monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html

old data (explosion of mass shootings in US in past 4 years not covered)

So what's the point? That if there are more guns, murder victims tend to be killed with guns instead of knives?

Why would that matter? Are people who are killed with guns somehow "more dead" than people who are killed with knives?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Given the year we've had, you should expect that 'homicides per person' to skyrocket pretty soon now.

I doubt it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Code:[img=small]

Try this instead for resizing images on a2k:

Code:[img width=900]

You can reduce the number for a smaller picture.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hmm, percentage of Americans owning guns declines, and the number of gun deaths decline, gee. Who would have thought.

Hmm. The time frames on our graphs actually match up pretty well, as these things go. Percentage of those owning guns has dropped by about a third. Gun homicide rate per capital... drops by about a third. You think that's a coincidence? I sure don't.

What does it matter? Is it supposed to be worse for someone to be killed with a gun than if they are killed with a knife?

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

So? Does it really matter if they were killed with a gun instead of a bomb? They're just as dead either way aren't they?

Quote:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

It marked the end of liberalism itself. Obama destroyed his presidency when he wasted all of his second term political capital on pointless attacks against the NRA. And that resulted in the voters electing Donald Trump and keeping the Republicans in charge of the White House for the next 20 years.

0 Replies

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

Trump signed a bill in February repealing a measure that was meant to block gun sales to people with certain types of mental health problems

That was hardly what the measure did. Obama was classifying millions of people with perfectly sound minds as mentally ill just so he could violate their rights.

The Democrats were planning on expanding that to count more and more people as mentally ill until they had classified the entire American populace as mentally ill. Next up on the Democrats' hit list was going to be everyone who wears glasses (as a tribute to their greatest hero, Pol Pot).

All Trump did was roll back a particularly egregious violation of the Second Amendment.

You see, unlike the Democrats, Trump actually cares about our civil rights.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Obama was classifying millions of people with perfectly sound minds as mentally ill just so he could violate their rights.

How do you know they were of sound mind? In a country of over 320 Million people, you have to figure at least 2 or 3 Million of them are too zonked in the head to be entrusted with semi-automatic firepower.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

what I would love is . . . . preventing another elementary school massacre.

What sort of measure do you think would achieve this prevention?

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

blatham, that's the reason I said January in my post, that tax cut. But, the way I understand it right now - the way it is written, it can't get through the Senate as a Reconciliation bill, so, it would take 60 votes. It has to be revenue neutral at a minimum to take a minimum majority vote to pass.

Not if the Republicans change the rules so that reconciliation can be used even if it adds $1.5 trillion to the debt.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

I believe it is absolutely ridiculous for the huge arsenal of combat weapons to have been allowed to be in the public realm in the USA.

Americans have rights. Sorry you don't like that, but we insist on keeping them.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Obama was classifying millions of people with perfectly sound minds as mentally ill just so he could violate their rights.

Did he really change the DSM respectively ICD classifications?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

How do you know they were of sound mind? In a country of over 320 Million people, you have to figure at least 2 or 3 Million of them are too zonked in the head to be entrusted with semi-automatic firepower.

You aren't allowed to violate the rights of the entire country just because there might be someone with an undetected problem hidden among all of the ordinary people.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Obama was classifying millions of people with perfectly sound minds as mentally ill just so he could violate their rights.

Did he really change the DSM respectively ICD classifications?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but probably not. He just decreed that a wide swath of people was to be counted as mentally ill without justification.

Congress passed a bill reversing that order and forbidding any future president from issuing a similar order, and Trump signed it into law.

Now we're trying to pass the SHARE Act.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The law didn't violate the rights of the whole country. It only prevented people with a history of mental unbalance from owning guns so that they don't go into buildings and congregations and start blasting the bejeezus out of the place. Which is what happened here.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but probably not. He just decreed that a wide swath of people was to be counted as mentally ill without justification.

So he went above the medical classification (DSM / ICD)?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

If I recall, it was veterans whose disability checks were under conservatorship. I would hope that could only happen if a court declared them incompetent to handle their own finances. I'm not sure whether that is justification to revoke the right to own a firearm. I am sure the distinction has several subtleties.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

The law didn't violate the rights of the whole country.

Your reference to 320 million people covered the whole country though.

And in fact it was the intent of Obama and the Democrats to declare the entire country as mentally ill. They planed to keep declaring more and more people as mentally ill until they had taken guns away from everyone.

Blickers wrote:

It only prevented people with a history of mental unbalance from owning guns so that they don't go into buildings and congregations and start blasting the bejeezus out of the place.

That is incorrect. Obama's executive order deliberately targeted people with no history of mental imbalance whatsoever.

The Democrats don't actually care about saving lives here. Their goal is to disarm ordinary everyday people.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So he went above the medical classification (DSM / ICD)?

I have no idea.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Neither do I, but I'm not convinced that an inability to handle money is equivalent to an inability to safely own firearms.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

If I recall, it was veterans whose disability checks were under conservatorship.

The Democrats started by targeting disabled veterans. But when few people protested that, Obama ordered that it be applied to all disabled people who don't cash their own checks.

Incidentally it was only the later expansion to everyone that Congress reversed. So far as I'm aware, disabled veterans are still being persecuted.

roger wrote:

I would hope that could only happen if a court declared them incompetent to handle their own finances.

Nope. It's automatic if they don't cash their own checks.

roger wrote:

I'm not sure whether that is justification to revoke the right to own a firearm. I am sure the distinction has several subtleties.

It's not justification. When we get enough conservatives on the Supreme Court to begin enforcing the Constitution, the measure is sure to be struck down as unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

I'm not convinced that an inability to handle money is equivalent to an inability to safely own firearms.

As soon as we get enough conservatives on the Supreme Court to start enforcing the Constitution, any such measure that remains at that point will be struck down.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

roger wrote:
I would hope that could only happen if a court declared them incompetent to handle their own finances.

Nope. It's automatic if they don't cash their own checks.

Are you sure? Just guessing, now, but my guess that it's only automatic for those that are not allowed to cash their own checks. If I'm right, that's somewhat different than their simply choosing not to cash their own checks.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know