Political Roundtable Part XIX

[DCZards]

So, the definition of semi-automatic is one that essentially discharges the last round and reloads the next. I would say the vast majority of weapons sold today are semi-automatic including handguns and shotguns. You have 400M of those out there right now. I think most hunters and sport shooters would be fine with single shot rifles. Shotguns not so much when you are hunting.

As for the ammunition - it would seem reasonable to ban. But easy to change unless you would ban the ability to create your own ammo. Back in the day when I did sport shooting - I loaded my own rounds. It is very easy and inexpensive and the rounds are MUCH more accurate.

I still like your insurance idea the best. If an 18 yr. old wanted a gun - the insurance premiums would/should be very high, even higher for the second and third gun. Insurance companies could require a mental stability test to insure over two guns. Although two semi-automatic pistols could easily be used to do a mass shooting.

I got rid of my guns and left the sport when I had my first kid. I just didn't believe you could have a gun and not have your inquisitive child find it and handle it... gun safes or otherwise. I even got rid of my air rifle...

The chief problem I have with the insurance idea and the high premiums is that it would discriminate against poor and low-income people in favor of middle- and upper-class Americans. The family in Connecticut whose son stole his mother's gun and shot up Sandy Hook would probably be able to afford the insurance but the rural farmer/hunter in Mississippi, who has a gun for all the right reasons, might find it hardship to pay for the insurance.

What I actually love is Zonk's idea of melting down every gun except for those needed for law enforcement and the military. But I know that's not going to happen.

However, I do believe that we're smart enough as a country to come up with some sorta assault weapon ban that would cut down dramatically on the sale of these guns that seem to have no other use than for mass killings.

[dckingsfan]

So, the definition of semi-automatic is one that essentially discharges the last round and reloads the next. I would say the vast majority of weapons sold today are semi-automatic including handguns and shotguns. You have 400M of those out there right now. I think most hunters and sport shooters would be fine with single shot rifles. Shotguns not so much when you are hunting.

As for the ammunition - it would seem reasonable to ban. But easy to change unless you would ban the ability to create your own ammo. Back in the day when I did sport shooting - I loaded my own rounds. It is very easy and inexpensive and the rounds are MUCH more accurate.

I still like your insurance idea the best. If an 18 yr. old wanted a gun - the insurance premiums would/should be very high, even higher for the second and third gun. Insurance companies could require a mental stability test to insure over two guns. Although two semi-automatic pistols could easily be used to do a mass shooting.

I got rid of my guns and left the sport when I had my first kid. I just didn't believe you could have a gun and not have your inquisitive child find it and handle it... gun safes or otherwise. I even got rid of my air rifle...

The chief problem I have with the insurance idea and the high premiums is that it would be discriminate against poor and low-income people in favor of middle- and upper-class Americans. The family in Connecticut whose son stole the mother's gun to shoot up Sandy Hook would probably be able to afford the insurance while the rural farmer/hunter in Mississippi, who has a gun for all the right reasons, might find it hardship to pay for the insurance.

What I actually love is Zonk's idea of melting down every gun except for those needed for law enforcement and the military. But I know that's not going to happen.

However, I do believe that we're smart enough as a country to come up with some sorta assault weapon ban that would cut down dramatically on the sale of these guns that seem to have no other use than for mass killings.

The problem with focusing on an assault weapon ban is that it is like using a Band-Aid during open heart surgery. It won't move the needle even a bit. As pointed out - it doesn't matter if you have an "assault" weapon. What matters is if it is semi-automatic. What matters is the type of ammunition you are using. What matters is the size of the clip.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

Insurance and taxes would definitely be regressive. Not having insurance on guns would definitely keep the status quo. The insurance should be like cigarettes. Slowly ratcheting up and focusing on gun buy-backs. The insurance mandate would have gun ownership "knowledge" and universal background checks to get insurance to have your weapon (this is where the Rs will be complete idiots).

Still, by far the largest number of gun deaths come from suicide (20K+) annually - we have a mental health, obesity and opioid problem. That won't get solved with any gun legislation.

So, I think this is where the Ds have the wrong focus vs. no focus for the Rs. I wouldn't want to see an assault ban because then we would declare victory without doing anything.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, there's two big problems with the insurance plan now that I've researched it a little bit. One, there's no insurance for deliberate acts. You don't get insurance payouts from arson and you won't get insurance payouts if you murder someone with a gun you're insured for. Ok, fine, what about letting your gun get lost? Well, if someone commits murder with a car they stole from you you aren't liable for that. You can be found negligent if you let someone use your gun and they do something stupid with it. But once your gun is stolen you are COMPLETELY OFF THE HOOK.

So the solution is to say, hey, this is an externality - gun owners need to internalize the costs they impose on others by losing their guns. So if you lose your gun and REPORT IT STOLEN - you get charged $100,000, which your gun negligence insurance pays. If you DO NOT REPORT IT STOLEN YOU ARE LIABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS WITH YOUR GUN, which again your insurance will have to pay out for.

The constitutionality of that may be kind of dicey. The court system definitely believes that you should internalize the costs of your stupidity by making you pay damages when bad things happen, but with guns that liability is way too limited. Otherwise the market would be offering gun liability insurance already. We'd have to tweak the system a little first. Maybe pass an "anti straw purchases act" that makes you pay a significant penalty for when your gun gets lost. So you can't report your gun lost and escape all culpability.

[Zonkerbl]

I'll repeat this as often as necessary - it may be sad that poor people can't afford guns. But there is no Constitutional guarantee that guns will be cheaply available to poor people. That is something we can genuinely just balance against the lives lost from guns being too cheap and make a decision, as a society, to push the needle away from "so extremely cheap every idiot can get one."

Frankly it is the LAST thing I'm thinking about when trying to craft a solution. You have to internalize the costs you impose on society by owning a gun. Not everyone can afford a car either. That's capitalism. Get a job. Get a dog. Learn karate. Get some pepper gel. There are cheaper options.

[Zonkerbl]

Given that you can't get insured for intentional acts, for people to fully internalize the costs they impose on society by buying guns, there has to be a tax on guns. There's just no way around it. Until we tax guns we will continue to have too may guns. We have to change the 2nd amendment.

[cammac]

So, the definition of semi-automatic is one that essentially discharges the last round and reloads the next. I would say the vast majority of weapons sold today are semi-automatic including handguns and shotguns. You have 400M of those out there right now. I think most hunters and sport shooters would be fine with single shot rifles. Shotguns not so much when you are hunting.

As for the ammunition - it would seem reasonable to ban. But easy to change unless you would ban the ability to create your own ammo. Back in the day when I did sport shooting - I loaded my own rounds. It is very easy and inexpensive and the rounds are MUCH more accurate.

I still like your insurance idea the best. If an 18 yr. old wanted a gun - the insurance premiums would/should be very high, even higher for the second and third gun. Insurance companies could require a mental stability test to insure over two guns. Although two semi-automatic pistols could easily be used to do a mass shooting.

I got rid of my guns and left the sport when I had my first kid. I just didn't believe you could have a gun and not have your inquisitive child find it and handle it... gun safes or otherwise. I even got rid of my air rifle...

The chief problem I have with the insurance idea and the high premiums is that it would discriminate against poor and low-income people in favor of middle- and upper-class Americans. The family in Connecticut whose son stole his mother's gun and shot up Sandy Hook would probably be able to afford the insurance but the rural farmer/hunter in Mississippi, who has a gun for all the right reasons, might find it hardship to pay for the insurance.

What I actually love is Zonk's idea of melting down every gun except for those needed for law enforcement and the military. But I know that's not going to happen.

However, I do believe that we're smart enough as a country to come up with some sorta assault weapon ban that would cut down dramatically on the sale of these guns that seem to have no other use than for mass killings.

I like the insurance idea as well it can be based on the type of guns a person owns. If you own a Ferrari your insurance bill is going to be higher than someone owning a economy car. For the people who have basic guns that are used for hunting the premiums can be extremely low maybe $1 a month. It would not infringe on collectors as long as the guns were immobilized as is done in many countries. For assault rifles or semi automatic pistols higher premiums and depending on the number of weapons in a household significant increases over 8 guns. All guns in the household must be registered with your insurance provider with serial numbers and type. This would be private information not to be shared with the government but if a citizen is stopped with a weapon they must produce the insurance card. Any guns without insurance will be confiscated and a minimum $5000 fine. The persons residence and business can be searched and all weapons can be confiscated and destroyed.

While the NRA will bitch and complain the reality is that some weapons are regulated already in this case knifes which can inflict much less damage than a AR15. Carry laws forbid an individual from carrying, concealed or open, certain knives. For example, some states forbid an individual from conceal carry of knives over a certain length but open carry of that same knife is legal. Other states forbid the carry, concealed and open, of certain knives.Other weapons are similarly banned automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns ( this is similar to modifying a weapon like bump stalks), bombs/mines and brass knuckles.

Getting to open carry laws let me ask you a question if you are out with your family at a bank, shopping center, local park or restaurant. How safe do you feel about a individual carrying a pistol or for that matter a assault rifle around you? Concealed carry isn't any safer but more insidious.

[dckingsfan]

Given that you can't get insured for intentional acts, for people to fully internalize the costs they impose on society by buying guns, there has to be a tax on guns. There's just no way around it. Until we tax guns we will continue to have too may guns. We have to change the 2nd amendment.

Yes, we should have taxes on guns. I don't think that would be an issue against the 2nd amendment if you use the commerce clause to rollout the legislation.

[Zonkerbl]

So, the definition of semi-automatic is one that essentially discharges the last round and reloads the next. I would say the vast majority of weapons sold today are semi-automatic including handguns and shotguns. You have 400M of those out there right now. I think most hunters and sport shooters would be fine with single shot rifles. Shotguns not so much when you are hunting.

As for the ammunition - it would seem reasonable to ban. But easy to change unless you would ban the ability to create your own ammo. Back in the day when I did sport shooting - I loaded my own rounds. It is very easy and inexpensive and the rounds are MUCH more accurate.

I still like your insurance idea the best. If an 18 yr. old wanted a gun - the insurance premiums would/should be very high, even higher for the second and third gun. Insurance companies could require a mental stability test to insure over two guns. Although two semi-automatic pistols could easily be used to do a mass shooting.

I got rid of my guns and left the sport when I had my first kid. I just didn't believe you could have a gun and not have your inquisitive child find it and handle it... gun safes or otherwise. I even got rid of my air rifle...

The chief problem I have with the insurance idea and the high premiums is that it would discriminate against poor and low-income people in favor of middle- and upper-class Americans. The family in Connecticut whose son stole his mother's gun and shot up Sandy Hook would probably be able to afford the insurance but the rural farmer/hunter in Mississippi, who has a gun for all the right reasons, might find it hardship to pay for the insurance.

What I actually love is Zonk's idea of melting down every gun except for those needed for law enforcement and the military. But I know that's not going to happen.

However, I do believe that we're smart enough as a country to come up with some sorta assault weapon ban that would cut down dramatically on the sale of these guns that seem to have no other use than for mass killings.

I like the insurance idea as well it can be based on the type of guns a person owns. If you own a Ferrari your insurance bill is going to be higher than someone owning a economy car. For the people who have basic guns that are used for hunting the premiums can be extremely low maybe $1 a month. It would not infringe on collectors as long as the guns were immobilized as is done in many countries. For assault rifles or semi automatic pistols higher premiums and depending on the number of weapons in a household significant increases over 8 guns. All guns in the household must be registered with your insurance provider with serial numbers and type. This would be private information not to be shared with the government but if a citizen is stopped with a weapon they must produce the insurance card. Any guns without insurance will be confiscated and a minimum $5000 fine. The persons residence and business can be searched and all weapons can be confiscated and destroyed.

While the NRA will bitch and complain the reality is that some weapons are regulated already in this case knifes which can inflict much less damage than a AR15. Carry laws forbid an individual from carrying, concealed or open, certain knives. For example, some states forbid an individual from conceal carry of knives over a certain length but open carry of that same knife is legal. Other states forbid the carry, concealed and open, of certain knives.Other weapons are similarly banned automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns ( this is similar to modifying a weapon like bump stalks), bombs/mines and brass knuckles.

Getting to open carry laws let me ask you a question if you are out with your family at a bank, shopping center, local park or restaurant. How safe do you feel about a individual carrying a pistol or for that matter a assault rifle around you? Concealed carry isn't any safer but more insidious.

Insure against what though? You don't get a payout when you commit a crime with your own gun, and if your gun gets stolen you're completely off the hook for anything that happens after that.

I think there needs to be a huge whopping penalty for losing your gun, and then the insurance is based off of that. You wouldn't even have to mandate the insurance. Having your gun stolen is like being caught speeding, you have to pay a fine. A big fat one.

[cammac]

The chief problem I have with the insurance idea and the high premiums is that it would discriminate against poor and low-income people in favor of middle- and upper-class Americans. The family in Connecticut whose son stole his mother's gun and shot up Sandy Hook would probably be able to afford the insurance but the rural farmer/hunter in Mississippi, who has a gun for all the right reasons, might find it hardship to pay for the insurance.

What I actually love is Zonk's idea of melting down every gun except for those needed for law enforcement and the military. But I know that's not going to happen.

However, I do believe that we're smart enough as a country to come up with some sorta assault weapon ban that would cut down dramatically on the sale of these guns that seem to have no other use than for mass killings.

I like the insurance idea as well it can be based on the type of guns a person owns. If you own a Ferrari your insurance bill is going to be higher than someone owning a economy car. For the people who have basic guns that are used for hunting the premiums can be extremely low maybe $1 a month. It would not infringe on collectors as long as the guns were immobilized as is done in many countries. For assault rifles or semi automatic pistols higher premiums and depending on the number of weapons in a household significant increases over 8 guns. All guns in the household must be registered with your insurance provider with serial numbers and type. This would be private information not to be shared with the government but if a citizen is stopped with a weapon they must produce the insurance card. Any guns without insurance will be confiscated and a minimum $5000 fine. The persons residence and business can be searched and all weapons can be confiscated and destroyed.

While the NRA will bitch and complain the reality is that some weapons are regulated already in this case knifes which can inflict much less damage than a AR15. Carry laws forbid an individual from carrying, concealed or open, certain knives. For example, some states forbid an individual from conceal carry of knives over a certain length but open carry of that same knife is legal. Other states forbid the carry, concealed and open, of certain knives.Other weapons are similarly banned automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns ( this is similar to modifying a weapon like bump stalks), bombs/mines and brass knuckles.

Getting to open carry laws let me ask you a question if you are out with your family at a bank, shopping center, local park or restaurant. How safe do you feel about a individual carrying a pistol or for that matter a assault rifle around you? Concealed carry isn't any safer but more insidious.

Insure against what though? You don't get a payout when you commit a crime with your own gun, and if your gun gets stolen you're completely off the hook for anything that happens after that.

I think there needs to be a huge whopping penalty for losing your gun, and then the insurance is based off of that. You wouldn't even have to mandate the insurance. Having your gun stolen is like being caught speeding, you have to pay a fine. A big fat one.

I think the payouts should be very limited except to legitimate victims of gun violence and a fund to buy back guns. If you shot yourself, commit suicide, have your gun involved in a crime no payouts. Yes agree on taxes when buying guns but that can be on a sliding scale rifles or shotguns that are one shot at a much lower rate which are mostly used for hunting. Then have the rates increase with the potential danger of the firearm. Yes liability for poor storage of weapons and theft must be reported immediately or the gun own bear financial responsibility both criminally and from a civil suit.

[DCZards]

Insurance and taxes would definitely be regressive. Not having insurance on guns would definitely keep the status quo. The insurance should be like cigarettes. Slowly ratcheting up and focusing on gun buy-backs. The insurance mandate would have gun ownership "knowledge" and universal background checks to get insurance to have your weapon (this is where the Rs will be complete idiots).

Still, by far the largest number of gun deaths come from suicide (20K+) annually - we have a mental health, obesity and opioid problem. That won't get solved with any gun legislation.

So, I think this is where the Ds have the wrong focus vs. no focus for the Rs. I wouldn't want to see an assault ban because then we would declare victory without doing anything.

I totally agree that there are other, maybe even bigger, societal concerns and problems than gun control. And, like you, I'd put mental health, opioids, obesity near the top of that list.

But I don't think you ignore the gun problem simply because there are other problems that also need to be addressed, And an assault weapon ban should be on the table. Why not? While suicide and other deaths from guns are indeed a problem, the kind of random killing of innocent, unsuspecting children and adults that results from shootings like those in Sandy Hook and Las Vegas are particularly pernicious, imo.

I would hope that victory wouldn't be declared as a result of a simple ban on assault weapons. In fact, better and expanded background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental issues is at least as important as the ban.

[Zonkerbl]

I've read some people say shotguns are better because an amateur who is super nervous will need the spread for stopping power.

[Zonkerbl]

I've read some people say shotguns are better because an amateur who is super nervous will need the spread for stopping power.

[stilldropin20]

nate and other Trumpers... defend this please, how can you support this?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-maralago-remarks/index.html

President Donald Trump bemoaned a decision not to investigate Hillary Clinton after the 2016 presidential election, decrying a "rigged system" that still doesn't have the "right people" in place to fix it, during a freewheeling speech to Republican donors in Florida on Saturday.

In the closed-door remarks, a recording of which was obtained by CNN, Trump also praised China's President Xi Jinping for recently consolidating power and extending his potential tenure, musing he wouldn't mind making such a maneuver himself.
"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."

jake tapper himself on CNN just said it was clearly a joke. no need to bemoan this point.

[dckingsfan]

Insurance and taxes would definitely be regressive. Not having insurance on guns would definitely keep the status quo. The insurance should be like cigarettes. Slowly ratcheting up and focusing on gun buy-backs. The insurance mandate would have gun ownership "knowledge" and universal background checks to get insurance to have your weapon (this is where the Rs will be complete idiots).

Still, by far the largest number of gun deaths come from suicide (20K+) annually - we have a mental health, obesity and opioid problem. That won't get solved with any gun legislation.

So, I think this is where the Ds have the wrong focus vs. no focus for the Rs. I wouldn't want to see an assault ban because then we would declare victory without doing anything.

I totally agree that there are other, maybe even bigger, societal concerns and problems than gun control. And, like you, I'd put mental health, opioids, obesity near the top of that list.

But I don't think you ignore the gun problem simply because there are other problems that also need to be addressed, And an assault weapon ban should be on the table. Why not? While suicide and other deaths from guns are indeed a problem, the kind of random killing of innocent, unsuspecting children and adults that results from shootings like those in Sandy Hook and Las Vegas are particularly pernicious, imo.

I would hope that victory wouldn't be declared as a result of a simple ban on assault weapons. In fact, better and expanded background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental issues is at least as important as the ban.

I see where you are coming from, why not do an assault ban. We should be able to take this on and address the other societal problems as well.

I just think it WOULD be used (like with the Brady Bill) to declare victory. And you can see what happens when we do a tax bill (for example). Everything else stops.

BTW, (IMO) the reason that the mass shootings are pernicious is because of the media coverage and not because of the lack of life as compared to other issues.

For example if the media did a breakdown of the 50+ suicide deaths, 100 or so traffic fatalities and 100 or so opioid deaths per day with background stories on those folks it would dwarf all the other stories. But they don't - it is hard and it doesn't sell.

Instead we get Trump and school shootings and those are the problems we want to solve. Our media on both sides continues to fail us, IMO.

[DCZards]

BTW, (IMO) the reason that the mass shootings are pernicious is because of the media coverage and not because of the lack of life as compared to other issues.

For example if the media did a breakdown of the 50+ suicide deaths, 100 or so traffic fatalities and 100 or so opioid deaths per day with background stories on those folks it would dwarf all the other stories. But they don't - it is hard and it doesn't sell.

Instead we get Trump and school shootings and those are the problems we want to solve. Our media on both sides continues to fail us, IMO.

Mass shootings are pernicious because they are murders. As terrible as they are, suicides and opioid deaths are self-inflicted, and traffic fatalities are usually accidents. You can't compare those things to the calculated slaughtering of other human beings for often senseless reasons. That's what makes mass murders such big news, not because a certain # of people died.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[stilldropin20]

I'll repeat this as often as necessary - it may be sad that poor people can't afford guns. But there is no Constitutional guarantee that guns will be cheaply available to poor people. That is something we can genuinely just balance against the lives lost from guns being too cheap and make a decision, as a society, to push the needle away from "so extremely cheap every idiot can get one."

Frankly it is the LAST thing I'm thinking about when trying to craft a solution. You have to internalize the costs you impose on society by owning a gun. Not everyone can afford a car either. That's capitalism. Get a job. Get a dog. Learn karate. Get some pepper gel. There are cheaper options.

ok fine. I'll play.

i'll see your increase in the price to buy a gun and raise you valid ID's at the voter booth with "in person" voting only. both phuck over the stupid ass poor. both of whom have no business with guns or the rights to vote. deal you in?

also, i see you (inadvertantly) approve of the steel and aluminum tariff? be them the raw material for guns.

[dckingsfan]

BTW, (IMO) the reason that the mass shootings are pernicious is because of the media coverage and not because of the lack of life as compared to other issues.

For example if the media did a breakdown of the 50+ suicide deaths, 100 or so traffic fatalities and 100 or so opioid deaths per day with background stories on those folks it would dwarf all the other stories. But they don't - it is hard and it doesn't sell.

Instead we get Trump and school shootings and those are the problems we want to solve. Our media on both sides continues to fail us, IMO.

Mass shootings are pernicious because they are murders. As terrible as they are, suicides and opioid deaths are self-inflicted, and traffic fatalities are usually accidents. You can't compare those things to the calculated slaughtering of other human beings for often senseless reasons. That's what makes mass murders such big news, not because a certain # of people died.

But if people actually compared the numbers - if you actually laid the dead people side by side - it wouldn't be...

And if the media didn't play it over and over and over again... it wouldn't be...

There was an interesting study sometime ago... Where the media broadcasts local suicides - local suicides increased spiked after the broadcast. Many of those that commit mass suicides want to be famous. Let that news be drowned out by other news.

Also, if the media made it known that you were far more likely to be killed by a drunk - would that not be more disturbing to someone who was really thinking about it?

And I assume, if you were a legislator that actually wanted to make a difference, you would go after the 30,000 vs. the 300, no?

And again, just banning assault weapons doesn't make a difference (cited previously). But our outcry forces politicians into working on rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

[stilldropin20]

BTW, (IMO) the reason that the mass shootings are pernicious is because of the media coverage and not because of the lack of life as compared to other issues.

For example if the media did a breakdown of the 50+ suicide deaths, 100 or so traffic fatalities and 100 or so opioid deaths per day with background stories on those folks it would dwarf all the other stories. But they don't - it is hard and it doesn't sell.

Instead we get Trump and school shootings and those are the problems we want to solve. Our media on both sides continues to fail us, IMO.

Mass shootings are pernicious because they are murders. As terrible as they are, suicides and opioid deaths are self-inflicted, and traffic fatalities are usually accidents. You can't compare those things to the calculated slaughtering of other human beings for often senseless reasons. That's what makes mass murders such big news, not because a certain # of people died.

But if people actually compared the numbers - if you actually laid the dead people side by side - it wouldn't be...

And if the media didn't play it over and over and over again... it wouldn't be...

There was an interesting study sometime ago... Where the media broadcasts local suicides - local suicides increased spiked after the broadcast. Many of those that commit mass suicides want to be famous. Let that news be drowned out by other news.

Also, if the media made it known that you were far more likely to be killed by a drunk - would that not be more disturbing to someone who was really thinking about it?

And I assume, if you were a legislator that actually wanted to make a difference, you would go after the 30,000 vs. the 300, no?

And again, just banning assault weapons doesn't make a difference (cited previously). But our outcry forces politicians into working on rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

"homicides by guns" rate is about 60% in the united states.

in recent years, decades there are only 10,000-12,000 people per year murdered in the US by (all) guns. which puts homicides overall at about 20,000-21,000.

10% or around 1200 per year are murder-suicide. 93% of which are men killing women "partners" in some type of crime of passion, mentally ill.

Since 1980 80% of murders are gang or organized crime related. or nearly 8-10,000. of the 10-12,000

so wrapping this up. gangs killing gangs and men killing their current or former wives or GF's make up over 90% of all gun related murder. Think about that.

justifiable murder via self defense rate is around 300 per year. thats it.

when you look at overdoses and drunk drivers. guns dont seem to be a problem. at all. the problem is mentally ill people and criminals committing crime within their criminal activities. especially when a bysatnder on the street is killed.

4 people were killed just in chicago in the past week. 24 were wounded. not a peep on any news network. 70 shot and killed year to date. 85 total homicides. also, not a peep. nearly all of the killings occur in the same 3 parts of the city where poverty, forced prostitution, gang violence and drug trafficking is rampant. and largely unchecked by police because civil rights activists combined with democratic rule has effectively robbed the police of their power to actively police.

[Pointgod]

Weird. I thought the Steele Dossier was all fake news

It would be great if our resident Conservatives could comment on Kushners dealings.

I think it interesting that people feel that Trump, Kushner, et al are conservative. I don't think they are social or fiscally conservative. I think they are demagogues.

If they were socially conservative Trump wouldn't be having sex with so many prostitutes. He would be engaged with the social conservative movement - you would see him in church, etc.

If he was a fiscal conservative he wouldn't have passed such a bad tax bill. His motives would be growth so he wouldn't be locking down immigration and fYcking up trade. He would be all about investment in the country...

Instead he vilifies groups that can't vote or wouldn't vote for him.

I worry that demagogues become the new normal... vilification of the other side vs. meaningful legislation. It worked for Trump - why wouldn't it work for the next POTUS?

Yeah Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to distance themselves from Trump. You break it you buy it. They fully embraced him and his policies with little push back from the party. They continue to enable his behavior and refuse to be any kind of check against his instability. This is what happens when a party is rotten to its core and is exposed as actually having no values or morals. Trumpism is Conservatism is the Republican party. Guess what they deserve to get vilified for supporting an morally bankrupt, corrupt taint like Trump. Many people correctly predicted how bad Trump would be, often pointing out how he goes against Conservative values. If reason won't work, maybe shame can get them to remove their heads out of their asses.