Unless some nationwide mass protests start against Gun culture in US,I don't think the administration will be moved by this horrific shootings.
It's not, but using this issue as a political football in order to make your opponents look bad instead of just passing legislation that would attempt to address these tragedies is very very cynical. It's a political play and nothing else. I would feel less like this if Trump's ideas about Immigration Reform weren't so completely misguided and entrenched in nationalism.
I didn't mean to imply pandering to them. Just that going for the best choice to get the most Independents and Republicans to vote Democrat is pretty pragmatic and could show better results than the field trying to "out-Lefty" each other, while crapping on Obama.
It plays a part in why they do it, it doesn't change the end result. El Paso and Dayton are identical in that respect.
There are a few reasons I think that is a bad idea:
Because he makes it seem like this isnt the land of opportunity and wasnt built off the backs of slaves/immigrants/foreigners.
I know it's anecdotal, but nothing could be further from the truth. Most republicans I know personally are most likely not voting for Trump next year. Now, I live in a mostly blue state, so that changes things in some ways. Trump simply has the most vocal opposition from within his own party that I can remember. Will that result in that being reflected when it comes time to vote, who knows. But it is a thing and it exists.
Anyone who commits mass murder is probably "fucked up". But yeah, he was an avowed socialist and supported Antifa.
I know I'm answering your question with a question, but given Trump's entire history of commentary on immigration, how exactly is he not misguided? There's the Wall, there's his completely ignoring the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country don't even cross either of our borders illegally. It's xenophobic, hate-mongering trash.
But why did he shoot? His classmates say he was the bully who made a hit list and a list of women to rape, but I didn't see anything political mentioned. The El Paso shooter was a terrorist because his shooting was politically motivated - anti-immigrant views thanks to Trumpet and his bullshit. hell, that left-winger who shot that right-wing politician at a baseball game apparently had a political motivation behind it, that being he wanted ACA to stay?
I know at least two who left republican because of Trump, one who seems to have liberal/left leaning thoughts, so it's kinda confusing.
I see no reason to differentiate between the two incidents other than to talk about political ideology. Both were clearly inspired by extremist beliefs on both sides of the spectrum. Both were politically motivated, to what degree, I don't know. We might never know in the case of Dayton, since the killer didn't live.
I'm not talking about people switching parties necessarily
Conservatives and progressives do damage in different but similar and complex ways
Fortunately and unfortunately, the people who claimed this land before now are dead. What's left behind is what was built and survived. This nation was left behind and we are still known as the land of opportunity, but with no laws, there's relatively few opportunities beyond what is necessary to survive.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
How aren't you misguided? How aren't I and everyone else? If we're talking about people being "misguided," then you're going to have to include a what, how, and why in order for it to be specific enough to be productive.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
apnews.com
I don't really see why the burden is on me when Trump's public record on this issue exists. Sure, you can say some of what he wants is in line with what conservatives want, and border security is important. But acting like Trump's approach to this issue is reasonable is putting your head in the sand IMO. His main platform to get elected was The Wall, which is completely misguided, a waste of money, not pragmatic in any sense in the word, and built upon a false premise. He simply shouldn't be in a position to shape policy concerning this.
The US has twice as many guns per capita than any other country. We're not the highest in gun deaths per capita, no. That's probably a testament to our country's wealth, healthcare, and laws. Violent crime doesn't need to increase with the gun ownership figure in order for there to be a relation to it. The issue is related little to no background checks, poor training, and lack of registration IMO. The laws just aren't comprehensive enough to deal with the amount of firearms in this country.
Burden? I just asked for your view. You replied and I asked for more clarification. I'm not assuming I know what you think and asked to hear about it, but you're acting as if I should already know the burning truth that has graced me from some dude on a forum for Japanese cartoons. How is anything good going to come from reacting like that?
It matters because of motivation and such. If the Dayton shooter didn't live, then how do you know there was a political reason behind his action? And the El Paso was extremely politically motivated... his reasoning was that he's against immigrants, especially thanks to Trump.
Conservatives do far more damage in order to benefit the wealthy and corporations at the expensive of average citizens. Progressives probably do damage financially as more of them believe in helping fellow people.
It's not hard to understand the differences between knives and guns. Knives have other use and aren't that deadly. Guns have no use outside of killing and are very deadly because they make it easier to shoot multiple people quickly. How many people have knives killed in one go?
Stricter gun control laws can reduce these things from happening. YOu shouldn't be able to buy multiple guns within a month or two, and there should be some sort of cap. Plus, no one with mental health issues (like depression or anger) should be allowed to buy guns, nor should anyone with a violent past (usually the common denominator tends to be domestic violence).
Yeah? and I did give my view. I simply meant that I didn't feel like it was necessary for me to retread Trump's stance on it as you don't seem to be unaware. I got "misguided" turned back on me as if I didn't give any reasons for using the word.
A complete firearm ban? I know there are some suggesting that, but that's not something anyone in the business of creating policy is seriously discussing, despite whatever the NRA wants people to believe.
Because of his social media accounts, first-person accounts from people in his life like his ex-girlfriend, etc. People didn't just make it up. You might not be hearing about it on MSM as much, but it doesn't make it untrue.
The left and right have their places, positives, and negatives in society. A lot of people thought the Communism Revolution in Russia was a great idea that would help equalize all people, not as many did after Stalin and Holodomor. People thought the same thing about the French Revolution, one of the first democracies of the Western World, not as many did after the rise of the "Committee of Public Safety" and the Great Terror.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I wasn't asking you for Trump's stances and views: Neither one of us can say that with complete certainty or without some level of arrogance. I wanted to get details on your own personal view, that's it. However, if it is this big of a thing and that much of a burden, then nevermind.
No he's not, he's just pushing for a bullshit ban on innocent countries while doing nothing about the countries that have actually attacked the US. Our vetting system is extremely stringent and thorough to the point that at best, maybe a handful of refugees have committed any acts of terrorism. All the meanwhile, white supremacists kill people and commit mass shootings, but nothing is being done about that.
So, what did they say his motivation was?
Wrong on both counts, given they do absolutely nothing to improve anyone's life but the wealthy's. Majority of them don't care about climate change because it might mean them losing money. I"m sure the left has its faults, but the right seem to have far more worse faults that actually hurts people.
Mass killings will be slowed down quite a bit with stricter gun control. Mass killing is harder with knives than it is with guns, and the objective is to reduce deaths/mass killings.
Read your view on the left and right, but can you elaborate on why you think I'm incorrect?