Gun Control - California Style
Well this is a pleasant surprise. Supreme Court refuses to block Illinois assault weapon ban.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics … index.htmlSo 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.htmlAs 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.
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.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 ;-)
Happily, a potential mass shooting nipped in the bud.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/24/us/mclea … index.htmlAnd there was your "weapon of war"! Thank goodness he was stopped.
The story reads like he kinda stopped himself.
GAYeah, pretty much. Makes one wonder just what was going on, doesn't it?
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.I'd like to know if he owned that AK47, and if so was it obtained legally.
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
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.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 oneAnother "good" man with a gun kills 14-yo by shooting him in the back.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/us/cyrus … index.htmlThis 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.htmlA "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.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/38649182And 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.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.
"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.Why did you assume "shootings" meant shooting a person? I didn't.
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
GAI didn't use the word "shooting".. Where did you get the idea that I did? I just quoted a newspaper story.
Then you should probably put quotation marks around the quotation so we know it isn't you saying it. It would also be helpful if you provide a link to whatever you're quoting; certainly there was nothing in the article you linked to that included the italicized words (that I presume you mean to say now were a quote).
As is, there is no indication in your post that you quoted anything at all.
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.Oh, I think you completely understand me. You just don't like having it pointed out, that's all.
"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.
And the carnage continues aided and abetted by those who oppose sensible gun control laws.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/02/us/balti … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/02/us/kansa … index.html
https://apnews.com/article/chicago-four … d77ba15cb8
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/video-s … ed-4078599
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repo … s-shootingI 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.htmlAhh 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.htmlAnd 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.htmlIt 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.htmlAnother 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.htmlI 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.htmlThe 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/I am glad Cleveland isn't like Trump supporters and want to desecrate the meaning of the Statue of Liberty.
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 … /march2022There 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.https://www.statista.com/chart/5211/us- … VEQAvD_BwE
As you will notice, the majority were armed.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.Funny how you are totally willing to accept statistics when they are from CNN and they support your argument.
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.
I think that last paragraph is called pointless deflection.
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?
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.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/Wow, and I thought the USA was bad.
Why so much police violence in Brazil?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.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.
Yes, it is very hard to compare countries. Imagine living in India, where the police beat people with sticks when they violated the COVID lockdown, or China, where they locked buildings shut when people inside were infected with the virus. I can only imagine how the people in your country or the US would complain on the media if the police tried that sort of thing with them.
Is your point that killing people is preferable to beating them with a stick to save theirs and others lives or locking them in their houses for the same reason?
You mean like the Chinese sealing their buildings shut so that the residents could die when the building caught on fire? Are you actually trying to defend a police state now since you think they support your leftist views?
No, just trying to show how ridiculous your comparisons are, including the instant one.
You are really reaching. Why am I never surprised when you defend the leftist dictators?
While you defend rightest dictators - like Putin - (or wanna be ones) that try to strip you of your freedoms and send the gestapo (or KGB) after you.,
His conduct is getting very personally insulting. I mean there is always a way to express one's self without becoming personally insulting. Actually, he is implying that Wilderness and you have made claims --- that you have not shared.
Eco's statement "Is your point that killing people is preferable to beating them with a stick to save theirs and others lives or locking them in their houses for the same reason?"
I can't even comprehend anyone condoning such treatment --- sorry -- can you? WOW. And this user accuses of supporting Putin. I mean this beating people with sticks, and locking them in buildings is something I feel only leaders like Putin or Xi might do. "Beating them with a stick to save their lives" WHAT
I don’t have to imagine, I know exactly how people in my country would react if/when the police are too heavy handed; in that respect the British are very much like the French.
We wouldn’t complain on the media, we would just riot. Bristol has had more than its fair share of riots over the centuries, 11 in the past 250 years (excluding all the peaceful demonstrations and protests), 6 riots in Bristol in my life time; the last one being the “Kill the Bill’ protests in 2021 – and that doesn’t includes all the ‘protests’ such as the BLM protests in Bristol in 2020 where Bristolians toppled a bronze statue of a slave trader and dumped it in the docks.
Bristol BLM protests in 2020: https://youtu.be/7V6TtUSbbpc
And interestingly, the four Bristolian people the police tried to prosecute for criminal damage (using video footage as undisputable evidence) were found NOT GUILTY by the Jury (fellow Bristolians) in the Bristol Court. https://youtu.be/fQOAlDKRQfw
The first major Bristol riot was the famous ‘Bristol Bridge riot of 1793. The spelling of Bristol was originally Brigstowe, a Saxon word that means ‘Bridge Place’. Originally Bristol Bridge was wooden, but after it was re-built with stone the local government wanted people to pay to cross the bridge (a toll), something we Bristolians objected to, and what began as a protest ended up as a riot with 11 people being killed and 45 injured.
In 2011 the people of Stoke Croft, Bristol started a peaceful protest to protest against Tesco supermarket (food store) opening in their area e.g. they believe their local community should be served by local shops not a national chain shops. Needless to say the peaceful protests eventually degenerated into a riot.
• Peaceful Protest in Stokes Croft, Bristol – objecting to a supermarket chain opening in their street: https://youtu.be/BPVAgsV8_4g
• Protest turns into riot: https://youtu.be/hkCvka1uwuo
The ‘Kill the Bill’ protests in Bristol (and across Britain) a couple of years ago were a nationwide protest against the UK Conservative introducing a Bill into Parliament to give the police the power to breakup peaceful demonstrations – as if that’s going to work, all that does is to incite peaceful protests into becoming violent riots.
The riot that developed in Bristol being the case in point e.g. the rioters burned several police vans and destroyed the frontage of the main police station in Bristol: https://youtu.be/XV1kRyJJbm8
So yes; like the French, if the police are heavy handed with us, we Brits fight back; especially in cities like Bristol where historically and to this day Bristolians are willing to fight for what is right.When did breaking the law, whether via violence and destruction or just intimidation, become "right"?
When you’re fighting for your rights:
If it wasn’t for people willing to break the law the Trade Unions would never have been legalised.
The first record of Trade Unions in Britain was wood workers who formed a trade union in Somerset and Devon (West Country) in 1717.
Bristol played its role in the early days of the trade union movement, when trade unions were still illegal; the first recorded record being the formation of a Brush Makers Trade Union in Bristol in 1782.
In 1792 2,000 Bristol coal miners marched through Bristol in a demonstration, demanding a pay rise of 2 shillings ($0.13) per week (which was a lot of money in those days); they were encouraged by the success of shoemakers and other trade unions that had recently made similar public demonstrations.
Prior to 1824 Striking was punishable with up to three months imprisonment or two months hard labour.
In 1802 the Shearmens (cloth clutters) took strike action in Wiltshire (West Country), bringing the local cloth mills to a standstill; and an apprentice (Thomas Helliker) was hanged for criminal damage during that strike; he was hanged the day before his 19th birthday.
In March 1834, six agricultural labourers who had formed a trade union in the Dorsetshire village of Tolpuddle were arrested and found guilty of forming a trade union, and were sentenced to transportation to Australia for seven years. This sentence led to a mass public campaign, which led to their sentences being dropped.
Trade Unions were not finally legalised and given protection under the law until 1871, and strike action was not made legal in Britain until 1875.
So yes, breaking the law to fight for your rights, or what is right, can be justified.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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?"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.
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.You said it, I didn't. What is truly fascinating is how you can deny your own words.
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.
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.You deny you propagate Putin propaganda all the time? You really need to go back and read what you write?
Show me even one example, and I will admit that you are not making this up.
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."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?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.
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?
He is certainly on a roll... I read the conversation, he really needs to explain where he drew his inference. I found none.
You didn't find any because there was none. Just Eso's imagination, let loose once more.
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.
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?" A little homework shows that there is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the number of homicides,"
Sources?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."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.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.
I repeat: please copy/paste (with a link) to prove your silly claim. Otherwise quit making foolish comments that contradict reality.
So for clarity, in reference to Scott’s comment, are you inferring that if guns were more difficult to obtain that people would not find other ways to kill themselves – ergo fewer suicides?
While I believe there would be fewer suicides (without researching and without data), I do not believe the difference would be large. People wishing to suicide will at least try, but a gun makes a far better tool than, for instance, sleeping pills. Thus a few will try and fail due to the use of a poorer tool, decreasing slightly the numbers of suicides but the difference will be slight. IMO.
But I have never said that the difference would be great, and have seldom even discussed it at all, for in my mind the push to disarm the public has very little to do with suicides. It is all about the use of guns to kill other people, not to kill ones self. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to deny vast numbers of people their rights because a few will use that right to kill themselves.I have researched it and I do have data. The difference is significant. http://hub.me/afnYB
Where do you get this "disarming the public" nonsense? That is a figment of your imagination.
The "PUSH" you are thinking about is making guns less available to those who would abuse them. No more, no less. A side effect of that is less suicides because fewer homes will have guns in them.
How do you do that? Sensible gun safety laws like universal background checks (which most gun owners support), training, registration, red flag laws. Personally, I would make the owner personally liable if they allow their guns to be stolen by not properly securing them.
NOT ONE of those measures would take away a gun from a law-abiding citizens, Not One. Yet you seem to think it will.While I understand that you claim the goal is not to disarm the public, I (and many others) disagree. That there is a virtually unending process to require more and more roadblocks to gun ownership bears this out, as well as statements from some lawmakers plainly stating that the ultimate goal is disarmament.
You might, for instance, indicate how gun registration will prevent either murders or suicides; the only possible reason I can see is to have a record of who owns a gun, with the goal either tracking down a murder that already happened or for future use in confiscation. How will it prevent a murder or even a suicide? "Common sense" tells me that providing government with such information cannot prevent anything at all.
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.
Just attempting to challenge statements being passed off as fact with no supporting documentation.
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.
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.
No, especially when you have accused someone of stating something they did not say. That is misinformation.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.Except when you make the meaning up out of your own imagination rather than what the words actually meant.
"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.
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.
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.Yep, we get all that news over here in the UK, as it happens - very shocking state of affairs.
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"?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/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.
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.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.
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.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.
It is, Arthur, a cornucopia source of great info.
Thanks..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
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....
Cool; I look forward to what you find out.
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/Perhaps we will then address the causes of the violence rather than trying to bandaid it by with more useless controls.
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.
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.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.)"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.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.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.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.Oh? May I quote you: "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."
Why are you touting someone that compared across countries then take me to task for it?
But I agree that your "common sense" and your "logic" doesn't like it, and that is enough for you. You don't need facts, and when presented with them back away in a hurry, saying "Those facts don't count!".
Fact: you asked for hard data and I gave it to you...whereupon it doesn't count because it doesn't lead to the result you want.Since you didn't read her report, how do you know she compared across countries rather than within? (She compared within.)
That data you gave without sources was not "hard". In fact, it appeared to be wrong based on the evidence and sources I gave you.*shrug* If you don't like the data, check it yourself. It is written up on my carousel, with the data coming from the small arms survey (UN) and the UN itself. All freely available to those that are truly interested in finding a solution to our violence ridden society.
Personally I prefer data from a reputable source, not wikipedia or "wisevoter", whoever that is. You may feel differently, choosing data from whoever supports your position instead. It helps to choose only specific countries, as you did; using the US for all your comparisons is a really poor method of finding truth."shrug" back. My data is fine. Since you refuse to provide your sources, I don't believe your numbers.
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/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.
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.
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/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.I would imagine it should work like an in-store purchase. The gun shows may lose their immediacy while the background check is completed.
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.
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.htmlThe 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)"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.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.htmlSwimming 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.)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://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/tr … eath-rates
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.htmlExactly 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.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.
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.htmlFINALLY!!! 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.htmlFINALLY! 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.htmlWhat 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.
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.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.
Where is the bias? They just reported the facts.
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.htmlWhile 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.htmlAnother 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.htmlI 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.
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/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).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.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?Where do you come up with such nonsense?
Reasons, maybe, but not for such a huge disparity.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.
NOw you say there is ZERO data, even when I presented it. Funny.
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.If you are blind to the obvious, I can't help you.
With that answer I will assume you did NOT answer the question, or any of the others. Your conclusions, with zero evidence, are all you need and all you want.
I presented the evidence, you chose not to see it. Once again, the study, the evidence, shows that police encounters that lead to death is almost three times as high as with Whites. The source was provided and it is irrefutable. The conclusion is obvious.
BUT, if you don't agree with the data, find your own that refutes it or agree with mine.Sorry, but the conclusion is obvious to you, because you already have a conclusion decided on and refuse to consider anything else. Everything you've said here points to that.
I accept your data. But your data doesn't even support your conclusion - it doesn't support anything but the fact that police interactions with blacks is more likely to result in death than other races. Your "conclusion" (without evidence, data or anything but your own racism) is not supported.Nope, my conclusion was based on the data I saw. And now you see the same thing - that Blacks are much more likely to die at the hands of police.
That sets the stage for the next question - WHY is that the case?
The "mostly likely" conclusion is they are racist toward blacks. To conclude otherwise, you have to believe that Blacks are fundamentally different from ALL OTHER races.
Now, I suppose that is possible, that as a race Blacks are poorer, more violent, and the other things you mention, than Whites or Hispanics. Do you think that is true?
Credence, do you think your race stands unique with the qualities that would lead to kill them more often than Whites or Hispanics?Ah. Then you DO recognize that the "why" is at least as important as the "what".
All that's left is to understand that making "conclusions" on zero data (cops are racist) is incredibly foolish. We're not talking about being PC here - we're talking about truth and reality. And the reality is that you have exactly nothing to assume that the high death toll is because the cops of America are all racist pigs.
(Yes, much of the black culture being promoted is fundamentally different than other races. Why is the rate of single parent families so much higher if that is not true?That would be true, if there were zero data as you claim. But your claim is wrong.
You didn't answer my question - do you believe that Blacks are so different as a race from Hispanics and Whites as to cause that 3 to 1 difference in death rates by cops?
If you don't, then what other logical explanation is there? We know, from other data, that racism against Blacks in the police, writ large, is a thing; study after study as established that. Study after study also show that, as a rule, police leadership do not hold their cops accountable for bad actions. All to often White communities don't either letting the vast majority of cops, where DA's did find reasonable cause to start a criminal trial against them, off the hook despite the guilt. Fortunately, that paradigm seems to be breaking down and the juries are less prone to nullification.No, I do not believe that...not because it isn't true but because I have not studied or seen any data regarding the question. Not data proving it, not data disproving it, just no data at all.
You seem to indicate that you have not seen any either - then why do you assume that the answer is racist cops?
As to the single family, maybe it is because cops keep killing the fathers.
Or maybe it is because first marriage occurs later in life for Blacks than Whites or Hispanics, but the birth rates have not given rise to more single parents in the Black community.
Maybe that is because Black women are more capable and independent that their White or Hispanic counterparts (but like sex just as much).Your answers are correct...in that they answer with a "maybe". But not with anything that can begin to answer why blacks die at the hands of cops more than other races. Or even why there are more single women with kids that are black than there are other races (adjusted for the number in that race, or course - not total numbers).
But I'll give you another possibility - because blacks keep shooting each other, killing all the fathers. Certainly a better answer than cops doing it - there are far, far more black deaths at the hands of blacks than there are at the hands of cops.
(Could that be one answer for deaths by cops? Because they are being taught that anyone with a gun will kill and that they should immediately either run or attack such a person? You know - fight or flight?)
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.htmlMy 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.What does it matter? Isn't the point to keep guns away from dangerous people?
No. It is to reduce the death toll. IMO - you have made it abundantly clear that you have a different goal.
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.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.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.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)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?If you are foolish enough to require an answer to that question you aren't worth my time to talk to.
Sense you won't answer, I am forced to assume you would allow it and are simply too embarrassed to say so.
Good assumption...for someone trying to pick a fight rather than a discussion.
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.htmlStill ANOTHER school shooting, this time in Georgia; at least four dead.
Biden says we "cannot continue to accept this as normal" after Georgia high school shooting - We always say that, but Republicans let it keep happening by sticking their heads in the sand and repeating the FALSE mantra that "guns don't kill people". (I suppose the 14-year old in this case used his laser vision.)
I haven't read yet what type of weapon was used but my bet is it was another weapon of war.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/apalac … 455bf56d3aDad buys weapon of war for son with known mental health issues. Son murders four people in school with it. Now son and DAD are charged in those deaths.
GOOD! Parents need to be held accountable.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/georgi … index.htmlAnd here is a lot of problem. Conservative leadership apparently thinks school shootings are just a price to pay for unfettered access to guns. As Vance said, it is just a "fact of life", sort of like breathing is.
Isn't that just sick? It is that attitude that has led to the explosion of school massacres and other mass shootings.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics … index.htmlThe real problem is that the father, for some odd, strange and totally unknown reason gave his son an assault rifle or whatever gun it was. Yes, the father should be held accountable.
What's wrong with the kid?
Whats wrong with the father?
These questions need to be asked and the answers known.
If we cannot have mental health anywhere, anymore... than yes, we better remove our second amendment. Apparently, we are no longer a stable, civilized society. We, the sick masses, need to be treated as weak, stupid and psychologically unprepared for survival. We need to be treated as corrupt, frail and weak in body, mind and soul. There is something going wrong and the problem is deeper than whether we need more police or military security on school campuses or (vs) no guns allowed in society.
It is ridiculous to talk of such solutions.
What happened to the son and his father in their home? Can we discuss it as a case study, or is it rude? If it is rude, then yes, take away the guns and get military security on campuses because there could be knifings, swordings and karate choppings galore after the guns are rounded up.
Are we raising chimps or humans? Are we de-evolving?
If we are de-evolving, we need to address it.Why are you proposing an all or nothing approach? If you can't solve all of it then do nothing is what it sounds like you are saying.
~ so are you.
take away all the guns since there was a nut case at a school today.Where have EVER proposed taking away ALL guns? You made that up, didn't you.
California: "As of January 1, 2024, no person is allowed to purchase more than one firearm, which includes completed frames and receivers and firearm precursor parts, within any 30-day period. Starting January 1, 2025, all private party transactions except with some exemptions will be subject to the 1-in-30 restriction.
On March 11, 2024, Judge William Q. Hayes declared that the 1-in-30 law as applied to handguns and semi-automatic centerfire rifles violates the Second Amendment.
No, I don't know much about guns or gun laws, since I am a civilized person who doesn't even like shooting animals, as I am a vegetarian. Well I'll eat fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ … s_by_stateIt’s been a very long time since I’ve made any contributions to this debate, primarily because gun violence is an issue that is ONLY relevant to America e.g. all guns (of any type) are illegal in Britain, even the police don’t carry guns; and Americans seem to be adamant in clinging onto guns as an inherent right under Amendment 2 of the American Constitution!
All guns were banned in Britain in 1996, following the Dunblane school massacre where a 43 year old killed 16 pupils and a teacher. I wish it was possible for guns to be made illegal in America, like they are in Britain, but I don’t see that ever happening in the foreseeable future.
The Dunblane Massacre in 1996 - The Horror of Britain's Deadliest Mass Shooting that directly led to gun ownership being made illegal in Britain https://youtu.be/f3HQafUeDxo
But what caught my eye in this post, which prompted me to respond, is your comment that you are a vegetarian who eats fish; you might be interested to know that the official name for a vegetarian who eats fish is Pescatarian. I’m a vegetarian who eats dairy products, including eggs, and the official name for that is Ovo-lacto vegetarian.
This link gives you more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PescetarianismFirst, how does that show that I ever said to take away everybody's guns. That part you made up.
Second, how is that law "taking away ALL guns"?? It doesn't read that way to me. Seems like in California you can own as many guns as you like, it will just take you longer.
For the record, I don't oppose RESPONSIBLE gun ownership so long as the person receiving the gun has a low likelihood of abusing it. My liberal streak goes so far as to say that a person could qualify to own an atomic bomb, so long as they can prove they will protect it and not use it.
I also oppose hunting (but wouldn't ban it), but I am not a vegetarian.
I would need to think about it, but at first blush, I would oppose the California law. A waiting period long enough to conduct a thorough background check (including for personal transactions) would be sufficient for me.
Finally, I am not sure that I see how their law goes against the 2nd Amendment as people end up owning the gun anyway. Doesn't prohibiting California from passing the law interfere with State's Rights to chart their own course?
Here is another story about the sad state of affairs in America regarding gun violence.
Here, an 11-year old Florida kid is charged with a felony after threatening mass killings at his school. He had a list of targets. He also said it was a "joke". The pile of weapons he accumulated tells me it is no joke. His parents need to be investigated.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/16/us/flori … index.htmlUsing MAGA Logic, I will thank Biden for the 3% drop in violent crime (Which puts a lie to everything MAGA and Trump say about the subject).
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/23/politics … index.htmlWhy have Conservative lawmakers and NRA leadership made the ATF's job so much more difficult at this LATEST mass school shooting?
Police working with ATF to trace gun used in shooting
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/madiso … index.html
Related Discussions
- 204
Why not pass Gun Control laws in pieces?
by Don Bobbitt 9 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
- 1302
Gun Control
by lesliebyars 12 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
- 28
Gun control -Latest polling
by PrettyPanther 5 years ago
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 2-5, 2019. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5. "Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?" Support 56%Oppose 41%Unsure 4% ...
- 212
Beto - Hell Yes We're Going to Take Your Guns Away
by ga anderson 5 years ago
Beto O'Ruarke put it out there, center stage:"Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ."Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles, how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?A couple of...
- 135
Gun Control Who
by Judy Specht 12 years ago
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-c … z2Halds2vi
- 51
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by strengthcourageme 10 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?