Quote of the day—Amy Sherman

Hastings said, “In 2018, we endured a school shooting nearly once a week.”

He arrived at that figure by looking at the 24 school shootings documented by Education Week and dividing that into a 180-day school year. (If we applied the same math to a calendar year, it would work out to half that amount.)

A statement about the number of school shootings warrants an explanation of what types of shootings were included. The Education Week database includes any K-12 shooting on a school property during school or a school event that resulted in injury or death. That means it includes both indiscriminate mass shootings as well as other types of incidents such as fights in a parking lot after a football game or an accidental shooting.

Hastings’ statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details about the database he cited. We rate this statement Half True.

Amy Sherman
February 11, 2019
Was there one school shooting a week in 2018, as a Florida lawmaker said?
[That’s being very generous to Hastings. It was a deliberate exaggeration to push a political agenda to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

They lie. It’s part of their culture.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Amy Sherman

  1. Gun control is like annuities. Anything they have to push that hard to sell to the general population, there’re some things they don’t want you to look at more closely

  2. Pingback: Gun Bits … | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  3. It’s simple; they start with the desire to ban the keeping and bearing of arms (A), and then they have to come up with the rationalizations for doing so (B).

    So long as we understand the order of operations (A leads to B), then it all makes sense. So it is that we should never be exasperated over the boldness and the audacity of the lies, but rather we should expect them as a matter of course. It’s politics 101; you want to be an office-holder, so now you have to recruit some allies (or join the sons of bitches), come up with a campaign strategy and make up some selling points for yourself while slandering or otherwise degrading your opponents. Whatever it takes to get the job done is a job well done. If you’re good enough at it, you’ll have a future as a campaign manager and you can work for “both sides” as the opportunities present themselves.

    We face an enemy which believes, in every fiber of its being, that standing, consistent and firm, on principles, and on truth, is for suckers and dolts.

    If truth and principles are the enemy’s worst nightmare then, they are likewise our greatest strength (and in fact our only hope).

    But wait; if we focus more on the lies (B) than on the motivation for those lies (A), and on the truth, then we miss the point.

    One method then would be to point out the lie, but then go on to explain the fact that one must have a motivation to tell a lie, and take it from here. Now you’ve gone straight into principle, and truth, where the enemy cannot go.

    The next phase of course is, you’ll be personally attacked for it, and so now the challenge is to keep the conversation on the principles and the truth, not on you. It isn’t easy. You’ll find yourself defending yourself before you knew what happened (you can be derailed in few seconds), and then you’re off-topic and right where the enemy wants you; on his turf. “This isn’t about me” is a good phrase to keep in your fast-draw holster. A relative simpleton, having a command of the language, may defend the truth as well as a holder of several PhDs.

Comments are closed.