I disagree. I think they are to push more gun control.
Let's take Australia as an example. There was a big massacre where a lot of people shot each other. I think it still might be the biggest. The Australian government said "**** you, no more guns" and the Ausie public said "yeah alright, fair enough" and since then there hasn't been any massacres. Same with Britan, we have gun control. We can still buy guns, but most of us don't really care.
Gun Control: we need no-nonsense national level gun regulation. But let's not pretend that gun control actually contributes to homicide reduction in any meaningful way. The "gun debate" needs a healthy drink of ice cold water to get the pro-gun control/gun-ban concept out of their minds as a legitimate means to significantly reduce intentional homicides. That would actually come from ending the drug-war, implementing a UHC that has an affordable healthcare provision to it, and stopping the violence within the black community (which is where a majority of our intentional homicides come from).
Probably one of the most overtalked about issue Gun Control without ever addressing the real issue. 99.99% of all gun deaths are not from legal gun owners, so for heavens sake create more rules/legislation that does nothing to address the elephant in the room which is .........as ddm said violence in certain inner city black communities.
But I think the mayors of said cities have a handle on the violence now, defund the police.
Honestly a UHC type system would do more for the citizens of the USA than any other legislation/policy to assist in overcoming poverty because no one has a monoply on poverty.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Probably one of the most overtalked about issue Gun Control without ever addressing the real issue. 99.99% of all gun deaths are not from legal gun owners, so for heavens sake create more rules/legislation that does nothing to address the elephant in the room which is .........as ddm said violence in certain inner city black communities.But I think the mayors of said cities have a handle on the violence now, defund the police.
Honestly a UHC type system would do more for the citizens of the USA than any other legislation/policy to assist in overcoming poverty because no one has a monoply on poverty.
F*ckin' A.
Snowdragon for president.
Originally posted by Blakemore
I disagree. I think they are to push more gun control.Let's take Australia as an example. There was a big massacre where a lot of people shot each other. I think it still might be the biggest. The Australian government said "**** you, no more guns" and the Ausie public said "yeah alright, fair enough" and since then there hasn't been any massacres. Same with Britan, we have gun control. We can still buy guns, but most of us don't really care.
Wait...what?
Here's your argument:
"Australia effectively banned all guns. Australia, post-gun ban, experienced in increase in intentional homicides after their gun ban. Twice. Despite intentional homicides decreasing for years prior to their gun ban. Australia also experienced their worst mass-gun-homicide situation over 2 decades later, directly invalidating the original reason the gun-ban was implemented in the first place.
Therefore, we should implement Australia-like gun control measures in the US."
Do you understand how nonsensical your point is by using Australia?
It's like using a drug addict, who consistently relapses in their addiction including the worst relapse of their entire life, as a great example for why painting your kitchen green works to fight drug addiction. The green kitchen has nothing to do with their drug addiction.
Its only a matter of time until we get a candidate like this for real.
Originally posted by dadudemonAustralia had a big shooting so they put laws to restrict guns. It was super effective. California is another example.
Wait...what?Here's your argument:
"Australia effectively banned all guns. Australia, post-gun ban, experienced in increase in intentional homicides after their gun ban. Twice. Despite intentional homicides decreasing for years prior to their gun ban. Australia also experienced their worst mass-gun-homicide situation over 2 decades later, directly invalidating the original reason the gun-ban was implemented in the first place.
Therefore, we should implement Australia-like gun control measures in the US."
Do you understand how nonsensical your point is by using Australia?
It's like using a drug addict, who consistently relapses in their addiction including the worst relapse of their entire life, as a great example for why painting your kitchen green works to fight drug addiction. The green kitchen has nothing to do with their drug addiction.
Originally posted by cdtm
YouTube videoIts only a matter of time until we get a candidate like this for real.
Or like the president from Saints Row.
Australia had a big shooting so they put laws to restrict guns. It was super effective. California is another example.
Center for American Progress |California Gun ViolenceCalifornia Gun Violence November 2019 Gun violence takes a devastating toll on California
From 2008 through 2017, 30,703 people were killed with guns in California.
From 2014 through 2018, there were 186 mass shootings in California. A total of 198 people were killed and 757 were injured.
California has some of the highest levels of gun-related crime in the country From 2008 through 2017, a gun homicide occurred every six hours.
Law enforcement officers in California face an enormous risk of gun violence. From 2008 through 2017, 37 police officers were feloniously killed with a firearm in California.
The burden of gun violence in California falls disproportionately on communities of color:
Approximately 32 percent of the state’s gun homicide victims are Black; however, only 6 percent of the state’s population is Black.
While Hispanics make up close to 38 percent of the state’s population, they account for approximately 47 percent of gun homicide victims in the state.
In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%. Shotguns were involved in 2%.
From Pew
In other words California gun laws don't matter to people that break laws and creating new laws does nothing to deter the violence it only penalizes those operating under said laws.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are straight cisgender man who is married to a woman and has a cross-dressing fetish, who has cybersex with pre-transition transgender women. So not only are your a sex pervert, but you are total creep too. I wonder what you friends on the right think of you being a total ****ing degenerate.
Way to go for making a shit ton of assumptions. You were always easily set off, though.