EPA Creates Face Shooting Standard
Washington D.C. - Spurred by a recent string of cases in which famous or powerful Americans in the upper 0.001% socioeconomic bracket have fired projectiles into the faces of other Americans (famous, powerful, or otherwise), the Environmental Protection Agency has been urged to set safety guidelines for similar future cases so Americans will know precisely how much being-shot-in-the-face is actually safe.
Among the details in the 746 page Countenance Impact Study (CIS) are levels of safe shot size at particular distances given the gauge of the shotgun in question, number of grains of powder per shell, and wind speed at the time of the occurrence. Surprisingly, most buckshot is still considered safe for the being-shot-in-the-face guidelines, as long as the formulas listed even out across all factors.
“Being shot in the face doesn’t have to be unsafe,” says EPA special studies expert Dr. Ralph Remmington. “Even twelve or ten gauge shot guns can have safe distances or powder combinations for being-shot-in-the-face occurrences. The last thing we want is for the public to feel at all threatened by these recent cases. Our very lengthy, detailed, and mathematically and scientifically sound data erases most if not all of the harms that were formerly assumed to accompany being-shot-in-the-face events.”
When asked about the high percentage of deaths among those affected by being-shot-in-the-face cases, Remmington remarked “Given our recent mathematical data, and the data we have been able to assemble through extrapolation from other cases when the very wealthy have shot into the faces of the populace, we have concluded that the deaths of those involved were not necessarily related to the being-shot-in-the-face case in question.”
Asked to remark further on this phenomenon, Remmington said “Other factors could have related to the demise of those shot-in-the-face individuals. For example, some have been shown to have severe heart ailments whose recurrence coincided, at random, with the being-shot-in-the-face event. In even more cases, we believe, the individuals in questions are likely to have suffered from a genetic being-shot-in-the-face condition that lies well outside the bounds of accountability by the shooter.” The EPA’s CIS elaborates on this point, using evidence from some of the nation’s foremost geneticists, stating that Americans have a nearly 100% genetic predisposition to harms resulting from being-shot-in-the-face cases. This alarming finding is no cause for concern, however, according to Remmington.
“Scientists and other people wearing white coats are working around the clock on applications for the now-mapped human genome. The multitude of research based on these findings, done primarily by the nations largest and most important corporations, include all manner of data linking any number of toxins, hazards, syndromes, and even being-shot-in-the-face cases to the internal workings of each of us, ridding our need to blame external sources for society’s problems in the future. It’s only a matter of time before we discover the being-shot-in-the-face gene.”
“It all lies within us,” Remmington concludes. “We must take responsibility for our own genes. Even if it requires us to be shot in the face by rich people without filing a frivolous lawsuit.”
Among the details in the 746 page Countenance Impact Study (CIS) are levels of safe shot size at particular distances given the gauge of the shotgun in question, number of grains of powder per shell, and wind speed at the time of the occurrence. Surprisingly, most buckshot is still considered safe for the being-shot-in-the-face guidelines, as long as the formulas listed even out across all factors.
“Being shot in the face doesn’t have to be unsafe,” says EPA special studies expert Dr. Ralph Remmington. “Even twelve or ten gauge shot guns can have safe distances or powder combinations for being-shot-in-the-face occurrences. The last thing we want is for the public to feel at all threatened by these recent cases. Our very lengthy, detailed, and mathematically and scientifically sound data erases most if not all of the harms that were formerly assumed to accompany being-shot-in-the-face events.”
When asked about the high percentage of deaths among those affected by being-shot-in-the-face cases, Remmington remarked “Given our recent mathematical data, and the data we have been able to assemble through extrapolation from other cases when the very wealthy have shot into the faces of the populace, we have concluded that the deaths of those involved were not necessarily related to the being-shot-in-the-face case in question.”
Asked to remark further on this phenomenon, Remmington said “Other factors could have related to the demise of those shot-in-the-face individuals. For example, some have been shown to have severe heart ailments whose recurrence coincided, at random, with the being-shot-in-the-face event. In even more cases, we believe, the individuals in questions are likely to have suffered from a genetic being-shot-in-the-face condition that lies well outside the bounds of accountability by the shooter.” The EPA’s CIS elaborates on this point, using evidence from some of the nation’s foremost geneticists, stating that Americans have a nearly 100% genetic predisposition to harms resulting from being-shot-in-the-face cases. This alarming finding is no cause for concern, however, according to Remmington.
“Scientists and other people wearing white coats are working around the clock on applications for the now-mapped human genome. The multitude of research based on these findings, done primarily by the nations largest and most important corporations, include all manner of data linking any number of toxins, hazards, syndromes, and even being-shot-in-the-face cases to the internal workings of each of us, ridding our need to blame external sources for society’s problems in the future. It’s only a matter of time before we discover the being-shot-in-the-face gene.”
“It all lies within us,” Remmington concludes. “We must take responsibility for our own genes. Even if it requires us to be shot in the face by rich people without filing a frivolous lawsuit.”
Comments