That’s just idiots being idiots and an election system that doesn’t make sense.
Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.
In the meantime here’s reality when you’re the country with the most guns/people
Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.
There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.
Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.
The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.
Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.
Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.
Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?
I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.
The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.
You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.
Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.
Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.
No it is not, its not been called out multiple times for how error prone it is. People who use it as factual loose all credibility with anyone who knows anything about gun violence.
Funny how I search for “gun violence archive unreliable” and I don’t come up with anything… Except for the “Second amendment foundation”… Have you thought that maybe it’s the people calling them out that are unreliable and that have an agenda that GVA goes against? 🤔
With multiple-victim shootings more broadly, sites like Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker offer aggregation of news reports and data that could potentially be useful for further in-depth analysis.
Wow… that’s what I call “calling out bullshit”!
No mention at all in the other article.
Good job 👍
Playing with the definition of what is and isn’t a mass shooting and only considering people that died in the victims count doesn’t help your argument buddy.
Playing with the definition is how you get media numbers to be “we had 600 mass shootings in 3 weeks” headlines. It’s disinformation designed for clicks, and you are the type that feeds into it… clearly
Not counting people unless they died diminishes the issue. Someone ending up paralysed from the waist down or ending up in a coma isn’t a victim? Sure bud, anything to defend gun owners!
That’s just idiots being idiots and an election system that doesn’t make sense.
Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.
In the meantime here’s reality when you’re the country with the most guns/people
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.
Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.
The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.
Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.
Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.
How likely do you believe that is?
Are you aware of what’s required to bring about such a thing?
I dunno, you tell me how many people, especially children, need to die for people to wake up
Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?
I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.
The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.
How likely is it any such shift is going to approach the 2/3 point necessary?
I find it more likely voters will continue to reject such absurd hyperbolic appeals.
You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.
Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.
Have you considered… not making the threat?
No, surely it’s the voter’s faults for rejecting candidates for their stated positions…
Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.
Gotta vote for the fascists so we can have our personal arms in case the fascists take power.
Yes please use the GVA as a source of truth…NPR and Mother Jones both called out that site as bullshit.
It’s just a list of all shootings in the USA, that’s data without analysis.
No it is not, its not been called out multiple times for how error prone it is. People who use it as factual loose all credibility with anyone who knows anything about gun violence.
Funny how I search for “gun violence archive unreliable” and I don’t come up with anything… Except for the “Second amendment foundation”… Have you thought that maybe it’s the people calling them out that are unreliable and that have an agenda that GVA goes against? 🤔
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gun-violence-archive/
They provide their methodology and a source for all shootings. Just because Jo nobody calls them out doesn’t make them unreliable.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/
That’s 5 seconds of liberal/left bias places calling out the bullshit numbers.
Mother Jones only mention of GVA:
With multiple-victim shootings more broadly, sites like Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker offer aggregation of news reports and data that could potentially be useful for further in-depth analysis.Wow… that’s what I call “calling out bullshit”!
No mention at all in the other article.
Good job 👍
Playing with the definition of what is and isn’t a mass shooting and only considering people that died in the victims count doesn’t help your argument buddy.
Way to miss the point of the article.
Playing with the definition is how you get media numbers to be “we had 600 mass shootings in 3 weeks” headlines. It’s disinformation designed for clicks, and you are the type that feeds into it… clearly
Not counting people unless they died diminishes the issue. Someone ending up paralysed from the waist down or ending up in a coma isn’t a victim? Sure bud, anything to defend gun owners!