Philip Levine Gun Ad Falls Short

[protectionist]

That you don't is intrinsically problematic.

• I don't know you at all. Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me, and I to you. Consequently, neither of our "real world" reputations carries any weight here.
• People are given to all sorts of misrepresentations of fact, context, nuance, etc. Some people do it deliberately, some are so f*cking clueless they don't know they're doing so, and others do it as a result of carelessness. Until one knows a person well, one cannot suss what motivation another may have. Were I to recognize your ID or avatar -- I recognize neither -- I might have some idea of whether you've misrepresented my remarks or others' that you and I both heard/read. Thus your word, to me, is no different than that of another complete stranger; I would expect you are equally unfamiliar my ID and avatar.
• Of all the places where one must practice "trust, but verify," the Internet surely is foremost among them.

And, not, it's not about you or me. It's merely that we are strangers who happen to find ourselves exchanging words via the Internet.

It's also not a matter of my expressly questioning your word; I neither blindly question it nor blindly accept it. It's a matter of my wanting to know, before I start discussing a matter, that the representations of it that one's presented are completely accurate and representationally faithful. If I'm not confident of that, I'm at risk of looking ridiculous when, having relied upon someone else's representation and remarking on the matter based on their say-so, it turns out they misrepresented a material aspect of the matter. That's just a discursive risk I don't have to take and won't. It's also a risk I don't impose upon my readers.

Here's an example of exactly the scenario I just described playing out to quite a few folks' reputations' detriment.

• CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump
  
• My, my, my....Seems Fox's fathers of fake news now say the MSD town hall wasn't scripted

How hard would it have been for Fox to verify that man's claim? Not hard at all; it'd be literally child's play to do so. All a Fox staffer had to do was forward the email to CNN, asking, "Is this email authentic?" CNN, of course, would have said, "no," and simply forwarded the original unedited email to the Fox staffer. A quick check of the email header info would have confirmed that CNN was telling the truth and that Haab SOB wasn't and that'd have been that. No story, but no embarrassment for not upholding the most basic of journalistic standards later either.

FALSE! I'm NOT a stranger here. I've been posting for 5 years. Have authored hundreds of OPs & posted tens of thousands of posts. My thoughts are public information, and very well-known.

 

[BULLDOG]

That you don't is intrinsically problematic.

• I don't know you at all. Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me, and I to you. Consequently, neither of our "real world" reputations carries any weight here.
• People are given to all sorts of misrepresentations of fact, context, nuance, etc. Some people do it deliberately, some are so f*cking clueless they don't know they're doing so, and others do it as a result of carelessness. Until one knows a person well, one cannot suss what motivation another may have. Were I to recognize your ID or avatar -- I recognize neither -- I might have some idea of whether you've misrepresented my remarks or others' that you and I both heard/read. Thus your word, to me, is no different than that of another complete stranger; I would expect you are equally unfamiliar my ID and avatar.
• Of all the places where one must practice "trust, but verify," the Internet surely is foremost among them.

And, not, it's not about you or me. It's merely that we are strangers who happen to find ourselves exchanging words via the Internet.

It's also not a matter of my expressly questioning your word; I neither blindly question it nor blindly accept it. It's a matter of my wanting to know, before I start discussing a matter, that the representations of it that one's presented are completely accurate and representationally faithful. If I'm not confident of that, I'm at risk of looking ridiculous when, having relied upon someone else's representation and remarking on the matter based on their say-so, it turns out they misrepresented a material aspect of the matter. That's just a discursive risk I don't have to take and won't. It's also a risk I don't impose upon my readers.

Here's an example of exactly the scenario I just described playing out to quite a few folks' reputations' detriment.

• CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump
  
• My, my, my....Seems Fox's fathers of fake news now say the MSD town hall wasn't scripted

How hard would it have been for Fox to verify that man's claim? Not hard at all; it'd be literally child's play to do so. All a Fox staffer had to do was forward the email to CNN, asking, "Is this email authentic?" CNN, of course, would have said, "no," and simply forwarded the original unedited email to the Fox staffer. A quick check of the email header info would have confirmed that CNN was telling the truth and that Haab SOB wasn't and that'd have been that. No story, but no embarrassment for not upholding the most basic of journalistic standards later either.

FALSE! I'm NOT a stranger here. I've been posting for 5 years. Have authored hundreds of OPs & posted tens of thousands of posts. My thoughts are public information, and very well-known.

Who are you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

That you don't is intrinsically problematic.

• I don't know you at all. Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me, and I to you. Consequently, neither of our "real world" reputations carries any weight here.
• People are given to all sorts of misrepresentations of fact, context, nuance, etc. Some people do it deliberately, some are so f*cking clueless they don't know they're doing so, and others do it as a result of carelessness. Until one knows a person well, one cannot suss what motivation another may have. Were I to recognize your ID or avatar -- I recognize neither -- I might have some idea of whether you've misrepresented my remarks or others' that you and I both heard/read. Thus your word, to me, is no different than that of another complete stranger; I would expect you are equally unfamiliar my ID and avatar.
• Of all the places where one must practice "trust, but verify," the Internet surely is foremost among them.

And, not, it's not about you or me. It's merely that we are strangers who happen to find ourselves exchanging words via the Internet.

It's also not a matter of my expressly questioning your word; I neither blindly question it nor blindly accept it. It's a matter of my wanting to know, before I start discussing a matter, that the representations of it that one's presented are completely accurate and representationally faithful. If I'm not confident of that, I'm at risk of looking ridiculous when, having relied upon someone else's representation and remarking on the matter based on their say-so, it turns out they misrepresented a material aspect of the matter. That's just a discursive risk I don't have to take and won't. It's also a risk I don't impose upon my readers.

Here's an example of exactly the scenario I just described playing out to quite a few folks' reputations' detriment.

• CNN Tries to Script Students’ Meeting with President Trump
  
• My, my, my....Seems Fox's fathers of fake news now say the MSD town hall wasn't scripted

How hard would it have been for Fox to verify that man's claim? Not hard at all; it'd be literally child's play to do so. All a Fox staffer had to do was forward the email to CNN, asking, "Is this email authentic?" CNN, of course, would have said, "no," and simply forwarded the original unedited email to the Fox staffer. A quick check of the email header info would have confirmed that CNN was telling the truth and that Haab SOB wasn't and that'd have been that. No story, but no embarrassment for not upholding the most basic of journalistic standards later either.

FALSE! I'm NOT a stranger here. I've been posting for 5 years. Have authored hundreds of OPs & posted tens of thousands of posts. My thoughts are public information, and very well-known.

Two things:

1. You don't know me and I don't know you. AFAIK, the answer to all the questions below is "no." We are thus strangers.
   • Have we met in person?
   • Have we "met" by video or audio conference?
     
   • Do you know my family or I yours?
   • Have you been to my home or I to yours?
   • Do we have a professional and collaborative relationship of any sort?
   • Have we so much as passed in the hallway at the office?
   • Do we have a civilly competitive professional relationship?
   • Have we shared a tribune at a seminar, symposium, lecture or conference?
   • Have we so much as happened to have found ourselves sharing at table at a fundraiser, a few words at a bar, or otherwise interacted at a social event?
   • Has either of us been so much as someone's "plus one" at an event the other hosted?
     
   • Did we chat for several hours on an airplane flight?
   • Might we have shared neighboring villas while on vacation?
   • Were you one of the sherpas leading a safari or trek through some remote locale?
   • Are you the parking attendant in the garage at my office or one of the parking valets at a venue I frequent or for one of the valet service companies that help out at large parties?
   • Were you a student in a class I taught some 30 odd years ago?
   • Were you someone in my graduate or undergraduate class with whom I haven't otherwise maintained contact?
   • Do we with some regularity bump into one another from time to time whereupon we so much as share polite nods of acknowledgement?
   • Do we routinely chat on the phone?
   • Have we observed one another's comportment in public and among others?
   • Have we observed one another's comportment with other friends, family, acquaintances or others who briefly enter and exit our lives?
   • If we saw each other "on the street," would you know it me, or I you, whom we'd just seen?
2. My God. At your first opportunity you managed to illustrate exactly what I'd remarked are reasons not to rely on your or anyone else's mere say-so.
   
   In response to my request for documentary evidence of the content of Levine's ad, you wrote:
   

   I don't see any reason why you would question it.

   In response, I explained:
   

   People are given to all sorts of misrepresentations of fact, context, nuance, etc. Some people do it deliberately, some are so f*cking clueless they don't know they're doing so, and others do it as a result of carelessness.

   It's also not a matter of my expressly questioning your word; I neither blindly question it nor blindly accept it. It's a matter of my wanting to know, before I start discussing a matter, that the representations of it that one's presented are completely accurate and representationally faithful. If I'm not confident of that, I'm at risk of looking ridiculous when, having relied upon someone else's representation and remarking on the matter based on their say-so, it turns out they misrepresented a material aspect of the matter. That's just a discursive risk I don't have to take and won't. It's also a risk I don't impose upon my readers.

   And what does your response to the post in which I wrote that do? It misrepresents the context of what I wrote about the nature of our estrangement.
   

   FALSE! I'm NOT a stranger here.

   I didn't remark upon your being a stranger to USMB. I wrote that you, like everyone on USMB is a stranger to me.
   
   "Here" isn't who must take your word about Levine's ad. I am. Thus I don't care how long you've been a USMB member or how long, how often or in what regard you've posted on USMB. I care only about the substance, soundness and credibility of your and everyone else's remarks.
   

   Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me

   If you want to be presumptuous to the point of not considering me to be a stranger, well, that's your choice. I, however, consider every member here, with one exception, to be a complete stranger to me because, well, that's what, as far as I'm concerned, we are.
   
   
   

 

[usmbguest5318]

??? I thought the whole point of your OP is that the ad itself is a leftist rant....What? Are we all just to take your word for what the ad does and doesn't say and imply?

You don't have to. But I don't see any reason why you would question it. My word has always been pretty good in this forum (for 5 years)

As for the point of the OP it is that the leftist rant of the ad falls short by not including the most important point of the school shooting issue >> school SECURITY.(ie.stopping the shooter who shows up)

As for the point of the OP it is that the leftist rant of the ad falls short by not including the most important point of the school shooting issue >> school SECURITY.(ie.stopping the shooter who shows up)

Well, insofar as you've not posted the ad or a link to it, one really can't determine whether it does or does not so fall short.

 

[protectionist]

1. Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me[
   If you want to be presumptuous to the point of not considering me to be a stranger, well, that's your choice. I, however, consider every member here, with one exception, to be a complete stranger to me because, well, that's what, as far as I'm concerned, we are.

   1. You went through the trouble of listing 21 "reasons" to show that you don't know me. I listed one to show that you have no reason to not know me, since I've been posting prolifically in this forum for 5 years.

2. As for the substance, soundness and credibility of my remarks, I stated that Levine's ad only mention gun control in an outline box. No mention of school security. That's a fact. If we can't verify it, that's a shame, but that makes it no less of the fact that it is.[/QUOTE]

 

[protectionist]

Well, insofar as you've not posted the ad or a link to it, one really can't determine whether it does or does not so fall short.

Oh well. It's not a perfect world, is it ? This isn't going to stop me from posting what I see as an important MESSAGE, in US MESSAGE BOARD

 

[protectionist]

Who are you?

Your worst nightmare.

 

[usmbguest5318]

1. Like everyone else here, you are a complete stranger to me[
   If you want to be presumptuous to the point of not considering me to be a stranger, well, that's your choice. I, however, consider every member here, with one exception, to be a complete stranger to me because, well, that's what, as far as I'm concerned, we are.

   1. You went through the trouble of listing 21 "reasons" to show that you don't know me. I listed one to show that you have no reason to not know me, since I've been posting prolifically in this forum for 5 years.

2. As for the substance, soundness and credibility of my remarks, I stated that Levine's ad only mention gun control in an outline box. No mention of school security. That's a fact. If we can't verify it, that's a shame, but that makes it no less of the fact that it is.

[/QUOTE]

You went through the trouble of listing 21 "reasons" to show that you don't know me. I listed one to show that you have no reason to not know me, since I've been posting prolifically in this forum for 5 years.

Seriously? You think that your posting here constitutes enough that I should consider myself as knowing you? To the extent your answer is "yes," you and I have very different standards for what it means to know another individual.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, insofar as you've not posted the ad or a link to it, one really can't determine whether it does or does not so fall short.

well. It's not a perfect world, is it ? This isn't going to stop me from posting what I see as an important MESSAGE, in US MESSAGE BOARD

 

[BULLDOG]

Who are you?

Your worst nightmare.

You're my ex-wife?

 

[protectionist]

Seriously? You think that your posting here constitutes enough that I should consider myself as knowing you? To the extent your answer is "yes," you and I have very different standards for what it means to know another individual.

I'm talking about knowing someone inasmuch as they are credible, based on what/how they talk. For me, you have much more of that, than my neighbors where I live. Yeah. Seriously.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Seriously? You think that your posting here constitutes enough that I should consider myself as knowing you? To the extent your answer is "yes," you and I have very different standards for what it means to know another individual.

I'm talking about knowing someone inasmuch as they are credible, based on what/how they talk.

Okay. I understand that. I don't necessarily assign credibility that way, but I do understand what you mean.

I don't assign credibility that way because while I remember with whom I'm trading posts in a given conversation, once that conversation is done (however it comes to a close), unless I keep chatting with that person quite a lot, I'm not going to three days later recall that I've ever traded posts with them. The exceptions to that are folks who, in response to my posts (because the majority of what I read on here is posted in response to my posts), respond with a lot of really "ig'nernt sh*t" -- stuff that really strains credulity or that does so and is unsoundly/incogently supported -- or who respond with a lot of really thoughtful/insightful stuff.

I'm talking about knowing someone inasmuch as they are credible, based on what/how they talk. For me, you have much more of that, than my neighbors where I live. Yeah. Seriously.

Well, TY. I appreciate your saying that for it's certainly a nice thing to say...Even though I don't have any idea of what that really means as I know nothing about your neighbors. LOL

 

[protectionist]

Well, TY. I appreciate your saying that for it's certainly a nice thing to say...Even though I don't have any idea of what that really means as I know nothing about your neighbors. LOL

No offense but, I'm on limited time, have other threads to handle, and this is my least important subject.

 

[Rustic]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Schools are just part of the immediate problem. A very important part, but just part. Mass shootings, some at schools, are our immediate problem.

Breakdown of the traditional American family, political correctness, affirmative-action and socialism are the root causes of violence in this country.
Fact

 

[BULLDOG]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Schools are just part of the immediate problem. A very important part, but just part. Mass shootings, some at schools, are our immediate problem.

Breakdown of the traditional American family, political correctness, affirmative-action and socialism are the root causes of violence in this country.
Fact

Yes, that is the line RWNJs are pushing. Wouldn't it be nice if the world was as simple as that.

 

[Rustic]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Schools are just part of the immediate problem. A very important part, but just part. Mass shootings, some at schools, are our immediate problem.

Breakdown of the traditional American family, political correctness, affirmative-action and socialism are the root causes of violence in this country.
Fact

Yes, that is the line RWNJs are pushing. Wouldn't it be nice if the world was as simple as that.

Well we have a whole bunch of violent behavior because of political correctness. We have no criminal control, and open southern border… Etc.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, that is the line RWNJs are pushing. Wouldn't it be nice if the world was as simple as that.

RW is also pushing school SECURITY, while LW pushes gun control, often ignoring school security entirely.

On Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan asked one of the liberal panelists about the words of Andrew Pollack (father of Meadow Pollack killed in the Parkland massacre), in which he stressed school security. The lefty woman answered with nothing but gun control talk.

 

[2aguy]

Never heard of Philip Levine ? Me neither. Until he started running a slew of TV ads while running for governor in Florida. Levine, a Democrat, has presented some of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, on just about everything, but his latest one addressing school shootings really takes the cake.

In the ad, a graphic is shown which is a list of 3 proposals. Incredibly, these all (reasonable regulations, background checks, assault weapons) all pertain to gun control (with some merit), but none of which address school security.

Wow. This is some of the most amazing detachment from reality I've ever seen from Democrats. I suppose we all agree that there are some gun control issues that shoud be tackled. Even the NRA, and NRA members President Trump and Florida governor Rick Scott agree on that. But obvioulsy, the immediate problem is getting the schools secured to keep everyone safe.

This is (shoud be) a no-brainer. First and foremost, we need to get the schools hardened, to where a school shooter doesn't see them as a green light "gun-free zone", where he can go and do as he pleases. This point was well made by Andrew Pollack, a father of one of the Parkland victims, on the Fox News Sunday show this week. Kimberly Strassel also made this point.

Incredibly, just like the fall-short Levine ad, Donna Edwards, former Democrat congresswoman, actually spoke out against having guns in the schools, thereby providing armed protection. Often with these shows, you wish you were on them, so you could say something. I would have asked Ms. Edwards this >> "When the next school shooter shows up (maybe today or tomorrow), how do you propose to stop him, without a gun in the school, and police still 5 minutes away ? Are you going to tell him gun control legislation is going through the Congress ? Are you gping to offer him a lollipop, or an ice cream cone ? Sing him a song ?"

Democrats are notorious for showing detachment from reality, but never quite as bad as this. Hopefully, our leaders will not be influenced to go along with this disregard of common sense, or we will have yet more lost lives.

Schools are just part of the immediate problem. A very important part, but just part. Mass shootings, some at schools, are our immediate problem.

They are the rarest of rare events, dumb ass.......in 35 years, from 1982-2017 there were a total of 795 people murdered by mass public shooters.....knives murder over 1,600 people every single year........

There is no mass shooting crisis, there is no need to ban semi auto weapons.....but you guys hate guns so you will push gun control no matter what.

 

[2aguy]

For the conscious American lots below:

"More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined"
Since 1968, guns have killed more Americans than all U.S. wars combined
Statistics behind US violence

"In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy - the recorded spend on lobbying in 2014 was $3.3m. That is only the recorded contributions to lawmakers however, and considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track."
US gun control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful?


Supporting an organization that is about corporate profits over life may appeal to some but ironically many of the same supporters are opposed to abortion on the belief it kills people. So then the fact guns kill 1,300 US children every year, and has killed more people than war is OK with the gun huggers? I guess like frightened children they need the security blanket of corporate induced fear. Money manages the mind of the right and liars like Wayne LaPierre pad their pockets while talking BS about freedom etc. Americans are so easily led today, what ever happened to courage to speak back at power? The right have been made into corporate puppets.

For those not inclined to hide or be afraid of false bogeymen lots of information below.

Wayne LaPierre is a lying corporate paid shill.
NRA Chief's Bogus Background Check Claims - FactCheck.org

The NRA is being supported by these companies
Airlines drop NRA after school shooting

The NRA is part of the reason we have so many gun deaths in America to say otherwise is to lie or hide from facts.
Statistics behind US violence

"From early childhood I was an outdoor person and loved hunting and fishing. About 10 years ago, at age 60, I gave up both. I had learned outdoor craft from my father, a WWII combat veteran. For over 20 years I lived in England . When we moved back to the US I gave up on hunting first and then fishing. No one in my family has ever owned a gun that could chamber more than three rounds. Handguns were never even a consideration. In the UK it is impossible to own a handgun. My shotguns were kept in a locked metal chamber bolted to the wall. Every 12 to 36 months a police constable came by the house - unannounced - to check that the guns on my permit were the guns in the closet. If I was not home and another person knew where the key was my gun license would have been voided. I am astonished that people with no sense of what a gun does, kill, own weapons of war in our country. I was lucky enough to learn about guns from a WWII combat veteran and to learn the respect a gun and a human life merit. Weapons of war cannot be a 'hobby'. There is no reason beyond personal insecurity for any civilian in our country to own a handgun or any rifle or shotgun that chambers more than three rounds. By Federal law waterfowl get the protection of hunters only having three rounds in their guns. Why don't people deserve the protection of no handguns and war weapons in the house next door ? Gun regulation is not a 'tribal' issue, tribes protect their members. It is a simple common sense issue." Bill Wilson, Boston, Comment: Opinion | Respect First, Then Gun Control

"Giant militarized countries, "he said, "breed violent populations.""

"One of the first things he said was that both Russia and America produced disproportionate shares of mass killers.

'Thoughts and prayers' aren't enough – but sarcastic and outraged reactions to them aren't much better.'

Taibbi: If We Want Kids to Stop Killing, the Adults Have to Stop, Too

Rust Belt Philosophy: Not the accidental failures but the purposeful successes: gun edition

'The Right Wing: 5 Places Hypocritical Republicans Ban Guns for Their Own Personal Safety'
5 Places Hypocritical Republicans Ban Guns for Their Own Personal Safety

"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same." Humiliation and rage: how toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings | Aeon Essays

Guns kill 1,300 US children every year, study finds
Guns kill 1,300 US children every year


A day in America
"3 adults, 1 child found shot to death inside Alaska hotel room
Police: Man shot dead while trying to stop man from beating woman
3 shot while hanging Christmas lights amid fight with driver
Good Samaritan fatally shot outside Northwest Side Walmart
Accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof competent to stand trial"

That is a lie....the truth is more people are saved by guns than are killed in all the wars...each year Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times to stop violent criminal attack and often mass shooters.....multiply that by the same time period and the lie you posted is revealed...that is 73.5 million people are saved from violent criminal attack since 1968.........how many died in all of our wars combined....numb nuts?

Guns kill 1,300 US children every year, study finds
Guns kill 1,300 US children every year

And that quote above is another lie, easily shown to be a lie by looking at actual CDC numbers .........and if you don't throw in 15 year old gang members shooting each other over drug turf or Facebook insults....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC


2016....
Murder with guns...kids, 238
<1.......11
1-4.......64
5-9......68
10-14....95


Then you throw in Accidental gun death and you don't even get close to 1,300....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261



Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, that is the line RWNJs are pushing. Wouldn't it be nice if the world was as simple as that.

RW is also pushing school SECURITY, while LW pushes gun control, often ignoring school security entirely.

On Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan asked one of the liberal panelists about the words of Andrew Pollack (father of Meadow Pollack killed in the Parkland massacre), in which he stressed school security. The lefty woman answered with nothing but gun control talk.

You say she was asked about the words of a man who had just lost his child in a mass shooting. I'm surprised he didn't want a full ban on all guns. The man is grieving.