TSA's faux concern for the inner cities is touching. It's muh assault-TYPE weapons he wants to protect.
That too, which is why I don't make it. The conservative talking heads make it a point for some reason, likely to deflect/take moral high-ground. We know the solutions to inner city gang violence, as we've seen massive declines with it since the crack epidemic. Mass shooting events? No one really knows the solutions, which is why those events tend to dominate discussion rather than "Chicago!"
"Chicago" is folklorical code for SCARY BLACK PEOPLE and offers the two fer of a slap at Obama. That's really all it is.
there is still 2A, and it has been held to protect self defense interests as well. even if handguns are used more often in crime, they are common self defense tools, more so than semi auto rifles. handguns are also simply more commonly owned than semi-auto rifles, so their higher usage in crime isn't particularly shocking.
for now, im content with focusing on best preventing the easy killing of large numbers of people in public areas, while also considering self defense interest of lawful gunowners. that would leave assault type weapons (or honestly, however the you want to characterize them, you know exactly what we're talking about) as an easy target
I don't think anyone wants to confiscate AR-15s from responsible gun owners. But I think it's ludicrous that an 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop and buy one without much hassle. It's a problem when an AR-15 is easier to buy legally than beer or play blackjack in Vegas.
i also dont think beto's mandatory buyback program would pass cons utional muster, especially with the current SCOTUS construct. a voluntary buyback is a better middleground
The decline in inner city violence has been a major victory of the last 20 years -- coincident or not to the assault weapons ban or mass incarceration or some would say the generational legality of abortion -- but TSA will never acknowledge the decrease. On the surface we did something really right back then RE: reducing crime but we're currently too busy trying to protect smaller interests to take a real look at what happened.
Personally, I just think it's a weak deflection because they're trying to call out liberal "hypocrisy," i.e. "If you were reaaallllly concerned about gun violence, you'd talk about inner city gang violence 24/7." Okay, let's talk about it. Solutions:
- Repeal of drug prohibition.
Non-starter for the conservatives because "think of the children!"
- Poverty reduction programs (anything from a from a more robust social safety net to increased funding for schools to job training programs).
Non-starter because "raised taxes!"
- Increased funding for drug rehabilitation and mental health programs.
Again, "raised taxes!"
- Prison reform that actually rehabilitates and "corrects" inmates.
Again, "raised taxes!" Conservatives also stupidly think putative punishment is an effective deterrent, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, like that most incarcerated criminals in the developed world factoid.
None of these solutions require any infringement on them as gun owners. In any event, conservatives need to shut the up about "Chicago" because they wouldn't be willing to play ball on any solutions to reduce inner city violence. They would just want to throw more cops and jail time at the problem, which is proven to not work.
It's a fine idea but the % of households has been dropping since the 80s. There are more guns in fewer homes. I try to be inclusive as possible so the only two common threads in all of these mass murders is this peculiar violent ideation by angry males in the US and the availability of guns to those males to carry it out. It's overgeneralizing, but if you really want a chance to stop all of these murders, you have to start somewhere.
Whitey abandoned places like Chicago and were shocked SHOCKED when they went into decline. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
We weren't gonna be bused. No. Uh, uh. You were warned, repeatedly & at length. You've nobody to blame but yourselves. I've no sympathy for you.
Stings, don't it?
I thought the black kids were bussed into your schools? Is that what you mean? And why would that be a problem in your day anyway? They wore their pants right, had haircuts you could set your watch to, and didn't listen to rap music since it didn't exist yet.
He just doesn't like black or brown people. Plain and simple.
I support every single idea you put forward. How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?
Aren't you a Libertarian? I don't think any conservative Christian (which is the demo that dominates the modern repub party) would be on board with drug legalization. And they typically dislike any and all raised taxes (unless it's for the military). I wasn't talking about you personally "not playing ball," but the mainstream republican party at large.
the rube section of Illinois is trying to secede. The ultimate white flight.
If you could magically make every assault type weapon disappear it wouldn't slow the e we are seeing in mass shootings and the shooters would just use a different firearm with the same capability. Then you could wave your magic wand again and make those disappear and we'd still have mass shootings now just with a different firearm.
I'm willing to try, especially with the capacities. 40 people were shot in 30 seconds.
I don't know why any sane person wouldn't want to try.
How are conservatives stopping democrats from implementing the above in Chicago?
Those would likely be written as state propositions to be voted on. Illinois had a Republican governor from 2015-2019. Illinois' conservative base is likely strong enough to defeat any of those proposals, especially with how tepid the Democratic turnout is during non-Presidental elections. And yes, it's their own damn fault. Younger people tend to lean left and they just don't turnout at the rate as older voters.
No. Both ways. (Clevelanders) fled, leaving Cleveland proper a hole.
wouldn't be as effective, on average
how many guys is paddock taking out with a 9mm?
i've seen john wick. this is how it will go down.
You're the NRA talking points expert here, so correct me if I'm missing this analogy...
Cars kill more people than 9mms and I don't think we should ban cars.
It's pretty clear we're talking about the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time, compared against its application for self defense.
More hypotheticals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
