Sanders Lowballs Vermont Gun Deaths by an Order of Magnitude

[George II]

Source: Seven Days VT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took to the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday morning to call for gun control legislation, but in doing so he understated the number of gun deaths in Vermont by an order of magnitude.

“In my small state of Vermont, between 2011 and 2016, 42 people were killed by guns,” Sanders said in his remarks.

That’s the same window of time Vermont Public Radio focused on last year in a series documenting gun deaths in Vermont, but Sanders’ figure was way off. VPR’s reporting, which was based on data provided by the Vermont Department of Health, found that 420 people were killed by guns between 2011 and 2016.

In his remarks on the Senate floor, Sanders did not cite a source for the number he used. It was also included in a press release his office issued Wednesday morning.

Read more: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/03/14/sanders-lowballs-vermont-gun-deaths-by-an-order-of-magnitude

---

Here's the VPR link to their report:

http://projects.vpr.net/gunshots-vermont-gun-data

[Grins]

1. A typo...?

“In my small state of Vermont...42 people were killed by guns,” Sanders said in his remarks.

Vermont Public Radio: 420 people were killed by guns between 2011 and 2016.

Left off the zero?

[murielm99]

2. Always excuses for Bernie

while he blames Democrats for everything.

[calimary]

12. Go home, Bernie. It's OVER.

[StevieM]

16. I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders but if he said 42, rather than 420, then that sounds like a typo

or a misread of his speech. He obviously missed a 0 at some point.

I admit it is ironic that so many of his young supporters are willing to let him change his position without question while HRC was not believed to have evolved. Hell, Hillary was accused of faking a new position on matters where she was always quite progressive and involved. Who would have ever guessed back in 1994 that Hillary Clinton would get hammered for not being liberal enough on health care?

[NurseJackie]

55. A spokesperson has clarified... it was intentional.

[Corvo Bianco]

61. Pardon? He intentionally doesn't want to mention 378 people who died of guns in Vermont?

Why 378?!!!!

[NurseJackie]

62. Making such a hair-splitting distinction makes things sound better than they really are.

Many people are now commenting about how deceptive they think it is... and they're also saying that this stunt has backfired.

[StevieM]

77. You're saying that a Sanders spokesperson has said that Bernie intentionally falsified numbers?

His own spokesperson unequivocally stated that Bernie deliberately set out to deceive people?

That seems unlikely.

[NurseJackie]

78. Yes it does "seem unlikely" but it's true.

His own spokesperson unequivocally stated that Bernie deliberately set out to deceive people?

Minus the verbal flourishes and hyperbole, it's clear that he was splitting hairs and deliberately choosing a much smaller subset of gun deaths so as to paint a rosier (albeit entirely inaccurate) picture.

[onit2day]

87. Nonsense.Give it up will ya.Nit picking is so petty in this circumstance.

I'm sure Bernie will correct it when he becomes aware of it. He doesn't give 'excuses' only explanations. He believes and follows the same things we democrats do. A dem by any other name still smells as sweet.

[BoneyardDem]

89. Nope Bernie didn't correct the mistake...did a double down instead.

his remarks on the Senate floor, Sanders did not cite a source for the number he used. It was also included in a press release his office issued Wednesday morning.

[OnlinePoker]

3. If you read the article, they think he might have meant homicides by gun

This number was 47 during the period and the remainder were suicides.

[CentralMass]

6. Don't cloud the message with facts.

[George II]

9. See post #7.

[Wwcd]

13. Stop clouding the facts as an appeal to both sides of an issue.

This isn't the first time.

[LanternWaste]

30. Less fact, and more an interpretation.

Less fact, and more an interpretation.

They are two wholly separate concepts. Easy to confuse the two, convenient to do it on purpose.

[Wwcd]

8. Then make a point to say what you mean. Stop leaving yourself an "out".

Apologies after the fact, seems to be a common way around trying to please both sides of an issue.

[George II]

10. "I voted for it because.........", "I voted against it because.........."

[Wwcd]

17. Exactly. And then move on to the next issue.

A % will hear it & question, the rest won't care..

[TheSmarterDog]

28. Like that matters.

[George II]

18. Typing a tweet on a telephone is entirely different than preparing a speech in advance...

...to be delivered on the floor of the Senate.

[Wwcd]

19. 42 is a long way from 420.

The fact that he is now questioned for why stating a low number, makes people suspicious when the truth is actually 420.

This pattern of mispeaks on what should be the truth, is raising eyebrows among many.
That he didn't even catch such a big difference in deaths, in his own small state, begs one to ask just how serious he is about taking on the gun rights industry.
Facts are critical tools when going up against the NRA lobby.
Know what you are speaking about, ffs.

Now we compare & excuse Sanders' gaf with Trump' gaf? Just a simple mistake, right?

You sure you even want to put them both in the same sentence? Sanders & Trump?

[Sherman A1]

20. I understand

All things Bernie are bad and there is no room for anything beyond that.

[Wwcd]

27. I understand it more like, " no ill must ever be spoken of sanders..."

Geezus he can indeed be called to answer for his misspeaks the same as anyone else.
He doesn't get immunity from his words & deeds, that is the law of cults, not politicians making laws for a naton of millions.

It is as fair to question his statements as any others.

[Cha]

94. Why doesn't BS correct his mistake then?

[KTM]

98. He didnt make one ?

The article explains exactly what happened. You didnt read it, did you ? Hey, while you're reading, go read that other Sanders thread... its illuminating.

[George II]

107. He did. He said:

“In my small state of Vermont, between 2011 and 2016, 42 people were killed by guns."

That is false.

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. How about y'all just read through the article

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2018, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

"Later, Sanders spokesman Dan McLean said that the senator had intended to describe gun homicides during that six-year period. Citing the VPR report, McLean noted that 47 Vermonters were killed by someone else in those years and that five of those incidents involved law enforcement, “making 42 the most accurate number we had.”


But no...to haters its all secret clues to the fact that he's not "serious (...) about taking on the gun rights industry". The rest of the speech be damned. He doesn't really mean it. He purposely said gun deaths rather than gun homicides. Its a wink wink nudge nudge to the NRA.

And when someone like Sherman A1, below, calls you out its a defensive, reactive: Why can't I pick away at every tiny thing that I can find on Sanders, even grammatical speech errors that I THINK he may have made, and then go off and interpret the sinister hidden meaning behind his so-called 'gaffe'? So what? Its a free country!

I really thought the butt hurt vindictiveness would be gone on DU by now. Its been almost 2 years since the primaries.

Even if this spokesman was also mistaken, what in Sanders overall speech did you oppose? Maybe point out something that will help give us all another clue to his sinister 3D chess game where while he is feigning support for gun legislation, he is really against it. Please list, thankyou.

[George II]

106. And yet the incorrect comment was made ON the record from the floor of the Senate...

...the "correction" was made by a spokesperson.

As for "feigning support for gun legislation", you can look up his record. It isn't stellar.

[LiberalLovinLug]

113. Yes. Either he or his speech writer mistook "homicides" with "deaths"

and the mistake was said on the Senate floor.

What on God's green Earth is the mountain you want to create with all this George? That it was some sinister plot to....what? What could he possibly gain from purposely fudging a number like that in public, and on the Senate floor no less? When millions of grammar nazis and haters are just waiting for any chance to 'correct' him?

Do you want me to list "mistakes" that Democrat politicians have made in the past? Both grammatical and personal? It seems like a lonely hill to die on.
Besides the faux pas, was there anything in his actual speech you had a problem with? Its such a transparently weak offense, one that is used a lot by the other side. Pick anything you can find, even a spelling or speaking mistake, to blow up your opponents entire point. I think it makes them look desperate and foolish when they do that.

[George II]

114. "Democrat politicians"?

[LiberalLovinLug]

118. lol Case in point!

[7962]

24. But even Autocorrect knows "Corps" follows the word "Marine"!

I checked it because I knew my friends who are trumpers would scream "Autocorrect!" as soon as I poked them about it.

But I do agree with your larger point; that everyone seizes on the tiniest thing. Remember the HUGE controversy over trump getting TWO scoops of ice cream?
I remember well when Obama was president; same thing happened to him from the other side

[Wwcd]

31. He was talking about gun deaths in his own State.

42 is a long way from 420.

[Maggiemayhem]

47. The rest of the gun deaths were suicides

Which left 47 guns deaths by another person and five of those were gun deaths by police. So 42 gun deaths by homicide. Does it matter ? The Bernie hatred on this site is crazy. It is not like he votes with the Republicans. He votes Democratic. How the hell is this party supposed to win with all this petty discord? Is it purposeful? This is why we lose.

[Wwcd]

50. How bout starting with the truth. Not having listeners have to figure out what

Sanders really meant.
That'd help in a long way to build trust among the party he continually finds fault with every time there's a mic in his face.

As for voting with Dems, I don't know ANY Dems who voted against the Magnitsky Act.
He voted with the Librtarian.
Which is a Koch funded Party btw.

Its hard to know where Sanders stands on a lot of issues.
That is what contributes to discord withinn a Party also.

[LiberalLovinLug]

68. I don't get it either Voltaire2

Cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Like a nose, Sanders is usually sticking out, on the front lines for issues important to progressive Democrats. He can also smell out any and all Trump attempts to lie and mislead. And he can blow out that nonsense with an oratorically gifted voice that reaches millions.

And he is fully attached to the body of the Democratic party. No he's not a deeply embedded organ, like a liver or a set of lungs, he prefers to cling onto the outside. He has an independent streak and his function is totally unique. But he is a part of the face of the Democratic party non the less. Cutting it off will perhaps make a few in here have their dose of schadenfreude against someone who dared to threaten their choice in the primaries, but its an ugly ugly sight. (I accidentally wrote "site" at first, another damn grammatical error!, but in hindsight, I think it might fit just as well)

[George II]

91. What does any of this have to do with the 2016 primaries?

[shenmue]

80. He doesn't vote Democratic. He's Independent.

[Cha]

95. Gun deaths by suicide are still gun deaths. There

is no reason to low ball the gun deaths in Vermont.

BS needs to correct his mistake.

[ehrnst]

103. I don't think that he believes he makes mistakes. (nt)

[Cha]

104. Right.. it's everyone

who does.

[ehrnst]

105. People who disagree with him on anything. Anything at all. (nt)

[summer_in_TX]

97. We used to give the benefit of the doubt to others.

Since the rise of demagoguery filling the airwaves and creating a meaner atmosphere, the willingness to suspend judgment until we know more has eroded and our society is much the worse for it.

Many of us believe it is important to still start off giving others the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst. But what seems to happen when they do here on DU often is they are accused of "making excuses for Bernie," and so forth. That's a hell of a way to run a community. Not much feeling of community can remain when one is being attacked or one is looking at what others say critically to shoot it down, either one.

The recent news about bots and sockpuppet accounts being used to attack Bernie makes me wonder if some of us haven't allowed the deliberate stirring up of animus towards him and never letting it subside infect our own thinking here.

If folks are trying to make any potential Bernie future run for president less likely to succeed, why bother? The American people are not going to elect someone to a four year term of office who will be about 80 years old in 2020. He's not a threat. He can safely be treated that way.

As I see it, Bernie caucuses with the Democrats and most often votes along the same lines as Dems do. So he's an ally at times, and an adversary at other times. But there's room for criticism of our leadership sometimes, and besides, I cannot imagine him being a serious threat in 2020 as an octogenarian.

[KTM]

102. +1

Its time for the abuse to stop.

[LanternWaste]

34. Most certainly Not a typo, as 'e' and 'p' would not be an error of speed

Most certainly Not a typo, as 'e' and 'p' would not be an error of speed (the inaccurate spelling of the word would not replace p with e, but rather another keystroke more convenient to the finger (e.g., 'O' or 'L').

And, as both grammar and punctuation have never been a priority in his messages, simple ignorance would be a much more consistent explanation.

Ignorance is not sinister. It's simply ignorance.

[Wwcd]

4. Seems there's been an understating of facts for sometime now.

Why not speak the truth & stand by it?
Why ever use intentional slight-of-hand for your own record, while exposing others for theirs?
Why?


Sanders' record was fact checked once before.
This should clear up a few misconceptions.

"Everything you wanted to know about Bernie Sanders's record on guns"

www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-bernie-sanderss-record-on-guns/

SNIP

For voters wondering about the facts underlying claims by Sanders and Clinton about Sanders's gun record, we've compiled a complete round-up of our related fact-checks, with links to each original fact-check in the headline.
You can see that the mailer glosses over or obscures key aspects of his record and is worthy of some Pinocchios.

More at link

As far back as campaign 2015/16, the topic of gun legislation has come up.
Its bound to come to the fore again with the Parkland March for gun legislation.
As a Senator who's vote matters, it is fair & necessary for all to get the misconceptions out of the way as we campaign in for 2018/20

[hack89]

5. He only counted homicides and left out suicides. nt

[George II]

7. Suicides are homicides:

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=881

homicide

n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.

[hack89]

14. In the quoted study they were broken out seperately

which makes sense - suicide and violent crime are two radically separate issues.

[7962]

21. Depending on your agenda!

Just like most homicides are by acquaintances.

[Wwcd]

22. Then why didn't he take a moment to point out that difference?

Just say it & explain later?
Isn't that rather careless when addressing this serious issue staring everyone in the face today?

[hack89]

26. Don't know, don't really care.

I don't spend much time listening or caring about Bernie. I am a registered Democrat after all.

[7962]

32. HA!

[Wwcd]

35. When his voice & words are intent on influencing citizens as to gun rights,

speaking the truth does certainly matter.
At least do it for those who march today & are listening to those who set policy in their favor.

A simple fact check & bit of reserch before he spoke would have eliminated this entire controversy.

[hack89]

37. I don't see him as an influential voice in the Senate

and it is hard to imagine his followers are anything other than very strong gun control advocates. So I don't see this as a big deal.

[George II]

38. +1

[melman]

56. Wait

I think you must have +1'd the wrong post.

Because you couldn't possibly be +1-ing a post that says "I don't spend much time listening or caring about Bernie"

[George II]

25. Not when access to guns results in deaths.

His exact statement (the video is in the link, too)

“In my small state of Vermont, between 2011 and 2016, 42 people were killed by guns,”

The fact is that 420 people were killed by guns. The latest rounds of talk about gun control includes access to guns by people who are mentally un-stable. I would think than most of those who committed suicide had serious mental issues. And I also wonder how many of those "suicides" were actually accidental deaths.

The issue in this country is that we have too many guns and they're too easy to get. People are dying because of it. There was an incident just a few days ago where a child was playing with a gun and accidentally shot himself. Will that be classified as a suicide?

Understating the number of "people killed by guns" does not further the cause of improved legislation on gun control.

[hack89]

29. ok. nt

[Wwcd]

36. Interpretation is then left to those listening.

Fact check for yourselves...

[Maven]

11. LOL

The guy who voted against the Brady Bill 5 times?

The guy who voted for gun manufacturers to have immunity from suit?

The guy who voted for guns to be permitted on Amtrak trains and in national parks?

[ehrnst]

33. Yeah, that guy. (nt)

[Wwcd]

39. Yup. That guy..did he think no one would notice?

He only missed it by about 370 deaths.

[Maven]

42. I guess not. But who has time for voting records when there's another movement he can co-opt?

I'm just thankful that he didn't endorse Conor Lamb.

[Wwcd]

45. Really, as close as that race ended up being...We certainly dodged a bullet there!

Good point.
Thanks bernie!

[NastyRiffraff]

75. Great point!

His endorsements have been the kiss of death for some candidates. Thanks, Bernie!

[NurseJackie]

51. Heaven help us all.

[calimary]

57. Indeed.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Indeed.

[jrthin]

40. He's a piece of work. nt

[frazzled]

43. Vermont has higher rate of gun ownership and gun deaths than CA, IL, NY, NJ

And Sanders, if he's really interested in this issue and not just seizing the microphone, should know that. And there would seem to be a high correlation between ownership and deaths, based on this chart.

[deurbano]

53. That's a very interesting and informative chart.

Surprised NH has such a (relatively) low percentage of gun owners.

[George II]

59. I thought it was interesting that of the three smallest New England states (NH, VT, RI)....

....Vermont has about double the rate of deaths. MA and CT are also very low compared to Vermont.

[hack89]

112. Much higher sucide rate. Lower murder rate than MA, CT, and RI

NH, like Maine, has a high suicide rate because there are poorer and more rural than their neighbors. But they are less violent.

[Igel]

71. Yes and no.

Remember, data are mute; they don't speak.

When looking at gun ownership, you need to look at households. "Percentage of adults" is all well and good, but that's possibly not very useful. The percentage of households owning guns has decreased in most states over the last 40 years.

The number of guns per capita's increased.

Number of people killed per capita by others using guns has decreased.

We really need to distinguish between homicides in the strict sense and suicides. If my father hadn't committed suicide by gun, he'd have done it some other way; "ban guns, eliminate those suicides" doesn't get causation quite right.

There are all kinds of subcategories and ways of disaggregating the data--by age, SES, ethnicity, geographic area, urban/suburban/rural. They can all be used to support some claim--most of which are correct. The problem is when there's a claim without any context or competing, correct claims; then that one claim is taken (or intended to be) the complete picture, when it's really not. At that point the (partial) truth is worse than a lie.

[frazzled]

82. And VT still has a higher rate than other NE states, plus CA, IL, etc.

Measured by the same per capita ownership and death metrics. It’s not that complicated.

[hack89]

111. Much higher sucide rate

The only NE state with a higher rate is Maine - which makes sense. Both are poorer and more rural compared to their neighbors.

But both are in the bottom five when it comes to murder rates.

[frazzled]

116. This is about guns and easy deaths, whether murders or suicides

Don't try to whitewash the discussion here. And don't bring up the old "they'll find another way" when you talk about suicides.
Guns=death.

[hack89]

117. So why have gun deaths steadily declined over the pass 20 years

while the number of guns has skyrocketed? Shouldn't we have record murder and suicide rates right now?

[Billsmile]

44. Spokesman's Response

From the sevendaysvt.com article:

Sanders spokesman Dan McLean said that the senator had intended to describe gun homicides during that six-year period. Citing the VPR report, McLean noted that 47 Vermonters were killed by someone else in those years and that five of those incidents involved law enforcement, “making 42 the most accurate number we had.”

[Wwcd]

46. Of course. Gee thanks for explaining what Sanders should have known enough about in the first place.

Oh well its a good soundbite anyway.
Glad someone came out to explain what he really meant to say.

Whatever.

[Billsmile]

58. Here are the Stats

You can see for yourself that Sanders' spokesman Dan McLean is correct and that 5 of the homicides did involve law enforcement (I counted). The statistics used for the VPR report can be found at the following link:



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vWqarUlgltl1zwudyn8HcyAgGyqglarojPdxwzsYaAI/edit#gid=0

[Billsmile]

48. Seven Days VT

It might be worth mentioning that the paper Seven Days Vermont has it in for Bernie Sanders. If they can make Sanders look bad--they will.

Sanders has not done an interview with the paper in years and Seven Days is none too happy about it.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/01/24/the-sound-of-silence-bernie-sanders-spurns-seven-days-for-1000-days

[NurseJackie]

54. Wow! Snubbing and spurning the press sounds... so... familiar.

It might be worth mentioning that the paper Seven Days Vermont has it in for Bernie Sanders.

Right. Uh-huh. Yes. Of course they do.

From your link: Seven Days' coverage has, at times, been tough; at other times, it's been glowing; occasionally, it has defended him; and sometimes, we admit, it's been a little ridiculous. The paper has always sought to be fair.

In that time, Vermont's junior senator has gone to great — and sometimes comical — lengths to avoid Seven Days staffers. He has blown off reporters and columnists at an Iowa parade, on a chartered jet over Nevada, in a Montpelier hotel lobby and even at a Burlington holiday party. Last November, when Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly found herself sitting next to him on a plane from Washington, D.C., to Vermont, Sanders gave her the cold shoulder — though the two have been casual acquaintances for decades.

Interesting behavior... it reveals much about his demeanor and temperament. But, seriously... what does that type of behavior accomplish? To what end?

[George II]

64. Hmm, that looks like the free press doing it's objective job, wouldn't you say?

[Billsmile]

70. Here's Another Seven Days VT Article

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/01/29/sanders-backs-out-of-interview-after-failing-to-dictate-conditions

[George II]

72. Thank you, that's my point. I think someone in this discussion is going to be very disappointed...

...in this:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) backed out of an interview with Seven Days Monday morning after the newspaper refused to accept conditions his staff attempted to set. The senator then accused a Seven Days reporter of being a "gossip columnist."

And it looks like he's had that attitude for 30+ years (note the "gossip columnist" insult directed toward a reporter from a different outlet (Vanguard Press) way back in 1985 when he was Mayor)

One has to wonder why he doesn't do unstructured interviews or press conferences like all of his colleagues.

[R B Garr]

115. Wow! Good catch. So much for transparency.

That is only for others. Don’t ask him anything not pre-approved. And the comments are brutal.

[George II]

60. The thing is he hardly ever holds press conferences. I can't remember the last time he did. But...

He seems to love doing interviews on the Sunday talk shows, CNN, and of course Chris Hayes' show. But all of those are very carefully controlled, unlike a normal press conference.

I don't think Seven Days VT has it in for him, they're just pointing out the obvious about his lack of press conferences and eschewing his local media outlet in lieu of national outlets.

[melman]

65. Very carefully controlled?

How so? How are these shows controlled and who's controlling them? What an odd thing to say.

[George II]

66. Ever watch Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.?

[melman]

67. Of course

How are they controlled?

[melman]

73. So how are they controlled?

If you're saying he avoids press conferences because he can't control the questions - and that is what you're saying - but he's comfortable doing the shows you mention because they're 'very controlled'...

...then what you're suggesting is ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN let him dictate what's asked and not asked.



That's a pretty wild claim to make. How about trying to back it up...if you can.

[George II]

74. Yes, he tells them is them in advance what issues they can discuss and ask questions about.

There's nothing wrong with it, many office holders do that. But they also hold press conferences and allow unscripted interviews, too.

Someone posted a link to an article (from Seven Days VT, of course) that says exactly that about interviews - he puts conditions upon what he can be questioned about, and if they balk he cancels.

[LiberalLovinLug]

52. Hmmmmm

[jmowreader]

69. He SHOULD have said "42 people were murdered by guns"

42 gun murders
5 police shootings
and 373 gun suicides

equals 420 gun deaths

If those 373 people wouldn't have had guns, they would have had access to Tylenol, antifreeze, sealed-up garages, knives, and all manner of other things to commit suicide with.

[shenmue]

81. Snotty, aren't we? Telling people to leave the country just because they messed with precious Bernie

[Cha]

84. I know right, shenmue..

[George II]

85. Unbelievable, huh? Thanks.

Actually I'm a native of NYC , where last year, due to our idiotic gun laws there were about 300 murders (a record LOW in fact). On the other hand, when I was in Toronto last June there was a murder - it was their EIGHTEENTH so far that year!

That's 300 for ~8 million people opposed to 39 gun murders for 2.7 million in 2017. And that person told me to "clean up my own countries (sic) politics"?

[njhoneybadger]

79. I think he meant there was 42 deaths of people who got between him and a video camera

Just kidding don't freak out on me

[George II]

86. bwahahahahaha!!!!

[Cha]

96. ROFL

[KTM]

83. Ohhh, you're all over here in THIS Bernie thread...

I was wondering why none of you were showing up in THIS one. Must just be too busy making hay over a minor comment. A lot of hay. A lot of repetitious hay. Huh.

[George II]

88. That "minor comment" was made on the floor of the Senate. You act like it was made in a sports bar.

And I see it took you a while to find "us"!

[KTM]

99. Yes, and there was nothing wrong with it...

The article explains what was said, and the explanation makes perfect senese to anyone without an axe to grind.

Come on over and add your brilliant insights to that other thread, wont you ?

[George II]

108. The article wasn't read on the record from the floor of the Senate. The false statement...

...(“In my small state of Vermont, between 2011 and 2016, 42 people were killed by guns" ) was.

[KTM]

109. Keep reaching lol

[Cha]

101. The article says BS corrected another previous misstatement..

he needs to correct this one, too. In the article it says he meant to say something else.. so let him issue a correction, and say what he really meant.

"Earlier this year, Sanders fumbled numbers related to a mass school shooting in Parkland, Fla. Writing on Twitter on February 14, he claimed there had already been 18 school shootings in 2018. He later issued a correction, noting that the number was "incorrect and inflated."

[ellie]

90. He is the worst

[meadowlander]

100. Really? Worse than Trump?

And this is helping our chances in the midterms how?

[ellie]

119. Yes.

[Cha]

93. BS needs to get his facts straight

before saying something like that on the Senate Floor. Every Senator is expected to whether they do it or not.

Is he going to correct it now?

[onetexan]

110. Bernie has a complicated history with the NRA so this doesn't surprise me

"Sanders’ history with gun control issues dates back to the very beginning of his Washington career.
..Sanders said that he didn’t support the proposed Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period, and vowed that he wouldn’t flip-flop on the issue. He won the election by nearly 20 points...

While in Congress, Sanders continued to oppose the Brady Bill because of the waiting period, which he said should be determined at the state level. He voted against the bill but in favor of an amendment from then-West Virginia Democratic Rep. Harley Staggers for an instant background check for all handgun purchases.
Still, his opposition to the landmark legislation prompted backlash, including a 1991 headline from the Vermont Times: “Who’s Afraid of the NRA? Vermont’s Congressmen, That’s Who,” featuring a photo of Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is a liberal standard-bearer on nearly every single policy issue, from climate change to taxation to financial regulation. But there’s one notable exception – guns.

With President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton calling for a gut check on gun violence in America after the mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C., the Vermont senator’s awkward history with the issue of gun control now seems poised to resurface.
Arguably, the independent senator from Vermont has taken a pragmatic approach – his state prides itself on a deep hunting and gun culture and has traditionally fiercely defended its lax guns laws.
But while his campaign manager says he is “very moderate” on the issue, others call him “erratic.” To wit, he has voted against the Brady Bill, voted for an assault weapons ban, voted to allow firearms on Amtrak, and voted for universal background checks — upsetting gun-control and gun-rights advocates alike.

Still, as the gun-control conversation ratchets back up in the wake of the Wednesday’s shooting, Sanders risks looking like he’s out-of-touch with his progressive base and a bit tone deaf.
Sanders didn’t ignore the tragedy in Charleston, though there was an uncomfortable moment when his rally outside the Capitol for bolstering union retiree benefits overlapped briefly with a prayer vigil nearby for the victims of the shooting at the historically black church."

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185

-------------------------------------------------------

My take-away is on the subject of guns Bernie flip flops when it benefits him.