While this fact has been known to anyone doing the slightest bit of research, a recent chart done up by one group shows the relationship between stricter gun laws and gun deaths. And lo and behold, once again we learn that gun control works.
What they did is take the state with the least amount of gun deaths per capita (Massachusetts) and assign it a zero on the scale and the state with the most (Arizona) and assign it 100, and then compared the strictness of the gun laws in each state.
No matter what the gun lovers say, gun laws work. We see this in states that have strong gun laws and in countries that do.
You’d think this would be common sense, right?
(Here’s a link with more detail about how this chart was made.) Please stop messaging me about “my chart.” I didn’t make it.
What is it about America that causes us to have so many mass shootings? What makes us different? Why don’t other countries have this problem?
“Clearly, it’s a mental health issue,” claim the Republicans, while slashing the budget for mental health and taking away the mental health background check requirements for gun purchases.
“Other countries have mental health issues,” we reply, “yet they don’t have this problem.”
“Look! A squirrel!” they reply while stuffing wads of money into their pockets from the NRA.
The fact is that while we have 4.4% of the world’s population, we own 42% of the world’s guns. And those guns aren’t evenly spread out among Americans. Only about 23% of all Americans own guns, but 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns. And I’d be willing to bet that 99% of all the mass shootings come from that 3%.
So we Americans are allowing ourselves to be the deadliest advanced country in the world for the sake of 3% of the population that probably has mental problems we are not addressing. (For the record, the only countries with more gun violence per capita are poorer, less-developed places: Uruguay, Panama, Brazil, Columbia, Jamaica, Guatamala, Swaziland, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Honduras.)
But the Republican solution to gun violence here in America? “Let’s do nothing! Maybe that will work.”
I’m trying to summarize this memo that has the GOP all a-twitter. Let’s see if I got it straight.
Our intelligence agents knew Carter Page was in deep with the Russians, had given speeches in Russia about how great Russia was, and was suspected to be a Russian agent. 
They knew he was also working with the Trump campaign and was probably involved with deals between the campaign and Russia. They had already been following him and had a legitimate warrant to do so.
Their job is to gather information from whatever sources they can. They got a hold of a document that had information first gathered by Republicans trying to stop Trump and then Democrats trying to stop Trump. They used that information to obtain a second legitimate warrant. And then a third.
I think that’s it.
The GOP claims that the investigators looking into this and suspecting Trump of being a part of this were “biased” and therefore the investigation into this conspiracy should be suspended because it’s all made up (despite the fact that we already have people who have pled guilty).
Nowhere do I see any claim that the information in the document was incorrect or that the warrant wasn’t justified.
As for bias, allow me to say that I work with police officers every day, and when they have a suspect, yes, they tend to be “biased” against them. That’s kind of their job.
So. Can someone please tell me what all the fuss is about? What am I missing?
The extreme right wing of the Republican party demands purity. If you’re not radically conservative, you’re as bad as a Democrat. They’ve scared the GOP so much that reasonable members of the party are afraid to stand up to them. If it wasn’t for the Electoral College, gerrymandering and voter suppression, they would have destroyed the party by now. If nothing else, they’ve reduced the reputation of the GOP to the point where it’s at the lowest it has ever been.
And in many cases, they’ve lost because of it. Just take Roy Moore for an example. He won the Republican primary over a more moderate Republican after attacking him mercilessly, because the crazy right can’t stand anyone who might compromise. And this led to their ultimate defeat to a liberal Democrat in the general election, in Alabama of all places.
Demanding absolute purity from your candidates, rejecting anyone who isn’t as far to the extreme as you wish, and demonizing any of your own candidates who aren’t perfect is not a winning solution.
And too many Democrats haven’t learned that lesson.
In 2016, I was a Bernie supporter but I spent much time criticizing other Bernie supporters who constantly attacked Hillary, spreading lies and libel from various memes (many of which came straight from the Russians, giggling at how easy it was for us to help them).
What’s wrong with saying, “We have two good candidates here, but I prefer one over the other for these reasons”? Why do we decide that if you’re not completely on our side, you’re the enemy?
That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize our own; it doesn’t mean we can’t talk about their faults and encourage them to change their positions on issues where we disagree. But outright attacks on our own? How does that help us win in the long run?
We’re all on the same team ultimately and while we may disagree on some minor thing, we’re in agreement 80% of the time. Destroying each other and thus allowing the other party to win gives us someone we agree with 0% of the time.
And sometimes, maybe only 60% is all we’re going to get. Some states and districts are so red that we have to have moderates on our side or we’ll never win. Better to have a Democrat in there we agree with 60% of the time than a Republican we agree with 0%.
Ronald Reagan once joked that the 11th Commandment was “Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of any Fellow Republicans.” Maybe Democrats could learn something from the Gipper.
ventrellaquest.com 