President Biden thread

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.

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2021-02-09/bidens-goal-for-school-reopenings-suddenly-became-more-attainable

 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
10 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

 ...

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? 

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...

What do ypu think should be done? 

 

Do you have the data to support the bolded belief?  I've only quoted a portion of your opinion.

You can take guns away from responsible owners. If assault rifles and high capacity magazines are made illegal, responsible owners will comply with the law.  The people who do not comply with the law are not responsible gun gun owners. 

What I think should be done: 1) remove assault style rifles from the consumer market and buyback weapons known to be in the public. 2) extensive background checks and a waiting period for handguns with minimum age for purchase at 21 in all states for all handguns. 3) removal of high capacity magazines from consumer market. 3) requirement for training and a test to demonstrate competent handling of the weapon. 4) proof of to cover accidents or theft. 5) accountability for the safe storage of the weapon, the owner is legally liable for the destruction caused by their weapon if they don't maintain control. 6) red flag laws. 7) improved and increased social programs and investment. 

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11922576/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-gun-domestic-violence

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2015.0016

We need to get over the hysterical thinking that it's a terrible travesty to remove the firearms from the possession of a man who is accused of domestic violence... that we must protect his right to own a weapon before we protect another's right to life.  Previous violence is a predictor for future violence. Does anyone remember the crazy violent fellow that shot up the airport in Florida back in 2017? Police returned his weapon to him because he wasn't crazy or violent enough to justify taking it when he was just hurting women...and his violence escalated. 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
7 hours 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! 

Or you could comment based upon data, facts, or evidence...maybe provide a citation to support your feelings about Illinois gun laws.

Specializes in This and that.
11 hours ago, Tweety said:

I can't tell you what to focus on.  All that is wrong I never disagreed with you.  It seems to be your default when even when I said "still black people have some concerns".  

I'm sorry Tweety. I never intended to come across that way. I value your posts and learn allot from ypur references! 

Specializes in This and that.
2 hours ago, Tweety said:

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.   

It's not a knock on Justice Jackson, just pointing out something. I apploligize if it's sounds petty. Like I referenced before, Biden could do allot more from marginalized communities that need more that shallow platitudes and plot iCal postering. 

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

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/

 

 

Once again you have distorted what I said. So I'll just move on. 

Specializes in This and that.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Do you have the data to support the bolded belief?  I've only quoted a portion of your opinion.

You can take guns away from responsible owners. If assault rifles and high capacity magazines are made illegal, responsible owners will comply with the law.  The people who do not comply with the law are not responsible gun gun owners. 

What I think should be done: 1) remove assault style rifles from the consumer market and buyback weapons known to be in the public. 2) extensive background checks and a waiting period for handguns with minimum age for purchase at 21 in all states for all handguns. 3) removal of high capacity magazines from consumer market. 3) requirement for training and a test to demonstrate competent handling of the weapon. 4) proof of liability insurance to cover accidents or theft. 5) accountability for the safe storage of the weapon, the owner is legally liable for the destruction caused by their weapon if they don't maintain control. 6) red flag laws. 7) improved and increased social programs and investment. 

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11922576/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-gun-domestic-violence

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2015.0016

We need to get over the hysterical thinking that it's a terrible travesty to remove the firearms from the possession of a man who is accused of domestic violence... that we must protect his right to own a weapon before we protect another's right to life.  Previous violence is a predictor for future violence. Does anyone remember the crazy violent fellow that shot up the airport in Florida back in 2017? Police returned his weapon to him because he wasn't crazy or violent enough to justify taking it when he was just hurting women...and his violence escalated. 

I'm not sure, I was referencing the 60 %  statistic another member posted so maybe ask them? 

Perhaps it is "hysterical thinking" to believe any decent person would take issue with removing a gun from a domestic abuser. 

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
11 hours 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.

Yes!  Any country that has more guns than people is in an uncontrolled downward spiral.  The congragate guns do not symbolize a "well-controlled militia" in any reference to the 2nd amendment.  

Specializes in This and that.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Or you could comment based upon data, facts, or evidence...maybe provide a citation to support your feelings about Illinois gun laws.

Sure, I could link a Google search that you won't read. Or probably already know. If that makes you feel better. 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

https://www.senate.gov › pdfPDF
The Constitution of the United States of America - Senate.gov

Specializes in This and that.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Do you have the data to support the bolded belief?  I've only quoted a portion of your opinion.

You can take guns away from responsible owners. If assault rifles and high capacity magazines are made illegal, responsible owners will comply with the law.  The people who do not comply with the law are not responsible gun gun owners. 

What I think should be done: 1) remove assault style rifles from the consumer market and buyback weapons known to be in the public. 2) extensive background checks and a waiting period for handguns with minimum age for purchase at 21 in all states for all handguns. 3) removal of high capacity magazines from consumer market. 3) requirement for training and a test to demonstrate competent handling of the weapon. 4) proof of liability insurance to cover accidents or theft. 5) accountability for the safe storage of the weapon, the owner is legally liable for the destruction caused by their weapon if they don't maintain control. 6) red flag laws. 7) improved and increased social programs and investment. 

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11922576/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-gun-domestic-violence

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2015.0016

We need to get over the hysterical thinking that it's a terrible travesty to remove the firearms from the possession of a man who is accused of domestic violence... that we must protect his right to own a weapon before we protect another's right to life.  Previous violence is a predictor for future violence. Does anyone remember the crazy violent fellow that shot up the airport in Florida back in 2017? Police returned his weapon to him because he wasn't crazy or violent enough to justify taking it when he was just hurting women...and his violence escalated. 

I find most of what you said reasonable. I'm not of the opinion that everyone should have a gun. I do believe there needs to be restrictions, just like abortion. 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
58 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

It's not a knock on Justice Jackson, just pointing out something. I apploligize if it's sounds petty. Like I referenced before, Biden could do allot more from marginalized communities that need more that shallow platitudes and plot iCal postering. 

Once again you have distorted what I said. So I'll just move on. 

You should explain in what way I distorted your unsupported opinion...or just avoid making assertions that are based in feelings rather than facts and we can all move on. 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
48 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Sure, I could link a Google search that you won't read. Or probably already know. If that makes you feel better. 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state

https://www.senate.gov › pdfPDF
The Constitution of the United States of America - Senate.gov

Your assumptions about what we/I will read actually flies in the face of the behavioral history evident in these threads.  That makes it an excuse to continue sharing unsupported feelings and beliefs rather than discussing the information that influences you to feel as you do. 

 

1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I'm not sure, I was referencing the 60 %  statistic another member posted so maybe ask them? 

Perhaps it is "hysterical thinking" to believe any decent person would take issue with removing a gun from a domestic abuser. 

Nah... I'm referencing your response to the 60% data that I'm also familiar with. 

I was specific about what I called "hysterical thinking" relative to guns and life. Did you not understand my meaning or are you trying to twist my words rather than address my actual meaning? I'd be happy to explain what I mean. 

From your linked article:

Quote

California is the state with the strictest gun laws, and it also has the seventh-lowest rate of deaths by gun violence. In addition to regulation on who can purchase a gun and what kinds of firearms may be legally obtained, California gun laws allow for funding to community programs that have reduced gun-related violence.

The article then went on to list other states which have gun laws and Illinois was in that list.  Why do you think that state level gun laws, rather than national laws, are not efficient at reducing gun violence in in individual states?

Specializes in Med-Surg.
Quote

Eight states — California, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey — have the strictest gun laws and the lowest rates of gun violence.

The question I have is how does "strict" gun laws relate to gun violence rates. Interesting that this article lists Illinois.

But nothing to brag about.  Violence is still rampant everywhere.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/these-states-have-the-highest-rates-of-gun-violence-and-deaths#How-gun-laws-contribute-to-firearm-death-rates

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/us/everytown-weak-gun-laws-high-gun-deaths-study/index.html

Specializes in This and that.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You should explain in what way I distorted your unsupported opinion...or just avoid making assertions that are based in feelings rather than facts and we can all move on. 

I already did. Biden could help marginalized communities instead of political postering. Instead of making a big deal about selecting his Judges by their race and gender, he could focus on the problems of marginalized communities like Chicago and the gun violence. What type of citation do you require? 

Insinuating any opinion you disagree with as "emotional" doesn't add to the discussion. 

+ Join the Discussion