Gun Control - California Style

Jump to Last Post 101-135 of 135 discussions (864 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Well this is a pleasant surprise.  Supreme Court refuses to block Illinois assault weapon ban.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics … index.html

  2. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    So long as America is awash in guns - this will not stop and probably only get worse.  Conservatives need to help reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/19/us/morai … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      As I'm sure you know, conservatives are mostly willing to help reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands...as long as it does not mean simply reduce the number of guns anywhere.  There are a few holdouts (aren't there always?) but for the most part conservatives support reasonable background checks.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Their actions suggest otherwise Wilderness.  Show me where conservatives have proposed anything that would make it harder for the wrong people to get guns.

        Let me separate the wheat from the chaff - the wheat being anyone in a position to affect change and the chaff are those who have an opinion.  In this case, when I say Conservative, I am talking about the wheat. Why? Because, by-and-large, the Conservative chaff support much stronger background checks than are currently on the books.  But their leaders are not listening.

        While looking for data on who supports more background checks I found this interesting tid-bit.

        The person most likely to own a gun is White, Male, 50 - 64 yo, have some college, live in the rural South, and conservative. (Bolded means much higher than other demographics in the same category)

        The person least likely to own a gun is Asian, Female, 18 - 29 yo, postgrad, live in the Urban Northeast, and liberal.

        OK, 70% of the conservative chaff want background checks extended to private sales and sales at gun shows.  WHY are conservative wheat not listening?

        Even a third of conservative chaff want to ban assault weapons.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Just as a quip, and relative to thoughts of word choice. . .

          I think I understand your analogy; the legislature (politicians?) is 'wheat,' because it/they have the power to act, and voters are the 'chaff' because all they have are opinions.

          If so, linking American voters to chaff doesn't seem like the savviest word choice, even if the point is understood.

          GA ;-)

  3. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Happily, a potential mass shooting nipped in the bud.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/mclea … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      And there was your "weapon of war"!  Thank goodness he was stopped.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        The story reads like he kinda stopped himself.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah, pretty much.  Makes one wonder just what was going on, doesn't it?

        2. My Esoteric profile image83
          My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          How so?  It looks like he was breaking the law and the police found the assault rifle, designed to kill lots of people in s few seconds, when they searched his car.  He told them he was on his way to CIA headquarters where, I believe, he had no reason to be going.

          Since the Supreme Court refused to pause a ban on assault weapons recently, I wonder if more states and localities will ban them before they make a final ruling.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I'd like to know if he owned that AK47, and if so was it obtained legally.

          2. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Didn't your link say he went to the FBI building and told them he had a gun, first?

            He also asked for entry to the preschool (but didn't have the guns with him?) and when the cops arrived to question him he told them he had guns in his car.

            That seems like 'kinda' turning himself in to me. It was a humorous take, don't worry about it.

            Also, an important point was made relative to your assault rifles thought. If it is an authentic AK-47 I don't think they are legal to own now, so your 'ban' wouldn't be pertinent.

            GA

  4. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 13 months ago

    You would think this is 1823 rather than 2023.  We have progressed much have we.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/28/us/charl … index.html

    Even though the passenger started the exchange and may have even fired the first shot, the driver needs to tried for attempted murder as well as he tried, several times, to kill the wounded, fleeing  shooter.

  5. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 13 months ago

    It just keeps on coming, doesn't it.  And it will only get worse until conservatives get on board to help make it harder for people who shouldn't have them, get guns.

    1-year-old among 9 shot after altercation near beach in Hollywood, Florida, authorities say

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/us/holly … index.html

    Man arrested after shooting spree leaves 4 dead, 1 injured in Arizona over the weekend

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/us/arizo … index.html

    But they won't, will they because saving lives is less important to them than putting a gun in the hands of anyone who wants one

  6. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 13 months ago

    Another "good" man with a gun kills 14-yo by shooting him in the back.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/us/cyrus … index.html

  7. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 13 months ago

    This is who some here and conservatives in general want to possess a gun.

    Rahimi was issued a restraining order in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend in Arlington, Texas. A court found that he had “committed family violence” and that it was likely to occur again. Six months later he tried to communicate with her again, approaching her house in the dark of night.

    Beginning in December 2020 Rahimi took part in five shootings in Texas that culminated on January 7, 2021, when he fired shots in the air at a Whataburger restaurant after his friend’s credit card was declined.


    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      A "shooting" is now firing shots in the air without even an intent if hitting anyone, let alone actually hitting them?  Sounds like "weapons of war" that never see a battlefield.

      You know, changing the labels we use simply to rouse emotions does your case no good at all.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Did I say he did?  But didn't you just recently read the story where a guy was  shooting at birds and one of his bullets hit a kid across the field.  Don't know if the kid was killed or not.  And you may not know it or not, but bullets do come down when fired in the air - and they have hit people.  He should have been arrested.  He is a menace.

        Also, you are being semantically obtuse again.

        https://www.wdsu.com/article/10-year-ol … t/38649182

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          And someone uses semantics as a debating tool, without any  concern as to the truth of the comment.  Only that it sounds bad and must therefore support their argument.

          I repeat, using labels, semantics and connotations to support an argument does that argument no good.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Since I don't lie or even purposefully misrepresent anything, I guess you are talking about somebody else.  I speak the TRUTH as best as I can.  I wish other people on your side would to.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              "Rahimi took part in five shootings in Texas that culminated on January 7, 2021, when he fired shots in the air"  (I wonder - were all his "shootings" about shooting air or about shooting people?)

              So the last "shooting" was not about shooting a person at all, but just shooting the air.  I think you meant to call it a "shooting", intentionally giving the wrong impression to those that don't question your every word.  Just like the "weapons of war" that no military uses - these things are not TRUTH at all, but an intentional effort of get a reader to believe something that is not true.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Why did you assume "shootings" meant shooting a person?  I didn't.

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Just as a note from the 'peanut gallery,' the context and trend of your comments made your use of "shootings" as implying shooting people. *shrug

                  GA

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    I didn't use the word "shooting".. Where did you get the idea that I did?  I just quoted a newspaper story.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  By that line of reasoning we have to limit gun ownership because of all the "shootings" at a target range.  Thousands of rounds every day - something that we "obviously" cannot condone as people die when a gun is fired.

                  As GA noted, your use of the word implies what was not true; a lie whether the words were technically true or not as it was said to convince people of something that is not true.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    You are being obtuse again.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Somebody picked up a new word. oh-oh...

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      "This is who some here and conservatives in general want to possess a gun".

      Little judgemental, I would say. How do you feel this kind of statement is acceptable? You are grouping people, I do realize you have a propensity to do that, as you have here, and throughout this very conversation.

  8. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago
  9. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    I think Texas (hardly any gun safety laws) us the mass shooting capital of the world.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/us/fort- … index.html

    And not that far behind is Pennsylvania, who is not known for strong gun-safety laws either.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/us/phila … index.html

  10. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    Ahh yes, the killing goes on, aided and abetted by those who refuse to help reduce it.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/politics … index.html

  11. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    And to wrap up the Independence Day celebration is another massacre in honor of an unrestricted second amendment.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/us/shrev … index.html

  12. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    It should be no surprise to anyone that another right-wing gun-nut is responsible for the Philadelphia massacre!

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/us/phila … index.html

  13. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    Another weekend, another mass shooting.  What's new in America? That is certainly not.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/us/cleve … index.html



    OH, Yeah, for what ever reason some police can't help shooting people for no good reason.


    https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/us/melis … index.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I wish these Demacratic run sanctuary cities would get better law enforcement, and stop defunding their police --- Yikes So sad for the citizens that are living without much law and order.

      "CLEVELAND (WJW) – More than 90 people were killed in Cleveland over the first six months of 2023, and those numbers are only expected to rise as violent crime peaks over the summer months"
      July 7 2023 ---    "Cleveland Police short more than 200 officers amid rise in violent crime" https://fox8.com/news/cleveland-police- … n-violent-     https://fox8.com/news/cleveland-police- … EVELAND%20(WJW)%20%E2%80%93%20More%20than,peaks%20over%20the%20summer%20months.

      And yet you have a Democratic mayor that cuts the police ---  "Mayor Justin Bibb looks to cut unfilled police jobs, other ..."
      https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/02/ … udget.html

      1. profile image55
        AlexWitttposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        The following is from The source you listed.

        "The proposed cuts to the city’s budgeted staffing level for police is offset by raises approved last year by the city and police union. Taken together, city spending on police is still expected to increase to about $218 million in 2023, versus $211 million spent in 2022."

        So Cleveland is increasing police funding. Can you identify and list other cities that have actually defunded their police?

        ABC OTV's analysis of police budget data show police spending has been up in some of the very cities frequently cited by conservative politicians and pundits as places where Democrat leaders' defunding fueled violent crime waves.

        In Houston, where the homicide rate nearly doubled in 2020 and 2021 before starting to subside this year, local government officials have not cut police spending.

        They increased it - by nearly 9% (almost $80 million) from 2019 to 2022.

        Similarly, Chicago police spending is up 15% since 2019. That's almost a quarter billion dollars in new police spending since 2019.
        The Los Angeles Police Department's budget is up by 9.4%, San Francisco's by 4% and Philadelphia's by 3%.
        I hope you'll read the following article because it sort of busts the conservative narrative of "defunding" the police and speaks to the realities of policing. As mentioned previously, I don't think Mayberry offers criminals the opportunities that large cities do in terms of scale.

        https://abc7chicago.com/where-police-de … /12324846/

      2. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I am glad Cleveland isn't like Trump supporters and want to desecrate the meaning of the Statue of Liberty.

      3. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Homicides in England and Wales in 2022 was just 696; a homicide rate of 11.7 per million of population.

        In the USA in 2021 homicides was a staggering 22,941; a homicide rate of 68 per million of population.

        142,145 police in UK; of which only 6,192 have access to guns (just 4.3% of Police in the UK are allowed to use guns).

        696,644 police in the USA; all of whom are armed with guns.

        The USA has a population about 5 times higher than the UK, and its police force is about 5 times larger than the UK; so the USA has the same level of policing than the UK.  The only difference is that guns are legal in the USA, so everyone in the USA carries and use guns to kill; criminals, gangsters, ordinary people in the heat of the moment, people who are mentally unstable, and not least the Police, who themselves seem too trigger happy in killing Americans.

        Thankfully, we have none of that in the UK.

        This is the level of homicide in the UK, which in comparison to the USA seems quite tame!
        https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … /march2022

        1. DrMark1961 profile image97
          DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          There are 1000 or less people killed by the police in the US each year. Your comment, calling the police "trigger happy in killing Americans" is false and inflammatory.

          Comparing death statistics of the US or Brazil to a homogeneous little country like the UK is misinformation. Your country hung its criminals for hundreds of years, for severe crimes like stealing bread when you are hungry.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            As Sharlee likes to say, source please.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              https://www.statista.com/chart/5211/us- … VEQAvD_BwE

              As you will notice, the majority were armed.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                And how many of those were necessary?

                BTW, a lot of your more violent police forces don't report to the FBI system so you can read your figure as AT LEAST 1066 killed by police.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image97
                  DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Funny how you are totally willing to accept statistics when they are from CNN and they support your argument.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    That is because CNN doesn't falsify data like Right-wing media does.

                    BTW, if you pay attention to what Statistica probably says and the FBI definitely says, under reporting by many conservative jurisdictions is a serious problem.

          2. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I think that last paragraph is called pointless deflection.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Are you trying to say you think it is pointless to compare death rates of a population like the UK or Japan to the US?

          3. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Wow, up to 1,000 people killed by the police in the USA each year; in the UK the police have killed just 32 in 10 years – average of just over 3 people per year.  So yes, 1,000 killings by the police is horrific, and from a British/European perspective the American police are trigger happy.

            Yeah, ‘historically’ for centuries, our country hung criminals for petty crime; but ‘unlike the USA’ we (as with most all European countries) abolished the death penalty in the UK in 1965.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Wow, we (Brazil) have a population smaller than the US too but about 6000 people are killed by the police each year.

              https://www.statista.com/statistics/118 … on-brazil/

              1. Nathanville profile image90
                Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Wow, and I thought the USA was bad.

                Why so much police violence in Brazil?

                1. DrMark1961 profile image97
                  DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I think one problem is the favelas (ghettos). Unlike in other countries, they are barricaded and the police are not able to get into them. The drug trafficers sit at the entrances to the favelas with submachine guns and the only time the police go in they have to start a battle. (This only happens about a few times a year but is always in the news if the police do try to go in. Sometimes the mayors of the cities like Rio and Sao Paulo call in the army, so the statistics does not even consider all of those deaths.)

                  Another reason for the number of deaths might just be the police attitudes about this. Yesterday a friend of mine was fixing up one of the police stations by the entrance into town so I stopped and chatted with him. A policeman was on duty at the roadside station but he was in plainclothes; when he was standing by the side of the road a biker came by at high speed and almost hit him. The cop drew his gun (he said he was going to shoot the guys tire out, but we all know what happens when they try that) but the guy was so far away that the cop did not shoot. He thought about it, which shows the relaxed attitude they have about gun violence.

                  If security is collecting from an ATM when you are going by for a withdrawl it is not unusual to have a gun pointed at you. It is not just the cops that shoot civilians.

                  1. Nathanville profile image90
                    Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Wow, that sounds awful.  Our police in England have in recent years come under a lot of criticism for being sexist and racist; so much so that the head of the Metropolitan (London) Police, Cressida Dick, resigned in February 2022.  And currently hundreds of Metropolitan (London) Police are being sacked as part of purging the police force of rogue police officers accused of sexual and domestic abuse – but all this pales into insignificance compared to Brazil and USA.

            2. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Has Brazil abolished the death penalty D.R.?

              Note, I don't oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, some people deserve to die.  But I do oppose it right now because it is way too easy, in America anyway, to convict an innocent man or woman.

  14. profile image55
    AlexWitttposted 12 months ago

    Can anyone detail which so-called Democratic or blue cities have defunded their police departments? With some specific Links of actual budgets. I'd like to know if this is really happening.

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I doubt you will have any takers.  It is easier to say it than prove it.

      We still have to deal with Republican calls to defund the DOJ and FBI, however.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this
      1. profile image57
        AlexWiitposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Well no it does not account for the cities that revised their decisions or diverted money into programs that were well related to law enforcement.

  15. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago

    Every other industrialized country has come up with effective gun restrictions and do not suffer the number of deaths each year due to guns.

    What is hard to understand about that?

    Every time someone spouts an argument against reasonable gun laws, I wonder why they think the US can't follow their examples?

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      This is why America is unique among "civilized" societies when it comes to the lack of gun safety.  A certain segment of our society would rather see the killing keep happening than trying to lessen it.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      No country can claim that their homicide rates are lower than another country because of gun restrictions. 

      What is so hard to understand about that?  What is so hard to understand that "reasonable" gun laws are always, always defined by a person wishing to limit ownership by someone else?

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "that "reasonable" gun laws are always, always defined by a person wishing to limit ownership by someone else?" - So you are declaring to the world that every person, with no exceptions, should be able to possess any type of weapon that they can hold in their hands.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          It is truly fascinating you how can put word in someone else's mouth (or keyboard) that were never there, never hinted at, never insinuated. 

          But, at the end, it simply means you have nothing with which to rebut a statement so go off on a tangent in an attempt to insult.  Recognizing the feeble attempt I'm not buying into it.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            You said it, I didn't.  What is truly fascinating is how you can deny your own words.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Copy/past, please where I said "that every person, with no exceptions, should be able to possess any type of weapon that they can hold in their hands.".  That's what you accuse me of; prove your statement or slink away quietly once more as you fail to prove your statements.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image97
                DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                He also told me I support and makes statements supporting Putin, so it looks like he just makes up statements based on his leftist views.

                Slinking away would be appropriate.

                1. My Esoteric profile image83
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  You deny you propagate Putin propaganda all the time?  You really need to go back and read what you write?

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image97
                    DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Show me even one example, and I will admit that you are not making this up.

              2. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                QUOTE - "What is so hard to understand that "reasonable" gun laws are always, always defined by a person wishing to limit ownership by someone else?" - UNQUOTE

                My interpretation of what you said is entirely reasonable.  If that is not who you obviously meant, why didn't you correct the record instead of criticizing me about how I read your words?  You didn't, so you must agree with my interpretation of your words.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "that every person, with no exceptions, should be able to possess any type of weapon that they can hold in their hands.".

                  Where did Wilderness imply this in the quote you offered?
                  QUOTE - "What is so hard to understand that "reasonable" gun laws are always, always defined by a person wishing to limit ownership by someone else?" - UNQUOTE

                  What?

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Because your "interpretation" comes straight from imagination and a desire to denigrate, not from any possible truth.  There is no possible way to turn a comment that reasonable gun controls always result in denying guns to someone else into everyone can have any weapon they choose.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Oh come on - there is only one way to take "limit ownership by someone else". But, since you are fighting so hard not to understand what you wrote, then I will take the opposite track - YOU DO agree it is OK to limit ownership if the limiting factor is reasonable.

                    Either you agree some people can have their ownership right limited or you agree that NO person can have their ownership limited.  Which is it?

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            He is certainly on a roll...  I read the conversation, he really needs to explain where he drew his inference. I found none.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You didn't find any because there was none.  Just Eso's imagination, let loose once more.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, he is, He should reread his comments. I think he might see it is time to pull in the reigns.

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
        Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness: Yes. You are right. Reasonable gun laws would limit ownership. That is how other countries prevent the number of deaths we suffer. It is truly fascinating that so many can't grasp that simple concept.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          What's really fascinating is the number of people that simply assume, without any data to back them up, that fewer guns = fewer homicides.  A little homework shows that there is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the number of homicides, but fear sets that simple fact aside in favor of limiting others rights.

          What about you?  Have you done the work to find a correlation between the two or just assume there is one without ever checking?  And that said correlation shows fewer guns = fewer homicides?

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
            Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            " A little homework shows that there is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the number of homicides,"

            Sources?

            1. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Come on, Kathleen, you are asking him to provide proof of something.  Good luck in seeing that, lol.

              You also notice how he moves the goal posts?  Changing gun homicides to simply homicides?  Even then, simple logic says even homicide rates will go down UNLESS countries with safer gun laws end up killing more people by other means that were happening with guns, RLOL.

              That sort of like saying another argument he makes that making guns less accessible will not change the suicide rate because for every person who wants to commit suicide that can't find a gun to do it with will find another means to end their life - BULL.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "That sort of like saying another argument he makes that making guns less accessible will not change the suicide rate because for every person who wants to commit suicide that can't find a gun to do it with will find another means to end their life - BULL."

                Again, a simple copy/paste of where I said that?  Because I have never made the claim; it is just more false statements from you.

                1. My Esoteric profile image83
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh yes you have, several times in the past.  To sort of quote you, since it has been awhile, "they will just find another way to kill themselves if they cant' find a gun".  I objected to that belief then and I object to it today.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I repeat: please copy/paste (with a link) to prove your silly claim.  Otherwise quit making foolish comments that contradict reality.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and from Small Arms Survey

              It's not difficult to find...as long as one is careful to look out for references to gun homicides rather than homicides in total.

              The information is collected and graphed on my carousel if you're actually interested rather than just throwing comments without data.

  16. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago

    Just attempting to challenge statements being passed off as fact with no supporting documentation.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is very frustrating when Eco makes a claim that puts words into another mouth.  Twists context until it is unrecognizable.  Quotes would be simple to offer when trying to justify someone said something.

    2. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Especially when they are false.  But then that is how it works from the right, doesn't it.  You aren't allowed to challenge their lies/misinformation/disinformation/propaganda.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        No, especially when you have accused someone of stating something they did not say.  That is misinformation.

        1. My Esoteric profile image83
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Except that they said it.  We had long discussions debating it.  I can't help it if he can't remember it.  Maybe I will waste the time some day and dredge up the discussions. But since I never purposefully lie -- put out misinformation or disinformation (I leave that to MAGA and Fox to do) - and, unlike others, when I am proven wrong, I admit it, I am not so inclined.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Well, perhaps you should use a quote when you note a problem of what you feel is misinformation.  Your excuse seems weak.  It leaves you open to say another made claims, without any form of proof they said it.  Sort of like what media does,  using a word like allegation --- many take the statement as fact and spread  ALLIGATIONS.

        2. DrMark1961 profile image97
          DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          That person seems to be the king of misinformation. He accuses people of things they do not say and then comes along and makes his claims with nothing to back it up.

          Is is purposefully telling a lie or is it just dementia? Maybe he should send a question to uncle Joes email.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, he certainly does accuse users of saying something that they did not say. I have been a victim of his accusations.  As a rule, he does not use the benefit of quoting a person.

            1. My Esoteric profile image83
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              How do YOU know they didn't say it?  Were you part of the conversation?  Why aren't you accusing him of lying?

              As to quoting a person - neither do you. In in case, I am surprised I have to educate someone that when a person doesn't remember the exact words, they are not supposed to use quotes.  But, because I don't remember the exact words doesn't make it untrue that he uttered something that has the same meaning.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Except when you make the meaning up out of your own imagination rather than what the words actually meant.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "MY ESOTERIC WROTE:  Permalink  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4300166   

                "How do YOU know they didn't say it?  Were you part of the conversation?  Why aren't you accusing him of lying?

                As to quoting a person - neither do you. In in case, I am surprised I have to educate someone that when a person doesn't remember the exact words, they are not supposed to use quotes.  But, because I don't remember the exact words doesn't make it untrue that he uttered something that has the same meaning."

                In light of your comment addressing me personally.

                I feel compelled to address your comment.  On multiple occasions, you engaged in a prolonged exchange with me, where you made claims I posted something I did not.   Wherein I sought to defend myself, only to be met with personal insults. As a consequence, I felt it necessary to report our conversation, as I had previously indicated. I must express my concern regarding the frequency with which you engage in such bullying tactics, engaging in a back-and-forth dynamic, which I have previously communicated to you, has left me feeling unsettled.

                Having thoroughly examined the thread in question, it is evident that you have misrepresented both the concept of wilderness and the statements made by Dr. Mark.

                You call your tactic educational?    It seems more like baiting a conversation to encourage unnecessary arguing.

            2. DrMark1961 profile image97
              DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              If he wants to make those claims he should use qoutes, as you suggest. I have seen him doing this with you and Wilderness when he disagrees, and the other day he also told me that I was making comments supporting Putin.

              I have no idea where he got that.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I can't imagine why he does this. It's odd, it seems he does believe whatever he wants to. I can see disagreeing with someone's comment, but I don't appreciate any words I did not say being put in my mouth.

  17. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 10 months ago

    Since my last post, many hundreds more have been killed by guns as well as many more mass shootings, most with AR-15 style killing machines.

    The most recent was today, not many miles from me in Jacksonville, FL.  Another Right-wing Nazi, White Supremist (you know, the group who Trump thinks there are a "few good people") who wanted to kill Blacks got his hands on guns (which are easy to get in Florida) and did so.

    He apparently wanted to do his killing at a predominantly black college but when faced with a security guard went on to more easy pickings - a Family Dollar store.  He killed three before thankfully taking his own life.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/26/us/jacks … index.html

    That is life in America.

    1. Nathanville profile image90
      Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Yep, we get all that news over here in the UK, as it happens - very shocking state of affairs.

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

        It is important to me that those outside the US see that I am neither unduly provocative or alarmist. And that the components that will ultimately undo are society on display here, everyday.

        Oddly enough, my younger brother plans to emigrate to Spain, "cause he kinda likes the music". In addition to that, a lower lower cost living and far less racial strife is a good reason. I would be probably wise to follow him either there or to Portugal, which is also seeing rave revues within the expat community. Not all things are possible though, but it does spark an idea or two.

        As a EU citizen, have you heard of any downside to life in either Portugal or Spain, as all that glitters, may well not be gold? Often times, what appears to be too good to be true, usually is. Is there a "catch"?

        1. DrMark1961 profile image97
          DrMark1961posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I just wanted to comment on Portugal. I took my parents there for a vacation a few years ago and we were at a mall several blocks away from our hotel. My stepmother was worried about walking back since she was used to the crime in Brazil and the US.

          That is not an issue with Portugal. There is an incredible sense of freedom when walking around, even in a big city like Lisbon.

          There is a "catch"; if you have to work but if you are retired and not reliant on a local income you can do fine there.

          "Just as a quick comparison, in 2018 Portugal had an average of 0.8 people killed per 100,000. The U.S. had an average of five people killed per 100,000. With five times less the murder rate than the U.S., Portugal offers residents and travelers peace of mind and safety." https://internationalliving.com/is-port … o-live-qa/

          1. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Hey, Doc.

            That sounds great, thanks for the advice, I like it already. Maybe it is past time to unhinge from here?

            It is as you say, there is no catch, we have an Independent income that far exceeds that which would constitute an average wage or salary within Portugal, without so many of the Third World problems we experienced living in Panama.

        2. Nathanville profile image90
          Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          DrMark has given an excellent reply; there’s not much I can add.  I’m more familiar with France and Belgium, which we visit frequently, but Peter (peterstreep) lives in Spain so his views would be valuable.

          However, I did find an excellent video on YouTube by an Expat from America who provides a very comprehensive and detailed run down on Spain, including legal advice for getting the right Visa, the Healthcare system, and much, much more.  If after watching the video you could try contacting her if you have any further questions, and or subscribe to her newsletter for Expats, the link is in the description box below the video.

          Moving To Spain Made Easy: A Guide For North Americans https://youtu.be/GDtTi3UY5Oc?si=8cyMqh0Tsgl4PlT2

          I also found a short video from an American who’s moved to Portugal a year ago; it’s not as informative as the above video on Spain, but it does focus on his personal experiences – and he has since done weekly podcasts of his experiences of living in Portugal, which you can browse at your leisure from his YouTube Channel.

          American moving to Portugal (THE REALITY): https://youtu.be/w3dF7EcGh7w?si=LvskwdoBO3n2yCmg

          I hope this is of some help.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            It is sad to say that the rampant gun violence in America brought on by the exceedingly easy access to guns (the guy in Jacksonville had been Baker Acted - held for a psych eval - not long before legal purchasing his murder weapons) is forcing people to leave America to be safe. But, you do what you got to do not to be killed.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              While easy access to guns is often cited as a contributing factor, is it not important to note that gun violence is a complex issue with multiple causes, including socioeconomic factors, cultural influences, and mental health issues?   

              Your sentiment presents valid concerns about gun violence and personal safety in the United States. However, in my view, it's important to acknowledge the complexity of the issue, the various factors contributing to gun violence, and the potential limitations of leaving the country as a solution. I feel a comprehensive approach would involve addressing mental health care, improving gun control measures, and fostering community initiatives to reduce violence.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                There is no question is to the complexity surrounding why somebody wants to go kill somebody else.  Some are controllable, some are not.  That said, easy access to guns is objectively one of those factors - and it is controllable to some extent.

                In most states, this white supremacist wouldn't have been able to buy a gun because of his known mental issues.  In Florida, that is no bar.  Had he been prohibited from purchasing guns, then the chances of him killing those people goes way down.  Not to zero, mind you, but down nevertheless. And that is the whole point of gun safety laws, to try to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them and thereby reduce the death rate from guns.

                A comprehensive approach would be great, if somebody would do it.  But I think that doing something, is better than doing nothing.

          2. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            It is, Arthur, a cornucopia source of great info.

            Thanks..

            1. Nathanville profile image90
              Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Glad it's useful; I'd be interested in your final decision. 

              If you do move to Spain or Portugal, and once settled in you decide to take a vacation to Britain you are always welcome to pop in for some of our hospitality. 

              We'd always be happy for you to stay overnight and sample a typical 'Full English Breakfast' with us, if you didn't mind dossing down on the sofa overnight - as part of a flying visit.

              Or if you just wanted to pop in for a couple of hours, during a tour of the West Country, for a coffee and bite to eat, or a sample of homemade wine if you prefer, the offer is open.

              We've given both types of hospitality to foreign travellers we've known in the past e.g. a couple of times from Australia, and once from a friend from Iceland - and it's always been a fruitful and educational experience.

              Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, as you've got a lot of decision making to do yet.

              But whatever you decide, wishing you all the best smile

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                My younger brother is going to Spain, while we are in a bit of a spat right now, I expect reports from him as to how easy was his adjustment. I will pass on what I find out, thanks....

                1. Nathanville profile image90
                  Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Cool; I look forward to what you find out.  smile

  18. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 10 months ago

    It won't be long before those on this forum who support arming anybody and everybody will be personally affected by gun violence.

    https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/08 … istics-dg/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps we will then address the causes of the violence rather than trying to bandaid it by with more useless controls.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        As I said, we need to do things that will reduce the level of gun violence regardless of whether it is a band-aid or not.  To do nothing leaves more people dead than otherwise would be.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          And as I said, we need to figure out why our society is so violent and take steps to reduce that violence. 

          Do that and gun violence will fall, along with the body count.  Don't, and there is zero reason to think violence will fall, or that the body count will drop.

          I know you disagree, that you think the only way to kill is with a gun and if you can just get the guns no one will be murdered (or at least far fewer).  Unfortunately you have nothing to base that on but your gut feeling.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I don't disagree with finding the causes for violence and working on that, but just like with gun safety, the politicians (not just conservatives in this case) don't seem to know how to do it.  So, in the mean time, something needs to be done piecemeal.

            When have I EVER said the :"the only way to kill is with a gun ..."?  That is patently absurd and untrue.  And when have I EVER said that with no guns "no one will be murdered"?  That is equally absurd and untrue.

            Once again, while my old statistics didn't QUITE reach the 70% explanation level with a 90% level of confidence we statisticians understand clearly, that is not zero as you seem to want to believe.

            As you know, but don't want to admit is that what the 70% means is that 70% of the variance in the data is explained by the variables used and another 30% is explained by other variables not used.

            That means if you take any one variable out of the equation, gun ownership rate for example, than the R-squared falls meaning you just got rid of one of the explanatory variables.  I understand you can't let yourself believe that, but it is a fact.

            More recent studies come to the same conclusion, e.g. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire … and-death/

            Also, 81% of ALL homicides in America are by gun. - 2021 Pew Research.

            I don't care which way you want to parse it, more guns = more homicides and the higher rate of gun ownership = a higher rate of homicides (especially given that 8 in 10 of all homicides are from using a gun.)

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              "I don't care which way you want to parse it, more guns = more homicides and the higher rate of gun ownership = a higher rate of homicides"

              Except that we don't see that anywhere in the world.  Countries with lower gun ownership rates do NOT show fewer homicides, and cities/states in the US are the same.  Fewer guns does NOT equate with fewer homicides.  Which is why there is no correlation between the two; gun ownership rates cannot be used to predict homicide rates.  Without that capability there can be no correlation.

              The only way you can show that is to cherry pick specific countries...but then you can also cherry pick them to show the opposite; that fewer guns = MORE homicides.  Taking the world as a whole simply does not show the correlation that you are claiming.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, if you read the Harvard report, you would see one of the researchers makes exactly that claim - more guns = more homicides no matter which country you look at.

                "Countries with lower gun ownership rates do NOT show fewer homicides" - Your data please.  I think what I have provided previously shows just the opposite.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Sure! 
                  Australia: ownership 15.0 homicide rate 1.2
                  Austria ownership 30.4 homicide rate .04
                  More guns = fewer homicides

                  England and Wales ownership 6.2 homicides 1.5
                  Denmark ownership 12.0 homicides .07
                  More guns = fewer homicides

                  Italy ownership 11.9 homicides 1.1
                  Germany ownership 30.3, homicides .09
                  More guns = fewer homicides

                  I could go on and on but you get the point; if you cherry pick you get the results you want, which is what I said.  I could have gone the other way, and found just as many pairs showing the opposite - again, just what I said.  Data like that shows no correlation between the two, which is also what I said.

                  How about you?  Are you cherry picking to get the results you want or are you being honest and looking at the entire group of statistics?

                  "Actually, if you read the Harvard report, you would see one of the researchers makes exactly that claim - more guns = more homicides no matter which country you look at."  Any "researcher" that makes such a stupid claim isn't worth reading.  Unless he has pulled that most common work-around; he's only looking at gun homicides, but   even then I could give the lie to it.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    You should know better than try to compare across countries - too many outside variables.  The test is what is happening within a country.

                    But for grins and giggles, I tested some of your numbers (for which you didn't supply sources).  For example,

                    Italy: 14.4 firearms per 100 persons. .47 murders per 100,000 persons.
                    Germany: 19.6 firearms per 100 persons.  .93 murders per 100,000 persons (just the opposite of yours).
                    America: 120.5 firearms per 100 persons.  6.52 murders per 100,000 persons.

                    Note: the rate of gun ownership in America is 8.4 times higher than Italy and 6.1 times higher that Germany.  Yet, the rate of murders in America is 13.9 times higher than in Italy and 7 times higher than in Germany.

                    Still you claim America does not have a gun-murder problem.  I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

                    Guns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated … by_country

                    Murders - https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/ … y-country/

                    " Any "researcher" that makes such a stupid claim isn't worth reading." - Of course not, they are dummies with no edumacation and just an agenda, lol.  (Unless they agree with you and then they are very smart.)

                    Face it, you are fighting a losing battle because the facts are not on your side, nor is logic nor common sense.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Just those that support the Second Amendment? How will the "bad guys" know those of us who support the Second Amendment? 

      Hopefully, none of the Users here live in a state that has a higher incidence of mass -   California, Texas, Florida. Pensulviania, Colorado. Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Maryland...

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/811 … -by-state/

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Falling back on the 2nd Amendment is a red herring.  The 2nd Amendment is not an absolute (even Mr. 2nd Amendment, Justice Scalia, said that)  Just like any other "right", there are exceptions for public safety for the 2nd Amendment. 

        I hope you know that any serious person who talks about gun safety is NOT talking about eliminating the right to own a gun.  They are talking about making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns in getting them.

        For example, had Florida had a Red Flag law that covered mental illness, the guy in Jacksonville would have had a much harder time buying weapons.  Had Florida had a Red Flag law, chances are high there would be three black people alive today that aren't.

        Also, if conservative leaders keep resisting the hue and cry for sensible gun laws, I think you will find that a tipping point will be reached where Americans will insist on the repeal of the 2nd Amendment because they are so tired of the carnage its abuse is allowing to happen.

  19. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 10 months ago

    HAPPY DAYS - Universal Background Checks takes another step closer to being a reality that will go a long way in keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. smile

    Resulting from the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the definition of who is an arms dealer is being changed to include just about anyone who accepts money for a gun.  The main targets are gun shows and Internet sales.

    Now, they will have to get background checks before completing the sale.  The last hurdle will be requiring background checks anytime a gun changes hands (although I don't see that happening anytime soon).

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ous-hands/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      This sounds good...at least as long as one is not expected to pay to exercise their constitutional rights and it doesn't take more than 2-3 days to do the same.

      We'll see.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I would imagine it should work like an in-store purchase.  The gun shows may lose their immediacy while the background check is completed.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          As I say, 2 or 3 days I would find an acceptable compromise to wait to purchase a gun.  But neither buyer nor seller can be charged for this check; society wants it, society pays for it.

  20. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 10 months ago

    At first glance, I thought this was another "good" man with a gun shooting.  But once you read the story, it gets complicated fast.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/us/brian … index.html

  21. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 10 months ago

    The conservative right used to care about how much things cost. Much of their opposition to doing anything about Climate Change rests with the fact they think it will "cost too much".

    Well consider the cost in money (let alone human lives, which doesn't seem to matter either) that their unreasonable love of guns has brought on.

    https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/us … safety-dg/

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/us/schoo … index.html (look at the charts. It seems the Deep South, is the epicenter of school shootings)

  22. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    "With gun suicides at record levels in the US, rates differ markedly by state policies on gun safety, new report shows"

    In my hub on the same subject, I concluded the same thing - 10 years ago.

    Turns out, some people don't want to count suicide by gun as a thing, lol.  The only REAL dead people are ones from homicide.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/health/g … revention.

  23. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    People using guns are the leading cause of death among children now.  If we did a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, there would be a lot more kids alive today in America (the ONLY country where this is a problem).

    Here are some stories you should NEVER forget.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/01/us/gun-d … index.html

  24. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    Swimming in Guns (more guns than people in America) is KILLING OUR CHILDREN (not to mention each other)

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/us/ameth … index.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/us/gun-h … index.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/health/r … index.html

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/health/p … index.html

    WHEN ARE CONSERVATIVE LEADERS GOING START HELPING TO REDUCE THE CARNAGE THEY ARE CAUSING??? (Most regular gun owners support the gun safety measures that Conservative leaders refuse to help implement.  Shame on the Conservative Leaders.)

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      When Is Biden going to handle the drugs pouring in killing our citizens, and making China rich in turn?

      The deaths have gone up substantially in his time. The latest federal data show more than 109,000 drug deaths in 2022. This is inexcusable, Biden created a border crisis and is ignoring it. Our citizens are dying, while Biden makes China richer.   The chart also indicates the death rate started to climb under Obama,  and then we have Biden all out historic numbers of deaths occurring under his watch. Charts can be so sobering can they not?

      https://hubstatic.com/16737382_f1024.jpg

      https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/tr … eath-rates

  25. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 7 months ago

    Given there is a Conservative judge in California ruling against lifesaving high capacity magazine and assault weapons bans, maybe I should change the title of this forum Gun Control - Massachusetts Style

    Federal judge upholds MA's assault weapons ban saying it "“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,”

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Exactly what is the "relevant history" that affirms the principle of banning black, scary looking weapons that are no different than those not banned?

      What weapons were banned in 1791?  Personally I believe our forefathers had better sense than to declare that identically performing guns, one black and one not, were different in their capacity to kill.  It took idiot liberals to make that declaration.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Don't know, ask Alito and Thomas - they set the rules.  This judge just followed them.  You probably should read his findings since it would list the detail you are asking for.

  26. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 6 months ago

    Isn't it interesting that the number of mass shootings increased dramatically with the start of Trump's pre-election lying.  Not that that is the reason for it, in fact it probably isn't, but I find it thought provoking.

    And then there is this - FIVE mass-shootings in FOUR days to begin 2024.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/us/mass- … index.html

  27. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 3 months ago

    FINALLY!!! America is starting to hold Parents accountable for the bad actions of their children.

    The Crumbley's, parents of the Michigan school shooter, got 10 - 15 years each for involuntary manslaughter because they were grossly negligent in keeping guns out of the hands of their mentally disturbed child.

    Hopefully, other parents will take notice and not be so lackadaisical with their control of guns they own or have oversight of.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/09/us/j … index.html

  28. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 3 months ago

    FINALLY! Some people will be alive tomorrow that would have been shot to death today because of a new rule going into effect that closes the gun show loophole and expands background checks[/].

    The new rule REQUIRES [b]anyone
    selling a gun to perform a background check. It doesn't matter if it is at a gun show, on the Internet, or face-to-face.  The mere fact of "selling" a gun triggers the check. It does not cover gifts.

    "Vice President Kamala Harris noted to reporters that the new rule was being finalized days before the 25-year anniversary of the deadly Columbine High School shooting, which she described as “a horrific act of violence that was carried out in part with guns purchased through the gun show loophole.”

    Since then, from New Paris, Ohio, to Chicago, Illinois, to Midland-Odessa, Texas, so many communities have been torn apart to violence committed with weapons bought without background checks,” Harris said. “I do believe countless families and communities will be spared the horror and the heartbreak of gun violence by this new rule.”


    Score one for the good guys.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/11/politics … index.html

  29. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago

    Common sense. That's all we've ever asked for.

    1. My Esoteric profile image83
      My Esotericposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      What is amazing is that it is only MAGA and NRA leadership that oppose common sense gun safety laws.  I think it is something like 75% of all NRA members that disagrees with its leaders and support more background checks.

  30. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 2 months ago

    The mother was lying on the floor when the police arrived, she says everything was calm. Then within two minutes, she claims they murdered her son.

    Critics say the police’s use of lethal force was unnecessary and reflects a pattern of violence against people with mental illness.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/12/us/win-r … index.html

    Having read the article, I think the cops need to be prosecuted for murder.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is fascinating how many people decide guilt based on the reports from one (or more) highly biased sources, never needing to hear defense or anyone else's report.  Fascinating.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Where is the bias? They just reported the facts.

  31. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

    A Good Man With A Gun murders teen who was returning an air gun to a store.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/us/big-5 … index.html

  32. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

    While I don't agree with their decision, I can at least understand it.  It boils down to this -

    Even though the point of the original law was to stop the ability of people to spray large volumes of bullets in a very short amount of time, bump-stocks had been invented or envisioned yet.  So the language defined a machine gun as shooting more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. It did not (because it was unknown at the time) make exceptions for external devices which effectively turn a semi-automatic weapon into a machinegun. 

    Ironically, the Obama administration chose not to interpret the language as the Trump administration ultimately did in banning bump-stocks. In the end, Trump decided (one of the few good thigs he did) to interpret the law as was "intended" by Congress but the Court interpreted as written.

    Now it will take a few more Las Vegas sized massacres to juice Congress into modifying the law, which given the MAGA control is highly unlikely to ever happen.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/14/politics … index.html

    1. Willowarbor profile image61
      Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Another ridiculous decision brought to us by the activist court created by Trump.

      Sotomayor's dissent  broke it down very simply using a lot of common sense.

      She suggested the majority was actually overcomplicating the issue, writing: “Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.”

      A shooter can fire a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle in two ways. First, he can choose to fire single shots via distinct pulls of the trigger without exerting any additional pressure. Second, he can fire continuously via maintaining constant forward pressure on the barrel or front grip. The majority holds that the forward pressure cannot constitute a “single function of the trigger” because a shooter can also fire single shots by pulling the trigger. That logic, however, would also exclude a Tommy Gun and an M16, the paradigmatic examples of regulated machine guns in 1934 and today. Both weapons can fire either automatically or semiautomatically.

      She put it in even simpler language at another point: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”

      https://sg.news.yahoo.com/sotomayor-war … 14679.html

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        I also meant to highlight the ridiculous analogy with some person's ability to squeeze the trigger Voluntarily as fast as a bump stock can make it happen. That is just pure stupidly travelen' Thomas displayed. Worse, the other Conservatives fell for it.

  33. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

    In 2015, 1146 people died from interactions with police
    In 2016, that number was 1,093
    In 2023, it now stood at 1,161

    The first two totals are from the article below and the last from a Washington Post database (which has smaller numbers for 2015 and 2016). The numbers will varied wildly because there is no requirement for these incidents to be reported to the central FBI database which is estimated to now undercount these encounters by 2/3rds. Almost all of these were by gun.

    Many of these deadly encounters are justified, but many are not which has cost some officers their jobs and sometimes freedom as well as municipalities tens of millions of dollars in wrongful death settlements.

    One factoid from the WP database:

    White, non-Hispanics far exceed the others in total numbers (which would be expected because they far outnumber the others in population.

    Using the more important statistic of Rate, Blacks are clearly the target of police in these deadly encounters:

    Blacks: 6.1 per million per year
    Hispanics: 2.7 per million per year.
    Whites: 2.4 per million per year.
    Other: 1 per million per year.

    Draw your own conclusion.
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/15/style/my … index.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … -database/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Seems to me that to draw a meaningful conclusion more information is needed.

      What percentage of each race, while being arrested, resist arrest?

      What percentage of each race has a criminal record, particularly a violent one?

      What percentage of each race is a gang member?

      What percentage of each race is below the poverty level (poverty breeds crime and violence)?

      What percentage of each race has a warrant for them (a reason to resist police interaction)?

      What percentage of each race treats police with disdain and disrespect?

      Pretty sure that you could, if honest, find another dozen or more pertinent questions.

      While it may very well serve your purpose to simply insinuate that one race (blacks, in this case) are disproportionally killed by police for no good reason it is, at best, a simple case of ugly racism and at worst an outright lie (an effort to get a reader to believe a falsehood).

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        While the questions you ask may be interesting to investigate if the data were available, it is not on an aggravated scale that I know of, the basic data is so overwhelming that no other conclusion can be drawn.

        If the rate for Blacks were say 3 per million, you would have a point.  But not when it is nearly three times as bid as it is for Whites.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          What "basic" data is that?  You know, the data that show call cops are racists out to kill blacks?

          When you have answered some of those all important questions, then you might be able to draw the conclusion you so desperately want.  Might - personally I think you will find there is another (actually, several "other") reasons for the disparity.

          (I'll add one more to the list, too; what is the percentage of the various races that have more than a casual encounter with police in a years time?

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Where do you come up with such nonsense?

            Reasons, maybe, but not for such a huge disparity.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Easy enough to say...when there is zero data and no one wants to actually look.  When the desired conclusion is already there (cops are all racist white dudes looking to kill black people) it becomes almost a necessity not to rock the boat with actual data and truth.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                NOw you say there is ZERO data, even when I presented it.  Funny.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Oh?  You presented data on the percentage of blacks that resist arrest?  I did not see that - can you repeat it?

                  You know and understand as well as I do that what you DID present gives no clue as to the "why".  A "why" that is (as usual) as important as the raw data.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    If you are blind to the obvious, I can't help you.

  34. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 4 weeks ago

    FINALLY, the Conservatives (save for Thomas) showed some common sense rather than political or religious ideology and stopped some dangerous people from getting weapons legally.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics … index.html

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      My first question was "what percentage of spousal abusers shoot their spouses?

      It was never answered directly on the news that I watched, but some talking face DID say that spouses with a gun in the home are 5X more likely to be shot.  Not the same, not at all, but probably the kind of statistic that brought this into play.

      1. My Esoteric profile image83
        My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        What does it matter? Isn't the point to keep guns away from dangerous people?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          No.  It is to reduce the death toll.  IMO - you have made it abundantly clear that you have a different goal.

          1. My Esoteric profile image83
            My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            How is that possible when it is you who encourage more dead people by arguing against gun safety?

            On the other hand, I encourage more people not dying from guns by arguing for doing what is needed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them such as abusing spouses.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              No, you argue for taking guns from nearly everyone, for reasons that have zero to do with saving lives.  Your entire premise is based on the concept that guns kill people, but it isn't true.

              I have almost zero experience with spouse abusers, but believe that their intent is to abuse, not kill.  If they kill their spouse the fun ends.

              If that is true (IF) then having a gun won't entice an abuser to kill their spouse (though it could very well go the other way, which I would approve of).  Why take it away if that is true?

              So I asked what percentage of spouse abusers (the current group you're targeting) shoot their spouses.  And your reply is "It doesn't matter - they should not have a gun".  I disagree, for it very much DOES matter when you take guns for no reduction in the death toll.

              From the perspective of someone that is primarily concerned with saving lives, your concept of simply taking guns from everyone you can cobble up some excuse for just doesn't make sense.  For me, the whole story, not just an assumption without evidence, is needed to violate our Constitution.  You feel differently, that's all.

              1. My Esoteric profile image83
                My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Again, your preconceived notions are forcing you to make things up to justify your position.  Show me one quote where I said I want to take guns away from "almost everybody". You know that is not true yet you keep repeating the lie.

                Your "guns don't kill people" nonsense is just a red herring.  Atomic bombs don't kill people, so I guess you support the average citizen owning one.

                Since your initial premise is false, so are the conclusions you draw from it.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No single quote, just a continual litany of "reasons" for taking guns and cheers when they do, whether there is reason to think it will reduce the death toll or not.

                  What original premise?  That abusers enjoy hurting their spouse, that it makes them feel big and powerful and that if they kill that spouse the fun ends?  That one?

                  (I didn't draw conclusions, just asked questions.  Questions that might indicate this action is worthless, so must be attacked and never, ever answered)

                  1. My Esoteric profile image83
                    My Esotericposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Your response must be addressing a different post.  It had nothing to do with what you replied to.

                    Also, you didn't answer - Do you agree that people should be able to possess atomic bombs sense the object itself doesn't kill people?

  35. My Esoteric profile image83
    My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

    It is about Time!!

    US surgeon general declares US gun violence an urgent public health crisis

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/health/s … index.html

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)