Jump to content
TrumpBGoneSoon

A Serious Discussion about Gun Violence.

Recommended Posts

On 1/27/2019 at 12:08 AM, jerra- said:

 

keep guns locked up and away from crazy people.

 

Keep crazy people locked up and away from guns.

 

I like mine better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 1:11 AM, KneeJerk said:

 

Keep crazy people locked up and away from guns.

 

I like mine better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

kj

We already have one of the most incarcerated populations in the world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

We already have one of the most incarcerated populations in the world.  

That's because we have one of the highest minority populations in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

We already have one of the most incarcerated populations in the world.  

 

Active death penalty would help.

 

16 hours ago, kfools said:

That's because we have one of the highest minority populations in the world. 

 

I read the report on that ...

 

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

That makes zero sense.   

What part of that makes no sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kfools said:

What part of that makes no sense?

Blaming minorities.  The statistics show that a white person is more likely to be shot by a white person and vice versa.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Blaming minorities.  The statistics show that a white person is more likely to be shot by a white person and vice versa.  

I thought we were talking about incarcerated people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Plenty of white people in jail.  

Per capita it isn't even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 6:04 PM, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Just to prove that the 2nd Amendment is up for interpretation.  

 

Interpret militia then. In Websters it says all men between the ages of 17 and 48 are the militia in this country and further as such we are supposed to own and maintain weapons capable of military use along with a supply of ammunition.  Well regulated means a citizen in good standing with the laws in this country. We are a very regulated society. I like this interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 5:27 PM, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Blaming minorities.  The statistics show that a white person is more likely to be shot by a white person and vice versa.  

 So minorities are not to blame for the fact that 80% of homicides are gang related? The other 20% which include justifiable homicides averages 2200 a year. The rest are suicides. You actually thing gun control is effective? How is being unarmed in the face of violence better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 4:21 PM, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

We already have one of the most incarcerated populations in the world.  

 

I support locking up criminal violent people, we have more work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RayDonavin said:

 

Interpret militia then. In Websters it says all men between the ages of 17 and 48 are the militia in this country and further as such we are supposed to own and maintain weapons capable of military use along with a supply of ammunition.  Well regulated means a citizen in good standing with the laws in this country. We are a very regulated society. I like this interpretation.

Fair enough.  But What about the fact that pretty much anyone can get a gun and use it for whatever purpose instead of following a regiment like most militia?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RayDonavin said:

 

I support locking up criminal violent people, we have more work to do.

Many of them aren't violent.  They're there because of drug violations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Fair enough.  But What about the fact that pretty much anyone can get a gun and use it for whatever purpose instead of following a regiment like most militia?  

 

For any legal purpose. Being "regulated" means you face consequences otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Many of them aren't violent.  They're there because of drug violations.  

 

Drug violations? Doesn't heroine kill more than 50,000 people a year in the U.S.? How about meth? Crack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 1:58 PM, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Lets clear the air here.  I won't address any personal attacks nor will I make any in this thread.

 

I don't oppose people buying handguns for self defense.  Experts recommend it.

I don't oppose people buying rifles for hunting and target practice.  Shoot as much as you want at the range.

 

However, Guns are cheap and plentiful and often falling into the hands of people who abuse them to the point of getting a lot of other people killed.  

 

There's a lot of talk about flagging folks with mental illness.  But its hard to pinpoint the actual shooters until they have done the act.  We talk about training teachers to use guns.  Teachers may not want to have that additional responsibility.   Any effort to restrain access to guns is often defeated by the NRA.   Classic NRA is very different from the Modern NRA.   It's about money.  

 

 However, I'm not opposed to armed security in our public schools.  

 

I don't want to win this problem, I want to solve it.  

thoughts and prayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RayDonavin said:

 

Drug violations? Doesn't heroine kill more than 50,000 people a year in the U.S.? How about meth? Crack?

Other countries treat drug addiction as a medical problem, Not a reason to throw people in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leomon said:

thoughts and prayers

From a liberal that can't think, and doesn't believe in God. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House votes to reauthorize VAWA in a rejection of the NRA's claim that guns keep women safe

 

Giving a gun to a woman who has been abused and expecting her to use it against a man who she probably still loves isn’t a good bet. But that’s exactly what is advocated by both Shannon Goessling, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Office of Violence Against Women and, most recently, the National Rifle Association.

On Thursday, the House voted to reauthorize an updated Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in defiance of the NRA. As the fight heads to the Senate, it’s more important than ever to debunk these kinds of misperceptions about intimate partner violence. This is one of those instances when the stakes can literally be life or death.

 

When thinking about firearms and intimate partner violence, at least two things are at play — fear and risk. Sometimes fear can be enjoyable, as we know from compelling horror movies. When nothing real is at risk, a two-hour stretch of tension-filled anticipation can be fun. And some horror movies — think Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” and “Us” — are framed in a social context that evokes a lively conversation and analysis.

When thinking about firearms and intimate partner violence, at least two things are at play — fear and risk.

We need more than a lively conversation and analysis when it comes to abuse and firearms.

Tucked into many health care intake forms these days, somewhere between queries about one’s history of heart disease and weekly alcohol consumption, is a question about whether a patient feels safe at home. A physician friend relayed the response of one patient: He beats me only once a year, but the other 364 days, I live in fear that today will be the day.

SIGN UP FOR THE THINK WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE

That sort of fear is accompanied by ongoing alertness, heightened sensitivity to sights and sounds, the release of cortisol that can lead to increased heart rate and blood pressure, and other signs of chronic stress. Such fear is neither fun nor good for one’s health.

Now imagine that fear when the abuser has access to a gun. Although the immediate concern here is whether victims of intimate partner violence should be armed, there is virtually no credible research on the question. But we know a fair amount about the consequences when the abuser is armed.

 

f_mo_dems_vawa_190404.760;428;7;70;5.jpg

 

Our recent research, based on tens of thousands of Philadelphia Police Department reports of intimate partner violence, found that a great majority of the incidents involving a gun were male-on-female. Also, fear was far more common when a gun was (versus was not) used. Such fear shows good judgment.

Guns and male intimates figure prominently in the murder of women. For the past 40 years, FBI homicide data document that women are more than twice as likely to be shot and killed by a male intimate than shot, stabbed, strangled, beaten to death, or killed in any other way by a stranger. The “vicious male predators” referenced by NRA surrogates and Shannon Goessling are, in reality, current and former boyfriends and husbands with guns.

Some of these killings are impulsive, but most follow a history of abuse. The best research to date, published in 2003, indicates that women who have been abused by their partner are five times as likely to be killed by that partner if he has access to a gun.

The best research to date indicates that women who have been abused by their partner are five times as likely to be killed by that partner if he has access to a gun.

Our 2006 study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, documented that 85 percent of the 417 women residing in California battered women’s shelters did not feel safer when there was a gun in the home. They might not have felt safer because in two thirds of the homes with a gun, the male partner had used the gun against the woman, most commonly to threaten her. Only a handful of the women in the study reported that they had used the gun to scare, run off, or threaten their abuser.

Are women who obtain a gun after being abused safer from their intimate partner than those who don’t get a gun? We don’t know — there hasn’t been systematic research on the topic. This is one of many such questions that could be addressed with adequate federal funding of research on firearms.

What we do know is that, generally speaking, guns have not protected women from abusers nearly as often as they have been used by abusers. The Violence Against Women Act helps protect women in a variety of ways, including making it harder for abusive partners and stalkers to obtain a gun. One step forward is extending the firearm provisions to include current and former boyfriends.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×