1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
May 18, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 484th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 18, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 484th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 93 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

More you might like

May 19, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 485th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 19, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 485th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 94 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

a concerned citizen, PLBMay 17, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 483rd letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of...

a concerned citizen, PLBMay 17, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 483rd letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 92 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

May 16, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 482nd letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 16, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 482nd letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 91 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

May 15, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 481st letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 15, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 481st letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 90 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

May 14, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 480th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 14, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 480th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 89 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

May 13, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 479th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 13, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 479th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 88 days since Parkland. Many opponents of gun control argue that limits on gun ownership are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents often emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part while ignoring the other clause about the right being connected to a “well regulated Militia,” but nobody’s perfect. Even emphasizing the “right” component, however, if we slow down and think about what an absolute right to bear arms would look like, it’s clear that even the people making the argument don’t believe in it. If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment. Slightly more reasonable people may concede that point and argue that Americans at least have a right to own military grade weapons, claiming that the Founding Fathers intended as much. But the truth is that we have no way of knowing what men who lived in the era of muskets would think of assault rifles. Anyone who says otherwise is some combination of insincere or foolish.

The two primary prongs of the “gun control doesn’t work” argument are that: 1) gun control does not reduce gun deaths largely because 2) it does not actually make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. One fundamental problem with this argument is that gun control can mean a number of different things. So making the general statement “gun control doesn’t work” without referencing a specific proposal is kind of like saying “this food tastes bad” before know what’s on the menu.

To be fair, both sides of this argument can always find evidence to support their position. Gun control advocates can point to Australia, where both suicide and murder rates plummeted after a national gun buyback of over 650,000 guns in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, opponents can correctly state that Chicago has strict gun laws but an alarmingly high rate of firearm related deaths. Anyone can cherry-pick a city, state, or country to support their argument, which is why we need a larger sample size. Luckily, we have a few large samples. One is called the United States. Another is called Earth. And both large samples establish a consistent correlation: places with more guns generally have more gun deaths than places with fewer guns. It’s not always true. But it’s usually true. And if something usually works, it seems foolish not to try it in this country, especially in light of our absurd level of gun ownership—we have 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 42 percent of civilian owned guns.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

a concerned citizen,

PLB

May 12, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 478th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 12, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 478th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 87 days since Parkland. Well-adjusted individuals don’t arm themselves to the teeth and go on shooting sprees. People set on doing others in can choose from among a variety of means to accomplish the task. An occasional gun-toting bystander may, by chance, be able to take out a mass shooter before the latter has finished. Indeed, it is by no means certain that gun control measures would have prevented any of the mass killings that have become the new normal. Here, though, is the unseen fallacy employed by the Second Amendment fetishists. To constitute sound, life-preserving legislation, restrictions on the availability of guns and ammunition needn’t prevent all gun-related carnage.

An analogy: knowing full well that murders will inevitably occur in a nation of 300 million people, we nonetheless adopt homicide laws and punish violators we manage to apprehend. If, instead, we were to reason — as gun control opponents would have us do with gun restrictions — that homicide laws are inappropriate since they are not perfect deterrents, we’d be stepping over dead bodies as we stroll down the sidewalk.

The best that homicide law or gun restrictions or any prohibition against harmful conduct can do is deter some of the people who would otherwise engage in the prohibited conduct. In fact, though, even a modest measure, like banning the semi-automatic attack rifles used in many of this decade’s mass shootings, would, over time, save any number of innocent lives.

The gun lobby’s emphasis of the imperfection of gun restrictions is an example of what in formal logic is called a “red herring” argument, in which the speaker’s argument deflects attention from the issue at hand. In this case, the issue at hand is whether gun control measures are likely to save some — but not all — of the many lives now lost through gunfire, and the “red herring” is the assertion of the NRA and other opponents of restrictions that many lives will still be lost.

Though they hold truth, the tired arguments trotted out after mass murders like the one in Parkland to maintain the easy availability of attack weapons are pretexts to preserve the age-old accoutrement that makes men feel like men. Through a rhetorical sleight of hand, the incomplete prevention of gun deaths through tighter restrictions has become an argument to do nothing.

Whatever the fate of efforts to impose stiffer gun restrictions, it’s time to pull the curtain back on the serious illogic of the gun-control opponents.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

A concerned citizen,

PLB

May 11, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 477th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 11, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 477th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 86 days since Parkland. Well-adjusted individuals don’t arm themselves to the teeth and go on shooting sprees. People set on doing others in can choose from among a variety of means to accomplish the task. An occasional gun-toting bystander may, by chance, be able to take out a mass shooter before the latter has finished. Indeed, it is by no means certain that gun control measures would have prevented any of the mass killings that have become the new normal. Here, though, is the unseen fallacy employed by the Second Amendment fetishists. To constitute sound, life-preserving legislation, restrictions on the availability of guns and ammunition needn’t prevent all gun-related carnage.

An analogy: knowing full well that murders will inevitably occur in a nation of 300 million people, we nonetheless adopt homicide laws and punish violators we manage to apprehend. If, instead, we were to reason — as gun control opponents would have us do with gun restrictions — that homicide laws are inappropriate since they are not perfect deterrents, we’d be stepping over dead bodies as we stroll down the sidewalk.

The best that homicide law or gun restrictions or any prohibition against harmful conduct can do is deter some of the people who would otherwise engage in the prohibited conduct. In fact, though, even a modest measure, like banning the semi-automatic attack rifles used in many of this decade’s mass shootings, would, over time, save any number of innocent lives.

The gun lobby’s emphasis of the imperfection of gun restrictions is an example of what in formal logic is called a “red herring” argument, in which the speaker’s argument deflects attention from the issue at hand. In this case, the issue at hand is whether gun control measures are likely to save some — but not all — of the many lives now lost through gunfire, and the “red herring” is the assertion of the NRA and other opponents of restrictions that many lives will still be lost.

Though they hold truth, the tired arguments trotted out after mass murders like the one in Parkland to maintain the easy availability of attack weapons are pretexts to preserve the age-old accoutrement that makes men feel like men. Through a rhetorical sleight of hand, the incomplete prevention of gun deaths through tighter restrictions has become an argument to do nothing.

Whatever the fate of efforts to impose stiffer gun restrictions, it’s time to pull the curtain back on the serious illogic of the gun-control opponents.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

A concerned citizen, PLB

May 10, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 476th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 10, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 476th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 85 days since Parkland. Well-adjusted individuals don’t arm themselves to the teeth and go on shooting sprees. People set on doing others in can choose from among a variety of means to accomplish the task. An occasional gun-toting bystander may, by chance, be able to take out a mass shooter before the latter has finished. Indeed, it is by no means certain that gun control measures would have prevented any of the mass killings that have become the new normal. Here, though, is the unseen fallacy employed by the Second Amendment fetishists. To constitute sound, life-preserving legislation, restrictions on the availability of guns and ammunition needn’t prevent all gun-related carnage.

An analogy: knowing full well that murders will inevitably occur in a nation of 300 million people, we nonetheless adopt homicide laws and punish violators we manage to apprehend. If, instead, we were to reason — as gun control opponents would have us do with gun restrictions — that homicide laws are inappropriate since they are not perfect deterrents, we’d be stepping over dead bodies as we stroll down the sidewalk.

The best that homicide law or gun restrictions or any prohibition against harmful conduct can do is deter some of the people who would otherwise engage in the prohibited conduct. In fact, though, even a modest measure, like banning the semi-automatic attack rifles used in many of this decade’s mass shootings, would, over time, save any number of innocent lives.

The gun lobby’s emphasis of the imperfection of gun restrictions is an example of what in formal logic is called a “red herring” argument, in which the speaker’s argument deflects attention from the issue at hand. In this case, the issue at hand is whether gun control measures are likely to save some — but not all — of the many lives now lost through gunfire, and the “red herring” is the assertion of the NRA and other opponents of restrictions that many lives will still be lost.

Though they hold truth, the tired arguments trotted out after mass murders like the one in Parkland to maintain the easy availability of attack weapons are pretexts to preserve the age-old accoutrement that makes men feel like men. Through a rhetorical sleight of hand, the incomplete prevention of gun deaths through tighter restrictions has become an argument to do nothing.

Whatever the fate of efforts to impose stiffer gun restrictions, it’s time to pull the curtain back on the serious illogic of the gun-control opponents.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

A concerned citizen,

PLB

May 9, 2018 Dear Mr. Trump, This is my 475th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself....

May 9, 2018

Dear Mr. Trump,

This is my 475th letter to you. I will be writing you a letter every day of your presidency. The purpose of this letter is to remind you that your words, actions, and decisions impact millions of Americans such as myself. This is not a game. Let’s talk about something you don’t understand but need to.

Gun control NOW! It has been 84 days since Parkland. Well-adjusted individuals don’t arm themselves to the teeth and go on shooting sprees. People set on doing others in can choose from among a variety of means to accomplish the task. An occasional gun-toting bystander may, by chance, be able to take out a mass shooter before the latter has finished. Indeed, it is by no means certain that gun control measures would have prevented any of the mass killings that have become the new normal. Here, though, is the unseen fallacy employed by the Second Amendment fetishists. To constitute sound, life-preserving legislation, restrictions on the availability of guns and ammunition needn’t prevent all gun-related carnage.

An analogy: knowing full well that murders will inevitably occur in a nation of 300 million people, we nonetheless adopt homicide laws and punish violators we manage to apprehend. If, instead, we were to reason — as gun control opponents would have us do with gun restrictions — that homicide laws are inappropriate since they are not perfect deterrents, we’d be stepping over dead bodies as we stroll down the sidewalk.

The best that homicide law or gun restrictions or any prohibition against harmful conduct can do is deter some of the people who would otherwise engage in the prohibited conduct. In fact, though, even a modest measure, like banning the semi-automatic attack rifles used in many of this decade’s mass shootings, would, over time, save any number of innocent lives.

The gun lobby’s emphasis of the imperfection of gun restrictions is an example of what in formal logic is called a “red herring” argument, in which the speaker’s argument deflects attention from the issue at hand. In this case, the issue at hand is whether gun control measures are likely to save some — but not all — of the many lives now lost through gunfire, and the “red herring” is the assertion of the NRA and other opponents of restrictions that many lives will still be lost.

Though they hold truth, the tired arguments trotted out after mass murders like the one in Parkland to maintain the easy availability of attack weapons are pretexts to preserve the age-old accoutrement that makes men feel like men. Through a rhetorical sleight of hand, the incomplete prevention of gun deaths through tighter restrictions has become an argument to do nothing.

Whatever the fate of efforts to impose stiffer gun restrictions, it’s time to pull the curtain back on the serious illogic of the gun-control opponents.

You have the ability to make the world and America a better place. Do not throw away your shot. Your actions touch millions of lives. Every day, I will share a topic that deserves your attention – and your respect.

A concerned citizen, PLB

See this in the app Show more
Top Photos