Really?
A great way to predict gun violence is by checking people's history. More often than not, men who shoot others or commit mass shootings usually have a history of domestic violence or violence of some sort. Stricter gun control laws can work, despite what pro-gun whackos claim. I've read stats on how states with lax gun laws saw more gun violence than states with strict gun laws. it's not just economic disparity.
I mean you dont know what goes on in your friends and your family behind closed doors.
I've looked at plenty of statistics, worldwide statistics on guns per capita and rates of violent crime in notable detail; even wrote a paper on it. There is little correlation between presence (which also means ease of access) and violent crime. The ginni coefficient, relative economic variance in an area, on the other hand heavily correlates with violent crime and other crimes to varying, notable degrees. As far as I know, there is no better method to predicting an area's violent crime rate than that, but I digress.
Nothing has come of them? Maybe as it pertains to Trump personally. It's just a bunch of people involved in his campaign or those that worked for him involved in criminal behavior. We don't really know until the public gets the full report, but just because Trump wasn't indicted personally doesn't mean he or his campaign fully exonerated. The DOJ has made a point to say that they avoid giving out information unless charges are filed. There's still something like a dozen investigations going on as it pertains to this.
Why would he tear up that agreement with Russia though? In general, people criticize him for praising adversarial countries and being mostly critical of our allies. Praising Putin and refusing any sort of public admonishment towards them isn't seen as some bold foreign policy strategy on his part. It makes him look compromised.
Easy access to weapons and ammo that are much more lethal than the most basic of firearms is also a factor. Not sure how it applies to the Christchurch shooting since NZ laws aren't the same here. However, there is some cognitive dissonance going on when guns are easier to obtain in some places than a driver's license is. Or that there's no federal database for firearms either. It's just insanity to me.
While I mostly agree, the problem with this is the assumption that any participant in coversation/debate is there in good faith. I guess that could be determined by unconscious factors too though.
Still, a few people in his camp did talk with Russians and the media made sure we heard about it. When it got mainstream attention, the focal person stated the on paper reason for the meet, usually it was one meeting of many with many countries, and then they reaigned or removed themselves before much else happened. It doesn't exactly scream "I'm innocent," but at the time, people weren't exactly screaming "your innocent and an alright chap" at him either. My guess would be it was just people weighing their options; take the badge of traitor and colluder for an indeterminate amount of time, negatively inpacting the rest of their careers, or resign or recuse themself like, seemingly, the entire world outside of their offices wants.
I'm no fan of Trump's sweet talk to these countries, but I think it's just that; sweet talk. He seems to be trying to deal with these countries the way he would other businesses. Again, I can't say I completely agree with that approach, however, that's how it seems to me.
A federal database would help when it comes to keeping an eye on things to make sure there's no problem characters in the mix. However, the government would actually need to do that on a consistent basis, not just say it would. Many of these mass shooters are getting to the point they got to that drove them to shoot people up, in part, because the government already failed to perform the checks and investigations into problem characters. Now that I think about it, it's not all that different from one of the many problems with ICE right now: They lack the funding and shrewdness to consistently enforce immigration laws, even when it comes to multiple offense violent criminals. They and other government organizations instead take shortsighted, "one-time" actions like deportation or, back to utilizing the firearm database, taking guns from the people through broad, overreaching policies. This is a legitimate concern and its happened before, in recent history too. Still, if we can improve the effective enforcement of the laws we have now, then I think we would be in a better place to talk about a database for firearms. Until then, there's little reason the federal government should have one, unless you actually do believe the government should go door to door taking people's weapons away or you think the database would actually help with enforcement (a possibility albeit unlikely in my estimation).
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Agreed. Coming from someone who studied law, Mueller did what he could within his mandate and powers. And that should be commended. Personally, I'd say Mueller came out of this looking unscathed, with nary a speck of dirt on him. Basically, he played the long game here. He'd investigated what needed to be investigated, and left more than enough trails of breadcrumbs for everyone to follow up on whatever he found were not within his mandate. I know both sides wanted some kind of dramatic bombshell out of this, but given how low-key the guy is, that's probably not his style.
What I wonder is if mueller should have pursued those breadcrumbs himself tbh. From a legal point of view my understanding is that mueller had freedom to pretty much choose which leads to pursue himself and which ones to pass on to other agencies so on that end there are no ethical issues either way. But if he finds a crime pertaining people around the trump campaign then isn't it better for him to pursue them himself rather than pass them on? Mueller is ultimately someone both parties agreed on was competent and fair enough to investigate trump's campaign. I am not sure other agencies would have such unique position to investigate whatever leads mueller might or not have passed on. On the other hand if Mueller did pass on some stuff perhaps it being directed to conventional agencies and whatnot is for the best. Just normal investigations being carried out by the people they should be handled by and none of the media circus around investigations which started back when comey made hillary's investigation's public.
I really wouldn't be surprised. Looking back on the cohen hearing.... That looks like it was meant to put at least a bit of the stuff muller uncovered in his investigation in the public eye.... though I am not sure of how involved mueller would have been in this. I guess in the end perhaps its for the best that the media circus around muller is over and whatever follows, if anything follows, is handed through conventional means and the public finds out when it makes sense.
To be fair, trump being caught colluding with Russia was not in itself probable. The investigation was necessary because trump pretty much did everything he possibly could to make it appear as if he did something wrong in that regard. From trump saying russia should release democrat emails if they stole them to his dumbass kid going to that meeting with a russian agent to get dirt on hillary... To trump trump's business dealing with russian oligarchs... to the 30 something indictments and guilty pleas with people who lied to congress about their dealings with russia and financial crimes.
There's some bumbled nomenclature when it comes to guns and what an "assault-type weapon" even is. A generic AR-15 itself isn't any more lethal than any other semi-automatic rifle firing the same cartridge. Looks really have nothing to do with lethality. It's when a weapon is modified legally or illegally, with stuff like bumper stocks or extended magazines where lethality goes up exponentially. Ammo type is also a factor too. Hollow point ammunition is designed to maim since it expands when it hits. There's also the fact that .223 Remington (5.56x45mm) rifle ammo has a tendency to "tumble"(it's not actually tumbling but that's neither here nor there) in the body.
To me there was absolute willingness on his part. The meeting in Trump Tower is enough for me as well. Maybe there was no crime, but this administration has zero respect for the ethical norms. A willingness to work with a foreign adversary against fellow citizens means you're an unscrupulous piece of shit. Blaming it on ignorance changes nothing either, as it also means you're unfit to serve.
Ah, absolutely. You don't do... literally any of the things trump has done over the years if you didn't attempt to collude at a minimum. Trump is a scumbag... Its not even ethical norms in government which he doesn't respect, its all forms of ethics. His businesses don't behave ethically, he has surrounded himself by enough scumbags that mueller managed to indict or get guilty pleas out of over 30 of them... Roger stone freaking prided himself on playing dirty. I don't even know how far gone you have to be to pride yourself on your scumbagery... I remember during the trump campaign where he told his supporters something along the lines of him at some point being one of the elites that was in charge. As in a donor who gave politicians money to get what he wanted.. How do you even unwrap that?