Do You Think Trump Bares Any Responsibility For The Mass Shootings Occuring?

by minimus 236 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LV101

  Well that must be the way to go then -- since you've not had any issues the rest of the country is just fine.

  There have been 4,000 US citizens killed by illegal immigrants - 4,000! This doesn't include all the other crimes like rape, torture, etc. Just because you see no need to have the right to protect yourself doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.

  False security -- WOW - are you delusional! I know people who've protected themselves - even elderly ones.

  Maybe it's wise for those unaware to talk to professionals - like ex FBI agents, police, security guards, etc.
• 

  Humphry

  There have been 4,000 US citizens killed by illegal immigrants - 4,000! This doesn't include all the other crimes like rape, torture, etc. Just because you see no need to have the right to protect yourself doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.

  You sound somewhat Xenophobic to me. I think you got a touch of Trump induced xenophobia.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  The right to bare arms was written when all they had was flintlocks and black powder surely this was not what our early father had in mind when they wrote the constitution.

  There are two ways to read it - the intent was probably that citizens could organize and fight a tyrannical government. How realistic that is when they have drones and other weaponry is questionable, but the usual claim now is that people should have the right to defend themselves (against anyone wishing them harm).

  The problem is that guns are not really a defensive weapon. Some guest on a panel discussion about gun control really needs to pull out a fake gun and "shoot" the pro-gun rep (with a blank!) to show that no, having a gun is not a defensive weapon other than in a retaliatory capacity - you can shoot a shooter, but the person who shoots first has an advantage and really has no counter other than stopping them have a weapon.

  But the only way to achieve that is to convince people that they don't need one.

  If the left is serious about reducing guns in circulation, they have to be willing to make compromises when it comes to law and order - no let-offs for illegals committing crimes with sanctuary cities (really, that's the level we're at?) and people who commit violent crimes need to be held to account.

  Until then, no one is going to give up their guns and they'd be crazy to do it while there is a party who's official position is open borders and no enforcement of law and order.
  
• 

  vienne

  In the day when the Constitution was written Flintlocks were assault weapons.
• 

  snugglebunny

  So weird...here to even get a shotgun licence you have to be squeaky clean and have no criminal offences against your name whatsoever. Then your doctor has to confirm that you're not even a teeny weeny bit crazy. Once that's all established you get a visit from the police to view the lockable steel cabinet in which you propose to keep the weapon.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Nor does he have to. This is why the POTUS has to be especially measured in the things he says.

  For example, when the POTUS made the stupid comments about Charlottesville, white supremacy groups were fawning and salivating over his comments - does this apply to Democrats, too?

  Alex Cortez has repeatedly said US immigration detention centers are concentration camps. Last month some nut tried to firebomb an ICE building and was shot dead. She has also apparently said that marginalized communities have no choice but to riot.

  Does Cortez need to watch her language, too?

  Or is it a case of double standards?

  Take your time ...
  
  
• 

  iwantoutnow

  LV your amazing man.

  Exactly, re/Obama and racial issues and he'll possibly go down as one of the most corrupt in power ever.

  So of course you say that without offering one shred of proof. You just dont like him, and probably for the same reasons that the far right hate him for.

  Let's count how many in the Obama admin were indicted or have severed time after pleading guilty of a felony?

  Now lets count how many in the Tump admin?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  FWIW, I think Trump should mind what he says and how he says things from now on.

  It may have been refreshing to some people when he was taking on the political establishment in 2016 but these are tumultuous times for the US in 2019.

  And it would makes sense politically for Trump, too. If Trump is now more careful in his speech, he will totally outflank his political opponents. Cortez & co. will be talking about concentration camps and anyone who wants border controls is a Nazi, Trump will sound sane in comparison.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  @lv101 - I concede that the assault ban studies showed mixed results and more time would be needed for accurate proof either way.

  According to quotes of Wiki:

  In 2004 the National Institute of Justice commissioned a report on the assault weapons ban.
  

  The report also concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," since millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines manufactured prior to the ban had been exempted and would thus be in circulation for years following the ban's implementation. Writing before the rise of mass shootings in the 2010s, the authors stated that, "[t]he few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics ... result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms," and that reducing use of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines could thus have "nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations."[35]

  The law also had a grandfather clause allowing for anything legal prior to the ban to be possessed and even sold!
  

  The problem was that the ban was too watered down. It should have required the surrendering or buyback of the guns. And all guns that had a high capacity or capable of rapid fire needed to be included not just some. Also, by getting too specific in naming models and features it allowed manufacturers to simply make slight alterations to the guns and then sell parts to restore the illegal nature of the weapon. IOW the law was of limited value because as it was written there were too many loopholes.

  Interestingly, GHW Bush passed legislation limiting the sale of assault weapons but bizarrely targeted only foreign made assault weapons. Ford, Carter and even Reagan all endorsed an assault weapons ban. What has changed is the NRA's influence and money, so that Republicans are often afraid to support anything resembling real gun regulation.

  I would say that if Trump wanted to ensure a second term the best thing he could do is pass reasonable gun control measures. Over 70% of Americans support it.

  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-93

  Research has shown that immigrants (including undocumented) have a positive effect upon reducing crime rates. Even where there are pandemic issues like violence and drugs, the factor most relevant was employment.