I’m on the email list for the “Safety for All” ballot proposition coming up in November, put on the ballot and backed by the sitting California Lt. Governor, Gavin Newsom:
The emails that flow in daily are pretty much cheer leading and begging for donations, the standard deal, but last night I received this email:
Wanted to get in a quick note before the long weekend. You all did it again -- last night we hit a huge August goal for Safety for All, and I can't thank you enough.
We've got the best team in the world, and it's going to take a big push from all of us after Labor Day to get this done. We'll have a strong start thanks to you, and if we keep it up I really believe California voters will take down the NRA at the polls in Nov. and pass Prop. 63 to stop gun violence across our state.
So before the weekend, I have to ask one more favor. We've got a survey going to our best supporters about our final push for SFA/Prop. 63, and I'm hoping you could take a minute to share your thoughts:
http://ift.tt/2bYxxZ2
Shouldn't take more than a few mins max and would be a huge help to have your input.
Thanks loads. Enjoy the holiday weekend with friends and family, and expect more updates after on the eight weeks ahead.
-- Gavin
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX
So I decide to take the survey.
Newsom survey questions and my responses:
Q: Some people think it’s useless to pass gun reform, assuming that somebody who’s already decided to break one law won’t hesitate to break a new one too. But the facts show that’s wrong – an international study found that when you pass bundles of gun laws together, like we’re helping California voters to do, gun deaths often go down. Do you think it’s worth it to pass laws intended to stop existing criminal activity?
Answer options:
1. Yes, we have to try everything we can.
2. No, I worry that those people are right: You really can’t stop a criminal.
My response: #2
Comment box:
In California we don't even enforce existing criminal statues with regard to firearms. Convicted felons on parole or probation found in possession of firearms are simply being returned into custody without being charged for the California state penal code felony they could be charged with, or the federal felony charge they could face if the U. S. Attorney's office would get with the program. Project Exile worked in Richmond Va. and elsewhere, but failed in Oakland Ca. If actual prosecutions can't be undertaken, passing new laws aren't going to be any more effective than the current statutes in reducing crime and gun violence.
Q: That study looked at the U.S. and at the NRA too. Turns out gun laws backed by the NRA, like concealed carry and stand your ground, either didn’t change how many people die from gun violence or actually made things worse. Do you think we need to stand up to the NRA’s lies and do something that can actually work?
1. Yes, I’m tired of the gun lobby getting the last word on gun violence prevention.
2. No, gun reform efforts that alienate the NRA base will be hard to enforce. We should all work together because we all have to live together.
Response #2
Comment box:
We live in a world where stereotyping groups by the acts of individuals is generally forbidden with one notable exception - as clearly stated in your question. Many firearms owners are not NRA members, hold views on individual rights and social issues that can only be described as liberal, and are offended when individuals or groups focusing on violence reduction seek to reduce the discussion to "We of the White Hats" v. the evil NRA. When someone can address the issue in adult terms there may be movement towards reasonable, sensible compromise on the issue. The current political environment in California does not meet that criteria.
Q: More than 32,000 people die from gun violence each year – and in 2013 nearly 3,000 of them were Californians. I’ve got to believe we can do something about that if we come together – do you agree? Do you think taking this issue directly to voters will lead to better outcomes than we’ve gotten from Congress?
1. Yes, we can do this if we all fight together.
2. No, seeing our most powerful leaders fail to get this done makes me feel helpless to do anything as a private citizen.
Response: #1
Comment box:
The last time there was a state-wide ballot proposition addressing gun violence the media predictions had it (Prop. 15) winning in a landslide, and also predicted the candidate for Governor that supported the measure as winning. Tom Bradley lost his bid for Governor and Prop. 15 failed at around a 2 to 1 margin, only gaining majorities in S.F. and Marin counties. The state must address this issue in a way that doesn't demonize firearms or firearms owners, and unfortunately for the victims of gun violence no one in the legislature can wrap their head around this simple fact.
Q: One survey can’t cover everything, but I’m so grateful to hear what you think – can’t tell you how much it helps. Is there anything else you want me to know?
Comment box:
At some point, politicians and individuals that seek to reduce gun violence, and also the use of firearms in suicide (which is lumped together in this survey and elsewhere) will need to address the fact that the monolithic NRA is evil and gun owners are cretins memo that they have been promoting since the 1994 crime bill hasn’t worked and is counterproductive and guarantees maximum resistance in the firearms owners community.
Every single instance of the successful passage of a gun control statute that is described in the media or by politicians as "a good first step" only plays into the fears of the individuals you need to have supporting these laws.
San Francisco has twice attempted to ban handguns, banned firearms across the board in public housing, and has in fact been successful in forcing the last Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to close it doors, has lost every lawsuit on the handgun and public housing bans at taxpayers expense, and not one thing has changed with regard to violent crime. Observers can't help but take note of the fact that it appears that the *concept* of gun control is more important to the city supervisors and city hall than actual crime reduction measures and they are willing to spend tax dollars to prove their point whether their efforts are upheld in court or not. To San Francisco politicians, it's apparently better to feel good about acting against gun violence than it is to actually do something with quantifiable results, and gun owners or the NRA serve as a scapegoat to blame for the failure of their policies, proposed or enacted.
That to me is the crux of the whole issue - where the folks that support laws that reduce gun violence through supply side restrictions or the restriction on certain classes of firearms fail is that they aren't concerned with quantifiable results, they are only concerned with the appearance that they have taken measures to reduce violence.
Until someone comes up with a plan that protects firearms owners from confiscatory laws and restrictive statutes that can also be demonstrated as having a positive violence reduction effect, no real progress on the issue will be possible.
final question in my words: How much will you pay me to complete this survey?
Final question in survey:
Thanks so much for taking this time. This team is so close to passing real gun reform and saving lives. Really appreciate all you’re doing to make this happen. Can you give $5 today to get us closer to that finish line? – Gavin
Yes, I’ll give $5!
Yes, but I’ll give more!
Donate now to join the movement against gun violence!
Through a historic ballot initiative, we can defeat the NRA by giving voters the power to enact commonsense gun reforms that will save lives.
But we need your donation to win. Please give today to help us defeat the NRA!
**There are no contribution limits for this campaign**
$0.02 Your Contribution
Please choose a contribution amount before continuing.
Your contribution will benefit Safety for All.
$5 $25 $50 $100 $250 $500
$.02
Contribution Rules
This contribution is made from my own funds, and funds are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
I am at least eighteen years old.
I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident (i.e., green card holder).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The survey can only be submitted with a minimum donation of $5.00….I attempted to contribute two cents to go with my .02 on the subject, but it wasn’t accepted. Interested parties can go the survey to see for for themselves.
I’m also on the email list for various pro-2nd Amendment groups and other political causes as well and they usually beg for money too, but the funny thing is that I’ve never encountered one that required me to make a donation before I was allowed to comment on an issue or complete an opinion poll, and believe it or not some surveys are much more nuanced in suggested responses that Newsoms' but maybe the grown-ups are actually interested in discussion as opposed to cheer leading.
It’s also interesting to note that Newsom is running this ballot proposition this year rather than next when he runs for Governor – He without a doubt knows that Prop. 15 sunk Tom Bradley, and if SFA goes down in flames like Prop 15 did, he’ll simply position it as the Ebil NRA v. Little ‘ol me that only wants to reduce violence, and if it does win (and survives the fight over who gets to claim the title of California gun banner #1 - Kevin Deleon had a package of bills signed into law this year that address the SFA issues, and he and Newsom are in a celebrity death match over who the top cute guy in California politics will be) he hopes he'll ride that dog right into the Gov. mansion.
I’ll leave you with this, and I wish I had come up with it, but a friend made this observation:
“Of course Newsom wants to ban firearms – any guy whose hobby is banging married gals has to be worried about catching a bad case of lead poisoning.”
http://ift.tt/2bYxtso
“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office, City Hall sources said.
Alex Tourk, 39, who served as Newsom's deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the mayor after his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, told him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse, said the sources, who had direct knowledge of Wednesday's meeting.
The emails that flow in daily are pretty much cheer leading and begging for donations, the standard deal, but last night I received this email:
Wanted to get in a quick note before the long weekend. You all did it again -- last night we hit a huge August goal for Safety for All, and I can't thank you enough.
We've got the best team in the world, and it's going to take a big push from all of us after Labor Day to get this done. We'll have a strong start thanks to you, and if we keep it up I really believe California voters will take down the NRA at the polls in Nov. and pass Prop. 63 to stop gun violence across our state.
So before the weekend, I have to ask one more favor. We've got a survey going to our best supporters about our final push for SFA/Prop. 63, and I'm hoping you could take a minute to share your thoughts:
http://ift.tt/2bYxxZ2
Shouldn't take more than a few mins max and would be a huge help to have your input.
Thanks loads. Enjoy the holiday weekend with friends and family, and expect more updates after on the eight weeks ahead.
-- Gavin
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX
So I decide to take the survey.
Newsom survey questions and my responses:
Q: Some people think it’s useless to pass gun reform, assuming that somebody who’s already decided to break one law won’t hesitate to break a new one too. But the facts show that’s wrong – an international study found that when you pass bundles of gun laws together, like we’re helping California voters to do, gun deaths often go down. Do you think it’s worth it to pass laws intended to stop existing criminal activity?
Answer options:
1. Yes, we have to try everything we can.
2. No, I worry that those people are right: You really can’t stop a criminal.
My response: #2
Comment box:
In California we don't even enforce existing criminal statues with regard to firearms. Convicted felons on parole or probation found in possession of firearms are simply being returned into custody without being charged for the California state penal code felony they could be charged with, or the federal felony charge they could face if the U. S. Attorney's office would get with the program. Project Exile worked in Richmond Va. and elsewhere, but failed in Oakland Ca. If actual prosecutions can't be undertaken, passing new laws aren't going to be any more effective than the current statutes in reducing crime and gun violence.
Q: That study looked at the U.S. and at the NRA too. Turns out gun laws backed by the NRA, like concealed carry and stand your ground, either didn’t change how many people die from gun violence or actually made things worse. Do you think we need to stand up to the NRA’s lies and do something that can actually work?
1. Yes, I’m tired of the gun lobby getting the last word on gun violence prevention.
2. No, gun reform efforts that alienate the NRA base will be hard to enforce. We should all work together because we all have to live together.
Response #2
Comment box:
We live in a world where stereotyping groups by the acts of individuals is generally forbidden with one notable exception - as clearly stated in your question. Many firearms owners are not NRA members, hold views on individual rights and social issues that can only be described as liberal, and are offended when individuals or groups focusing on violence reduction seek to reduce the discussion to "We of the White Hats" v. the evil NRA. When someone can address the issue in adult terms there may be movement towards reasonable, sensible compromise on the issue. The current political environment in California does not meet that criteria.
Q: More than 32,000 people die from gun violence each year – and in 2013 nearly 3,000 of them were Californians. I’ve got to believe we can do something about that if we come together – do you agree? Do you think taking this issue directly to voters will lead to better outcomes than we’ve gotten from Congress?
1. Yes, we can do this if we all fight together.
2. No, seeing our most powerful leaders fail to get this done makes me feel helpless to do anything as a private citizen.
Response: #1
Comment box:
The last time there was a state-wide ballot proposition addressing gun violence the media predictions had it (Prop. 15) winning in a landslide, and also predicted the candidate for Governor that supported the measure as winning. Tom Bradley lost his bid for Governor and Prop. 15 failed at around a 2 to 1 margin, only gaining majorities in S.F. and Marin counties. The state must address this issue in a way that doesn't demonize firearms or firearms owners, and unfortunately for the victims of gun violence no one in the legislature can wrap their head around this simple fact.
Q: One survey can’t cover everything, but I’m so grateful to hear what you think – can’t tell you how much it helps. Is there anything else you want me to know?
Comment box:
At some point, politicians and individuals that seek to reduce gun violence, and also the use of firearms in suicide (which is lumped together in this survey and elsewhere) will need to address the fact that the monolithic NRA is evil and gun owners are cretins memo that they have been promoting since the 1994 crime bill hasn’t worked and is counterproductive and guarantees maximum resistance in the firearms owners community.
Every single instance of the successful passage of a gun control statute that is described in the media or by politicians as "a good first step" only plays into the fears of the individuals you need to have supporting these laws.
San Francisco has twice attempted to ban handguns, banned firearms across the board in public housing, and has in fact been successful in forcing the last Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to close it doors, has lost every lawsuit on the handgun and public housing bans at taxpayers expense, and not one thing has changed with regard to violent crime. Observers can't help but take note of the fact that it appears that the *concept* of gun control is more important to the city supervisors and city hall than actual crime reduction measures and they are willing to spend tax dollars to prove their point whether their efforts are upheld in court or not. To San Francisco politicians, it's apparently better to feel good about acting against gun violence than it is to actually do something with quantifiable results, and gun owners or the NRA serve as a scapegoat to blame for the failure of their policies, proposed or enacted.
That to me is the crux of the whole issue - where the folks that support laws that reduce gun violence through supply side restrictions or the restriction on certain classes of firearms fail is that they aren't concerned with quantifiable results, they are only concerned with the appearance that they have taken measures to reduce violence.
Until someone comes up with a plan that protects firearms owners from confiscatory laws and restrictive statutes that can also be demonstrated as having a positive violence reduction effect, no real progress on the issue will be possible.
final question in my words: How much will you pay me to complete this survey?
Final question in survey:
Thanks so much for taking this time. This team is so close to passing real gun reform and saving lives. Really appreciate all you’re doing to make this happen. Can you give $5 today to get us closer to that finish line? – Gavin
Yes, I’ll give $5!
Yes, but I’ll give more!
Donate now to join the movement against gun violence!
Through a historic ballot initiative, we can defeat the NRA by giving voters the power to enact commonsense gun reforms that will save lives.
But we need your donation to win. Please give today to help us defeat the NRA!
**There are no contribution limits for this campaign**
$0.02 Your Contribution
Please choose a contribution amount before continuing.
Your contribution will benefit Safety for All.
$5 $25 $50 $100 $250 $500
$.02
Contribution Rules
This contribution is made from my own funds, and funds are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
I am at least eighteen years old.
I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident (i.e., green card holder).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The survey can only be submitted with a minimum donation of $5.00….I attempted to contribute two cents to go with my .02 on the subject, but it wasn’t accepted. Interested parties can go the survey to see for for themselves.
I’m also on the email list for various pro-2nd Amendment groups and other political causes as well and they usually beg for money too, but the funny thing is that I’ve never encountered one that required me to make a donation before I was allowed to comment on an issue or complete an opinion poll, and believe it or not some surveys are much more nuanced in suggested responses that Newsoms' but maybe the grown-ups are actually interested in discussion as opposed to cheer leading.
It’s also interesting to note that Newsom is running this ballot proposition this year rather than next when he runs for Governor – He without a doubt knows that Prop. 15 sunk Tom Bradley, and if SFA goes down in flames like Prop 15 did, he’ll simply position it as the Ebil NRA v. Little ‘ol me that only wants to reduce violence, and if it does win (and survives the fight over who gets to claim the title of California gun banner #1 - Kevin Deleon had a package of bills signed into law this year that address the SFA issues, and he and Newsom are in a celebrity death match over who the top cute guy in California politics will be) he hopes he'll ride that dog right into the Gov. mansion.
I’ll leave you with this, and I wish I had come up with it, but a friend made this observation:
“Of course Newsom wants to ban firearms – any guy whose hobby is banging married gals has to be worried about catching a bad case of lead poisoning.”
http://ift.tt/2bYxtso
“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office, City Hall sources said.
Alex Tourk, 39, who served as Newsom's deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the mayor after his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, told him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse, said the sources, who had direct knowledge of Wednesday's meeting.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2bYyBvQ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire