|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 14 2018 21:54 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 15:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:
This really shouldn't be a partisan issue, preventing kids from getting killed in school really should be pretty f**king obvious of a thing to support.
Yet some people oppose it. This is actually a pretty good example of why I'm not out protesting right now. Instead, I'm spending time trying to correct people from making outrageous posts that polarize the issue so much that absolutely nothing will ever get accomplished. Do you really think the gun owners who oppose a lot of new gun restrictions actually oppose preventing kids from getting killed in school? They don't want kids to get shot up either. You can fault them for their judgment, but it's ridiculous to imply they want lots of children to get shot. Now when you go to protest, you'll be outnumbered by all the people you just accused of being complicit in child murder and they don't agree with you.
First, the reason you are not protesting right now has nothing to do with me... whether you protest or not, that's your choice.
Second, go back and read my statement again, because you are adding a lot on top of my words.
I never said people want kids to get shot.
Please tell me what gun advocates are doing to prevent kids from getting shot in school in the future?
What policy are they advocating for that will change this problem?
My main point is that gun advocates are doing nothing to prevent guns from killing kids in schools. Gun advocates defend their right to own guns... that's all I hear from them.
|
On September 14 2018 23:49 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 22:18 JimmiC wrote:On September 14 2018 11:59 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I'm just going to put this out there as an idea, maybe people can share what they think about it.
I don't buy guns, many Americans don't buy guns, and I'm pretty sure these people are happy with no guns...
Some people in America do buy guns...
The reason there are soooooo many guns in America is because people buy them, therefore people make money from selling them, which leads to an industry of selling/buying guns...
The result is that America is flooded with guns. Some people are responsible, some people aren't responsible and either murder other people or let guns get in the hands of murders. The same can be said for gun dealers.
*My thought, is that if people want guns in America it is their collective responsibility to safely manage their guns... That means when the laws aren't working or aren't being enforced, they... are the ones protesting and petitioning the NRA, the government, the gun dealers to act in a responsible way... because with the right to have guns comes the responsibility to own guns safely.
It is not enough to just advocate for the right to own guns, especially when so many deaths are caused because of guns.
My frustration is that gun advocates only advocate for their right to own. So the movement in Environmental circles is something called EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) It is big in Europe and making its way through Canada. What it basically means is now the manufacturer is responsible for dealing with the waste instead of the municipal government. Consumers still pay for it just in the price tag of the product instead of in their taxes. But the bonus is now manufactures care about how they package products because they have to recycle it. So there is much more standardization and so on. http://www.cssalliance.ca/portal/what-is-epr-and-why-is-it-important/For guns I'm not sure how this would exactly work but if they were responsible for the incarceration of criminals using guns. Or maybe the medical bills of of people who were shot by guns, they would all the sudden have a financial reason to make guns themselves safer (harder to mod) and make sure that only responsible people owned them. I don't know how you would ever do this because the cost to society of gun violence likely FAR outstrips the profits of gun manufacturers. With packaging EPR has only raised prices like 5-10% and the industries are finding new and better ways to not just recycle but reduce. As for the NRA, it is probably best to not get them involved. I'm not even sure what they are after now, they are now just a right wing political group. They are making Racist MEME's about toddlers cartoons to rail against too much multiculturalism in them?!?!?!?! So I'm not sure that guns even matter so much as it is about keep people angry and unfocused on important issues. The NRA have given up on pushing the idea that widespread gun ownership is ok and have just turned into another Stefan Molyneux/Ben Shapiro anti-lefist anti-feminist group instead. You can't blame them really, using blatantly fiddled statistics can only get you so far for so long before everyone's life experience catches up to it.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/09/14/dana-loesch-nra-thomas-and-friends-orig-vstop-bdk.cnn
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/opinions/nra-thomas-the-tank-engine-its-about-trump-spitzer/index.html
A really interesting point about race made at the end of the article, which I think is really showing of who the organization is...
"For its part, the NRA has been quick to defend, in a highly public way both with words and legal assistance, civilians who were, in its view, properly exercising their gun rights -- even if authorities said otherwise. From Bernhard Goetz, the 1980s "subway vigilante" who shot four African-American youths he said were harassing him, to its fierce advocacy for expanded "stand your ground" laws that give special legal protections to people who kill others who feel threatened in public places, the NRA has been unstinting in extolling civilian gun use.
Follow CNN Opinion
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
Yet in the Castile case, and despite the fact that the man wound up dead for simply exercising his so-called "gun rights," they were silent. In the culture wars debate the NRA wants to have, criticism of police, even when they mistakenly use deadly force against African-Americans, is a bridge too far -- even if invoking the KKK isn't."
|
On September 14 2018 22:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 11:59 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I'm just going to put this out there as an idea, maybe people can share what they think about it.
I don't buy guns, many Americans don't buy guns, and I'm pretty sure these people are happy with no guns...
Some people in America do buy guns...
The reason there are soooooo many guns in America is because people buy them, therefore people make money from selling them, which leads to an industry of selling/buying guns...
The result is that America is flooded with guns. Some people are responsible, some people aren't responsible and either murder other people or let guns get in the hands of murders. The same can be said for gun dealers.
*My thought, is that if people want guns in America it is their collective responsibility to safely manage their guns... That means when the laws aren't working or aren't being enforced, they... are the ones protesting and petitioning the NRA, the government, the gun dealers to act in a responsible way... because with the right to have guns comes the responsibility to own guns safely.
It is not enough to just advocate for the right to own guns, especially when so many deaths are caused because of guns.
My frustration is that gun advocates only advocate for their right to own. So the movement in Environmental circles is something called EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) It is big in Europe and making its way through Canada. What it basically means is now the manufacturer is responsible for dealing with the waste instead of the municipal government. Consumers still pay for it just in the price tag of the product instead of in their taxes. But the bonus is now manufactures care about how they package products because they have to recycle it. So there is much more standardization and so on. http://www.cssalliance.ca/portal/what-is-epr-and-why-is-it-important/For guns I'm not sure how this would exactly work but if they were responsible for the incarceration of criminals using guns. Or maybe the medical bills of of people who were shot by guns, they would all the sudden have a financial reason to make guns themselves safer (harder to mod) and make sure that only responsible people owned them. I don't know how you would ever do this because the cost to society of gun violence likely FAR outstrips the profits of gun manufacturers. With packaging EPR has only raised prices like 5-10% and the industries are finding new and better ways to not just recycle but reduce. As for the NRA, it is probably best to not get them involved. I'm not even sure what they are after now, they are now just a right wing political group. They are making Racist MEME's about toddlers cartoons to rail against too much multiculturalism in them?!?!?!?! So I'm not sure that guns even matter so much as it is about keep people angry and unfocused on important issues.
YES! THANK YOU FOR THIS!
This is 100% my point, that you for positing this.
|
United States24785 Posts
On September 15 2018 09:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 21:54 micronesia wrote:On September 14 2018 15:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:
This really shouldn't be a partisan issue, preventing kids from getting killed in school really should be pretty f**king obvious of a thing to support.
Yet some people oppose it. This is actually a pretty good example of why I'm not out protesting right now. Instead, I'm spending time trying to correct people from making outrageous posts that polarize the issue so much that absolutely nothing will ever get accomplished. Do you really think the gun owners who oppose a lot of new gun restrictions actually oppose preventing kids from getting killed in school? They don't want kids to get shot up either. You can fault them for their judgment, but it's ridiculous to imply they want lots of children to get shot. Now when you go to protest, you'll be outnumbered by all the people you just accused of being complicit in child murder and they don't agree with you. First, the reason you are not protesting right now has nothing to do with me... whether you protest or not, that's your choice. Second, go back and read my statement again, because you are adding a lot on top of my words. I never said people want kids to get shot. Please tell me what gun advocates are doing to prevent kids from getting shot in school in the future? What policy are they advocating for that will change this problem? My main point is that gun advocates are doing nothing to prevent guns from killing kids in schools. Gun advocates defend their right to own guns... that's all I hear from them.
Actually, I think you should go back and read what I quoted. If what is written there is not what you intended then that's fine, but you didn't make any such claim. You simply accused me of putting words in your mouth, when I was literally interpreting what you said.
As an example of what you are asking about, I have seen people in this thread who generally defend gun possession (based on conversation here) also wholeheartedly agree with with new common sense restrictions that would make people at least a little safer. I actually completely agree with you that people that have an agenda to maintain most/all of their current gun rights should be just as involved in effecting change to make the country safer as people who personally prefer very strict gun laws. They should be teaching gun controls activists facts and dispelling misconception. They should be making recommendations for ways to make the streets safer and maintain individual rights that they hold dear. But strong gun control advocates should not accuse those they disagree with of disingenuous things.
edit: I need to correct one place where I was wrong and you were right. Them not caring about kids getting shot and them wanting kids to get shot are not the same thing. I still think it's wrong to say they don't care, but I agree the implication is not necessary that they want it.
|
On September 15 2018 10:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 09:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 14 2018 21:54 micronesia wrote:On September 14 2018 15:00 ShambhalaWar wrote:
This really shouldn't be a partisan issue, preventing kids from getting killed in school really should be pretty f**king obvious of a thing to support.
Yet some people oppose it. This is actually a pretty good example of why I'm not out protesting right now. Instead, I'm spending time trying to correct people from making outrageous posts that polarize the issue so much that absolutely nothing will ever get accomplished. Do you really think the gun owners who oppose a lot of new gun restrictions actually oppose preventing kids from getting killed in school? They don't want kids to get shot up either. You can fault them for their judgment, but it's ridiculous to imply they want lots of children to get shot. Now when you go to protest, you'll be outnumbered by all the people you just accused of being complicit in child murder and they don't agree with you. First, the reason you are not protesting right now has nothing to do with me... whether you protest or not, that's your choice. Second, go back and read my statement again, because you are adding a lot on top of my words. I never said people want kids to get shot. Please tell me what gun advocates are doing to prevent kids from getting shot in school in the future? What policy are they advocating for that will change this problem? My main point is that gun advocates are doing nothing to prevent guns from killing kids in schools. Gun advocates defend their right to own guns... that's all I hear from them. Actually, I think you should go back and read what I quoted. If what is written there is not what you intended then that's fine, but you didn't make any such claim. You simply accused me of putting words in your mouth, when I was literally interpreting what you said. As an example of what you are asking about, I have seen people in this thread who generally defend gun possession (based on conversation here) also wholeheartedly agree with with new common sense restrictions that would make people at least a little safer. I actually completely agree with you that people that have an agenda to maintain most/all of their current gun rights should be just as involved in effecting change to make the country safer as people who personally prefer very strict gun laws. They should be teaching gun controls activists facts and dispelling misconception. They should be making recommendations for ways to make the streets safer and maintain individual rights that they hold dear. But strong gun control advocates should not accuse those they disagree with of disingenuous things. edit: I need to correct one place where I was wrong and you were right. Them not caring about kids getting shot and them wanting kids to get shot are not the same thing. I still think it's wrong to say they don't care, but I agree the implication is not necessary that they want it.
I appreciate the edit and you double checking your words, thanks.
I will admit that I think the words, "Yet some people oppose it." weren't the best words for what I was trying to say. I would just default back to, "Yet gun advocates aren't doing anything about it."
I still maintain that you are conflating my words. If you are saying my statement, "Yet some people oppose it" to mean that I'm implying people don't care.
Some people might care, but oppose legislation that might be needed to do anything about it. Gun advocates might care a lot about kids not getting killed, but care equally as much about not making sure gun rights don't change at all. The end result is that they oppose the legislation because they think what ever is proposed is too much.
I see where you might read more into the statement, but the assertion that I'm implying all these people don't care could only exist as an implicit suggestion in my words, it's certainly nothing I explicitly said (nor implicitly said, unless you add your own interpretation).
In the end it detracts from my main point, that if people want a culture of guns in America, the people advocating for that have absolute responsibility for making that culture safe for the majority of Americans who could care less about owning guns, and the children in school who deserve to live their full lives free of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate you posting these, I was just coming on to do it myself and saw that you already had.
On a personal note, we were notified at my work of a "potential disgruntled ex-employee" this week, and now are locking all doors during the day.
|
On September 21 2018 06:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:I appreciate you posting these, I was just coming on to do it myself and saw that you already had. On a personal note, we were notified at my work of a "potential disgruntled ex-employee" this week, and now are locking all doors during the day.
this is ridiculous lol
the fact that everyday workers now have to worry about whether the employee that got fired last week is gonna be salty and come back with a rifle is a pretty shit.
|
On September 21 2018 13:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 06:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:I appreciate you posting these, I was just coming on to do it myself and saw that you already had. On a personal note, we were notified at my work of a "potential disgruntled ex-employee" this week, and now are locking all doors during the day. this is ridiculous lol the fact that everyday workers now have to worry about whether the employee that got fired last week is gonna be salty and come back with a rifle is a pretty shit.
I agree.
Also, just noticing how it's so quiet this forum you could hear a pin drop.
Interesting in times like this how the pro-gun people have nothing to say or do... no condolences or suggestions for action... just silence.
|
On September 21 2018 23:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 13:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 21 2018 06:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:I appreciate you posting these, I was just coming on to do it myself and saw that you already had. On a personal note, we were notified at my work of a "potential disgruntled ex-employee" this week, and now are locking all doors during the day. this is ridiculous lol the fact that everyday workers now have to worry about whether the employee that got fired last week is gonna be salty and come back with a rifle is a pretty shit. I agree. Also, just noticing how it's so quiet this forum you could hear a pin drop. Interesting in times like this how the pro-gun people have nothing to say or do... no condolences or suggestions for action... just silence.
I don't really know what you're expecting. Do you really think gun rights advocates were just waiting for a shooting of 3 to change their mind on the issue? Or better yet, change their suggestions? Do you really think their condolences are actually valued here, rather than being an object of ridicule?
I don't really know where you're going here.
|
|
|
And if condolences are the subject of ridicule before anything else, that's the product of a long context of bloodshed, which earns little more from gun advocates than thoughts and prayers. If we had only 1 or 2 shootings in a blue moon, sure, send condolences, but we're dealing with a very different number. The tried and true "thoughts and prayers" comes with an implicit "just deal with it", and when we deal with news of a shooting approximately once a week, that comes across very differently.
|
If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points.
On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote:
Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care....
Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago.
|
|
|
On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote:
Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle.
Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones.
But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front.
A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added.
The Hill
Big time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade.
|
|
|
On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote:
Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence.
Given that reason and logic seem to be what gun rights people want, I would suggest maybe less guns.
Oh
Not that kind of reason and logic.
|
On September 22 2018 01:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2018 00:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 22 2018 00:42 Danglars wrote:If you’re not going to say any new questions this news story raises, don’t pretend it’s very interesting that a gun rights proponent hasn’t spoken up. It just marks you as the kind of person interested in cheap rhetorical points. On September 21 2018 23:52 JimmiC wrote:
Exactly do all these small shootings even matter? I mean it has to be what at least 10 people dead before anyone pretends to care.... Almost obligatory follow up accusation that people are uncaring, or if they care in bigger instances, are only pretending to care. If shaming strategies like these worked, you would have your glorious public policy changes achieved a long time ago. Sometimes when peoples heels are dug in a little quip can loosen things up so they are willing to think about things again instead of just win an argument. Logic and reason was not getting anywhere so why not try another tact? I mean there is so many shootings everyday it would be a full time job to just post them. I think it is very scary that there are so many people that think this is "normal" and "ok". It is a very bad sign that it takes mass fatalities to even move the needle. Trust me, the gun rights people I know constantly wonder when the gun control people will turn to reason and logic and stop the shaming and emotional pleas. It's mutually assured in political life. The Parkland shooting was about more gun control and more gun control NOW, rather than looking at systemic mistakes of the Sheriffs department and the educational establishment. It's a tad too inconvenient for gun control proponents to acknowledge failures under current laws as they push for new ones. But, I don't want to sound too dour on that topic, since there was a bit of good news recently on the front. A student who co-founded the March For Our Lives movement calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting says he has left the group and regrets trying to "embarrass" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) about gun-control.
"I left the organization and if I thought that my friends and the people I worked with couldn't do it without me I would not have done that," Cameron Kasky told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson in an interview Wednesday.
Kasky, who was among several students who began advocating for gun control in the wake of the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, said that he is "very regretful of a lot of the mistakes that I made along the way."
He expressed regret about how he handled an exchange with Rubio during a live town hall televised on CNN shortly after 17 students and faculty died when a former student opened fire at the school.
Kasky told Rubio at the town hall, "Sen. Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you’re here and there are some people who are not."
He then questioned Rubio aggressively for taking money from the National Rifle Association.
"I look back on that and I say, you know what, there were people who had just been buried and when you're looking at somebody that you find might in some way have been complicit in this murderer obtaining the weapon it's hard not to say something like that," Kasky said Wednesday. "But, I went into that wanting less conversation and more to embarrass Rubio and that was my biggest flaw."
Kasky said he did not regret trying to put Rubio "on the spot" – expressing his frustration with politicians not offering direct responses to questions – but said he should not have invoked the alleged shooter's name.
He also said that he came to appreciate views that are different than his during his time with March For Our Lives.
"This summer when March For Our Lives went on the summer tour that we embarked on I met that person in Texas whose got that semi-automatic weapon because that's how they like to protect their family," Kasky told Fox News Radio. "I met the 50 some odd percent of woman who are pro-life, even though I thought it was preposterous that a woman could be pro-life and not pro-choice at the time."
"I learned that a lot of our issues politically come from a lack of understanding of other perspectives," he added. The HillBig time gun shamer and March for our Lives founder goes out and meets Americans on a summer tour and changes his mind. It's the generational churn that gives me great hope for change in the next decade. I think many have asked you, what is your solution. What measure do you think should be taken to reduce gun violence.
I think I answered you on several points you simply refused to acknowledge or respond to only two weeks ago. My big question is do you seriously expect posters to repeat themselves twice a month or they don't pass your solutions bar? I will remain convinced that you know my solutions, don't like them, but are politically happy to pretend they don't exist or aren't real solutions.
You did just finish calling the shaming of gun rights supporters "a little quip" and had no comment on my article and great hope on the future, so maybe this is all a little joke to you anyways. I try not to assume I know what the other person is talking about, so is it?
|
Posting this here because I think it's also relevant in both threads.
The video in the link is quite loud, and a lot of gun fire, it literally sounds like a war zone for the time being. This was about 15mins from me. A man with an AK-47 went head to head with police.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article218773495.html
A man who was at the center of an armed kidnapping FBI case was shot and killed late Thursday by police after he fired at several officers with an assault rifle, police said.
Rapid gunfire erupted near Northwest 72nd Avenue and Seventh Street — just blocks away from Miami International Airport. Police officials said City of Miami police and Miami-Dade police were working with the FBI in an ongoing kidnapping case when the shooting happened.
“The FBI was investigating a fugitive case. The suspect of this investigation fled the scene. And he was armed,” FBI spokesman Brian Waterman told reporters early Friday. “He [the suspect] was involved in a hate crime investigation.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
