Published
Wow. No one has started such a thread yet?
After promising that most K-8 students would be in schools in the first 100 days, apparently Joe is afraid to lead on this and has drastically scaled back that goal.
Instead, we're shooting for about half to go to school at least one day a week, by the end of April.
44 minutes ago, Tweety said:Yep, by the time I post this there will be a gun death in Chicago. Yes in Chicago.
It's easy to single out Chicago because they are a liberal city with "strict" gun control laws.
But how about this. This weekend alone there were several mass shootings all across the country. In red and blue states alike. Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona. Major metropolitan areas, even in red states tend to be more blue and I've noted weeks ago that Fox News likes to focus on this.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/05/1103141264/mass-shooting-philadelphia-chattanooga-south-carolina
We live in a violent country plain and simple. Gun laws make little difference at this point. There was a random shooting in broad daylight today a few miles from where I live.
There is no solution. It's too late.
I'm usually a optimistic person, but I can't say you're wrong when you say there is no solution.
I'm not against many of the gun law proposals that have been floated about. I just don't think they'll be effective. The bigger problem imo is the disregard for the value of life. It's been a slow burn to where we're at, and there doesn't seem to be a quick fix.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
You have already sterotyped me as what you believe I believe. You probably have also assumed my race, gender ,religion and political party. If we are assuming(rampant in these threads), I'll assume you are of the democratic persuasion. Which doesn't suprise me that you would make assumptions about my identity. Or why it is so important.
What do ypu think should be done?
You are incorrect in assuming I have stereotyped you. I really don’t care about your political affiliation, race, religion or gender. I would like to think a rational discussion can be had without labeling the participants. But that does seem to be important to you.
I do think you tend to base your opinions on emotions rather than facts, and are rather incurious and don’t seem to question news reports. Me, I question just about everything. When I read a news story, I want to know what are the sources and is there a bias. And there almost always is a bias.
I was speaking about mass shootings and I really don’t have strong feelings about Chicago gun violence. I live in a rural area 1800 miles from Chicago and it isn”t a part my life. Mass shootings are everywhere and I fear for school kids both physically and emotionally. I dislike guns myself, but I don’t begrudge hunters putting food on the table.
I would like to see comprehensive background checks and mandatory training and licensing. I am in favor of red flag laws and limits on high capacity cartridges. Gun victims should be able to sue manufacturers.
3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:Well considering hand guns are already Illegal in Illinois, I do not think "banning hand guns" would help. Not to mention shooting people with guns is already illegal as well.
I'm not so "concerned about AA men". I'm actually concerned with life. The skin color is arbitrary and irrelevant. The only concern from me is that AA men are in fact dying in high numbers compared to every other race within one geographical area. I use AA because it is less tacky and distracting than using black and shorter than Aftican American. Besides not all black people are African American,wouldn't you know? So I made an easy to figure out abbreviation.
You have already sterotyped me as what you believe I believe. You probably have also assumed my race, gender ,religion and political party. If we are assuming(rampant in these threads), I'll assume you are of the democratic persuasion. Which doesn't suprise me that you would make assumptions about my identity. Or why it is so important.
It's an interesting stat that "60% are self inflicted". I'm not sure how that relates to Chicago where the majority of gun deaths are not self inflicted? Unless your point is that 60% of those guns that were used for "self infliction" are legal guns.
I'm not sure what to do to be honest. I do know that there are human beings behind the guns which makes it so much more complex. I've made the point already that where guns are illegal, it really doesn't do too much to stop gun violence(Chicago). I'm pretty sure that a gun ban or strict laws would not have detered any of the recent mass shootings or gun violence in Chicago. After all, being punished for having a gun when you are mowing down people with bullets, was of any cosidertion of the shooters. Again, there are people behind the guns. I would start by taking a look at why there is so much gang/gun violence in certain communities or suicide in others. A good start would to actually to aknowledge and be able to discuss these issues. Why does a smaller group of people suffer more than any other group of people in the country usually at the hands of the same people in the community?
However nobody will ,or even wants to call out the problem and people continue to die.
I don't like guns and have lived in different countries with different gun laws. The problem is, guns are a large part of American culture. There are many many guns. You cannot take guns away from responsible law abiding gun owners because you cannot take them from the criminals. You will be left with an imbalance.
I would like more comprehensive back ground checks. Waiting periods before you can take your gun home. However, this will put restrictions on law abiding citizens and criminal just steal them or buy them anyway.
What do ypu think should be done?
I honestly didn't get any farther than your first sentence "well considering handguns are already illegal in Illinois", they aren't illegal in Illinois, it's pretty clear that when you start off with that there won't be anything of substance to follow.
1 hour ago, nursej22 said:You are incorrect in assuming I have stereotyped you. I really don’t care about your political affiliation, race, religion or gender. I would like to think a rational discussion can be had without labeling the participants. But that does seem to be important to you.
I do think you tend to base your opinions on emotions rather than facts, and are rather incurious and don’t seem to question news reports. Me, I question just about everything. When I read a news story, I want to know what are the sources and is there a bias. And there almost always is a bias.I was speaking about mass shootings and I really don’t have strong feelings about Chicago gun violence. I live in a rural area 1800 miles from Chicago and it isn”t a part my life. Mass shootings are everywhere and I fear for school kids both physically and emotionally. I dislike guns myself, but I don’t begrudge hunters putting food on the table.
I would like to see comprehensive background checks and mandatory training and licensing. I am in favor of red flag laws and limits on high capacity cartridges. Gun victims should be able to sue manufacturers.
Actually I have no interest in identity. Race, religion politically party etc. Doesn't matter to me. When you said, " what I suggest we should do, like "open carry, no gun laws etc soundsvlike what some would consider "right wing ideas".
I would like to have discussions where labels are not used either but unfortunately it very rarely happens. I am new to post here but I have been ,"just looking" for a while and this site is littered with it.
I grew up near a really bad neiborhood in Chicago and have seen the violence first hand, so there may be emotion involved. However I do find this is a habit in this forum of suggesting ones opinions are "emotional" to discount the argument. Along with "social media" and "right wing news propaganda". However I cannot say that it is you. So if I mistaken your comment, I stand corrected.
I agree with back ground checks and the other ideas you mentioned except holding manufacturers liable. I cannot see how a gun manufacturer could be held responsible for someone illegally using the guns they make. Unless they did some sort of advertising about how their guns are great for mass shootings.
So by placing more gun laws that allow less people to have them, is the idea that there will be less guns available to criminals? The vast majority of gun offenses are committed by criminals that are either using a illegally obtained firearm and or are not legally licensed to carry it. Gun crimes are generally not done by legally owned gun owners. So is it to make less guns available for criminals to steal from legal gun owners resulting in less opportunity or supply?
I guess the general question is, how do gun bans and restrictions prevent criminals from getting them?
5 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:Actually I have no interest in identity. Race, religion politically party etc. Doesn't matter to me. When you said, " what I suggest we should do, like "open carry, no gun laws etc soundsvlike what some would consider "right wing ideas".
I would like to have discussions where labels are not used either but unfortunately it very rarely happens. I am new to post here but I have been ,"just looking" for a while and this site is littered with it.
I grew up near a really bad neiborhood in Chicago and have seen the violence first hand, so there may be emotion involved. However I do find this is a habit in this forum of suggesting ones opinions are "emotional" to discount the argument. Along with "social media" and "right wing news propaganda". However I cannot say that it is you. So if I mistaken your comment, I stand corrected.
I agree with back ground checks and the other ideas you mentioned except holding manufacturers liable. I cannot see how a gun manufacturer could be held responsible for someone illegally using the guns they make. Unless they did some sort of advertising about how their guns are great for mass shootings.
So by placing more gun laws that allow less people to have them, is the idea that there will be less guns available to criminals? The vast majority of gun offenses are committed by criminals that are either using a illegally obtained firearm and or are not legally licensed to carry it. Gun crimes are generally not done by legally owned gun owners. So is it to make less guns available for criminals to steal from legal gun owners resulting in less opportunity or supply?
I guess the general question is, how do gun bans and restrictions prevent criminals from getting them?
Because it makes it harder for a criminal to get a gun, not really sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Currently, without universal background checks, a large portion of the firearms available to buy are subject to no background check, you make all transactions subject to a background check and it's harder for someone who can't pass a background check to buy a gun. Pretty simple.
15 minutes ago, MunoRN said:I honestly didn't get any farther than your first sentence "well considering handguns are already illegal in Illinois", they aren't illegal in Illinois, it's pretty clear that when you start off with that there won't be anything of substance to follow.
Right. Technically there are no states that guns are 100% illegal because of the second amendment(I assumed everyone knew that about the constitution), however Illinois has some of the most strict gun laws. Making them more illegal than in other states. However feel free not to comment on anything else!
21 minutes ago, MunoRN said:Because it makes it harder for a criminal to get a gun, not really sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Currently, without universal background checks, a large portion of the firearms available to buy are subject to no background check, you make all transactions subject to a background check and it's harder for someone who can't pass a background check to buy a gun. Pretty simple.
So the criminals who use guns in their crimes obtained them legally because of no back ground checks?
Are you saying that the majority of gun crimes are by criminals who obtained them legally?
6 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:So the criminals who use guns in their crimes obtained them legally because of no back ground checks?
Are you referring to first-time criminals, someone with a violent felony history who is therefore not legally allowed to purchase a firearm?
But yes, it is relatively easy for someone who is not legally allowed to purchase a firearm when the person selling them the firearm is under no legal obligation to ensure that the person they are selling to is legally allowed to purchase a firearm.
9 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:Are you saying that the majority of gun crimes are by criminals who obtained them legally?
Again, it depends on how you are defining those terms, but yes, in places where a firearm can be legally transferred to someone who is not actually legally allowed to possess a firearm then I would wager that the majority of gun crimes were committed by someone who obtained them "legally".
38 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:Right. Technically there are no states that guns are 100% illegal because of the second amendment(I assumed everyone knew that about the constitution), however Illinois has some of the most strict gun laws. Making them more illegal than in other states. However feel free not to comment on anything else!
Illinois does not have particularly comprehensive firearm laws, for instance they currently do not require universal background checks.
I'm not sure what it is that your using defend your statement; are you saying you didn't think it would be a problem to wildly misrepresent Illinois gun laws since everybody would know you were lying?
7 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:I only bring up Chicago so much because it's my home city. I tire quickly from political leaders who are more interested in virtue signaling like appointing the first female black Supreme Court Justice when she was obviously privileged enough to be able to go to school, had good supportive parents.....
While at the same time, young black men are dying in groves because no bodyvwill address the problem or even acknowledge there is one. Probably because that would be racist or something.... ...
As long as they get the virtue token so they can pat themself on the back for being inclusive, or something.
Like I said, I can't tell you what to focus on. It seems a little petty to knock his choice of a Supreme Court Justice because of what's happening in Chicago.
12 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:I am not too informed about the "missing white women syndrome" I'll have to do more research. I will suggest it might be a "fact" but contexts and situation may be a factor. However Joy Ried is a nasty racist person. We all know people hear things from politicians and media figures. This may have caused less people to look or care less about finding her. Reid often says deplorable things frequently, and if the same was said about any minority, the person would be fired and ruined in every way imaginable. And so they should, but so should she.
It's not just "upsetting white people, it's upsetting anyone who understands that accepting it for white people, will open the doors for any other race. We don't say to our children, "steeling a toy is bad and wrong, but stealing candy is acceptable because candy has caused allot of tooth decay". Wrong is wrong.
White people have looked at themselves. It"s all through out history many people choose to forget. White people looked at what other white people were doing in Nazi Germany, they decided it was evil and many lost their lives fighting against Hitler and his disgusting army.
White people saw slavery and the treatment of African Americans, they lost their lives fighting for their freedom. White people pre civil rights era saw the hate and racism and fought along side and for African Americans to end it. Old white men politicians at the time who in fact did have privilege and power made laws and policies to end racial discrimination. At the time, only white people had the power to do that. And they did, unless you are making the claim that white people or any Americans are just as or more racist today than during slavery and Jim Crow.
All races through out history have done evil deeds,however I would not tell a Muslim that they "need to take a look at themself's" because of the the historical or current terrorist events.
Yes, there is more police involvment with AA(African Americans) again there is context missing from that general fact. I must also ask what exactly are they teaching some of their children? Almost every police caused death(justified or not) was because of the person's behavior and resisting arrest. Another question is why there is a higher crime rate within the AA community? I am not arguing there isn't some sort of racial discrimination causing this but no one seems to want to address this. So young AA men are being killed by police and other AA.
As for Ukrainian refugees and Africa, I do not know much about this. However someone might want to ask the Biden administration about that. Are you saying that Biden is racist with his support with Ukraine?
Mostly they are teaching their children how to avoid being killed by police when they are stopped, especially when they are stopped for nogood reason. Your opinion about why they are killed is a reflection of your bias... there is no data that supports that notion, that's why you didn't share a citation which provides background or foundation for the belief. Maybe you thought Tamir Rice was just a bad guy not following orders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004736/
Justlookingfornow
425 Posts
I only bring up Chicago so much because it's my home city. I tire quickly from political leaders who are more interested in virtue signaling like appointing the first female black Supreme Court Justice when she was obviously privileged enough to be able to go to school, had good supportive parents.....
While at the same time, young black men are dying in groves because no bodyvwill address the problem or even acknowledge there is one. Probably because that would be racist or something.... ...
As long as they get the virtue token so they can pat themself on the back for being inclusive, or something.