Biden creates office of 'gun violence prevention'

kibitzer wrote:

FJB wrote:

Do you realize the crime in Ohio is mainly perpetrated by urban youth in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, etc?

I suspect that's true; but the entire state of Ohio, which presumably is not all urban and doesn't all have Democratic governance, has a higher average homicide rate than NYC--which *is* entirely urban, *does* have Democratic governance, and has nearly twice as high a percentage of black people (assuming, probably accurately, that that's what you mean by "urban youth") in the population as Ohio does.

So, again: He should talk about the carnage in Ohio (and Florida), where the homicide rate is almost *twice* as high as NYC's, if he's going to talk about Baltimore and Chicago.

[Of course, that might mean talking about how NYC is fortunate in that most of its neighboring states have fairly strong gun safety laws--in contrast to the situations in Baltimore, Chicago, and Ohio.]

loI wrote:

kibitzer wrote:

I suspect that's true; but the entire state of Ohio, which presumably is not all urban and doesn't all have Democratic governance, has a higher average homicide rate than NYC--which *is* entirely urban, *does* have Democratic governance, and has nearly twice as high a percentage of black people (assuming, probably accurately, that that's what you mean by "urban youth") in the population as Ohio does.

So, again: He should talk about the carnage in Ohio (and Florida), where the homicide rate is almost *twice* as high as NYC's, if he's going to talk about Baltimore and Chicago.

[Of course, that might mean talking about how NYC is fortunate in that most of its neighboring states have fairly strong gun safety laws--in contrast to the situations in Baltimore, Chicago, and Ohio.]

So why don't Vermont and New Hampshire have similar gun violence rates to Baltimore then? Those states have virtually no gun control, yet Baltimore has very strict gun control.

Looking inside a gun-controlled state, why do Irvine and Fremont have far lower (gun) crime than Oakland?

Hot Takes wrote:

Elaine hiding in the janitors closet waiting for Chinese food wrote:

Assault rifles should not be legal. Nobody needs these for hunting.

They aren't for hunting. They are for when you can't rely on your government to take good care of you. Either when the US government crumbles or when the US government goes against a slight minority of its citizens. If there's no risk of citizens being able to rebel and fight back then the government can do whatever they want. But if citizens aren't pushovers then whoever is trying to take advantage of them might think twice before doing it. Same with if the US gets into a military conflict. Not only does a country have to worry about fighting our military, but a decent number of our citizens also have weapons to fight with. So even if our military gets beat, going door to door taking over the United States would be a very big task. Neither of these is likely in the coming decades, but one day something like this will happen. No country lasts forever. Tens of millions of people will die when that day comes, the ability for the United States citizens to protect themselves will keep a lot of American lives alive. Gun deaths each year are a tiny percentage of what those tens of millions of deaths would be if America these bad things happened. That's why the 2nd amendment exists and should remain in place.

1776 called wrote:

Hot Takes wrote:

They aren't for hunting. They are for when you can't rely on your government to take good care of you. Either when the US government crumbles or when the US government goes against a slight minority of its citizens. If there's no risk of citizens being able to rebel and fight back then the government can do whatever they want. But if citizens aren't pushovers then whoever is trying to take advantage of them might think twice before doing it. Same with if the US gets into a military conflict. Not only does a country have to worry about fighting our military, but a decent number of our citizens also have weapons to fight with. So even if our military gets beat, going door to door taking over the United States would be a very big task. Neither of these is likely in the coming decades, but one day something like this will happen. No country lasts forever. Tens of millions of people will die when that day comes, the ability for the United States citizens to protect themselves will keep a lot of American lives alive. Gun deaths each year are a tiny percentage of what those tens of millions of deaths would be if America these bad things happened. That's why the 2nd amendment exists and should remain in place.

You think you can fight the modern United States military and better yet along with it? I’m sure the military says hey we can beat those commies if redneck Jim Bob has an AR15! Lol

Bottom line is the government owns you. Your little dooms day arsenal is only allowing kids to get shot in school.