President Biden's first term in office

[swabian]

You really believe that Russia has not had a major hand in the rise of the racist right?

No, that's absurd. They might have had an effect after the first decimal, but everything else is genuinely "native" US American. Why do you dispair over that? There were six times as many slaves imported to Brazil compared to North America and the US certainly didn't invent National Socialism either. But sure, all bloody horror must come from the country you live in.

[alhoon]

You really believe that Russia has not had a major hand in the rise of the racist right? That the great replacement wasn't thought up in a Russian think tank and fed to the Republican voters through Fox and Newsmax?

Not really, no. If anything, I would say more far right ideas are flowing to Russia through the West in the past 30 years than out. Sure, Russia may fund covertly or indirectly some far-right parties in Eastern Europe, but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the Far Right and its wealth in USA.
Simply put, a country with the economy of Russia cannot spare funds that are comparable to what USA-born-and-raised far-rights and alt-rights put in their own wackos.

Eastern Europe is poor. USA is not. A favorable donation of 50K$ to a party or a favorable contract of 500K$ to a pro-far-right businessman that influences the politicians and channels would work in Hungary.
To have that impact in USA you would need x100 the money.
50K$ is what 500 low-mid-class Republicans would funnel to their party during an election and a contract of 500K$ is something that would buy the ear of the local car-salesman and nothing more.

[Ludicus]

A gunman killed 14 children and a teacher at a Texas ... - NPR

Why is NRA so powerful?

[irontaino]

A gunman killed 14 children and a teacher at a Texas ... - NPR

Why is NRA so powerful?

Here's the next sequence of events:

- Democrats will offer platitudes and maybe push a law that they know won't pass
- Republicans will use the moment to smear Democrats and push for more guns
- "tHoUgHtS aNd PrAyErS"
- conservatives buy more guns and ammo cause big government is gonna come for their guns, it's totally for real this time, you guize!
- everyone just powerlessly watches this play out, same as it always has.

[alhoon]

A gunman killed 14 children and a teacher at a Texas ... - NPR

Why is NRA so powerful?

It is 19 children by now. And this is the second most bloody mass shooting in a decade. Sandy Hook was worse. USA is a place where 19 children being killed by a gunman doesn't break the record of bloodiest killing of children since WW2 or 9/11 or something, it is not a history-significant event that will go down in books, but happens every 10 years.

And by the popularization of those things and notoriety gained by the mass murderers doing them, I am concerned this will soon spill to our madmen over the Atlantic. I don't want to wonder whether my nephews or the children of my friends will be gunned down because a wacko completely lost his marbles, so I would like if the USA actually did something about this.

And by something, I mean doing what the rightwings are afraid of: Coming for their guns. Not make buying guns harder, but a forced buy-out like Australia did after the Port Arthur Massacre.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Funny how once again, Democrats expect everyone to ignore the fact they control Congress and the White House and instead blame Republicans for not passing Democrats’ irrelevant agenda for them. StANd Up To ThE gUn LobBy. Meanwhile:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I guess we can only conclude the NRA wants less gun ownership and more background checks? Why are Democrats opposed to this? Putting aside Democrats’ shameless exploitation of dead kids, who are mass shooters?

https://www.theviolenceproject.org/m...oter-database/

According to the Violence Project, 65% of mass shooters have an existing criminal record. Around half are single and have a history of employment troubles. 70% have a history of mental illness and half one of substance abuse. Half are white, 20% are black, and the rest are other minorities. What do they have in common? They come from broken homes.

One misconception regarding school shooters is that they typically come from stable, intact, middle- to upper-middle-class families, e.g., from “good homes.” Though this is true of some perpetrators, it is not true of many of them.

Out of this sample of 56 school shooters, only 10 (18%) grew up in a stable home with both biological parents. In other words, 82% of the sample either grew up in dysfunctional families or without their parents together (for at least part of their lives).

https://schoolshooters.info/sites/de..._home_1.15.pdf

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some 60 years after the American left launched their “do what thou wilt” social campaign, they’re clamoring for the government to come up with a magic formula to save the country from their degenerate agenda that was supposed to be so wonderful and liberating for everyone. What to do?

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

[alhoon]

@Legio, many of your sources are GROSSLY outdated.

105 mass shootings since 1982 LMAO...
There were about 200 mass shootings in 2022 alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s...ates#Frequency

[Lord Thesaurian]

Alhoon….the info includes mass shootings through 2021. And the one you’re complaining about is from 2018. Your own source:

One definition is an act of public firearm violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a shooter kills at least four victims. Using this definition, one study found that nearly one-third of the world's public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States.[5][6] Using a similar definition, The Washington Post records 163 mass shootings in the United States between 1967 and June 2019.[7]

There’s still time to delete your post.

[Cyclops]

Not my country but I like the US and i have family there, so like anyone with a heart I'm baffled as to why they keep letting it happen. Money talks I guess and woe betide anything that infringes profit.

Wonderful opportunity for gun simps to say the worst and stupidest thing they could cone up with. I expect to read trash like "Obviously its poor peoples fault (I mean if they didn't have a gun they could kill the same number with a particle accelerator or a fuel air bomb) things were better before (checks notes) segregation was torn down". Garbage like that, like every time. Sandy Hook deniers trolling parents of dead kids are on the same level.

The gun sellers have flooded the US with guns and fear. It would take decades for any sane measures to take effect. There's corrupt opportunism on all sides in US politics but this gun violence is a deep national shame.

I'm reminded of the 19th century US slavery debate, slaveowners simps deployed similar rubbish arguments like its in the bible lol and hid behind their opponents faults. As with gun simps, their ultimate threat was civil war. Any parasite threatening to destroy my ally for money is an enemy of the state., and they place profit over the well-being of my allies citizens.

Money talks and the child killing business is booming. "Of course its not that simple, some child killing is acceptable". Not in my country and not for my allies children.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I guess the Republicans will argue, that anti-gun laws are socialism and nothing will change. Body count will still running up.

[Lord Thesaurian]

"Obviously its poor peoples fault (I mean if they didn't have a gun they could kill the same number with a particle accelerator or a fuel air bomb) things were better before (checks notes) segregation was torn down". Garbage like that, like every time.

Hot take of the day: if you don’t ban guns you hate black people. Quote one public person who said anything substantiating this claim. I’ll wait.
Meanwhile:

In its earliest forms, gun control existed to keep firearms out of the hands of African-Americans, especially free blacks, who were a perceived threat to white supremacy. As wide spread immigration into the United States began, people in established positions of power started to feel threatened by these new groups and took measures to keep firearms out of the hands of immigrants. The blatantly discriminatory laws used in the South would have been politically impossible to legislate after 1900, so gun control efforts shifted to discretionary permitting that allowed police or licensing boards to keep “undesirable” people from legally accessing firearms.

Intentionally or not, the poor eventually became the primary targets of gun control discrimination. Laws were instituted to drive up the minimum price of firearms in the name of consumer safety and crime reduction. Authorities also barred people who lived in public housing from keeping firearms in their homes. These recent measures were taken in the name of public safety, but they have a disproportional impact on those of a lower socioeconomic background with almost no persuasive, certainly not definitive, evidence suggesting that these laws will reduce crime. In some instances gun bans are even accompanied by an increase in gun violence. To implement further unproven measures that are inherently biased toward certain people would be irresponsible. Many attempts to control guns result in a disproportionate burden on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society with no proven benefit to the surrounding community.

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/v...t=srhonorsprog

[Coughdrop addict]

Not really, no. If anything, I would say more far right ideas are flowing to Russia through the West in the past 30 years than out. Sure, Russia may fund covertly or indirectly some far-right parties in Eastern Europe, but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the Far Right and its wealth in USA.
Simply put, a country with the economy of Russia cannot spare funds that are comparable to what USA-born-and-raised far-rights and alt-rights put in their own wackos.

Eastern Europe is poor. USA is not. A favorable donation of 50K$ to a party or a favorable contract of 500K$ to a pro-far-right businessman that influences the politicians and channels would work in Hungary.
To have that impact in USA you would need x100 the money.
50K$ is what 500 low-mid-class Republicans would funnel to their party during an election and a contract of 500K$ is something that would buy the ear of the local car-salesman and nothing more.

You are forgetting that Putin is the wealthiest man in the world, maybe in all of human history. His personal assets are valued at least at $200 billion, and that's before you count all of Russia's assets as a whole that he has unlimited access too. $500 million is pocket change to him.

I guess the Republicans will argue, that anti-gun laws are socialism and nothing will change. Body count will still running up.

Republicans have three reactions to mass shootings: Republican politicians feel total sociopathic indifference (while planing to use them for political gain), and Republican voters either deny the shooting was real and harass the victims and their families (Sandy Hook, Parkland), or admire the shooter if the victims were seen as "enemies" (2011 Norway attacks, Christchurch mosque shootings).

At some point, we have to work with the existing conditions as the actually are. We have to accept that efforts to tackle national problems such as gun violence will never have Republican support. While their politicians have absolutely no interest in America's problems beyond using them for political gain so they can continue to funnel the nation's wealth to billionaires; their voters first and foremost want to see anyone who is not like themselves be ground into the dirt and made to suffer.

As long as Democrats continue to try to reach out to or include Republicans in efforts to solve national problems as if they were patriotic, good-faith actors with rational motives, they won't get anywhere.

[alhoon]

Alhoon….the info includes mass shootings through 2021. And the one you’re complaining about is from 2018. Your own source:

There’s still time to delete your post.

No need, your source's definition of a mass shooting is, as you show, different than most people and sources use. For example RIGHT UNDER what you said, my source says:
"Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator.[8][9] Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day."

Your source uses the definition of mass murder for mass shootings which is misleading. Someone that opens fire and injures 4 people and nobody dies, is a mass shooting according to the definitions of Gun violence archive.

Here's an article on mass shootings: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/10990...2-tally-number

[Lord Thesaurian]

Your source uses the definition of mass murder for mass shootings which is misleading

So the FBI, leading criminologists and your own source are misleading now? Here’s what mine says:

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America
There have been at least 128 in the past four decades—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

Since we began, our interactive map below and the downloadable database behind it have been expanded with 66 additional cases from 2013-2022. Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline….

In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims were killed. (Any analysis of the frequency of mass shootings using our database should account for this.) Our original analysis, which covers cases from 1982-2012 with four or more victims killed, follows below. The cases we’ve documented since then using the revised federal baseline reaffirm our major analytical findings.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...shootings-map/

So, not only was the source material not “grossly outdated,” it’s even been updated since then, just a couple days ago. It’s ok to admit you made a mistake alhoon, but if you don’t have a relevant argument to make, perhaps it’s silly to continue this charade.

[Cyclops]

Thx Alhoon, definitions matter in this horrid and troll plagued subject. I have read too much specious trash, it really helps to have good faith statements in play.

I've just been reading about the anti slavery debate in the US on the 1840s. The wretched corruption and bigotry of the Whig/Feds gave the Democrats ammunition to oppose freeing slaves. The constitution and the Bible were used to justify their abominable position too, and the combination of money and useful idiots ripped the US apart.

These massacres are only a tiny part of the gun problem. I don't see any easy solution. In system where both parties have connived at neoslavery in the gig economy, the legal distribution if Oxycontin and horrid foreign adventures there's a lack of moral integrity, probably there's not enough decent leaders to sort out this issue.

Imagine if instead of Trump and Clintons the US got politicians who were based in their community and who stood firm on issues of morality. I think the reason the Democrats spilt so much bile on Pence was he seems to have a wee bit of integrity. Republicans and Democrats both seem to hate Bernie, give him a go too.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thx Alhoon, definitions matter in this horrid and troll plagued subject. I have read too much specious trash, it really helps to have good faith statements in play.

Hot take of the day: The FBI is trolling with the Bible and the Constitution to perpetuate “neoslavery” (whatever that is). I’m still waiting for you to source the claim that the failure to ban guns is due to hatred of black people, so perhaps I shouldn’t bother asking you to source this one.

[alhoon]

So the FBI, leading criminologists and your own source are misleading now? Here’s what mine says:

So, not only was the source material not “grossly outdated,” it’s even been updated since then, just a couple days ago. It’s ok to admit you made a mistake alhoon, but if you don’t have a relevant argument to make, perhaps it’s silly to continue this charade.

My source gives a different definition for a mass shooting and not a a mass murder. FBI's definition is not adequate and misleading. My source gives the definition of mass shooting right under the FBI's definition. You are not going to change my mind on which definition of a mass shooting is relevant here.

[Lord Thesaurian]

My source gives a different definition for a mass shooting and not a a mass murder. FBI's definition is not adequate and misleading. My source gives the definition of mass shooting right under the FBI's definition. You are not going to change my mind on which definition of a mass shooting is relevant here.

I’m not here to force you to do anything. I simply tried to help you avoid being stuck with the embarrassing and nonsensical claim that the federal government is lying/misleading people about mass shootings but the press is more credible. I see you’ve chosen to die on the hill after falsely claiming my sources were outdated and being forced by your own haste to find somewhere to pivot. It has no relevance to my argument.

[alhoon]

I’m not here to force you to do anything. I simply tried to help you avoid being stuck with the embarrassing and nonsensical claim that the federal government is lying/misleading people about mass shootings but the press is more credible. I see you’ve chosen to die on the hill after falsely claiming my sources were outdated and being forced by your own haste to find somewhere to pivot. It has no relevance to my argument.

Ahem... your sources are outdated and I didn't say the government lied, I said FBI uses a less-relevant-for-the-discussion metric.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ahem... your sources are outdated and I didn't say the government lied, I said FBI uses a less-relevant-for-the-discussion metric.

Uh huh. If your assertions were true, you would have been able by now to make a connection to the relevant conclusion that most mass shooters obtained their weapons legally. You can’t or won’t.