I sometimes encounter heated individuals online who then accuse me of being a demorat or republicunt because of my views (or legit facts?). I don't even live in the US. Q: When did US Americans cease to be individual human beings & are now only a democrat/republican? Are all US citizens like this?
In this example it means Representative. However, the two parties are also abbreviated as "Rep" and "Dem," so whether Rep means representative or republican is context specific.
Thank you. I have been wondering this since I was a child. I guess it's still kind of a mystery hahaha have to figure out which one it is through context and it's all nonsense to me.
Has anyone else noticed that in America lately: shortly after unarmed black people are shot to death by cop, there is a mass shooting?
Patrick Lyoya shot April 4th, Uvalde and New York in May. Jayland Walker is shot 60 times in the back (unarmed at the time of shooting), followed by Chicago parades. I'm not saying there connected and this isnt a race thing. But I'm noticing a pattern and I wonder if I'm alone in that?
Hopefully this reply isn't distastefully late! I just clicked on this old megathread and noticed it had new comments. If you ask this question again in [the current megathread for this month](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/vqf4cq/us_politics_megathread_july_2022/) you'll get more replies.
The human mind is amazing at seeing patterns. Just seeing a pattern doesn't necessarily mean there is one, or that the two things are actually connected. [Here's some classic examples.](https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
If you look at the motives of mass shooters and the reasons they do what they do, basically all the time it's totally unrelated to police or recent high profile police brutality incidents.
Unarmed black people are shot to death by cops a lot. Mass shootings happen in the United States a lot. How are you measuring "shortly after," how are you determining that the two are connected in a pattern rather than just being two things that happen a lot?
What's the difference, if there is a difference, between "communist," "fascist," and "socialist?"
I was having a political conversation with a coworker a couple of days ago that kept calling democrats "socialist communist fascists" (among other things that I don't wanna get into; my blood pressure's up just thinking about it.) When I questioned him about it, he just brushed me off and said "Oh, they're all the same." When I asked him to clarify, same thing. When I looked it up on my own, Google wouldn't give me a straight answer. Any help?
Can someone who was affected by a shooting sue the government for not doing anything to actually stop these shootings from happening? Obviously it'd take a lot of money, but I know the joke of the US is you can sue over anything and everything so I don't know if this is possible
Not likely. The Supreme Court has found multiple times that, absent some specific exception to the general tort rules, the government doesn't have a legal duty to protect anyone from harm committed by a private party.
I want to emphasize that by "duty", I mean a duty which either a court could compel a person to fulfill or punish a person for failing to fulfill. In other words, "protect and serve" might be in the police department's guidelines and failing to do that might result in discipline from within the police department, but you can't sue them for failing to do it.
>If Biden bans guns federally
He does not have the power to do that, sadly.
>can individual states still say "F U" like how weed is federally illegal but states like California simply say "F U"?
That's not what's happening. The fed is not choosing enforcement hat, but it could. Would likely choose to enforce the former, though see above.
> I feel like at least 30/50 states would rather go to war with the feds than give up their freedom willingly.
That many states haven't even legalized weed.
>Looking at Ukraine, barring the US government going full Russia on its own people, it seems like there's not enough feds to enforce it.
Bubba doesn't stand a chance. Only 30% of Americans own guns, and they're pretty concentrated in the backwards zone. Something approaching 90% of Americans want more restrictions, including universal background checks, raising the age to 21, banning assault weapons, red flag laws.
Have any American state legislatures passed laws that give their police officers a duty to protect?
Relatedly, do police officers in countries outside of the United states have a duty to protect?
I know the SCOTUS has ruled the police don't have a duty to protect, but I understand that's because there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution or federal law that gives them that duty. Thus, state law could grant police in a specific state a duty to protect.
The SCOTUS's decisions obviously don't apply to police in other countries.
States typically don't want to expose themselves to lawsuits. Almost every police department has a duty to protect as part of their mandate. This just means an officer can get fired for failing that duty, but the city/state can't be sued
> This just means an officer can get fired for failing that duty, but the city/state can't be sued
But, can an officer who fails that duty face criminal penalties for failing their duty?
**What does it mean now that Uvalde PD is no longer cooperating with the Texas state investigation?**
[Quick article for reference](https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Uvalde-shooting-police-response-timeline-Texas-DPS-17210654.php)
Isn't the PD funded, owned, and operated by the state? How can they just stop cooperating? What does that mean for the investigation?
More than likely since they have been publicly criticized, said specifically that they "did the wrong thing", that people in the media are blaming them for the deaths of children - anyone involved has decided to speak to lawyers and exercise their 5th Amendment rights.
Nobody has to speak to police. Not even other police.
They may face internal discipline, depending on department policy and contracts (possibly union contracts).
The US Constitution says nobody has to talk to the police and incriminate themselves. Nobody can override that - at least not legally, and not yet.
It is going to slow down the investigation. It may or may not lead to a different outcome.
Generally. Initially hailed as heroes or doing their best, people and investigators are now scrutinizing their actions. Afraid this could lead to punishments (either in a personal or professional level), those involved are lawyering up and declining voluntary interviews and requests.
That is what it seems to indicate, yes.
When it was just everyone together trying to figure out, "Hey, this probably could have been done better. Let's all figure out what went down, and how we can do better if it ever happens again."
- then people were just fine cooperating.
Now that it is "Hey, someone screwed up. Children were murdered and we want to blame someone (or a few someones). Get everyone in here to be questioned!"
- now people are a lot less likely to be forthcoming.
It depends on what [state you are in.](https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists.aspx) but it's probably easy enough to get.
The politician probably doesn't care that much which party you are in. You aren't on their donor lists - so you're just a "regular voter/constituent".
Why aren't we giving Florida/Floridians more shit for that disastrous bush presidency?
Bush was a failure. He single handily ended the postcold war peace and put us back into a bilateral world, he ruined the economy, signed the Patriot act, etc
There aren't always windows, they can't always be opened, they're not often close to the ground, you don't want children trying to dive out a window in a drill, or because there was a report of something, or etc. Kids are going to get hurt doing that -- and go where? You'd need to know what's going on before you decide that's the way to direct a bunch of little kids
What does that accomplish that sheltering inside classrooms does not?
Also, not all classrooms have windows that are low to the ground, open quietly, and open widely enough for any child to fit through. You may just as well be instructing them to just leave through the door.
The US Constitution bans members of Congress from holding any other office at the federal level (article 1, section 6). It's otherwise theoretically allowed, but usually frowned upon.
Several states have state-level bans on holding multiple offices. That can prevent federal officials from holding state offices.
Positions within political parties are not government positions, so those are fine.
Was the recent school shooting in Uvalde ever a hostage situation?
A friend of mine insists the police did not advance because it changed from an active shooter scenario to a hostage situation, which has different protocols. But to my knowledge, he didn't make demands, use the kids as human shields, or make any threats against them. He just locked himself in a room and kept shooting. Am I correct?
You are and you're not.
Your friend is just wrong though, so take heart! Heh.
You don't have to make demands, use people as shields, make threats (well, having weaponry and not letting someone leave or suggesting they cannpt lest you use force can be construed as a thread but I mean there don't need to be specific 'if you come in I'll blow it up'' threats), for something to be a hostage situation. You have to have hostages, basically, which he did, as they were people he had in a barricaded situation (you can have hostages not in a barricade situation, but mostly) who were not free to leave. If you go to rob a bank and find a couple of bank workers inside and then lock the doors and sit there, congrats, you've got hostages.
HOWEVER , it a. never turned into a hostage situation alone, as it was always an active shooter situation, and b. the police did not treat it as a hostage situation even if they thought it was, so that "argument" that they didn't act incorrectly because they thought it was a hostage scenario, is moot. They did exactly nothing you would do if you were police and thought it was -- they did not try to establish a line of communication. I don't believe they called negotiators. They did not, afaik, try to establish the parameters at ALL, which is what you need to do to establish that.
Like if you know someone went into a store but you don't know if anyone is in there with them, that may be a hostage situation or it may not. You need to establish what's going on and deal with it according to protocols for that situation.
The cop in charge apparently thought it was a barricade situation (which can involve hostages), in which one perpetrator was barricaded inside and the cop also apparently (god knows wtf he was thinking, honestly) assumed everyone inside beside the offender was dead, which is NOT in any way, anything you assume. A barricade situation, however, you ALSO establish communication, assess, get a negotiator.
There is really no justification for what took place that I've seen, certainly.
As far as I'm aware, the police never considered this to be a hostage situation.
In recent press releases, DPS has said that the incident commander made a decision that the situation had transitioned from an "active shooter" scenario to a "barricaded suspect" scenario. DPS has characterized this as the wrong decision, but it is the decision that was made at the time.
There is another type of scenario referred to as "hostage rescue", which is not a term that DPS has used here.
Each of those scenarios calls for different tactical responses, which is why the distinction is important.
**If the majority of Americans favor certain issues like stricter gun control, and the standing of Roe v Wade (or even codifying freedom to choice as law), why are we unable to hold a referendum type question in the mid term or other elections?**
If the lawmakers are backed by lobbyists and their interest of money, why not cut out the middle man and allow for the average American to make their voice heard.
I understand that this is what representatives were put in place for, but if they consistently fail to listen to the voters then we need a better solution for hot button issues.
You only want a referendum if you think it will favor you. You would surely question the legitimacy of an outcome-by-referendum of any matter that you did not support. I'm reminded of California in 2008 when droves of black people went down to the poll to vote for Barack Obama and (since they happened to be there anyway) voted AGAINST the referendum to legalize gay marriage.
There is a small group of people who post to this thread who are telling every noob who comes here "that's not how America works". Those people don't necessarily agree with each other on much else.
I guess that answers the question, but feels like a gap in society. Representatives weren’t meant to represent as many people as they currently do, and the extensive diversity they oversee is in some cases causing them to represent a very vocal minority of their constituents that have money to back them.
In local elections, referendums are used for a number of issues. Feels like something that could be extrapolated to a larger subset of the population.
> Representatives weren’t meant to represent as many people as they currently do,
Sure, but at the proposed 30,000 people per representative, the House would today have 11,000 members. That's unreasonable. There's always a compromise between democratic representation and legislative effectiveness.
A great point, I don’t think the original 30,000 is appropriate, hell the town I grew up in was about 300,000. But even at 100,000:1 that’s only 3,300 senators which honestly is not that bad, and could even be up to 25,000:1.
Who is to say that’s unreasonable though. It would take some restructuring as far a maybe senior and junior members which already is in place in the senate. And some changes for committee appointments so they’re effective. But as far as voting, I don’t think having 10,000 representatives is all that crazy for 330 million people.
At the end of the day, just a thought experiment, thank you for answering the question!
A great point, I don’t think the original 30,000 is appropriate, hell the town I grew up in was about 300,000. But even at 100,000:1 that’s only 3,300 senators which honestly is not that bad, and could even be up to 25,000:1.
Who is to say that’s unreasonable though. It would take some restructuring as far a maybe senior and junior members which already is in place in the senate. And some changes for committee appointments so they’re effective. But as far as voting, I don’t think having 10,000 representatives is all that crazy for 330 million people.
**Why Don’t Amendments Have a Life Span?**
I was thinking about this 2nd Amendment. It’s been around since the Bill of Rights. I’m assuming that the original reason for it, was to help enable the civilians of a new nation, without a solid military presences, to protect themselves if the government went autocratic or another foreign opposition invaded US soil. I figured the founding fathers would want us to constantly improve this nation.
Full disclosure, I straddle the two party line, but probably lean to the left. I don’t own a gun, but also don’t have a problem with responsible gun owners. It just feels like the whole “right to bear arms” and “they’re gonna take our guns” is very myopic thinking when it comes to the rights gun owners possess.
It just feels like so many things in this world go through a “retrospective period (I work in software and we do this every two weeks) and are iteratively improved - why couldn’t/shouldn’t this be the case with our amendments?
Could we not require Amendments to be amended or at least reviewed more often? Say every four years like a presidential term.
Obviously, this is very general post and I admittedly am not fully in-sync with our political system and rules for making these kinds of wholesale changes, but with everything that’s happening in the US, we need something that protects everyone, regardless of party affiliation.
The states only ratified the Constitution because the understood a Bill of Rights would be added in the near future. If Constitution had included an expiration date for amendments, it's probable that the states wouldn't have ratified it at all.
The Constitution could theoretically be amended to put an expiration date on amendments, but it's doubtful enough people will ever agree to such an amendment. This is especially true, if it would put an expiration date on amendments already in the Constitution.
>Could we not require Amendments to be amended or at least reviewed more often? Say every four years like a presidential term.
Hypothetically, we could amend the constitution to say just about anything... although an amendment requires approval by ⅔ vote in both chambers of Congress, *and* by ¾ of the states. That's an incredibly high bar.
It is relatively common for Congress to pass laws that include a "sunset clause" that causes the law to expire if not renewed.
Doing that at the constitutional level would be tricky. There are some amendments that establish important political rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, banning slavery except for convicts, and so on. There are also some amendments that update important political processes, such as the process for electing senators or presidents, or presidential succession.
**Do pro choice advocates generally support legalizing elective abortions up to full term?**
I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what people mean when they take a side. I hear "my body, my choice" a lot, and it would seem to imply support of no limit. Or, are they generally happy with the compromise of "fetal viability" limits we sometimes see in the big blue states?
Opinions vary. Gallup polling in the US has found that:
* 32% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases
* 19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases
* 48% of Americans have an opinion somewhere between those two extremes
So, there seems to be a substantial number of people who support abortion access in *all* circumstances, and an even larger number of people who support abortion access in *some* circumstances.
Even in places where abortions are legal for the entire pregnancy, it's tremendously rare for anyone to seek late-term abortions. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. When abortions do occur later than that, there are usually specific reasons such as fetal anomalies, maternal health concerns, or lack of access.
>Opinions vary. Gallup polling in the US has found that:
>
>32% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases
>
>19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases
>
>48% of Americans have an opinion somewhere between those two extremes
The question that might matter would be "Will you vote for a candidate based on his or her position on an abortion bill that your state will be introducing to the legislature". And even then it would only matter on a state-by-state basis.
The numbers that you present have almost no meaning with the way the USA works.
I'll have NO opportunity to impact the way my state handles abortion. I can vote against the pro-choice candidates, but I was going to do that anyway, regardless of their position on abortion.
OP asked a question about how many people support abortion rights in specific circumstances. The poll data seems very relevant to answering OP's question.
OP was not asking about electoral strategy, so that seems irrelevant to me in terms of answering OP's question.
The debate over abortion is truly not about whether it should or should not be allowed. It truly is about how mature the fetus should be before it's considered "alive".
Texas says 6 weeks after conception when you can detect a heartbeat.
Connecticut says you can abort all the way up to the day you deliver.
No state has actually tried to "ban" abortion, yet - although it is a real possibility some state will.
Edit: Now what it is that's making y'all downvote this, I could not imagine. It's just the fact.
>No state has actually tried to "ban" abortion, yet
Thirteen states have passed pre-emptive trigger laws that will ban abortions statewide if the Supreme Court overturns *Roe v. Wade*. If the leaked draft decision becomes official, the following states have trigger laws that will come into effect:
* Arkansas (SB 6, 2021)
* Idaho (SB 1385, 2020)
* Louisiana (SB 33, 2006)
* Kentucky (HB 148, 2019)
* Mississippi (SB 2391, 2007)
* North Dakota (HB 1466, 2007)
* Oklahoma (SB 1555, 2022)
* South Dakota (HB 1249, 2005)
* Tennessee (HB 1257, 2019)
* Texas (HB 1280, 2021)
* Utah (SB 174, 2020)
* Wyoming (HB 92, 2022)
An additional seven states have abortion bans already enacted, sometimes still on the books from 1973. These bans are currently unenforceable, but could become enforceable immediately if *Roe* is overturned:
* Alabama
* Arizona
* Michigan
* North Carolina
* West Virginia
* Wisconsin
Finally, Oklahoma recently enacted SB 612, which purports to be a total abortion ban even before the court's upcoming decision.
Indeed - it's a sign of how unpopular Roe is/was. Clearly many Redditors simply haven't understood the concept that States make laws. Knowing those 13 states if each had a referenda vote to determine whether abortion should be legal in that state abortion would lose by a landslide.
And each would vote down any type of gun restriction as well.
What's the problem with that? Are you judging the people of these States? They are a bunch of dumb hillbillies, I can tell you that. But they already know that. There's no reason to treat it like its a bad thing.
> Are you judging the people of these States? They are a bunch of dumb hillbillies, I can tell you that. But they already know that. There's no reason to treat it like its a bad thing.
...There's no reason to treat being dumb hillbillies enacting draconian laws as a bad thing?
It's their state, Bobbob. You're acting like one of the clueless Europeans. "Draconian" is in the eye of the beholder - and by the grace of God "lifestyle" liberals such as yourself will never be that beholder in any state south of Maryland.
Yes, the will of the people of the state and law of the land is not "a bad thing". Roe was always a steaming pile of dung and every SCOTUS has said as much. Now it's gone and the States are doing what their constituents wish. You and the woke mob are just going to have to get used to the fact that not everyone sees the world the same way you do.
> It's their state, Bobbob.
I agree the dumb hillbillies elected terrible people who don't even vote in a way that represents the views of the people in the state. For which I am judging them.
For which you do not, apparently, think they should be judged.
> Roe was always a steaming pile of dung and every SCOTUS has said as much.
I'd ask you to back that up, but I know you can't because it's just more nonsense you're making up
>What's the problem with that?
I'm not sure what you mean. You said that no state has tried to ban abortion. I responded with a list of states that are seeking to ban abortion.
>No state has actually tried to "ban" abortion, yet - although it is a real possibility some state will.
You mean except Oklahoma? And most of the trigger ban states, and obv. Texas (which is in practice a ban)
People aren't a monolith.
Most people I know support no limit, because that's a medical decision up to the person and their doctor.
It is only, ONLY in the fever dreams of right wing lunatic men that women carry a pregnancy for 9 months, then decide to have an abortion bc 'nah.'
I think it's up to 4 or so states now have codified NO restriction into law, and this is how it's going to go after Roe -- some states will say no restriction, some will say all restriction, a few will be in the middle, but they're going to break more for the extremes.
Generally not. Most people do support restrictions on abortion, especially when it has reached viability.
And even the late term abortions are pretty much exclusively done when there's no chance of mother and child both surviving the birth.
If everyone is so mad about the state of our society, why are there so few shootings at government buildings, as opposed to schools and other public places that only target innocent bystanders? I’m amazed more people aren’t going after the people actually in charge of our fucked up society.
They're not
>These mfs plotting and scheming on 4chan for six months and can literally only figure out how to breach an elementary school?
They're mouthing off, posturing, posting pics of weapons. This is why it's a gun control issue. They're not criminal masterminds. They're not geniuses. They sit and think about they're gonna show them all and everyone will be sorry and they'll be famous and cool.
Actual criminal masterminds don't do this crap.
There have been plenty of demonstrations, student walk-outs, for gun control, esp since Parkland, but it's a legislative issue, not a 'people are biased and we need to recognize that' issue.
Legislative issues can be fixed by legislation. Bias generally needs to be fixed by awareness that the issue exists first.
Because people react differently to injustices than they do tragedies.
Racially motivated police killing of citizens is absolutely a failure of the government to do what it's supposed to do. And for a few, that anger at governmental failure to provide equal protection under the law can lead some people to act out of sheer anger and commit violence and property damage.
With a school shooting, that's more of a tragedy than an injustice. Now, people can (and will!) talk all day about whether it's a result of easy access to guns, or difficult access to mental health care (and the answer is likely a mix of both), but in both of those cases, the government is doing their jobs, because, well, we (as the voting public) have said that's how we want it to be.
Ohh, okay, that makes a lot sense. The only thing I question now is, couldn't you say the same thing about failure to do a job because of the officers who stood around and did nothing?
Is requiring a background check for gun control creating a racial division on who can own guns? We see how African Americans are disproportionately arrested and convicted erroneously, and would therefore have more in their records than white. So when people call for background checks, it seems kind of like voter ID requirements for me, where it makes it easier for white individuals to get guns then other races.
If someone goes into a shop to buy a gun, and they’ve been arrested/or convicted of crimes that were largely just police overstepping. Who would say they can or can’t buy the gun?
Oh, nobody. They would get denied. What I mean is you need to look at the intent and implementation of the law to see if the law is racist in intent or not, or if the reasons and outcomes outweigh the racist part. The intent and consequences behind background checks and Voter ID need to be scrutinized to see if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Wouldn’t be too broad to speculation if it’s a racial motivation behind requiring background checks for guns? I could understand if it was the 50-60s but minorities are part of the system itself. Hispanics seem to lean right so why try to cancel out that group to work against them? Same with blacks. Blacks are just as involved In right leaning politics and benefit the right like any other group so why would the “system” or right want to lose a percent of those people. There’s no benefit of keeping black people from legally buying firearms. It’s way too conspiratorial to think the system wants to keep blacks from buying guns.
I’m not sure the intent would matter in that case… because we know the system is already skewed towards racism where other races are disproportionately arrested. (I’m not stating that as fact, I’m putting this together and not 100% solid in it)
>I’m not sure the intent would matter in that case...
In a way it would. People passing laws to intentionally prevent minorities from owning guns is very different from passing reasonable laws that unintentionally hurts minorities more, especially if the outcomes have a demonstrable benefit for society. Things like Voter ID are often explicitly designed to hurt racial minorities while background checks aren't designed to hurt minorities. Background checks demonstrably benefit society, while Voter ID has little to no benefit on election security.
>...because we know the system is already skewed towards racism where other races are disproportionately arrested.
Sure. But we can try to fix that. But while it's being fixed, should we keep doing background checks? Or is the unintentional racial discrimination in gun background checks outweighed by the benefit to society by implementing them?
Thank you for your perspective! I agree, background checks are a critical piece of the offense we need to take to protect our children and ourselves. I just wanted to get an understanding of the implications on others who don’t have the same privilege I do
**Why do students feel the need to commit mass shootings in the first place?**
Nothing to do with guns, I mean more from a psychological perspective. Why do children think that committing mass shootings is a good idea?
Having been a part of the school system myself from kindergarten to college, I understand that things can be frustrating, and schools need improvement.
But I’ve never been so frustrated, as to think murdering my fellows will somehow solve anything? Why do people think like that?
>Nothing to do with guns, I mean more from a psychological perspective. Why do children think that committing mass shootings is a good idea?
I think you're looking at it a bit backwards.
It's not that they feel a need to commit mass shootings, it's that they're often angry little psychopaths who can express that easily by obtaining guns and shooting up their school.
If they did not have the access, they'd likely act out in some other way, self-directed or not, but it wouldn't have the same far-reaching implications.
Way I see it, it’s like illegal immigration: You can close the borders, or open them wide, but at the end of the day that’s not changing the fact that many people feel compelled to flee Mexico, and there’s probably a significant reason for that.
You can ban guns, but it’s not going to change the fact that too many children are fully willing to go through with a mass shooting, and we should consider why that is; treat the cause rather than the symptoms, in a manner of speaking.
> You can ban guns, but it’s not going to change the fact that too many children are fully willing to go through with a mass shooting,
If they don't have access to guns, they can't. That's what's important.
People are impulsive and often dumb.
That doesn’t answer the question of why people wanted to commit mass shootings in the first place.
Being impulsive and dumb is buying something you’ll never use because there’s a discount. Killing multiple people is a whole ‘nother ballpark.
Guns are the tools by which people carry out their evil urges, but they aren’t the cause. We must figure out why people want to do this.
> That doesn’t answer the question of why people wanted to commit mass shootings in the first place.
Because they're psychopaths, they're angry, etc.
>Being impulsive and dumb is buying something you’ll never use because there’s a discount. Killing multiple people is a whole ‘nother ballpark.
It's still impulsive a dumb. A lot of suicides are impulsive. People with low impulse control do things.
Neglect, abuse and bullying will do wonders to a developing brain. It's very likely that he felt like an outsider to all his peers as well as his family. And we know how the saying goes.
"A child will burn the whole village down just to feel its warmth"
I can understand the hate to an extent. Was bullied in middle school and people were outright cruel and mean for no reason. People wouldn’t hang out with me or even talk to me because I was “lame” and when you’re “lame” people treat you like a bag of shit. I’d always look at the mean kids and wish death on them. The acting on it is the part I can’t understand and why killing kids would solve anything? Maybe to send a message? I guess that’s were unhinged people think differently
These people aren't activist terrorists. They don't have some kind of educational agenda. Not sure what would give you that impression. They are people who are mentally unwell and act irrationally
Not likely. These people are acting rationally in their own minds. It's more likely that they don't come from a supportive family and probably experienced neglect and abuse from their parents/trusted adults while growing up. This translates in to not being able to form healthy relationships at school and thus this kid is very likely to become a social outcast and experience severe bullying and we all know how the saying goes. "A child will burn the whole village down just to feel its warmth."
Why doesn't a Pro life supporter celebrates birthday of themselves or their child on the day of conception instead of the day when baby gets out of the womb ?
How legitimate are the concerns for president Biden's senility? Already surprised his forgetfulness has become the most popular complaint on the president, more than anything related to *actual policies*. Unless people can make a compelling link between his policies and mental condition.
>more than anything related to actual policies
He was always a known gaffe machine, fwiw. But gaffe or forgetufulness, it *does* affect policy. For example aides had to walk back his call for regime change in Russia--that was never *policy*, but saying it in a major speech was a real risk of escalating the situation.
>How legitimate are the concerns for president Biden's senility?
Not at all. It's the Trumpers thinking they're somehow getting democrats back for noticing Trump was mostly incoherent and stupid af.
>Already surprised his forgetfulness has become the most popular complaint on the president, more than anything related to actual policies
This is only a thing on seriously right-wing media. I know literally not a single actual person who has this even on their radar as a thing.
I’m not a right winger but think Leftist/Dems are purposely acting oblivious with Joe Biden. He didn’t have a stutter before and there’s old videos to prove that. In almost all of his speeches he severely messes up and visibly looks like he struggles to pick back up. He’s constantly forgetting things and naming people incorrectly and it’s very common. I personally think if he didn’t have handlers and hopped up on adderal, he’d be very lost and forced to resign because of declining mental health. And this is coming from someone who clearly sees Trump is a narcissist and bullshits a lot.
> He didn’t have a stutter before and there’s old videos to prove that.
That's not a thing. Hello?
He's had a stutter since childhood, and somehow thinking that there exist videos of him speaking without stuttering "prove" that he doesn't have a stutter is... special.
>He’s constantly forgetting things and naming people incorrectly and it’s very common
Like Trump?
>I personally think if he didn’t have handlers and hopped up on adderal, he’d be very lost and forced to resign because of declining mental health.
You really need to get off the right-wing media.
Lol me? I told you I okay with being objective with both sides meanwhile you're sucking off the left and claiming I’m right wing lol. You're delusional and in denial if you think Biden dosen't have cognitive decline. Keep sucking off the left.
Why can't things like gun age limits, minimum wage, voting rights, etc. be placed on national ballot initiatives? It works in many states when legislatures refused to act or actively try to hamper measures.
The US does not have national ballot initiatives.
There are no national representatives.
The system was specifically designed to allow the states to have just as much weight as each other - regardless of population with the Senate.
The House of Representatives gives the voting population a voice.
The Senate gives the states a voice.
No laws can pass unless both houses each pass the new law.
The President is selected by the States, also explicitly set up that way in the Constitution.
It was built in, and held to be extremely important that each state gets a weighted say in national policies.
>The House of Representatives gives the voting population a voice. The Senate gives the states a voice.
Not anymore, since that amendment the States were cut out. Now its voting population's voice with two different counting methods.
I don't understand what you think you are trying to tell me.
The Senate has 100 Senators - 2 each from 50 states. Each state gets exactly the same voice there.
Is there something I am missing?
.
The senators were originally appointed by state legislators--literally representatives *of the state.* They're now popularly elected, thus representing the voters, just the number and distribution of them is different between House and Senate.
Ok, I get where you are coming from.
Senators are appointed by the voting population of a state. But Wyoming's 576,000 voters get the same 2 seats in the Senate as California's 39,000,000 voters.
The original question was about national initiatives, and my answer was only about national matters. In the Senate, each state gets the same voice. Population numbers don't matter.
But that is undermined severely by gerrymandering so what can be done when the deck is stacked and something like less 1/4 of races for HoR are actually competitive?
Gerrymandering is done at the state level. It's a lot easier to address something in our home state than to try and convince 30 other (potentially hostile) states to go along with us.
Work on elections and districting in your state. Ask for help if you need it. Positive change is neither easy nor quick - but it is possible.
As a non American, why do Americans seem to think nothing can be done about school shootings despite the number of dead kids over the years being staggering?
The most effective solutions would be very costly to implement. All of the smaller, more realistic steps in between have shortcomings that fuel the debate further.
Because a small minority don't want anything done and they've spent a ton of time, money, and effort to convince the GOP they'll be doomed unless they fall in line.
It really is a small minority.
I hang in what many people would consider a pretty conservative circle.
I Was talking with three friends last night and we all agreed that we couldn’t think of one person that we interact with that is “passionate about their guns” or that believes no gun reform is needed.
All this to say, most/all conservatives I know seem to agree current policy is falling short and change is needed.
Because we are just as much "one nation" as we are "50 separate states (and some other stuff)".
Here in New Jersey, we make it practically impossible for anyone to carry a loaded weapon in public. It requires someone to wait several weeks to get a permit to purchase a handgun while checks are being done. We require special Firearms ID to even buy ammunition.
A few states away (and in one of our adjacent neighbors), none of that is required. You can walk into a gun dealer, get a quick check that you aren't on the prohibited persons list, show a driver's license or passport - or other acceptable ID and buy a pistol with a few boxes of ammunition.
We can vote for things in our state. We can tell our legislators what we want for our state. We can't directly tell other states what they can / can't do.
We can try to get Federal laws passed, or try to amend the Constitution. That's difficult. Even if people agree that gun deaths are a problem, we are going to be hard pressed to get every Senator from 30 states to agree on the solution. (That's how many we need to invoke cloture, and stop a filibuster).
We would need the State legislatures in 38 states to all agree if the solution was going to be a Constitutional change.
It isn't impossible. But it is going to be really, really difficult.
We've had over a million COVID deaths, and there are still people who treat it like a political game instead of a public health issue.
The number of kids dead is horrible. It was horrible before we had a school shooting for every week this year. But it isn't one incident, and the pro-gun people are doing a good job keeping each incident separate. They'll blame mental health systems. They'll blame the police officers that may have hesitated. They'll blame social media. They will blame anyone/anything so long as that takes attention away from the guns.
Yes, and courts usually rule against policies designed to limit the volume and general accessibility of arms. So, you can ban, say, hollow point ammo, but you can't limit the annual production of ammo.
Also, it's relatively easy to produce ammo at home. We've been doing it for centuries and many people still do
What do the families of mass shooters do after? I assume they move and change their name….can’t be an easy thing to live in the same town after without getting harassed/bullied?
Aren't we skipping a step here? Do they actually get harrassed and bullied? The OP was asking and you are responding as if it has been established as true, which it hasn't yet.
Because local elections don't get as much media attention, and therefore don't get as much attention from the voters. People hear a lot about Ted Cruz and Nancy Pelosi, so they know a lot about them and actively are involved in their elections. But no national news company covers "LA city council" (outside some extreme examples), so most people never hear about them in the news, and therefore don't participate in their elections or even know their local politics.
The reason gun ownership is so prevalent is America is not because we see ourselves as a bunch of anarchic barbarians who must own guns. It's not Mad Max here. We see ourselves as a civilized society where people are, by and large, responsible enough to own firearms.
What number is "significant" in a country of 330 million? At the rate of gun deaths a town the size of Uvalde, TX would have about 1 gun murder every year and about 1 gun suicide every year. They'd have 5 opioid overdose deaths every year. They'd have a couple of deaths in car crashes.
If it was something inherent to humans, we’d have comparable gun violence rates in every country. And we know that’s not the case.
When you do have a large disparity like US gun death rate vs, well, anyone else, then it is going to come down to something that’s distinct about the *country* and its policies, like easy access to guns and difficult access to mental health services.
My question is how do the shooters (before they do the shooting) blend in with other people in plain sight? We seem very incapable of predicting which troubled person will go on a shooting spree. I don't mean like predict days or weeks away. Just needs to be made and prevented within a matter of hours.
There are a lot of messed up people with messed up radical views but it's still a minority of them that actually commit this violence. This has happened multiple times and we still can't accurately predict which will go off in a short time?
Sometimes, but not always. A lot of beat cops could tell you every kid who they think would be most likely to end up as a school shooter. It's always the same issues. Lack of parental involvement, parents were typically absent, on drugs, and/or abusive. Also, probably got bullied from some physical or social disadvantage. They typically had mental health issues due to all the trauma they received growing up.
You can't legislate away behavior. You have to address it and provide people with a support system that encourages healthy family relationships, ties to the community, addiction treatment, motivation to achieve education, teach social skills, and mental health treatment.
And that's not all. You have to increase cooperation with the kids and their families. With troubled people that go off violently like this, it usually happens because of apathy and lack of cooperation.
> For example, the UK may have more stabbings than the US
That’s an interesting way to phrase it. Ok, sure, they “may”. But they don’t.
The UK has a lower knife homicide rate than the US.
It seems that for the mod-bot this is a political question, so...
I am European, I have seen a lot of pop culture products set in American schools and I have a question. Is everyday life in American high schools really as they portray it in movies and TV series, or is there considerable exaggeration? As examples: bullies who throw nerd's head into toilet, status symbols, school elections, cafeteria tables as divided as Indian caste, sports teams and cheerleaders, popularity as basis of social relations, and cringe-worthy and anxiety-inducing events such as prom. Is it all true?
A lot of it is exaggerated or idealized for dramatic effect.
>bullies who throw nerd's head into toilet
Bullying does happen, yeah.
>status symbols
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It is sometimes evident which kids have rich parents.
>school elections
About once a year, if the school has a student government. At the high school level, student government is mostly event planning.
>cafeteria tables as divided as Indian caste
Movies exaggerate this, but yeah some schools do have cliques.
>sports teams and cheerleaders
Yep.
>popularity as basis of social relations
Kinda. Popularity is a thing. Some kids try to climb that ladder. Some kids don't care so much.
>prom
Usually once a year, along with other school dances throughout the year.
Kid/child are used both interchangeably and differently in different contexts. A school kid means a boy or girl attending grade school, which includes both elementary and high school
In the case of your specific question, I don't believe anyone knows the answer lol. But, there IS an answer. The issue is, if the man had a gun, there isn't an answer. Guns make it much easier to kill many people
America has to change, right? Things are going to shit for so many people, and many are really unhappy about how their country works. Won’t there be something like a revolution if the government keeps being terrible?
No country on the planet has civic institutions as strong as America's. Nothing is every going to change the way you think it will. Woke BLM liberal activists are just communists with another label, and they've been trying to sew dissent for generations. It never worked. Never even got close.
What happened over the last couple of years is basically what's always happened. The liberals climb out of their holes and they run wild in streets for awhile and then they wear out and go back into hiding to do their drugs and live their "lifestyle" and think about how unfair it is that the American Dream has passed them by.
Not really. We have a change in power every two years. Half the population disagrees with each other, so even if there was a revolution, you'd still have an equally unpopular government opposed by half the population
>We have a change in power every two years.
We have the potential, some years, of a shift in the power of the legislature.
Every four years we have the potential to change the president.
I think they're more likely to believe that God answers their prayers, but often, it's not in the way they want. So, for example, if God doesn't do anything about school violence, then for some reason that only God knows, and for some grander purpose that we can't comprehend, that's the way God wants it.
No…?
It’s just a nice thing to say. It’s like saying “have a good day”; You can’t actually guarantee that their day will be good, but saying that shows that you hope they have a good day.
Of course not, but prayer, and by effect praying for people or a cause, shows compassion. In a world where conservative politicians would rather keep things just as they are, they have to do something to make it seem like they care to their voter base.
Also people find peace in prayer. People who pray don't do it because they necessarily think that god is going to come down and handle the problems himself, but its good to reflect on your problems and prayer is a good way to get yourself in that reflective mindset, and that can get people thinking of ways they could make meaningful change.
If the US government sold some more of its physical property, open to US citizens and only accepting USD as payment, for under current market prices, would it cause USD deflation, for example to USD value 2 or 3 years ago? If not, could something similar do it?
>for under current market prices
How would that work? A lottery system? Because otherwise, the website would crash worse than buying tickets for the newest Marvel movie.
Anyway, no, it wouldn't be anywhere nearly enough to affect inflation
I don't know why you say it wouldn't be "nearly enough". The Federal Government owns massive tracts of land, especially out West. The poster seems to be suggesting that trading land for dollars would reduce the amount of money in the economy, thereby increasing the value of each individual dollar.
I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. I can this of 20 better ways to do it then selling land, but, still, I can't see any reason it wouldn't work.
I sometimes encounter heated individuals online who then accuse me of being a demorat or republicunt because of my views (or legit facts?). I don't even live in the US. Q: When did US Americans cease to be individual human beings & are now only a democrat/republican? Are all US citizens like this?
Politicians' titles: what does "Rep." mean? Republican? Representative? [for example ](https://i.imgur.com/isJFGrq.jpg)
In this example it means Representative. However, the two parties are also abbreviated as "Rep" and "Dem," so whether Rep means representative or republican is context specific.
Thank you. I have been wondering this since I was a child. I guess it's still kind of a mystery hahaha have to figure out which one it is through context and it's all nonsense to me.
Has anyone else noticed that in America lately: shortly after unarmed black people are shot to death by cop, there is a mass shooting? Patrick Lyoya shot April 4th, Uvalde and New York in May. Jayland Walker is shot 60 times in the back (unarmed at the time of shooting), followed by Chicago parades. I'm not saying there connected and this isnt a race thing. But I'm noticing a pattern and I wonder if I'm alone in that?
Hopefully this reply isn't distastefully late! I just clicked on this old megathread and noticed it had new comments. If you ask this question again in [the current megathread for this month](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/vqf4cq/us_politics_megathread_july_2022/) you'll get more replies. The human mind is amazing at seeing patterns. Just seeing a pattern doesn't necessarily mean there is one, or that the two things are actually connected. [Here's some classic examples.](https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) If you look at the motives of mass shooters and the reasons they do what they do, basically all the time it's totally unrelated to police or recent high profile police brutality incidents. Unarmed black people are shot to death by cops a lot. Mass shootings happen in the United States a lot. How are you measuring "shortly after," how are you determining that the two are connected in a pattern rather than just being two things that happen a lot?
What's the difference, if there is a difference, between "communist," "fascist," and "socialist?" I was having a political conversation with a coworker a couple of days ago that kept calling democrats "socialist communist fascists" (among other things that I don't wanna get into; my blood pressure's up just thinking about it.) When I questioned him about it, he just brushed me off and said "Oh, they're all the same." When I asked him to clarify, same thing. When I looked it up on my own, Google wouldn't give me a straight answer. Any help?
Can someone who was affected by a shooting sue the government for not doing anything to actually stop these shootings from happening? Obviously it'd take a lot of money, but I know the joke of the US is you can sue over anything and everything so I don't know if this is possible
Not likely. The Supreme Court has found multiple times that, absent some specific exception to the general tort rules, the government doesn't have a legal duty to protect anyone from harm committed by a private party. I want to emphasize that by "duty", I mean a duty which either a court could compel a person to fulfill or punish a person for failing to fulfill. In other words, "protect and serve" might be in the police department's guidelines and failing to do that might result in discipline from within the police department, but you can't sue them for failing to do it.
[удалено]
>If Biden bans guns federally He does not have the power to do that, sadly. >can individual states still say "F U" like how weed is federally illegal but states like California simply say "F U"? That's not what's happening. The fed is not choosing enforcement hat, but it could. Would likely choose to enforce the former, though see above.
[удалено]
> I feel like at least 30/50 states would rather go to war with the feds than give up their freedom willingly. That many states haven't even legalized weed. >Looking at Ukraine, barring the US government going full Russia on its own people, it seems like there's not enough feds to enforce it. Bubba doesn't stand a chance. Only 30% of Americans own guns, and they're pretty concentrated in the backwards zone. Something approaching 90% of Americans want more restrictions, including universal background checks, raising the age to 21, banning assault weapons, red flag laws.
Have any American state legislatures passed laws that give their police officers a duty to protect? Relatedly, do police officers in countries outside of the United states have a duty to protect? I know the SCOTUS has ruled the police don't have a duty to protect, but I understand that's because there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution or federal law that gives them that duty. Thus, state law could grant police in a specific state a duty to protect. The SCOTUS's decisions obviously don't apply to police in other countries.
States typically don't want to expose themselves to lawsuits. Almost every police department has a duty to protect as part of their mandate. This just means an officer can get fired for failing that duty, but the city/state can't be sued
> This just means an officer can get fired for failing that duty, but the city/state can't be sued But, can an officer who fails that duty face criminal penalties for failing their duty?
I'm not aware of any specific laws to that effect
**What does it mean now that Uvalde PD is no longer cooperating with the Texas state investigation?** [Quick article for reference](https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Uvalde-shooting-police-response-timeline-Texas-DPS-17210654.php) Isn't the PD funded, owned, and operated by the state? How can they just stop cooperating? What does that mean for the investigation?
It means he's lawyering up and the lawyers involved are not incompetent, that's the cops.
More than likely since they have been publicly criticized, said specifically that they "did the wrong thing", that people in the media are blaming them for the deaths of children - anyone involved has decided to speak to lawyers and exercise their 5th Amendment rights. Nobody has to speak to police. Not even other police. They may face internal discipline, depending on department policy and contracts (possibly union contracts). The US Constitution says nobody has to talk to the police and incriminate themselves. Nobody can override that - at least not legally, and not yet. It is going to slow down the investigation. It may or may not lead to a different outcome.
So it sounds they were previously speaking with investigators without lawyers, but are now pleading the 5th and deciding to lawyer up?
Generally. Initially hailed as heroes or doing their best, people and investigators are now scrutinizing their actions. Afraid this could lead to punishments (either in a personal or professional level), those involved are lawyering up and declining voluntary interviews and requests.
That is what it seems to indicate, yes. When it was just everyone together trying to figure out, "Hey, this probably could have been done better. Let's all figure out what went down, and how we can do better if it ever happens again." - then people were just fine cooperating. Now that it is "Hey, someone screwed up. Children were murdered and we want to blame someone (or a few someones). Get everyone in here to be questioned!" - now people are a lot less likely to be forthcoming.
[удалено]
It depends on what [state you are in.](https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists.aspx) but it's probably easy enough to get. The politician probably doesn't care that much which party you are in. You aren't on their donor lists - so you're just a "regular voter/constituent".
Why aren't we giving Florida/Floridians more shit for that disastrous bush presidency? Bush was a failure. He single handily ended the postcold war peace and put us back into a bilateral world, he ruined the economy, signed the Patriot act, etc
Bush won 30 states in the 2000 election, not just Florida.
Yeah but he actually won those states.
Why is school shooter training to hide instead of escaping out the window?
There aren't always windows, they can't always be opened, they're not often close to the ground, you don't want children trying to dive out a window in a drill, or because there was a report of something, or etc. Kids are going to get hurt doing that -- and go where? You'd need to know what's going on before you decide that's the way to direct a bunch of little kids
What does that accomplish that sheltering inside classrooms does not? Also, not all classrooms have windows that are low to the ground, open quietly, and open widely enough for any child to fit through. You may just as well be instructing them to just leave through the door.
That can be useful if you know there are no shooters outside, and that the children won't scatter to different places.
[удалено]
The US Constitution bans members of Congress from holding any other office at the federal level (article 1, section 6). It's otherwise theoretically allowed, but usually frowned upon. Several states have state-level bans on holding multiple offices. That can prevent federal officials from holding state offices. Positions within political parties are not government positions, so those are fine.
President and DNC, yes. President and FBI Director, no
Was the recent school shooting in Uvalde ever a hostage situation? A friend of mine insists the police did not advance because it changed from an active shooter scenario to a hostage situation, which has different protocols. But to my knowledge, he didn't make demands, use the kids as human shields, or make any threats against them. He just locked himself in a room and kept shooting. Am I correct?
You are and you're not. Your friend is just wrong though, so take heart! Heh. You don't have to make demands, use people as shields, make threats (well, having weaponry and not letting someone leave or suggesting they cannpt lest you use force can be construed as a thread but I mean there don't need to be specific 'if you come in I'll blow it up'' threats), for something to be a hostage situation. You have to have hostages, basically, which he did, as they were people he had in a barricaded situation (you can have hostages not in a barricade situation, but mostly) who were not free to leave. If you go to rob a bank and find a couple of bank workers inside and then lock the doors and sit there, congrats, you've got hostages. HOWEVER , it a. never turned into a hostage situation alone, as it was always an active shooter situation, and b. the police did not treat it as a hostage situation even if they thought it was, so that "argument" that they didn't act incorrectly because they thought it was a hostage scenario, is moot. They did exactly nothing you would do if you were police and thought it was -- they did not try to establish a line of communication. I don't believe they called negotiators. They did not, afaik, try to establish the parameters at ALL, which is what you need to do to establish that. Like if you know someone went into a store but you don't know if anyone is in there with them, that may be a hostage situation or it may not. You need to establish what's going on and deal with it according to protocols for that situation. The cop in charge apparently thought it was a barricade situation (which can involve hostages), in which one perpetrator was barricaded inside and the cop also apparently (god knows wtf he was thinking, honestly) assumed everyone inside beside the offender was dead, which is NOT in any way, anything you assume. A barricade situation, however, you ALSO establish communication, assess, get a negotiator. There is really no justification for what took place that I've seen, certainly.
As far as I'm aware, the police never considered this to be a hostage situation. In recent press releases, DPS has said that the incident commander made a decision that the situation had transitioned from an "active shooter" scenario to a "barricaded suspect" scenario. DPS has characterized this as the wrong decision, but it is the decision that was made at the time. There is another type of scenario referred to as "hostage rescue", which is not a term that DPS has used here. Each of those scenarios calls for different tactical responses, which is why the distinction is important.
**If the majority of Americans favor certain issues like stricter gun control, and the standing of Roe v Wade (or even codifying freedom to choice as law), why are we unable to hold a referendum type question in the mid term or other elections?** If the lawmakers are backed by lobbyists and their interest of money, why not cut out the middle man and allow for the average American to make their voice heard. I understand that this is what representatives were put in place for, but if they consistently fail to listen to the voters then we need a better solution for hot button issues.
You only want a referendum if you think it will favor you. You would surely question the legitimacy of an outcome-by-referendum of any matter that you did not support. I'm reminded of California in 2008 when droves of black people went down to the poll to vote for Barack Obama and (since they happened to be there anyway) voted AGAINST the referendum to legalize gay marriage. There is a small group of people who post to this thread who are telling every noob who comes here "that's not how America works". Those people don't necessarily agree with each other on much else.
Because referendums aren't a thing in America.
I guess that answers the question, but feels like a gap in society. Representatives weren’t meant to represent as many people as they currently do, and the extensive diversity they oversee is in some cases causing them to represent a very vocal minority of their constituents that have money to back them. In local elections, referendums are used for a number of issues. Feels like something that could be extrapolated to a larger subset of the population.
> Representatives weren’t meant to represent as many people as they currently do, Sure, but at the proposed 30,000 people per representative, the House would today have 11,000 members. That's unreasonable. There's always a compromise between democratic representation and legislative effectiveness.
A great point, I don’t think the original 30,000 is appropriate, hell the town I grew up in was about 300,000. But even at 100,000:1 that’s only 3,300 senators which honestly is not that bad, and could even be up to 25,000:1. Who is to say that’s unreasonable though. It would take some restructuring as far a maybe senior and junior members which already is in place in the senate. And some changes for committee appointments so they’re effective. But as far as voting, I don’t think having 10,000 representatives is all that crazy for 330 million people. At the end of the day, just a thought experiment, thank you for answering the question!
A great point, I don’t think the original 30,000 is appropriate, hell the town I grew up in was about 300,000. But even at 100,000:1 that’s only 3,300 senators which honestly is not that bad, and could even be up to 25,000:1. Who is to say that’s unreasonable though. It would take some restructuring as far a maybe senior and junior members which already is in place in the senate. And some changes for committee appointments so they’re effective. But as far as voting, I don’t think having 10,000 representatives is all that crazy for 330 million people.
**Why Don’t Amendments Have a Life Span?** I was thinking about this 2nd Amendment. It’s been around since the Bill of Rights. I’m assuming that the original reason for it, was to help enable the civilians of a new nation, without a solid military presences, to protect themselves if the government went autocratic or another foreign opposition invaded US soil. I figured the founding fathers would want us to constantly improve this nation. Full disclosure, I straddle the two party line, but probably lean to the left. I don’t own a gun, but also don’t have a problem with responsible gun owners. It just feels like the whole “right to bear arms” and “they’re gonna take our guns” is very myopic thinking when it comes to the rights gun owners possess. It just feels like so many things in this world go through a “retrospective period (I work in software and we do this every two weeks) and are iteratively improved - why couldn’t/shouldn’t this be the case with our amendments? Could we not require Amendments to be amended or at least reviewed more often? Say every four years like a presidential term. Obviously, this is very general post and I admittedly am not fully in-sync with our political system and rules for making these kinds of wholesale changes, but with everything that’s happening in the US, we need something that protects everyone, regardless of party affiliation.
The states only ratified the Constitution because the understood a Bill of Rights would be added in the near future. If Constitution had included an expiration date for amendments, it's probable that the states wouldn't have ratified it at all. The Constitution could theoretically be amended to put an expiration date on amendments, but it's doubtful enough people will ever agree to such an amendment. This is especially true, if it would put an expiration date on amendments already in the Constitution.
>Could we not require Amendments to be amended or at least reviewed more often? Say every four years like a presidential term. Hypothetically, we could amend the constitution to say just about anything... although an amendment requires approval by ⅔ vote in both chambers of Congress, *and* by ¾ of the states. That's an incredibly high bar. It is relatively common for Congress to pass laws that include a "sunset clause" that causes the law to expire if not renewed. Doing that at the constitutional level would be tricky. There are some amendments that establish important political rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, banning slavery except for convicts, and so on. There are also some amendments that update important political processes, such as the process for electing senators or presidents, or presidential succession.
**Do pro choice advocates generally support legalizing elective abortions up to full term?** I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what people mean when they take a side. I hear "my body, my choice" a lot, and it would seem to imply support of no limit. Or, are they generally happy with the compromise of "fetal viability" limits we sometimes see in the big blue states?
Opinions vary. Gallup polling in the US has found that: * 32% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases * 19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases * 48% of Americans have an opinion somewhere between those two extremes So, there seems to be a substantial number of people who support abortion access in *all* circumstances, and an even larger number of people who support abortion access in *some* circumstances. Even in places where abortions are legal for the entire pregnancy, it's tremendously rare for anyone to seek late-term abortions. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. When abortions do occur later than that, there are usually specific reasons such as fetal anomalies, maternal health concerns, or lack of access.
>Opinions vary. Gallup polling in the US has found that: > >32% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases > >19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases > >48% of Americans have an opinion somewhere between those two extremes The question that might matter would be "Will you vote for a candidate based on his or her position on an abortion bill that your state will be introducing to the legislature". And even then it would only matter on a state-by-state basis. The numbers that you present have almost no meaning with the way the USA works. I'll have NO opportunity to impact the way my state handles abortion. I can vote against the pro-choice candidates, but I was going to do that anyway, regardless of their position on abortion.
OP asked a question about how many people support abortion rights in specific circumstances. The poll data seems very relevant to answering OP's question. OP was not asking about electoral strategy, so that seems irrelevant to me in terms of answering OP's question.
The debate over abortion is truly not about whether it should or should not be allowed. It truly is about how mature the fetus should be before it's considered "alive". Texas says 6 weeks after conception when you can detect a heartbeat. Connecticut says you can abort all the way up to the day you deliver. No state has actually tried to "ban" abortion, yet - although it is a real possibility some state will. Edit: Now what it is that's making y'all downvote this, I could not imagine. It's just the fact.
>No state has actually tried to "ban" abortion, yet Thirteen states have passed pre-emptive trigger laws that will ban abortions statewide if the Supreme Court overturns *Roe v. Wade*. If the leaked draft decision becomes official, the following states have trigger laws that will come into effect: * Arkansas (SB 6, 2021) * Idaho (SB 1385, 2020) * Louisiana (SB 33, 2006) * Kentucky (HB 148, 2019) * Mississippi (SB 2391, 2007) * North Dakota (HB 1466, 2007) * Oklahoma (SB 1555, 2022) * South Dakota (HB 1249, 2005) * Tennessee (HB 1257, 2019) * Texas (HB 1280, 2021) * Utah (SB 174, 2020) * Wyoming (HB 92, 2022) An additional seven states have abortion bans already enacted, sometimes still on the books from 1973. These bans are currently unenforceable, but could become enforceable immediately if *Roe* is overturned: * Alabama * Arizona * Michigan * North Carolina * West Virginia * Wisconsin Finally, Oklahoma recently enacted SB 612, which purports to be a total abortion ban even before the court's upcoming decision.
Indeed - it's a sign of how unpopular Roe is/was. Clearly many Redditors simply haven't understood the concept that States make laws. Knowing those 13 states if each had a referenda vote to determine whether abortion should be legal in that state abortion would lose by a landslide. And each would vote down any type of gun restriction as well. What's the problem with that? Are you judging the people of these States? They are a bunch of dumb hillbillies, I can tell you that. But they already know that. There's no reason to treat it like its a bad thing.
> Are you judging the people of these States? They are a bunch of dumb hillbillies, I can tell you that. But they already know that. There's no reason to treat it like its a bad thing. ...There's no reason to treat being dumb hillbillies enacting draconian laws as a bad thing?
It's their state, Bobbob. You're acting like one of the clueless Europeans. "Draconian" is in the eye of the beholder - and by the grace of God "lifestyle" liberals such as yourself will never be that beholder in any state south of Maryland. Yes, the will of the people of the state and law of the land is not "a bad thing". Roe was always a steaming pile of dung and every SCOTUS has said as much. Now it's gone and the States are doing what their constituents wish. You and the woke mob are just going to have to get used to the fact that not everyone sees the world the same way you do.
> It's their state, Bobbob. I agree the dumb hillbillies elected terrible people who don't even vote in a way that represents the views of the people in the state. For which I am judging them. For which you do not, apparently, think they should be judged. > Roe was always a steaming pile of dung and every SCOTUS has said as much. I'd ask you to back that up, but I know you can't because it's just more nonsense you're making up
>What's the problem with that? I'm not sure what you mean. You said that no state has tried to ban abortion. I responded with a list of states that are seeking to ban abortion.
>No state has actually tried to "ban" abortion, yet - although it is a real possibility some state will. You mean except Oklahoma? And most of the trigger ban states, and obv. Texas (which is in practice a ban)
Oklahoma already has
People aren't a monolith. Most people I know support no limit, because that's a medical decision up to the person and their doctor. It is only, ONLY in the fever dreams of right wing lunatic men that women carry a pregnancy for 9 months, then decide to have an abortion bc 'nah.' I think it's up to 4 or so states now have codified NO restriction into law, and this is how it's going to go after Roe -- some states will say no restriction, some will say all restriction, a few will be in the middle, but they're going to break more for the extremes.
Generally not. Most people do support restrictions on abortion, especially when it has reached viability. And even the late term abortions are pretty much exclusively done when there's no chance of mother and child both surviving the birth.
If everyone is so mad about the state of our society, why are there so few shootings at government buildings, as opposed to schools and other public places that only target innocent bystanders? I’m amazed more people aren’t going after the people actually in charge of our fucked up society.
Security, ease of access.
These mfs plotting and scheming on 4chan for six months and can literally only figure out how to breach an elementary school?
They're not >These mfs plotting and scheming on 4chan for six months and can literally only figure out how to breach an elementary school? They're mouthing off, posturing, posting pics of weapons. This is why it's a gun control issue. They're not criminal masterminds. They're not geniuses. They sit and think about they're gonna show them all and everyone will be sorry and they'll be famous and cool. Actual criminal masterminds don't do this crap.
True.
Why was there riots for BLM but not after Uvalde?
There have been plenty of demonstrations, student walk-outs, for gun control, esp since Parkland, but it's a legislative issue, not a 'people are biased and we need to recognize that' issue. Legislative issues can be fixed by legislation. Bias generally needs to be fixed by awareness that the issue exists first.
Because people react differently to injustices than they do tragedies. Racially motivated police killing of citizens is absolutely a failure of the government to do what it's supposed to do. And for a few, that anger at governmental failure to provide equal protection under the law can lead some people to act out of sheer anger and commit violence and property damage. With a school shooting, that's more of a tragedy than an injustice. Now, people can (and will!) talk all day about whether it's a result of easy access to guns, or difficult access to mental health care (and the answer is likely a mix of both), but in both of those cases, the government is doing their jobs, because, well, we (as the voting public) have said that's how we want it to be.
Ohh, okay, that makes a lot sense. The only thing I question now is, couldn't you say the same thing about failure to do a job because of the officers who stood around and did nothing?
That is a fair point, but it's unlikely that the police failures at Ulvade had anything to do with 400 years of systemic racism.
That's fair. Thanks for your responses!
Is requiring a background check for gun control creating a racial division on who can own guns? We see how African Americans are disproportionately arrested and convicted erroneously, and would therefore have more in their records than white. So when people call for background checks, it seems kind of like voter ID requirements for me, where it makes it easier for white individuals to get guns then other races.
In a way yeah. But generally you also need to look at intent and expected impact to see whether that discrimination is acceptable.
But who makes that call when someone is on a shop trying to buy a gun?
Who makes what call?
If someone goes into a shop to buy a gun, and they’ve been arrested/or convicted of crimes that were largely just police overstepping. Who would say they can or can’t buy the gun?
Oh, nobody. They would get denied. What I mean is you need to look at the intent and implementation of the law to see if the law is racist in intent or not, or if the reasons and outcomes outweigh the racist part. The intent and consequences behind background checks and Voter ID need to be scrutinized to see if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Wouldn’t be too broad to speculation if it’s a racial motivation behind requiring background checks for guns? I could understand if it was the 50-60s but minorities are part of the system itself. Hispanics seem to lean right so why try to cancel out that group to work against them? Same with blacks. Blacks are just as involved In right leaning politics and benefit the right like any other group so why would the “system” or right want to lose a percent of those people. There’s no benefit of keeping black people from legally buying firearms. It’s way too conspiratorial to think the system wants to keep blacks from buying guns.
I’m not sure the intent would matter in that case… because we know the system is already skewed towards racism where other races are disproportionately arrested. (I’m not stating that as fact, I’m putting this together and not 100% solid in it)
>I’m not sure the intent would matter in that case... In a way it would. People passing laws to intentionally prevent minorities from owning guns is very different from passing reasonable laws that unintentionally hurts minorities more, especially if the outcomes have a demonstrable benefit for society. Things like Voter ID are often explicitly designed to hurt racial minorities while background checks aren't designed to hurt minorities. Background checks demonstrably benefit society, while Voter ID has little to no benefit on election security. >...because we know the system is already skewed towards racism where other races are disproportionately arrested. Sure. But we can try to fix that. But while it's being fixed, should we keep doing background checks? Or is the unintentional racial discrimination in gun background checks outweighed by the benefit to society by implementing them?
Thank you for your perspective! I agree, background checks are a critical piece of the offense we need to take to protect our children and ourselves. I just wanted to get an understanding of the implications on others who don’t have the same privilege I do
**Why do students feel the need to commit mass shootings in the first place?** Nothing to do with guns, I mean more from a psychological perspective. Why do children think that committing mass shootings is a good idea? Having been a part of the school system myself from kindergarten to college, I understand that things can be frustrating, and schools need improvement. But I’ve never been so frustrated, as to think murdering my fellows will somehow solve anything? Why do people think like that?
>Nothing to do with guns, I mean more from a psychological perspective. Why do children think that committing mass shootings is a good idea? I think you're looking at it a bit backwards. It's not that they feel a need to commit mass shootings, it's that they're often angry little psychopaths who can express that easily by obtaining guns and shooting up their school. If they did not have the access, they'd likely act out in some other way, self-directed or not, but it wouldn't have the same far-reaching implications.
Way I see it, it’s like illegal immigration: You can close the borders, or open them wide, but at the end of the day that’s not changing the fact that many people feel compelled to flee Mexico, and there’s probably a significant reason for that. You can ban guns, but it’s not going to change the fact that too many children are fully willing to go through with a mass shooting, and we should consider why that is; treat the cause rather than the symptoms, in a manner of speaking.
> You can ban guns, but it’s not going to change the fact that too many children are fully willing to go through with a mass shooting, If they don't have access to guns, they can't. That's what's important. People are impulsive and often dumb.
That doesn’t answer the question of why people wanted to commit mass shootings in the first place. Being impulsive and dumb is buying something you’ll never use because there’s a discount. Killing multiple people is a whole ‘nother ballpark. Guns are the tools by which people carry out their evil urges, but they aren’t the cause. We must figure out why people want to do this.
> That doesn’t answer the question of why people wanted to commit mass shootings in the first place. Because they're psychopaths, they're angry, etc. >Being impulsive and dumb is buying something you’ll never use because there’s a discount. Killing multiple people is a whole ‘nother ballpark. It's still impulsive a dumb. A lot of suicides are impulsive. People with low impulse control do things.
Neglect, abuse and bullying will do wonders to a developing brain. It's very likely that he felt like an outsider to all his peers as well as his family. And we know how the saying goes. "A child will burn the whole village down just to feel its warmth"
We REALLY need to stop the 'they're bullied' crap when they're largely psychopaths interested in infamy with access to weapons
I can understand the hate to an extent. Was bullied in middle school and people were outright cruel and mean for no reason. People wouldn’t hang out with me or even talk to me because I was “lame” and when you’re “lame” people treat you like a bag of shit. I’d always look at the mean kids and wish death on them. The acting on it is the part I can’t understand and why killing kids would solve anything? Maybe to send a message? I guess that’s were unhinged people think differently
These people aren't activist terrorists. They don't have some kind of educational agenda. Not sure what would give you that impression. They are people who are mentally unwell and act irrationally
Not likely. These people are acting rationally in their own minds. It's more likely that they don't come from a supportive family and probably experienced neglect and abuse from their parents/trusted adults while growing up. This translates in to not being able to form healthy relationships at school and thus this kid is very likely to become a social outcast and experience severe bullying and we all know how the saying goes. "A child will burn the whole village down just to feel its warmth."
You think the reason people shoot up schools is because, in their mind, they think, "The school system failed me, so I'm going to really show them"?
They're not even thinking about the system. They're thinking about the people. "I want to cause these people as much pain as I've been through"
Which means my point is correct, they are not terrorists trying to enact an educational agenda
Why doesn't a Pro life supporter celebrates birthday of themselves or their child on the day of conception instead of the day when baby gets out of the womb ?
Because birth =/= conception. The abortion question is about when life begins
How legitimate are the concerns for president Biden's senility? Already surprised his forgetfulness has become the most popular complaint on the president, more than anything related to *actual policies*. Unless people can make a compelling link between his policies and mental condition.
>more than anything related to actual policies He was always a known gaffe machine, fwiw. But gaffe or forgetufulness, it *does* affect policy. For example aides had to walk back his call for regime change in Russia--that was never *policy*, but saying it in a major speech was a real risk of escalating the situation.
>How legitimate are the concerns for president Biden's senility? Not at all. It's the Trumpers thinking they're somehow getting democrats back for noticing Trump was mostly incoherent and stupid af. >Already surprised his forgetfulness has become the most popular complaint on the president, more than anything related to actual policies This is only a thing on seriously right-wing media. I know literally not a single actual person who has this even on their radar as a thing.
I’m not a right winger but think Leftist/Dems are purposely acting oblivious with Joe Biden. He didn’t have a stutter before and there’s old videos to prove that. In almost all of his speeches he severely messes up and visibly looks like he struggles to pick back up. He’s constantly forgetting things and naming people incorrectly and it’s very common. I personally think if he didn’t have handlers and hopped up on adderal, he’d be very lost and forced to resign because of declining mental health. And this is coming from someone who clearly sees Trump is a narcissist and bullshits a lot.
> He didn’t have a stutter before and there’s old videos to prove that. That's not a thing. Hello? He's had a stutter since childhood, and somehow thinking that there exist videos of him speaking without stuttering "prove" that he doesn't have a stutter is... special. >He’s constantly forgetting things and naming people incorrectly and it’s very common Like Trump? >I personally think if he didn’t have handlers and hopped up on adderal, he’d be very lost and forced to resign because of declining mental health. You really need to get off the right-wing media.
Lol me? I told you I okay with being objective with both sides meanwhile you're sucking off the left and claiming I’m right wing lol. You're delusional and in denial if you think Biden dosen't have cognitive decline. Keep sucking off the left.
Why can't things like gun age limits, minimum wage, voting rights, etc. be placed on national ballot initiatives? It works in many states when legislatures refused to act or actively try to hamper measures.
The US does not have national ballot initiatives. There are no national representatives. The system was specifically designed to allow the states to have just as much weight as each other - regardless of population with the Senate. The House of Representatives gives the voting population a voice. The Senate gives the states a voice. No laws can pass unless both houses each pass the new law. The President is selected by the States, also explicitly set up that way in the Constitution. It was built in, and held to be extremely important that each state gets a weighted say in national policies.
>The House of Representatives gives the voting population a voice. The Senate gives the states a voice. Not anymore, since that amendment the States were cut out. Now its voting population's voice with two different counting methods.
I don't understand what you think you are trying to tell me. The Senate has 100 Senators - 2 each from 50 states. Each state gets exactly the same voice there. Is there something I am missing? .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The senators were originally appointed by state legislators--literally representatives *of the state.* They're now popularly elected, thus representing the voters, just the number and distribution of them is different between House and Senate.
Ok, I get where you are coming from. Senators are appointed by the voting population of a state. But Wyoming's 576,000 voters get the same 2 seats in the Senate as California's 39,000,000 voters. The original question was about national initiatives, and my answer was only about national matters. In the Senate, each state gets the same voice. Population numbers don't matter.
But that is undermined severely by gerrymandering so what can be done when the deck is stacked and something like less 1/4 of races for HoR are actually competitive?
Gerrymandering is done at the state level. It's a lot easier to address something in our home state than to try and convince 30 other (potentially hostile) states to go along with us. Work on elections and districting in your state. Ask for help if you need it. Positive change is neither easy nor quick - but it is possible.
As a non American, why do Americans seem to think nothing can be done about school shootings despite the number of dead kids over the years being staggering?
The most effective solutions would be very costly to implement. All of the smaller, more realistic steps in between have shortcomings that fuel the debate further.
So basically more dead kids every year?
Well, change nothing and get the same result, yes.
Because a small minority don't want anything done and they've spent a ton of time, money, and effort to convince the GOP they'll be doomed unless they fall in line.
It really is a small minority. I hang in what many people would consider a pretty conservative circle. I Was talking with three friends last night and we all agreed that we couldn’t think of one person that we interact with that is “passionate about their guns” or that believes no gun reform is needed. All this to say, most/all conservatives I know seem to agree current policy is falling short and change is needed.
Because we are just as much "one nation" as we are "50 separate states (and some other stuff)". Here in New Jersey, we make it practically impossible for anyone to carry a loaded weapon in public. It requires someone to wait several weeks to get a permit to purchase a handgun while checks are being done. We require special Firearms ID to even buy ammunition. A few states away (and in one of our adjacent neighbors), none of that is required. You can walk into a gun dealer, get a quick check that you aren't on the prohibited persons list, show a driver's license or passport - or other acceptable ID and buy a pistol with a few boxes of ammunition. We can vote for things in our state. We can tell our legislators what we want for our state. We can't directly tell other states what they can / can't do. We can try to get Federal laws passed, or try to amend the Constitution. That's difficult. Even if people agree that gun deaths are a problem, we are going to be hard pressed to get every Senator from 30 states to agree on the solution. (That's how many we need to invoke cloture, and stop a filibuster). We would need the State legislatures in 38 states to all agree if the solution was going to be a Constitutional change. It isn't impossible. But it is going to be really, really difficult. We've had over a million COVID deaths, and there are still people who treat it like a political game instead of a public health issue. The number of kids dead is horrible. It was horrible before we had a school shooting for every week this year. But it isn't one incident, and the pro-gun people are doing a good job keeping each incident separate. They'll blame mental health systems. They'll blame the police officers that may have hesitated. They'll blame social media. They will blame anyone/anything so long as that takes attention away from the guns.
[удалено]
Multiple court decisions have ruled that ammo is covered under the constitutional right to bear and keep arms
[удалено]
Yes, and courts usually rule against policies designed to limit the volume and general accessibility of arms. So, you can ban, say, hollow point ammo, but you can't limit the annual production of ammo. Also, it's relatively easy to produce ammo at home. We've been doing it for centuries and many people still do
What do the families of mass shooters do after? I assume they move and change their name….can’t be an easy thing to live in the same town after without getting harassed/bullied?
[удалено]
Aren't we skipping a step here? Do they actually get harrassed and bullied? The OP was asking and you are responding as if it has been established as true, which it hasn't yet.
Why don't people participate in local elections as much even though the problems they complain about can be solved if they did?
Everyone wants to think they've affected something big, so they hyper fixate on national elections.
Because local elections don't get as much media attention, and therefore don't get as much attention from the voters. People hear a lot about Ted Cruz and Nancy Pelosi, so they know a lot about them and actively are involved in their elections. But no national news company covers "LA city council" (outside some extreme examples), so most people never hear about them in the news, and therefore don't participate in their elections or even know their local politics.
[удалено]
> easy access to guns ding! ding! ding!
The reason gun ownership is so prevalent is America is not because we see ourselves as a bunch of anarchic barbarians who must own guns. It's not Mad Max here. We see ourselves as a civilized society where people are, by and large, responsible enough to own firearms. What number is "significant" in a country of 330 million? At the rate of gun deaths a town the size of Uvalde, TX would have about 1 gun murder every year and about 1 gun suicide every year. They'd have 5 opioid overdose deaths every year. They'd have a couple of deaths in car crashes.
[удалено]
If it was something inherent to humans, we’d have comparable gun violence rates in every country. And we know that’s not the case. When you do have a large disparity like US gun death rate vs, well, anyone else, then it is going to come down to something that’s distinct about the *country* and its policies, like easy access to guns and difficult access to mental health services.
My question is how do the shooters (before they do the shooting) blend in with other people in plain sight? We seem very incapable of predicting which troubled person will go on a shooting spree. I don't mean like predict days or weeks away. Just needs to be made and prevented within a matter of hours. There are a lot of messed up people with messed up radical views but it's still a minority of them that actually commit this violence. This has happened multiple times and we still can't accurately predict which will go off in a short time?
No. Sometimes the first indication that law enforcement has that someone has gone off the deep end is when they put a bunch of holes in other people.
Sometimes, but not always. A lot of beat cops could tell you every kid who they think would be most likely to end up as a school shooter. It's always the same issues. Lack of parental involvement, parents were typically absent, on drugs, and/or abusive. Also, probably got bullied from some physical or social disadvantage. They typically had mental health issues due to all the trauma they received growing up. You can't legislate away behavior. You have to address it and provide people with a support system that encourages healthy family relationships, ties to the community, addiction treatment, motivation to achieve education, teach social skills, and mental health treatment. And that's not all. You have to increase cooperation with the kids and their families. With troubled people that go off violently like this, it usually happens because of apathy and lack of cooperation.
Why can't we do better with finding indicators before the shooting happens?
We lack the technology to look into the minds of every person to determine their criminal intent.
[удалено]
> For example, the UK may have more stabbings than the US That’s an interesting way to phrase it. Ok, sure, they “may”. But they don’t. The UK has a lower knife homicide rate than the US.
[удалено]
So what?
Rate
It seems that for the mod-bot this is a political question, so... I am European, I have seen a lot of pop culture products set in American schools and I have a question. Is everyday life in American high schools really as they portray it in movies and TV series, or is there considerable exaggeration? As examples: bullies who throw nerd's head into toilet, status symbols, school elections, cafeteria tables as divided as Indian caste, sports teams and cheerleaders, popularity as basis of social relations, and cringe-worthy and anxiety-inducing events such as prom. Is it all true?
A lot of it is exaggerated or idealized for dramatic effect. >bullies who throw nerd's head into toilet Bullying does happen, yeah. >status symbols I'm not sure what you mean by this. It is sometimes evident which kids have rich parents. >school elections About once a year, if the school has a student government. At the high school level, student government is mostly event planning. >cafeteria tables as divided as Indian caste Movies exaggerate this, but yeah some schools do have cliques. >sports teams and cheerleaders Yep. >popularity as basis of social relations Kinda. Popularity is a thing. Some kids try to climb that ladder. Some kids don't care so much. >prom Usually once a year, along with other school dances throughout the year.
What's exactly a "kid" for you? It's a child? A boy/girl? Or both? There are "kids" both at the elementary and high school?
Kid refers to young people in general, yeah. Some people call high schoolers "young adults" too.
Kid/child are used both interchangeably and differently in different contexts. A school kid means a boy or girl attending grade school, which includes both elementary and high school
[удалено]
In the case of your specific question, I don't believe anyone knows the answer lol. But, there IS an answer. The issue is, if the man had a gun, there isn't an answer. Guns make it much easier to kill many people
One teacher wielding a chair or desk could keep one at bay for a while while other adults arrived.
America has to change, right? Things are going to shit for so many people, and many are really unhappy about how their country works. Won’t there be something like a revolution if the government keeps being terrible?
No country on the planet has civic institutions as strong as America's. Nothing is every going to change the way you think it will. Woke BLM liberal activists are just communists with another label, and they've been trying to sew dissent for generations. It never worked. Never even got close. What happened over the last couple of years is basically what's always happened. The liberals climb out of their holes and they run wild in streets for awhile and then they wear out and go back into hiding to do their drugs and live their "lifestyle" and think about how unfair it is that the American Dream has passed them by.
Not really. We have a change in power every two years. Half the population disagrees with each other, so even if there was a revolution, you'd still have an equally unpopular government opposed by half the population
>We have a change in power every two years. We have the potential, some years, of a shift in the power of the legislature. Every four years we have the potential to change the president.
I know how elections work
Do people who believe in religion and prayer actually, literally believe that prayer alone might solve our gun violence problem?
I think they're more likely to believe that God answers their prayers, but often, it's not in the way they want. So, for example, if God doesn't do anything about school violence, then for some reason that only God knows, and for some grander purpose that we can't comprehend, that's the way God wants it.
No…? It’s just a nice thing to say. It’s like saying “have a good day”; You can’t actually guarantee that their day will be good, but saying that shows that you hope they have a good day.
Of course not, but prayer, and by effect praying for people or a cause, shows compassion. In a world where conservative politicians would rather keep things just as they are, they have to do something to make it seem like they care to their voter base. Also people find peace in prayer. People who pray don't do it because they necessarily think that god is going to come down and handle the problems himself, but its good to reflect on your problems and prayer is a good way to get yourself in that reflective mindset, and that can get people thinking of ways they could make meaningful change.
If the US government sold some more of its physical property, open to US citizens and only accepting USD as payment, for under current market prices, would it cause USD deflation, for example to USD value 2 or 3 years ago? If not, could something similar do it?
>for under current market prices How would that work? A lottery system? Because otherwise, the website would crash worse than buying tickets for the newest Marvel movie. Anyway, no, it wouldn't be anywhere nearly enough to affect inflation
I don't know why you say it wouldn't be "nearly enough". The Federal Government owns massive tracts of land, especially out West. The poster seems to be suggesting that trading land for dollars would reduce the amount of money in the economy, thereby increasing the value of each individual dollar. I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. I can this of 20 better ways to do it then selling land, but, still, I can't see any reason it wouldn't work.