have we gotten into how gun laws disproportionately target people of color, and when gun ownership protects vulnerable groups when the state utterly fails to stop (and outright encourages) violence against them? like how black panthers open carrying stopped a bunch of police violence from occurring decades ago
because this issue is even more substantial than simply banning firearms, and I'm hoping beyond hope folk keep their perspective as broad as possible when solving this huge fucking problem
This is a legitimate issue, but I'm not sure how you construct a law to accommodate for it. I dunno how you make a law that takes into account the ways that the rule of law might fail. I mean you're not wrong that banning white people from owning guns would statistically basically eradicate the problem but you obviously can't do that
I guess really the answer is that the kind of gun control people want to implement to prevent these kinds of tragedies has to go hand in hand with a demilitarization of the police. Which I'm all for, but that means that we have to bring about two massive, wildly controversial changes at the same time. Both issues on their own feel like they're locked in a stalemate, combining them into a generalized "less guns for everyone, including the police" sounds like a total pipe dream
Which isn't to say we shouldn't push for exactly that, just. Man this country has a lotta fuckin problems
have we gotten into how gun laws disproportionately target people of color, and when gun ownership protects vulnerable groups when the state utterly fails to stop (and outright encourages) violence against them? like how black panthers open carrying stopped a bunch of police violence from occurring decades ago
because this issue is even more substantial than simply banning firearms, and I'm hoping beyond hope folk keep their perspective as broad as possible when solving this huge fucking problem
This is a legitimate issue, but I'm not sure how you construct a law to accommodate for it. I dunno how you make a law that takes into account the ways that the rule of law might fail. I mean you're not wrong that banning white people from owning guns would statistically basically eradicate the problem but you obviously can't do that
I guess really the answer is that the kind of gun control people want to implement to prevent these kinds of tragedies has to go hand in hand with a demilitarization of the police. Which I'm all for, but that means that we have to bring about two massive, wildly controversial changes at the same time. Both issues on their own feel like they're locked in a stalemate, combining them into a generalized "less guns for everyone, including the police" sounds like a total pipe dream
Which isn't to say we shouldn't push for exactly that, just. Man this country has a lotta fuckin problems
Disarming the police before disarming the populace would help, since it's the police that are to blame for selectively enforcing the law based on skin color.
Worst mass shooting not perpetrated by agents of the state? Wounded Knee was the military doing the killing right? Having grown up in the American school system I never actually had it brought up in a scholastic environment at all and had to learn everything I know know about it from wikipedia and video games.
...which is itself a terrible indictment of our culture.
Worst mass shooting not perpetrated by agents of the state? Wounded Knee was the military doing the killing right? Having grown up in the American school system I never actually had it brought up in a scholastic environment at all and had to learn everything I know know about it from wikipedia and video games.
...which is itself a terrible indictment of our culture.
Same way you'll hear things described as "race riots" when it's shit like "a bunch of white terrorists burn a black town for being too successful"
But you will never disarm the police, ever, in an environment where incidents of gun violence are extremely common. Like you can talk about that but it's a fantasy unless you at the same time reduce the general populace's ability to get guns. Also it's kind of a non-starter of an argument in terms of legislation.
Also you can absolutely have police that are armed if you have proper community oversight that has the actual demonstrable ability to enforce punishment on law enforcement officers who act either negligently or criminally in their duty.
Like this is somewhat highjacking the thread but three things at minimum that need to happen to fix US policing:
1. You need to increase police pay and/or benefits. This may seem counter-intuitive but so long as their is an environment in which police departments thoughout the country have staffing problems, it'll be incredibly hard to incentivize good behavior or root out bad behavior. Many of the officers in the most gratuitous examples of police misconduct in the past five years actually had a history of misconduct, and in fact in some cases were let go from a department, only to almost immediately find work elsewhere. Hiring standards for police are low. The most effective way to combat this is to increase the incentive to become a police officer, to increase the number of applicants, to allow more selective decision making with who you actually allow to be an officer.
2. Establish legislation which puts all departments under advisory boards lifted straight out of the communities they serve. The boards need to be able cooperate with both local prosecution to advise how criminal police conduct should be prosecuted, and also be able to serve punitive terms towards the department as a whole. Additionally, establish legislation which more strictly defines police conduct, and what legal justifications they can use for committing violence. Fearing for one's life cannot be the end all be all of legal defenses, and police must be held to the same if not stricter standard for negligent harm.
3. Literally every department in the country needs to perform a lot more community policing. This can include simple things like outreach programs, or more complex measure like having large parts of the department perform non-police related services for their communities periodically. (And if the relationship with the community is good, the reverse can also happen.) Police are less likely to commit violence against their communities when they feel like they are part of said communities, and police officers are safer when they actually have the backing of the majority of the population they deal with.
have we gotten into how gun laws disproportionately target people of color, and when gun ownership protects vulnerable groups when the state utterly fails to stop (and outright encourages) violence against them? like how black panthers open carrying stopped a bunch of police violence from occurring decades ago
because this issue is even more substantial than simply banning firearms, and I'm hoping beyond hope folk keep their perspective as broad as possible when solving this huge fucking problem
This is a legitimate issue, but I'm not sure how you construct a law to accommodate for it. I dunno how you make a law that takes into account the ways that the rule of law might fail. I mean you're not wrong that banning white people from owning guns would statistically basically eradicate the problem but you obviously can't do that
I guess really the answer is that the kind of gun control people want to implement to prevent these kinds of tragedies has to go hand in hand with a demilitarization of the police. Which I'm all for, but that means that we have to bring about two massive, wildly controversial changes at the same time. Both issues on their own feel like they're locked in a stalemate, combining them into a generalized "less guns for everyone, including the police" sounds like a total pipe dream
Which isn't to say we shouldn't push for exactly that, just. Man this country has a lotta fuckin problems
I've found it helps to look at further proof that there's a LOT of work to do
in the meantime, I will ferociously remind folk that gun ownership laws will prey upon people of color, and to not give up on getting something done right on the first swing
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
0
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
But you will never disarm the police, ever, in an environment where incidents of gun violence are extremely common. Like you can talk about that but it's a fantasy unless you at the same time reduce the general populace's ability to get guns. Also it's kind of a non-starter of an argument in terms of legislation.
Also you can absolutely have police that are armed if you have proper community oversight that has the actual demonstrable ability to enforce punishment on law enforcement officers who act either negligently or criminally in their duty.
Like this is somewhat highjacking the thread but three things at minimum that need to happen to fix US policing:
1. You need to increase police pay and/or benefits. This may seem counter-intuitive but so long as their is an environment in which police departments thoughout the country have staffing problems, it'll be incredibly hard to incentivize good behavior or root out bad behavior. Many of the officers in the most gratuitous examples of police misconduct in the past five years actually had a history of misconduct, and in fact in some cases were let go from a department, only to almost immediately find work elsewhere. Hiring standards for police are low. The most effective way to combat this is to increase the incentive to become a police officer, to increase the number of applicants, to allow more selective decision making with who you actually allow to be an officer.
2. Establish legislation which puts all departments under advisory boards lifted straight out of the communities they serve. The boards need to be able cooperate with both local prosecution to advise how criminal police conduct should be prosecuted, and also be able to serve punitive terms towards the department as a whole. Additionally, establish legislation which more strictly defines police conduct, and what legal justifications they can use for committing violence. Fearing for one's life cannot be the end all be all of legal defenses, and police must be held to the same if not stricter standard for negligent harm.
3. Literally every department in the country needs to perform a lot more community policing. This can include simple things like outreach programs, or more complex measure like having large parts of the department perform non-police related services for their communities periodically. (And if the relationship with the community is good, the reverse can also happen.) Police are less likely to commit violence against their communities when they feel like they are part of said communities, and police officers are safer when they actually have the backing of the majority of the population they deal with.
It is kind of weird that I had to go to college for six years to be a librarian and the high end of qualifications to become a police officer is a high school degree and six months of academy. It seems like a really important job, but it's trained and paid like a pretty low-level position, when you take the whole society into account.
But you will never disarm the police, ever, in an environment where incidents of gun violence are extremely common. Like you can talk about that but it's a fantasy unless you at the same time reduce the general populace's ability to get guns. Also it's kind of a non-starter of an argument in terms of legislation.
Also you can absolutely have police that are armed if you have proper community oversight that has the actual demonstrable ability to enforce punishment on law enforcement officers who act either negligently or criminally in their duty.
Like this is somewhat highjacking the thread but three things at minimum that need to happen to fix US policing:
1. You need to increase police pay and/or benefits. This may seem counter-intuitive but so long as their is an environment in which police departments thoughout the country have staffing problems, it'll be incredibly hard to incentivize good behavior or root out bad behavior. Many of the officers in the most gratuitous examples of police misconduct in the past five years actually had a history of misconduct, and in fact in some cases were let go from a department, only to almost immediately find work elsewhere. Hiring standards for police are low. The most effective way to combat this is to increase the incentive to become a police officer, to increase the number of applicants, to allow more selective decision making with who you actually allow to be an officer.
2. Establish legislation which puts all departments under advisory boards lifted straight out of the communities they serve. The boards need to be able cooperate with both local prosecution to advise how criminal police conduct should be prosecuted, and also be able to serve punitive terms towards the department as a whole. Additionally, establish legislation which more strictly defines police conduct, and what legal justifications they can use for committing violence. Fearing for one's life cannot be the end all be all of legal defenses, and police must be held to the same if not stricter standard for negligent harm.
3. Literally every department in the country needs to perform a lot more community policing. This can include simple things like outreach programs, or more complex measure like having large parts of the department perform non-police related services for their communities periodically. (And if the relationship with the community is good, the reverse can also happen.) Police are less likely to commit violence against their communities when they feel like they are part of said communities, and police officers are safer when they actually have the backing of the majority of the population they deal with.
It is kind of weird that I had to go to college for six years to be a librarian and the high end of qualifications to become a police officer is a high school degree and six months of academy. It seems like a really important job, but it's trained and paid like a pretty low-level position, when you take the whole society into account.
I mean, in Canada at least the most basic educational requirement is just a high school diploma. However, you're generally competing against a lot of people, and so it is recommended to get a degree in Law or Criminology, or at least a diploma in Police Foundations and experience as a Special Constable or Bylaw Officer. At least, that's what I've been told by friends and family entering the field.
But you will never disarm the police, ever, in an environment where incidents of gun violence are extremely common. Like you can talk about that but it's a fantasy unless you at the same time reduce the general populace's ability to get guns. Also it's kind of a non-starter of an argument in terms of legislation.
Also you can absolutely have police that are armed if you have proper community oversight that has the actual demonstrable ability to enforce punishment on law enforcement officers who act either negligently or criminally in their duty.
Like this is somewhat highjacking the thread but three things at minimum that need to happen to fix US policing:
1. You need to increase police pay and/or benefits. This may seem counter-intuitive but so long as their is an environment in which police departments thoughout the country have staffing problems, it'll be incredibly hard to incentivize good behavior or root out bad behavior. Many of the officers in the most gratuitous examples of police misconduct in the past five years actually had a history of misconduct, and in fact in some cases were let go from a department, only to almost immediately find work elsewhere. Hiring standards for police are low. The most effective way to combat this is to increase the incentive to become a police officer, to increase the number of applicants, to allow more selective decision making with who you actually allow to be an officer.
2. Establish legislation which puts all departments under advisory boards lifted straight out of the communities they serve. The boards need to be able cooperate with both local prosecution to advise how criminal police conduct should be prosecuted, and also be able to serve punitive terms towards the department as a whole. Additionally, establish legislation which more strictly defines police conduct, and what legal justifications they can use for committing violence. Fearing for one's life cannot be the end all be all of legal defenses, and police must be held to the same if not stricter standard for negligent harm.
3. Literally every department in the country needs to perform a lot more community policing. This can include simple things like outreach programs, or more complex measure like having large parts of the department perform non-police related services for their communities periodically. (And if the relationship with the community is good, the reverse can also happen.) Police are less likely to commit violence against their communities when they feel like they are part of said communities, and police officers are safer when they actually have the backing of the majority of the population they deal with.
It is kind of weird that I had to go to college for six years to be a librarian and the high end of qualifications to become a police officer is a high school degree and six months of academy. It seems like a really important job, but it's trained and paid like a pretty low-level position, when you take the whole society into account.
I mean, in Canada at least the most basic educational requirement is just a high school diploma. However you're generally competing against a lot of people, and so it is generally recommended to get a degree in Law or Criminology, or at least a diploma in Police Foundations and experience as a Special Constable or Bylaw Officer.
Is it not a similar situation down there?
Different agencies set different hiring standards and larger agencies, like LAPD, NYPD etc. tend to have higher standards because they have more applicants. Similarly nice, quiet suburban agencies also tend to be more competitive because they are popular places to transfer for LEOs later in their career because crime is lower and pay is higher.
Most agencies in the US though are smaller, pay less, have less applicants competing for fewer positions, and tend to rely more on part time and reserve sworn employees depending on the size of city or county and budget.
So someone on my facebook feed shared this beauty:
When I asked her what she meant to imply, she said she was just sharing a photo she "found interesting". Disengenuous. Anyway, in case any of you run into this image or anything else implying a grand conspiracy, here's the product of five minutes of research I did to debunk most of the points made here.
have we gotten into how gun laws disproportionately target people of color, and when gun ownership protects vulnerable groups when the state utterly fails to stop (and outright encourages) violence against them? like how black panthers open carrying stopped a bunch of police violence from occurring decades ago
because this issue is even more substantial than simply banning firearms, and I'm hoping beyond hope folk keep their perspective as broad as possible when solving this huge fucking problem
This Spiegel article from their US correspondent starts of with that. A bunch of articles here go in the same direction, that the US has to face some important truths instead of squabbling over what guns should be banned and what exactly should be allowed.
So someone on my facebook feed shared this beauty:
When I asked her what she meant to imply, she said she was just sharing a photo she "found interesting". Disengenuous. Anyway, in case any of you run into this image or anything else implying a grand conspiracy, here's the product of five minutes of research I did to debunk most of the points made here.
She also posted a flipping Louder With Crowder "rebuttal" to Jimmy Kimmel's gun monologue, but I'm not sure I have the strength.
Ugggh a guy I know (I refuse to call him a "friend" anymore) on FB posted the same fucking videos. Then he responded to some post about safety and crime statistics in the US vs other countries (implying we are better off here) with "I love me some guns."
He's constantly posting Blue Lives Matter and Milo shit and I just fucking can't with this guy. He's a genuinely good person, but fuck. And he's married to a PoC police officer! It stuns me how oblivious he is to some shit.
"ban white people from owning guns" is skewing really close to the line of reasoning you see in dumbass twitter infographs alleging that America's gun violence rate would be the same as Belgium's if we only got rid of black people. Not sure that's a great place to go.
"ban white people from owning guns" is skewing really close to the line of reasoning you see in dumbass twitter infographs alleging that America's gun violence rate would be the same as Belgium's if we only got rid of black people. Not sure that's a great place to go.
One is people with power blaming problems on people without power
One is people without power blaming problems on people with power
They are not equivalent, and barely even comparable
"ban white people from owning guns" is skewing really close to the line of reasoning you see in dumbass twitter infographs alleging that America's gun violence rate would be the same as Belgium's if we only got rid of black people. Not sure that's a great place to go.
One is people with power blaming problems on people without power
One is people without power blaming problems on people with power
They are not equivalent, and barely even comparable
Also one is "White people don't get guns" and the other is "Black people don't get to exist" which, you know... also not the same.
And it's not so much white people don't get guns, it's no one gets guns, and most gun owners are white people and most gun crimes are committed by white people
"ban white people from owning guns" is skewing really close to the line of reasoning you see in dumbass twitter infographs alleging that America's gun violence rate would be the same as Belgium's if we only got rid of black people. Not sure that's a great place to go.
One is people with power blaming problems on people without power
One is people without power blaming problems on people with power
They are not equivalent, and barely even comparable
They both use a dubious reading of statistics to endorse a ridiculous policy solution and evoke a racial divide which in this case doesn't really exist.*
Glancing at the stats, ~15% of mass shootings are committed by black people. Black people make up 12% of the population. Something like 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites, which is also in line with their proportion of the population. I'm really kind of bemused by this narrative of white people being over-represented in modern mass shootings.
*with respect to the racial makeup of mass shooters. Dubh's prior post about the uneven enforcement of gun laws against POC is a 100% valid and extremely important point which should be part of every gun rights discussion.
"ban white people from owning guns" is skewing really close to the line of reasoning you see in dumbass twitter infographs alleging that America's gun violence rate would be the same as Belgium's if we only got rid of black people. Not sure that's a great place to go.
One is people with power blaming problems on people without power
One is people without power blaming problems on people with power
They are not equivalent, and barely even comparable
They both use a dubious reading of statistics to endorse a ridiculous policy solution and evoke a racial divide which in this case doesn't really exist.*
Glancing at the stats, ~15% of mass shootings are committed by black people. Black people make up 12% of the population. Something like 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites, which is also in line with their proportion of the population. I'm really kind of bemused by this narrative of white people being over-represented in modern mass shootings.
*with respect to the racial makeup of mass shooters. Dubh's prior post about the uneven enforcement of gun laws against POC is a 100% valid and extremely important point which should be part of every gun rights discussion.
Men are over represented in general as opposed to women, right?
"ban white people from owning guns" is skewing really close to the line of reasoning you see in dumbass twitter infographs alleging that America's gun violence rate would be the same as Belgium's if we only got rid of black people. Not sure that's a great place to go.
One is people with power blaming problems on people without power
One is people without power blaming problems on people with power
They are not equivalent, and barely even comparable
They both use a dubious reading of statistics to endorse a ridiculous policy solution and evoke a racial divide which in this case doesn't really exist.*
Glancing at the stats, ~15% of mass shootings are committed by black people. Black people make up 12% of the population. Something like 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites, which is also in line with their proportion of the population. I'm really kind of bemused by this narrative of white people being over-represented in modern mass shootings.
*with respect to the racial makeup of mass shooters. Dubh's prior post about the uneven enforcement of gun laws against POC is a 100% valid and extremely important point which should be part of every gun rights discussion.
Men are over represented in general as opposed to women, right?
oh, yeah, men are overwhelmingly overrepresented across the board.
I had to listen to some chucklefuck spew his conspiracy theories to his buddy while standing in line for lunch at a busy restaurant. And I call him that because he was actually laughing as he reenacted someone firing a gun from a window. Really wish I had called him out on being such a jackass given the fact several of the victims were from our area but wasn't in the right head space.
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
Posts
Good posts
This is a legitimate issue, but I'm not sure how you construct a law to accommodate for it. I dunno how you make a law that takes into account the ways that the rule of law might fail. I mean you're not wrong that banning white people from owning guns would statistically basically eradicate the problem but you obviously can't do that
I guess really the answer is that the kind of gun control people want to implement to prevent these kinds of tragedies has to go hand in hand with a demilitarization of the police. Which I'm all for, but that means that we have to bring about two massive, wildly controversial changes at the same time. Both issues on their own feel like they're locked in a stalemate, combining them into a generalized "less guns for everyone, including the police" sounds like a total pipe dream
Which isn't to say we shouldn't push for exactly that, just. Man this country has a lotta fuckin problems
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Disarming the police before disarming the populace would help, since it's the police that are to blame for selectively enforcing the law based on skin color.
Worst mass shooting not perpetrated by agents of the state? Wounded Knee was the military doing the killing right? Having grown up in the American school system I never actually had it brought up in a scholastic environment at all and had to learn everything I know know about it from wikipedia and video games.
...which is itself a terrible indictment of our culture.
Same way you'll hear things described as "race riots" when it's shit like "a bunch of white terrorists burn a black town for being too successful"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Also you can absolutely have police that are armed if you have proper community oversight that has the actual demonstrable ability to enforce punishment on law enforcement officers who act either negligently or criminally in their duty.
Like this is somewhat highjacking the thread but three things at minimum that need to happen to fix US policing:
1. You need to increase police pay and/or benefits. This may seem counter-intuitive but so long as their is an environment in which police departments thoughout the country have staffing problems, it'll be incredibly hard to incentivize good behavior or root out bad behavior. Many of the officers in the most gratuitous examples of police misconduct in the past five years actually had a history of misconduct, and in fact in some cases were let go from a department, only to almost immediately find work elsewhere. Hiring standards for police are low. The most effective way to combat this is to increase the incentive to become a police officer, to increase the number of applicants, to allow more selective decision making with who you actually allow to be an officer.
2. Establish legislation which puts all departments under advisory boards lifted straight out of the communities they serve. The boards need to be able cooperate with both local prosecution to advise how criminal police conduct should be prosecuted, and also be able to serve punitive terms towards the department as a whole. Additionally, establish legislation which more strictly defines police conduct, and what legal justifications they can use for committing violence. Fearing for one's life cannot be the end all be all of legal defenses, and police must be held to the same if not stricter standard for negligent harm.
3. Literally every department in the country needs to perform a lot more community policing. This can include simple things like outreach programs, or more complex measure like having large parts of the department perform non-police related services for their communities periodically. (And if the relationship with the community is good, the reverse can also happen.) Police are less likely to commit violence against their communities when they feel like they are part of said communities, and police officers are safer when they actually have the backing of the majority of the population they deal with.
Charlie's in it.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
it's almost like making a show that glorifies gun violence and being a cool white man lone wolf is super fuckin' gross
half the time his representation is 100% in line with his popular image
not every story is Punisher MAX
Fair, I admit to being terribly picky with my comic books
I've found it helps to look at further proof that there's a LOT of work to do
in the meantime, I will ferociously remind folk that gun ownership laws will prey upon people of color, and to not give up on getting something done right on the first swing
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
It is kind of weird that I had to go to college for six years to be a librarian and the high end of qualifications to become a police officer is a high school degree and six months of academy. It seems like a really important job, but it's trained and paid like a pretty low-level position, when you take the whole society into account.
Actually librarian might be the coolest title.
I mean, in Canada at least the most basic educational requirement is just a high school diploma. However, you're generally competing against a lot of people, and so it is recommended to get a degree in Law or Criminology, or at least a diploma in Police Foundations and experience as a Special Constable or Bylaw Officer. At least, that's what I've been told by friends and family entering the field.
Is it not a similar situation down there?
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Different agencies set different hiring standards and larger agencies, like LAPD, NYPD etc. tend to have higher standards because they have more applicants. Similarly nice, quiet suburban agencies also tend to be more competitive because they are popular places to transfer for LEOs later in their career because crime is lower and pay is higher.
Most agencies in the US though are smaller, pay less, have less applicants competing for fewer positions, and tend to rely more on part time and reserve sworn employees depending on the size of city or county and budget.
I have two
It is a character, though, which I think is worse.
The horrible shit he spouts all gets turned toward shilling his own bullshit, usually dangerous products.
I didn't know he did that until the LWT
Still whatever he is doing is dangerous
Thanks!
When I asked her what she meant to imply, she said she was just sharing a photo she "found interesting". Disengenuous. Anyway, in case any of you run into this image or anything else implying a grand conspiracy, here's the product of five minutes of research I did to debunk most of the points made here.
- He moved the guns in suitcases over the course of several days.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/862171/las-vegas-shooting-mandalay-bay-hotel-security-guns-10-suitcases-weapons-stephen-paddock
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4942856/Las-Vegas-gunman-SIXTEEN-guns-TEN-suitcases.html
(yes, I know, Daily Mail. I wanted to draw from a variety of sources so she couldn't just write off the publisher offhand.)
- He smashed the window. The term "removed" is misleading. He used a "hammer-like device".
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/mandalay-bay-hotel-room-what-we-know/index.html
http://uk.businessinsider.com/las-vegas-shooting-mandalay-bay-photos-windows-smashed-2017-10
- Not only did he not disable the fire alarm, the fact that he failed to do so is what allowed the police to zero in on his location. There does not appear to be any reference to these vague "other security systems in place" in any piece I could find.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/02/a-fire-alarm-from-gun-smoke-led-police-to-the-las-vegas-shooters-room-retired-officer-says/?utm_term=.330b65cad4c6
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stephen-paddock-location-vegas-shooting-hotel-police-smoke-alarm-mandalay-bay-a7982626.html
She also posted a flipping Louder With Crowder "rebuttal" to Jimmy Kimmel's gun monologue, but I'm not sure I have the strength.
wear one over each nipple
Our sarcasm burns like the sun
This Spiegel article from their US correspondent starts of with that. A bunch of articles here go in the same direction, that the US has to face some important truths instead of squabbling over what guns should be banned and what exactly should be allowed.
spiegel.de/international/world/las-vegas-gun-control-debate-in-america-may-never-come-a-1171340.html
We can solve all this by repealing the second amendment.
Change it from "the right to bare arms" to "the right to bear arms".
Ugggh a guy I know (I refuse to call him a "friend" anymore) on FB posted the same fucking videos. Then he responded to some post about safety and crime statistics in the US vs other countries (implying we are better off here) with "I love me some guns."
He's constantly posting Blue Lives Matter and Milo shit and I just fucking can't with this guy. He's a genuinely good person, but fuck. And he's married to a PoC police officer! It stuns me how oblivious he is to some shit.
that shithead lgbt dude who decided he gets more attention by being a nazi
One is people with power blaming problems on people without power
One is people without power blaming problems on people with power
They are not equivalent, and barely even comparable
Also one is "White people don't get guns" and the other is "Black people don't get to exist" which, you know... also not the same.
They both use a dubious reading of statistics to endorse a ridiculous policy solution and evoke a racial divide which in this case doesn't really exist.*
Glancing at the stats, ~15% of mass shootings are committed by black people. Black people make up 12% of the population. Something like 60% of mass shootings are committed by whites, which is also in line with their proportion of the population. I'm really kind of bemused by this narrative of white people being over-represented in modern mass shootings.
*with respect to the racial makeup of mass shooters. Dubh's prior post about the uneven enforcement of gun laws against POC is a 100% valid and extremely important point which should be part of every gun rights discussion.
Men are over represented in general as opposed to women, right?
oh, yeah, men are overwhelmingly overrepresented across the board.