Camera Hogg Compares Shootings To Shark Attacks

[GURPS]

[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1062700458341482496[/TWITTER]


For gun-rights activists, the idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun is a prevalent talking point. In Hogg’s analogy, that would mean finding good sharks to stop the bad sharks. If we could train sharks like that, well, that would be awesome.

If we took Hogg’s analogy to its logical conclusion for gun-control activists, the picture gets pretty silly. It also illustrates the problems with gun-control arguments.

Banning sharks, as many activists want for guns, would mean killing sharks or – gasp – building a wall to keep them out of our waters. Putting severe restrictions on sharks wouldn’t work either, as sharks aren’t going to listen.



David Hogg Compares Shootings To Shark Attacks. There’s Just One Problem.

 

[Salmon]

I can’t wait to finally get some sensible gun control measures. Americans sent a loud message last week. The House better gave gotten message. And to Gilligan and his ilk, I have already articulated my suggestions previously. #guncontrolnow

 

[CPUSA]

And where will these measures go to die their miserable deaths JPC?

 

[Gilligan]

I can’t wait to finally get some sensible gun control measures.

What measures would those be? Be specific. Explain in detail how your proposals will reduce gun violence. Use recent examples for your arguments.

How are they going to get past the Senate?

 

[Gilligan]

In Hogg’s analogy,

That a remarkably poor analogy. But considering the source....

 

[GURPS]

I can’t wait to finally get some sensible gun control measures.

yeah Be Specific What Measures ....

Americans sent a loud message last week. The House better gave gotten message.

yeah the Blue Swirl was SOooooo Impressive

And to Gilligan and his ilk, I have already articulated my suggestions previously. #guncontrolnow

you haven't articulated ####

 

[Sapidus]

What measures would those be? Be specific. Explain in detail how your proposals will reduce gun violence. Use recent examples for your arguments.

How are they going to get past the Senate?

Why? You never do any of that?

 

[Gilligan]

Why? You never do any of that?

I do it quite often. You never support your garbage canned narratives. I'm quite certain that is simply because you cannot. Fishboi can't either.

 

[Sapidus]

yeah Be Specific What Measures ....






yeah the Blue Swirl was SOooooo Impressive

you haven't articulated ####

Stop lying. Are you paid by the Koch Bros to post this idiotic propaganda?

It's the most House seats gained by Democrats since the wave election following Watergate. Nixon resigned in August of 1974, leading to Democrats' pick up of 48 seats that fall.

In 2006, the last time Democrats took over the House, when George W. Bush was president and the Iraq war was spiraling into civil war, Democrats gained 30 seats. They picked up another 26 in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president. What's more, this cycle's seats are far-more gerrymandered to favor Republicans than those were.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/14/6678...rats-pick-up-most-house-seats-in-a-generation

 

[Sapidus]

I do it quite often. You never support your garbage canned narratives.

All you do is lie and bitch and cry about Obama and make stuff up with no facts, links or verifiable information.

 

[Gilligan]

Stop lying. Are you paid by the Koch Bros to post this idiotic propaganda?

It's the most House seats gained by Democrats since the wave election following Watergate. Nixon resigned in August of 1974, leading to Democrats' pick up of 48 seats that fall.

In 2006, the last time Democrats took over the House, when George W. Bush was president and the Iraq war was spiraling into civil war, Democrats gained 30 seats. They picked up another 26 in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president. What's more, this cycle's seats are far-more gerrymandered to favor Republicans than those were.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/14/6678...rats-pick-up-most-house-seats-in-a-generation

How about that Senate though, eh? ;-)

 

[Gilligan]

All you do is lie and bitch and cry about Obama and make stuff up with no facts, links or verifiable information.

See..there you went. Just like I said. You got nothing...you post nothing. Gutter dwelling parrots.

 

[Sapidus]

How about that Senate though, eh? ;-)

The senate was never in play due to gerrymandering.

But look how close Beto got in Texas , Abrams in Georgia. The world is changing and bigots and small minded people like you are being left behind.


Trumps base is eroding and now the House will move to impeach him and force him to release his tax returns. It's gonna be a rough 2 years for you

And I posted a link to prove my point like i usually do yet again. you just run your mouth with unfounded opinion

 

[Gilligan]

The senate was never in play due to gerrymandering.

But look how close Beto got in Texas , Abrams in Georgia. The world is changing and bigots and small minded people like you are being left behind.


Trumps base is eroding and now the House will move to impeach him and force him to release his tax returns. It's gonna be a rough 2 years for you

How about that Senate though, eh? ;-) Your lefty gun grabbing heros in the House won't get anything crazy past the Senate.

 

[GURPS]

Stop lying.

If the midterms were a referendum, Trump won


Republicans also had more than twice as many “open” House seats to hold on to as their Democratic rivals had: 36 Republican representatives chose not to stand for reelection this year because they were retiring or seeking another office. Seven others either resigned or otherwise left office before the election. As a result, Republicans had 43 House seats to defend without the benefit of a true incumbent candidate. On top of this, Republicans had three “open” Senate seats, and one more with a pseudo-incumbent (interim Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith took office in April).

Yet Democrats managed to win surprisingly few of these “open” contests. In the vast majority of cases, a new Republican was elected instead, and they tended to be even closer to Trump than their predecessors. So Trump actually cemented his hold over the Republican Party: Most of his staunchest Republican critics have either stepped down, been removed through a primary challenge or otherwise failed to win reelection. On top of this, many of the Senate Democrats who voted against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh from the states that Trump won in 2016 were voted out of office and replaced by Republicans.

Historically speaking, Democrats delivered a thoroughly average result in their first round as Trump’s opposition. Going all the way back to the Civil War, there were only two instances when a new party seized the presidency but didn’t lose seats in the House during their first midterm elections: Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 (during the Great Depression), and President George W. Bush in 2002 (in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). Even including these outliers, the average attrition during a party’s inaugural midterms is 35 House seats; excluding these two exceptions, the average loss is 41. Regardless of which number we run with, Trump could end up performing better than average in preserving his party’s influence in the House. He performed much better than his last two Democratic predecessors: Bill Clinton lost control of both chambers in the 1994 midterm elections. Barack Obama saw historic losses in the House in 2010, and lost seats in the Senate as well — the most sweeping congression

Are you paid by the Koch Bros to post this idiotic propaganda?

Anyone or Anything that does not conform to YOUR World View is Either Ignorant, Uneducated, Propaganda or Selfish ..... a Russian Bot or a Russian Troll From Minsk

Every post you make is against anyone or any group that doesn't conform to your propagandist viewpoints.

 

[GURPS]

The senate was never in play due to gerrymandering.

Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION

 

[Gilligan]

The senate was never in play due to gerrymandering.

You poor braindead fool...Senators are elected by state...not by district. No "gerrymandering" possible.

 

[Sapidus]

If the midterms were a referendum, Trump won


Republicans also had more than twice as many “open” House seats to hold on to as their Democratic rivals had: 36 Republican representatives chose not to stand for reelection this year because they were retiring or seeking another office. Seven others either resigned or otherwise left office before the election. As a result, Republicans had 43 House seats to defend without the benefit of a true incumbent candidate. On top of this, Republicans had three “open” Senate seats, and one more with a pseudo-incumbent (interim Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith took office in April).

Yet Democrats managed to win surprisingly few of these “open” contests. In the vast majority of cases, a new Republican was elected instead, and they tended to be even closer to Trump than their predecessors. So Trump actually cemented his hold over the Republican Party: Most of his staunchest Republican critics have either stepped down, been removed through a primary challenge or otherwise failed to win reelection. On top of this, many of the Senate Democrats who voted against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh from the states that Trump won in 2016 were voted out of office and replaced by Republicans.

Historically speaking, Democrats delivered a thoroughly average result in their first round as Trump’s opposition. Going all the way back to the Civil War, there were only two instances when a new party seized the presidency but didn’t lose seats in the House during their first midterm elections: Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 (during the Great Depression), and President George W. Bush in 2002 (in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). Even including these outliers, the average attrition during a party’s inaugural midterms is 35 House seats; excluding these two exceptions, the average loss is 41. Regardless of which number we run with, Trump could end up performing better than average in preserving his party’s influence in the House. He performed much better than his last two Democratic predecessors: Bill Clinton lost control of both chambers in the 1994 midterm elections. Barack Obama saw historic losses in the House in 2010, and lost seats in the Senate as well — the most sweeping congression





Anyone or Anything that does not conform to YOUR World View is Either Ignorant, Uneducated, Propaganda or Selfish ..... a Russian Bot or a Russian Troll From Minsk

So it's okay for you to accuse everyone you disagree with of being paid by Soros but when someone says the same about you and the Koch bros its suddenly an outrage? I though the left were the snowflakes?


You've got yourself in such a froth you have no idea what you are even arguing anymore

 

[Gilligan]

So it's okay for you to accuse everyone you disagree with of being paid by Soros but when someone says the same about you and the Koch bros its suddenly an outrage? I though the left were the snowflakes?


You've got yourself in such a froth you have no idea what you are even arguing anymore

psssy..Sappy..while you were not paying attention, The Kochs have started throwing their money at more liberal or moderate causes these days and are not Trump fans. Sorry you missed the memo.

 

[MiddleGround]

What measures would those be? Be specific. Explain in detail how your proposals will reduce gun violence. Use recent examples for your arguments.

How are they going to get past the Senate?

Why? You never do any of that?

I do it quite often. You never support your garbage canned narratives. I'm quite certain that is simply because you cannot. Fishboi can't either.

Holy sh!t.... that made my day!!!