only 251 people answered the question about where they got their guns.

PolitiFact tracked down the co-author of the study, Duke University professor Philip Cook, and asked him if he thought the 40 percent estimate is accurate.

“The answer is I have no idea,” Cook reportedly told PolitiFact. “This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”

The National Rifle Association has questioned the 40 percent claim and says it’s a misrepresentation by gun control advocates to trump up support for universal background checks.

Another problem with the study is the sample size, 251 people, which is relatively small, and the data is open to interpretation.

“With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points,” The Washington Post fact-checker wrote on Tuesday. “Moreover, when asked whether the respondent brought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included ‘probably was/think so’ and ‘probably not,’ leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken.”

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, 35.7 percent of those asked said they did not receive a gun from a licensed firearms dealer. If you round the number up, it becomes 40 percent but because the sample size is so small, rounding the number down to 30 percent could also be accurate, the paper noted.  

But not everyone agrees with The Post’s fact checker.

“While slagging the president may be good for business, the effect of (the newspaper’s) false ruling is to undermine legitimate efforts to keep the public safe, and to obscure the real enemy of reliable data on gun violence,” Tommy Christopher of Mediaite wrote in a rebuttal Tuesday.

“It is possible to conclude that as few as 26.4% of gun owners in that study 'purchased' their gun without a background check, 20.4% if you factor in the margin of error,” he said.

The administration has not responded to questions surrounding the number and why they continue to use it to promote their gun control measures.

The president isn't the only one who's used the 40 percent figure to make a point. Many others stumping for the cause have pulled from the same info pile.

On Jan. 24, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand stated the importance of background checks during a television interview.

“The background checks bill is vitally important.  It’s going to basically say you can’t buy guns without getting a background check. Today, about 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check.”

Seven months earlier, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used the same statistic to skewer the National Rifle Association following the Colorado movie theatre massacre.

“There’s a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check,” he said last year, on July 22.  “Forty percent of guns are sold that way.”

For months, both sides of the debate on gun control – from the local level all the way up to the national level -- have accused the other of inflating figures and manipulating data.

Obama, in using an array of stats and studies and polls, has tried to make the case that the Senate is considering common-sense proposals that most Americans support. Amid resistance from some lawmakers, the president is ramping up his campaign for the legislation. He plans to visit Denver on Wednesday, followed by a stop next Monday in Hartford, Conn., the state that was the site of the deadly mass shooting in Newtown in December.

Related Stories

UN adopts pact to regulate multibillion-dollar global arms trade

Senators vow to oppose UN arms trade treaty

NRA urges states to allow more armed officers in schools

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

View the original article here

Colorado state senator criticized for remarks to rape victim at gun hearing

A Colorado state senator has come under fire for remarks she made to a rape victim at a committee hearing Monday on a bill that would ban concealed weapons on public college campuses.

Sen. Evie Hudak, a Democrat from Westminster, Colo., criticized testimony provided by Amanda Collins, 27, who said that the attack on her at University of Nevada, Reno, may have been avoided had she been allowed to carry a gun on campus, The Denver Post reported.

"I just want to say that, actually, statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun," Hudak told Collins during the hearing, according to the report. "And chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you."

Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported.

Collins, who reportedly had a valid concealed-carry permit at the time of the assault, told the paper that Hudak's remarks were shocking and deeply disturbing. 

"I had a hard time falling asleep because I couldn't stop thinking about what she said to me," Collins said.

Dave Kopel, a professor at the University of Denver law school and author of a firearms law and policy textbook, told The Post that Hudak's comments displayed the senator's "self-righteous, ignorant bigotry."

Hudak, who apologized to Collins after the hearing, said in a statement to the paper that she "didn't mean to be insensitive." 

The bill, which would reverse a state Supreme Court ruling that forces colleges to accommodate students with concealed carry permits, passed the committee on a 3-2 party line vote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Click here for more from The Denver Post.

View the original article here

Chevrolet SS model criticized in Israel for evoking name of Nazi organization

The recently introduced 2014 Chevrolet SS muscle car has been welcomed in NASCAR country with open arms, but GM’s latest halo car isn’t getting as warm of a response in The Holy Land.

It’s not the performance of the 415 hp V8-powered sedan that’s at issue, but the name: SS.

It’s short for Super Sport, but an official at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem says the name evokes memories of Nazi Germany’s paramilitary Schutzstaffel organization, infamously known as the SS, which was the primary force behind the Holocaust that killed over 6 million Jews in Nazi occupied lands.

“The use of this name is very inappropriate, Baruch Shuv told Yedioth Ahronoth. Shuv, who is also the head of the Orgainization of Partisans, Underground Fighters and Ghetto Rebels in Israel added that “it is not a name that bring will them pride or success.”

However, Chevrolet spokesperson Michael Albano tells FoxNews.com that “Chevrolet has no plans to export the SS to Israel.”

Chevy has used SS for over 50 years as a model designation for some of its highest performance cars without ever facing this level of official criticism. It is currently found on the Camaro SS, but the new sedan is the first car to feature it as a standalone name.

The Australian-built sedan is expected to go on sale in the U.S. late this year.

View the original article here