America under President Trump

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 Does anyone else see how repugnant this situation is becoming, or am I the only one?

It's pretty plain to see, isn't it ?  And escalating political violence is the natural progression.  This is why the elites usually show leadership, and work together: they want to mitigate the possibility of chaos and instability.  

[Boges]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I find that these shootings have done nothing more than increase the political divide to greater extremes. Political discourse today is just a bunch of outraged people talking at each other, making baseless accusations at every opportunity. The victim's bodies were not even cold yet before the political accusations started flying.

Does anyone else see how repugnant this situation is becoming, or am I the only one?

That's how nothing gets done on the Gun Control file. It's too soon to discuss that a guy shot 9 people in one minute with a legally purchased 100 round clip. When is it appropriate to talk about such things? 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

That's how nothing gets done on the Gun Control file. It's too soon to discuss that a guy shot 9 people in one minute with a legally purchased 100 round clip. When is it appropriate to talk about such things? 

Virtue signaling about how not implementing measures that don't work is doing nothing, that is how nothing will get done.

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Virtue signaling about how not implementing measures that don't work is doing nothing, that is how nothing will get done.

Outrage after the Vegas shooting seemed to get Bump Stocks banned. 

The issues that are being proposed have popular support. Just because "you" say it'll do nothing doesn't make it so. 

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

Outrage after the Vegas shooting seemed to get Bump Stocks banned. 

The issues that are being proposed have popular support. Just because "you" say it'll do nothing doesn't make it so. 

Bump stock bans are pointless, they save no lives, what is the point in banning them? 

Just because "you" say it'll do something, doesn't make it so. Only one of us is advocating restricting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens though, and isn't me.

If I am wrong, the rights of law abiding citizens are preserved, if you are wrong, those rights are infringed upon. So the burden of proof is on you to prove your proposed regulations work the way you think they will,  you are the one who wants to infringe on the rights of others because of the perceived effectiveness of these regulations on your part. So prove they are effective as you perceive them to be, or stop trying to take away people's rights with your concern trolling Americans about mass shootings.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Bump stock bans are pointless, they save no lives, what is the point in banning them? 

Just because "you" say it'll do something, doesn't make it so. Only one of us is advocating restricting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens though, and isn't me.

If I am wrong, the rights of law abiding citizens are preserved, if you are wrong, those rights are infringed upon. So the burden of proof is on you to prove your proposed regulations work, because you are the one who wants to infringe on the rights of others to see if they do.

And because you say they don't doesn't make it so. Your bias is plainly obvious.

The burden of proof is not on me. I'm not American. Again certain Gun Control measures, like background checks and limitation on clips are politically popular. 
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099

These measures are being held up by politicians that are being pressured by an organization that represents the gun makers. It's financial to them, public safety doesn't enter their equation. 

Perhaps you can provide an argument for private citizens owning Military style weapons beyond an amendment written when preserving private militias was the goal. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

And because you say they don't doesn't make it so. Your bias is plainly obvious.

The burden of proof is not on me. I'm not American. Again certain Gun Control measures, like background checks and limitation on clips are politically popular. 

Perhaps you can provide an argument for private citizens owning Military style weapons beyond an amendment written when preserving private militias was the goal. 

My bias is obvious, your bias is obvious.

The burden of proof is on you, because you want constitutional rights to be restricted. Being politically popular doesn't mean they will be effective.

Perhaps you can provide an argument for private citizens not owning military style weapons, since you are the one who wants to take away people's rights and you don't think the current restrictions go far enough.

The side who wants to restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens better have a damn good reason for it, or it's a non-starter. The side who supports constitutional rights does not need a damn good reason for not wanting their rights restricted, it's best to air on the side of caution, especially when the side who wants to restrict rights has no good reason for the other side to accept their proposals.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

My bias is obvious, your bias is obvious.

The burden of proof is on you, because you want constitutional rights to be restricted. Being politically popular doesn't mean they will be effective.

Perhaps you can provide an argument for private citizens not owning military style weapons, since you are the one who wants to take away people's rights. The people who don't want to take away people's rights do not have the burden of proof here, stop pretending they do.

That's not exactly how democracy works. Government representatives can most certainly change the law without having to prove to, people like you, that it's in their best interest to force people to register their weapons or limit the number of bullets they can load in their weapons.  

It seems Trump is even exploring avenues to side-step the Senate. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/05/trump-executive-action-guns-1448612

BTW, why are we talking like we're American. If your Canadian, you've never had these right. And if you are an American, like BC2004, I'm just pointing out the popularity of these Gun Control measures in the US. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's not exactly how democracy works. Government representatives can most certainly change the law without having to prove, people like you that it's in their best interest. A person, like you, is also in the vast majority. 

It seems Trump is even exploring avenues to side-step the Senate. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/05/trump-executive-action-guns-1448612

BTW, why are we talking like we're American. If your Canadian, you've never had these right. And if you are an American, like BC2004, I'm just pointing out the popularity of these Gun Control measures in the US. 

They can't change the law if it infringes on constitutional rights. Not everything is a majority vote, and constitutional rights exist for a reason, it's so that can't vote those rights away from the minority, or the majority, just because it's popular. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A proposal being popular doesn't make it a good policy.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They can't change the law if it infringes on constitutional rights, not everything is a majority vote, and constitutional rights exist for a reason, it's so that a mob can't vote those rights away. You not having those rights and not wanting those rights is not a good reason to tell Americans they shouldn't want them either.

Has the bump stock ban been challenged in court? 

If these laws are passed. Gun Nuts and the NRA can challenge them in court, and those arguments can be made. It'll be interesting to see what arguments are made. 

But to say that congress or the POTUS has no right to pass these laws is laughable. 

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

Has the bump stock ban been challenged in court? 

If these laws are passed. Gun Nuts and the NRA can challenge them in court, and those arguments can be made. It'll be interesting to see what arguments are made. 

But to say that congress or the POTUS has no right to pass these laws is laughable. 

They can pass the laws, but that doesn't make those laws a good idea, or constitutional. Passing unconstitutional laws to make you feel better about the Americans you look down on, is not a wise move for America. You have no good reason to infringe on people's rights, you just think America should do it because you are convinced it will work, yet you refuse to provide good reasons for that assumption to anyone else, they should just listen to you and "do something" no further explanation required, constitutional rights be damned.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They can pass the laws, but that doesn't make those laws a good idea, or constitutional. Passing unconstitutional laws to make you feel better about the Americans you look down on, is not a wise move for America. You have no good reason to infringe on people's rights, you just think America should do it because you are convinced it will work, yet you refuse to provide good reasons for that assumption to anyone else.

Again, if they're unconstitutional they can be challenged in court. Like Trump's fake emergency at the border. 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Again, if they're unconstitutional they can be challenged in court. Like Trump's fake emergency at the border. 

Indeed, but that doesn't make it a good idea to pass an unconstitutional law, you seem to think that it's a good idea, because the courts will eventually sort it out.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Indeed, but that doesn't make it a good idea to pass an unconstitutional law, you seem to think that it's a good idea, because the courts will eventually sort it out.

It doesn't really matter to me. I live in a very safe part of Canada and don't fear gun violence ever. 

I think logic would states that the level of gun violence in the US is a direct result of the guns available to them. If you don't I'd like to ask what's causing it then. It's certainly not because of Video games and lack of prayer in schools. 

Some people are fine with that, many aren't.

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

It doesn't really matter to me. I live in a very safe part of Canada and don't fear gun violence ever. 

I think logic would states that the level of gun violence in the US is a direct result of the guns available to them. If you don't I'd like to ask what's causing it then. It's certainly not because of Video games and lack of prayer in schools. 

Some people are fine with that, many aren't.

Logic wouldn't state that, because the amount of guns that are available to them does not explain the differing outcomes. Gun homicides have gone down in the US as the amount of guns have increased, if logic stated that more guns equals more gun deaths, that wouldn't be the case.

It's the media making the nutjobs famous, the dueling culture of the American South that has migrated north to major cities, it's a cultural thing. Restricting or banning inanimate objects is not going to fix those issues any more than banning murder stops serial killers.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Logic wouldn't state that, because the amount of guns that are available to them does not explain the differing outcomes. Gun homicides have gone down in the US as the amount of guns have increased, if logic stated that more guns equals more gun deaths, that wouldn't be the case. It's the media making the nutjobs famous, it's a cultural thing, and restricting or banning inanimate objects is not going to fix those issues.

I didn't say number, I said type.

These types of incidents are most certainly on the rise. And the ones where they use military style weapons are the ones that have the largest casualties. 

What type of culture? Gun Culture? White people being afraid brown people are going to replace them? White guys not being able to get laid culture? 

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

I didn't say number, I said type.

These types of incidents are most certainly on the rise. And the ones where they use military style weapons are the ones that have the largest casualties. 

What type of culture? Gun Culture? White people being afraid brown people are going to replace them? White guys not being able to get laid culture? 

The Dueling culture of Southron hotheads that has also migrated to Northern cities. The media outrage culture that politicizes every mass shooting to get more page views. Mass shootings are up, but shootings in general are down, mass shooters getting famous while non-mass shooters get little media coverage, no doubt plays a large part in that, just as it played in the rise of the serial killer in the 1970's, very similar dynamic. The media's obsession with infamy is a helluva drug.

The problem is not the object used to murder people, the problem is people murdering other people. Inanimate objects don't kill people, people kill people, the problem ain't the guns.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The Dueling culture of Southron hotheads that has also migrated to Northern cities. The media outrage culture that politicizes every mass shooting to get more page views. Mass shootings are up, but shootings in general are down, mass shooters getting famous while non-mass shooters get little media coverage, no doubt plays a large part in that, just as it played in the rise of the serial killer in the 1970's, very similar dynamic. The media's obsession with infamy is a helluva drug.

Because mass shootings are a lot more alarming. I think when dozens of innocent civilians are killed, that's pretty newsworthy.

Targeted gang killings aren't anything new. A guy going into an elementary school to shoot children is something very new. 

Are you saying the media coverage devoted to an InCell running people down with a Van last year was more or less outrageous then when someone killed people with a gun in the Danforth. 

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Because mass shootings are a lot more alarming. I think when dozens of innocent civilians are killed, that's pretty newsworthy.

Targeted gang killings aren't anything new. A guy going into an elementary school to shoot children is something very new. 

Are you saying the media coverage devoted to an InCell running people down with a Van last year was more or less outrageous then when someone killed people with a gun in the Danforth. 

I am saying the inanimate object isn't the problem here, it's the people abusing inanimate objects who are the problem. You seem to want to blame the object, but if the US had exact same gun laws as Canada, it would not have Canada's gun violence rates, that's not how it works.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I am saying the inanimate object isn't the problem here, it's the people abusing inanimate objects who are the problem. You seem to want to blame the object, but if the US had exact same gun laws as Canada, it would not have Canada's gun violence rates, that's not how it works.

We'll never know, because the laws have been different for so long, but we're culturally very similar. No developed country on Earth has the gun problems the US has. 

Yes the gun doesn't do the killing, the person does it. But some guns are made for killing lots of people. I don't see a logical reason to own a weapon like that. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

We'll never know, because the laws have been different for so long, but we're culturally very similar. No developed country on Earth has the gun problems the US has. 

Yes the gun doesn't do the killing, the person does it. But some guns are made for killing lots of people. I don't see a logical reason to own a weapon like that. 

The laws haven't been that different for that long, the change is within my lifetime, 1993 was the moment were they started to diverge when Chretien went a gun grabbing, and that change did not effect gun violence the way you assume it would.

Fact is gun control did not create the difference in gun violence you see between Canada and America, the parts of America with the most gun control, the parts that have laws that are closer to Canada today, have the most gun deaths. The parts of America that have less gun control laws, closer to what Canada was like in the 1970's for instance, have less gun deaths.

Gun control does not save lives, it didn't save Canada, and it won't save America. You not seeing a logical reason to own a weapon is not grounds for a law restricting the ability to do that, that's just an indication that you lack the imagination to put yourself in the shoes of law-abiding gun owners who have logical reasons to own such a weapon.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I am saying the inanimate object isn't the problem here, it's the people abusing inanimate objects who are the problem. You seem to want to blame the object, but if the US had exact same gun laws as Canada, it would not have Canada's gun violence rates, that's not how it works.

While that's true, it's also true that the easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is to kill multiple people.  The deranged* individual who attacked my son used a knife, and while it was close, my son did not die.  The attacker talked about how he'd tried to get a gun, but was unsuccessful.  If he'd been succesful in getting a gun, my son would be dead. 

It's all well and good to argue that it's the tool weilder that is the problem but ignoring the difference in tools chosen to get the job done is disingenuous.  If the problem isn't the tool, then why not allow citizens to access tanks and warplanes?  If the problem is people and not the tool, why shouldn't all countries be permitted free access to nuclear weapons. 

Ultimately it's easier and more effective to limit access to weapons rather than try to determine which humans might decide to use the most efficient killing tool they can get to kill as many as possible.

*Literally deranged, he is still in a facility.

[Boges]

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The laws haven't been that different for that long, the change is within my lifetime, and that change did not effect gun violence the way you assume it would.

Fact is gun control did not create the difference in gun violence you see between Canada and America, the parts of America with the most gun control, the parts that have laws that are closer to Canada, have the most gun deaths. 

Gun control does not save lives, it didn't save Canada, and it won't save America. You not seeing a logical reason to own a weapon is not grounds for a law restricting the ability to do that.

Gun Control Laws have to be National. In the case of Chicago, people can just drive 20 minutes into Indiana for their guns. And that doesn't address Mass Shootings. They literally happen everywhere in the US. 

They mostly happen in Texas actually. 

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-modern-us-history-3b2dfb67-7278-4082-a78c-d9fdbef367f1.html

America's deadliest modern mass shootings

1. Route 91 Harvest music festival, Las Vegas, October 2, 2017: 58 killed, 527 injured.
2. Pulse, Orlando, Fla., June 2016: 49 killed and more than 50 injured.
3. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va., April 2007: 32 killed and 17 injured on campus.
4. Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn., December 2012: 26 killed.
5. First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 2017: 26 killed.
6. Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen, Texas, October 1991: 23 killed.
7. McDonald's, San Ysdiro, Calif., July 1984: 21 killed.
8. Walmart, El Paso, Texas, August 3, 2019: At least 20 killed, 26 injured.
9. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Fla., February 2018: 17 killed.
10. University of Texas Tower, Austin, Texas, August 1966: 16 killed around campus.
11. Inland Regional Center, San Bernardino, Calif., December 2015: 14 killed.
12. Edmond post office, Edmond, Okla., August 1986: 14 killed.
13. Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, November 2009: 13 killed.
14. Columbine High School, Littleton, Colo., April 1999: 13 killed.
15. Binghamton Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y., April 2009: 13 killed.
16. New Jersey neighborhood and local shops, Camden, N.J, September 1949: 13 killed.
17. Schoolhouse Lane neighborhood and Heather Highlands Mobile Home Village, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., September 1982: 13 killed.
18. Wah Mee club in the Louisa hotel, Seattle, Wash., February 1983: 13 killed.
19. Century 16 movie theater, Aurora, Colo., July 2012: 12 killed, 58 wounded.
20. Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., September 2013: 12 killed, 8 wounded.
21. The Borderline Bar & Grill, Thousand Oaks, Calif., November 2018: 12 killed, several wounded.
22. Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Va., May 31, 2019: 12 killed.

Most of these Shootings happen in Conservative areas of the US actually. Sandy Hook was the outlier. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

While that's true, it's also true that the easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is to kill multiple people.  The deranged* individual who attacked my son used a knife, and while it was close, my son did not die.  The attacker talked about how he'd tried to get a gun, but was unsuccessful.  If he'd been succesful in getting a gun, my son would be dead. 

It's all well and good to argue that it's the tool weilder that is the problem but ignoring the difference in tools chosen to get the job done is disingenuous.  If the problem isn't the tool, then why not allow citizens to access tanks and warplanes?  If the problem is people and not the tool, why shouldn't all countries be permitted free access to nuclear weapons. 

Ultimately it's easier and more effective to limit access to weapons rather than try to determine which humans might decide to use the most efficient killing tool they can get to kill as many as possible.

*Literally deranged, he is still in a facility.

If he wanted to get a gun, it's not that hard, Canada's laws do not make it difficult to get a gun. The attacker thinking it was difficult is a faulty perception based on his incompetence.

It may be easier to attempt to limit access, but the results aren't going to be what you expected,  the measures won't work, and no one lives are going to be saved.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Gun Control Laws have to be National. In the case of Chicago, please can just drive 20 minutes into Indiana for their guns. And that doesn't address Mass Shootings. They literally happen everywhere in the US. 

They mostly happen in Texas actually. 

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-modern-us-history-3b2dfb67-7278-4082-a78c-d9fdbef367f1.html

America's deadliest modern mass shootings

1. Route 91 Harvest music festival, Las Vegas, October 2, 2017: 58 killed, 527 injured.
2. Pulse, Orlando, Fla., June 2016: 49 killed and more than 50 injured.
3. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va., April 2007: 32 killed and 17 injured on campus.
4. Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn., December 2012: 26 killed.
5. First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 2017: 26 killed.
6. Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen, Texas, October 1991: 23 killed.
7. McDonald's, San Ysdiro, Calif., July 1984: 21 killed.
8. Walmart, El Paso, Texas, August 3, 2019: At least 20 killed, 26 injured.
9. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Fla., February 2018: 17 killed.
10. University of Texas Tower, Austin, Texas, August 1966: 16 killed around campus.
11. Inland Regional Center, San Bernardino, Calif., December 2015: 14 killed.
12. Edmond post office, Edmond, Okla., August 1986: 14 killed.
13. Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, November 2009: 13 killed.
14. Columbine High School, Littleton, Colo., April 1999: 13 killed.
15. Binghamton Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y., April 2009: 13 killed.
16. New Jersey neighborhood and local shops, Camden, N.J, September 1949: 13 killed.
17. Schoolhouse Lane neighborhood and Heather Highlands Mobile Home Village, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., September 1982: 13 killed.
18. Wah Mee club in the Louisa hotel, Seattle, Wash., February 1983: 13 killed.
19. Century 16 movie theater, Aurora, Colo., July 2012: 12 killed, 58 wounded.
20. Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., September 2013: 12 killed, 8 wounded.
21. The Borderline Bar & Grill, Thousand Oaks, Calif., November 2018: 12 killed, several wounded.
22. Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Va., May 31, 2019: 12 killed.

Most of these Shootings happen in Conservative areas of the US actually. Sandy Hook was the outlier. 

Most gun deaths in Chicago don't come from guns sold in Indiana, they are from guns sold in Illinois, and mostly from illegal sales at that. No amount of gun control in Indiana is going to fix Chicago's gun problems, and no amount of stricter gun control in Chicago is going to do that either.

As I said, Southron Hot Head Dueling Culture plays a part in this, it's not the guns or lack thereof, it's not the gun control or lack thereof.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Yzermandius19