How the unrest in the U.S ends.

To add:

We need to have laws regarding the filming and photographing of private citizens. You should not be able to tweet pictures and videos of private citizens to the world. If you do, you face charges.

Corrector wrote:

A systematic system of aprensión of minorities by the police and justice system will stop with the media is held accountable and social media controlled?

No. That is another, more serious problem that needs to be addressed in another way. I am referring to the social unrest and general division of our country.

Yes, I know they are closely related.

Viking21 wrote:

Please elucidate. What gun control policies would help with the situation we are discussing here? I'm sure that you are aware that the state of societal unrest we are experiencing has promoted record sales of guns and ammunition. The right to defense of self and family is fundamental, and the need to be prepared has been clearly emphasized by current events. So, what would you change?

Sure. I would revoke the 2nd amendment. I would make firearms illegal with the exception of sport-hunting under very strict guidelines, where you can’t even take your gun home with you but have to leave it in a locker at a designated location, or something. Local police stations would have a gun library, but guns would only be issued to officers with a certain level of vetting, training and experience. I’m a big believer that fewer guns = less gun violence.

Go ahead and tear me apart, but know I likely won’t deign to respond.

I appreciate the response. I disagree because I don't think there was ever a time when the press did what you say it does.

I also think the internet has been a huge net positive for society by expanding everyone's reach/network. Any negatives social media brings are really caused the interconnections that the internet allows. It was always going to happen - social media isn't the cause, it's just a manifestation.

Do you hold the USPS responsible for mail people send? How about AT&T for what people say over the phone. More lines of communication = generally better, even if it allows some negative behaviors.

Finally, I think the cat is out of the bag with response to regulating speech on the internet. It's impossible to stop without exercising control over huge amounts of traffic - like China's firewall. Going after Twitter or whatever will just result in a more decentralized and anonymous platform coming up in it's place.

Police called on Blake, who was violent. Blake had a weapon in the vehicle. Blake was leaning into the vehicle. Police had the right to shoot him. End of story.

I appreciate your responses as well, and you bring up good points.

I guess my quick response would be that I WOULD hold USPS responsible if they sent something harmful to everyone in the country that resulted in mayhem.

I WOULD hold AT&T responsible if they sent out a recorded message to all phones with dangerous false narratives that resulted in mayhem.

I think going after the platforms is the only way to make it work. We'll always have those who are bad actors, but now we have a system where everyday folks are contributing to hysteria and dangerous misinformation.

I agree the internet is a net positive, but social media is - by far - a net negative.

My point regarding filming/sharing videos and pictures of private citizens seems like a no brainer to me, but I am sure others might poke holes in it.

I appreciate the fact that you have the balls to say what most gun control advocates won't. Let's say that you get your way, and private gun ownership is suddenly illegal. What next? How are you going to implement your plan? You probably just made outlaws out of a very large percentage of your fellow citizens. What percentage of compliance do you expect? You are correct in that confiscation is the only meaningful form of gun control, but that horse left the barn a very long time ago. I honestly believe that any widespread attempt at confiscation would literally end this nation. Respond as you will.

I'm sure everyone knows: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

The unrest will end when police shootings stop getting such a big reaction from the public and the media. These things now seem more frequent and more important than ever before because they blow up more often than ever before. I couldn’t tell you if these things are happening at higher rates than ever before, but I doubt it. The unrest is more so about the way incidents now blow up on social media and how big media capitalized on such reactions to it(positive and negative). These incidents are a good that can be manipulated and promoted for profit.

I’m sure when the democrats come to power they’ll pass some token legislation that won’t really do anything, but their block will act like it does.

Really, it will go away when people get bored and more on to whatever righteous cause they want to be outraged about and it will have nothing to do with the actual broader conditions of the country.

It will end when those that have been weaseling and worming their way through government for 47 years are finally kicked fully and forcefully to the kerb.

a. Ditz wrote:

I’m sure when the democrats come to power they’ll pass some token legislation that won’t really do anything, but their block will act like it does.

Really, it will go away when people get bored and more on to whatever righteous cause they want to be outraged about and it will have nothing to do with the actual broader conditions of the country.

Exactly. And that's why voting for Biden isn't going to "make this the new norm." Another piece of fear propaganda from Trump.

They're gonna pass a token piece of legislation that doesn't solve the core issue.

Realistically to stop these "police killings" (most are somewhat justified, of course Floyd was not at all)... is to either completely neuter police (nobody reasonable wants to do that), spend a ton more on police training, or teach that certain subset to obey police orders.

None of that is going to realistically happen. It will be token legislation, which im fine with.

Viking21 wrote:

I appreciate the fact that you have the balls to say what most gun control advocates won't. Let's say that you get your way, and private gun ownership is suddenly illegal. What next? How are you going to implement your plan? You probably just made outlaws out of a very large percentage of your fellow citizens. What percentage of compliance do you expect? You are correct in that confiscation is the only meaningful form of gun control, but that horse left the barn a very long time ago. I honestly believe that any widespread attempt at confiscation would literally end this nation. Respond as you will.

I think it would be a gradual and imperfect process to be sure. I would start by banning the sale of firearms and simply asking (“mandating”) people to bring in their guns voluntarily, with full knowledge that many people would not, and try to refund them for their guns or otherwise financially incentivize them to comply. I would act very cautiously in trying to confiscate weapons to avoid shootouts with gun-loving extremists convinced that this marks the end of the world or whatever. In a few exceptional cases sure, you’d execute FBI/SWAT/military operations to raid some questionable character’s stockpile. Even if there remained a good number of people who held onto their prized collection or kept a handgun hidden beneath their bed, it would still be an improvement and we would still be on the right track. You wouldn’t send an officer into a risky situation unarmed knowing that people could still be in possession of firearms, but over time the likelihood of that would be reduced. After a few decades of consistent policies and anti-gun advocacy I think we would combat the gun problem significantly.

In the meantime, we could probably shift some of the D.A.R.E. money into anti-gun or gun violence awareness campaigns. Part of the problem has always been that this country so honors and glorifies these machines made for killing.

It seems hard to deny that the recent events which have caused a rift in this country that seems unparalleled in my (only 28 year) lifetime would have been less costly and disturbing if there were strict gun control. Maybe you wind up with a man (Blake) with one bullet wound, a 17 year old kid with some skateboard-induced bruises and another man doing time for assault—seems like a good trade for what we got instead.

Of course this could be my pipe dream, but I think it would ultimately be greatly beneficial if implemented thoughtfully.

Not shocked anymore wrote:

Obama was in office for 8 years, why wasn't more done then to address racial inequalities?

You can always ask why "more" wasn't done, but the Obama administration did prioritize policing reform, probably to a greater extent than any other administration.

a. Ditz wrote:

These things now seem more frequent and more important than ever before because they blow up more often than ever before.

They aren't happening at a more frequent rate. All statistics show that. The media exaggerates sporadic, dramatic instances to create the impression in credulous people that there is some kind of pandemic of racist white cops killing innocent black men. In reality it's an incredibly rare event, and most of the time, justified. Our nation's violent pre-occupation with this can only be considered a dangerous, media-fabricated moral panic.

Synod wrote:

dsadasc wrote:

Rand Paul mobbed last night because he doesn't think like BLM.

If Democrats win heavy in November elections, you can expect things like what happened to Rand Paul to happen constantly - criminal gangs of unemployed, media-emboldened BLMers harassing and threatening anyone who looks like they might be employed. Very like the "struggle sessions" of the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the 60s and 70s.

Anyone see the resemblance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

All this is happening with a Trump Presidency and a GOP controlled Congress. Live in the real world.

A kid shots three people and two die but you upset because people were mean to a senator.

You and your ilk have NO interest in peace and even less interest in equality and justice. What you want is supremacy and you still cannot wrap your head around the fact the behaving like the McMichaels, Derek Chauvin, Kyle Rittenhouse or Dylan Roof isn’t ok anymore.

YMMV wrote:

It will end when those that have been weaseling and worming their way through government for 47 years are finally kicked fully and forcefully to the kerb.

Mitch McConnell?

This is Trumps America, he owns it.

We have a President sharing white power videos, calling Mexicans rapists and inciting violence online and at his rallies.

We have online personalities QAnon and Infiwars for example labeling people as pedophiles and satanic worshipers. Carrying out these acts at a pizza shop.

But the biggest and best example of messaging problem you can think Of is a kid who was perhaps mischaracterized and awards a fat pay check.

You don’t want a solution.

The USA is in a mess. The November election will cause chaos no matter who wins.

If people want things to change here are a few suggestions:

Pay everyone who works a job a liveable wage

Health care for all

Sensible gun laws

This would be a start.

Yes. And if you want to see, for example, looting and intimidation like happened in Minneapolis two nights ago, happen on a weekly basis, then hope of a large Democratic win in November. They seem to condone it, as do you.

I'm "upset" because someone minding their own business was accosted and threatened for their mainstream political views. I'm upset because businesses in cities around the country have been destroyed because of massive hysteria. You should be too. But you're naive, prone to exaggeration, and enjoy seeing the world as a simplistic showdown between evil racists and oppressed people, so you're incapable of that.

Speak for yourself on lack of interest in peace, equality and justice. You've engaged in the usual tactic of the perpetually outraged, uninformed Woker - call whoever you think you disagree with you a racist/supremacist. It sets up your childish world view - see above.