Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, the violence is increasing fast and Ferociously in so many cities that voted for Biden/Harris.
They were dancing in the streets of California thinking that electing a man with dementia symptoms and lawyer were going to create some utopian Oakland.
Many liberal cities aren't even third-world cities anymore, they are medieval warzones on the verge of collapse with a small, ultra-wealthy land owning elite and the rest struggling and unhappy.
Or...It could “just” be eight people gunned down in Oakland.
When I was in college, we would have been marked down for the gratuitous parts about it being Democratic. I didn’t go to a particularly leftie school either; it could have been me writing something like “eight dead in a shooting in Republican stronghold of BFA”, and it would also have been marked down.
Get a grip, folks. Oakland’s not a nice place, at least in many parts, and it’s a chicken-or-egg problem as to why the correlation exists in so many cities. I’d challenge you to turn places like STL, East St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Cairo, IL, Jackson, MS, Oakland, Compton, Gary, or Detroit around. It ain’t that friggin easy, and my only background is playing SimCity, where you’re basically a dictator and only succeed by being a benevolent one (kinda).
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50671
Democrats live in big cities, and sadly, big cities have areas of high crime.
Rule of thumb. Democrats in general like to live in densely populated areas, with lots of people. And so those areas elected democrat leaders. In general, democrats enjoy dense, diverse populations.
Republicans, as a general rule, don't like to be around people as much, and so rural areas with sparser populations tend to be run by Republicans. In general, Republicans like rural, less diverse populations.
It's not that democrat leadership creates crime. Very densely populated areas tend to have pockets of crime, and those very populated areas (also containing areas of little crime) attract democrats.
So this "democrat run cities have crime" is a specious argument. It's not true cause and affect.
Democrat leadership tolerates violence and penalizes law abiding citizens. Its not just guns, its self defense. One Massachusetts politician said of a citizen who had shot a thug in self defense; "We're against self-help.". In New York state you can't even carry or have full strength pepper spray. Vulnerable citizens can do little more that dial 911 and hope they don't get a busy signal.
Democrat leadership tolerates violence and penalizes law abiding citizens. Its not just guns, its self defense. One Massachusetts politician said of a citizen who had shot a thug in self defense; "We're against self-help.". In New York state you can't even carry or have full strength pepper spray. Vulnerable citizens can do little more that dial 911 and hope they don't get a busy signal.
Self-defense is valid but overplayed, IMHO. It feeds an “us” vs “them” attitude, and makes folks needlessly fearful. I’d rather see an entitlement to self-defense than a need for self defense; I think that’s whats turned some folks off to our gun culture. It’s too paranoid and plays too much on demagogue themes. That’s played out in other ways, as you alluded to, such as bad on pepper spray, knives, or other instruments of self defense.
Self-defense is valid but overplayed, IMHO. It feeds an “us” vs “them” attitude, and makes folks needlessly fearful. I’d rather see an entitlement to self-defense than a need for self defense; I think that’s whats turned some folks off to our gun culture. It’s too paranoid and plays too much on demagogue themes. That’s played out in other ways, as you alluded to, such as bad on pepper spray, knives, or other instruments of self defense.
What kind of nonsensical fairy tale land do you live in? Entitlement to self defense rather than a need for self defense? I wish that too.
But here in the real world, men need to arm themselves, be trained on its proper use so they have the confidence to use it when warranted, plus stay vigilant at all times.
I also wish we lived in a world where 350 million weapons could be scooped up and then the government could be trusted not to terrorize unarmed people.
But we don’t live in that world. The only way, and I mean the only way, to stop mass shootings is if every single person is armed and ready.
The only way to stop a government from going Stalin on everyone is to be armed.
Also, gun control is as impossible as drug control or border control.
How can you be pro second amendment, and then whine about this? I wish folks would stop being hypocritical, shooting deaths? They're the price of having the second amendment. And its a price that while I may dislike it, I recognize is associated with that. If you dont like it? Add a new amendment changing it.
People whining about this? Get over it. Whine about the real root cause-gun ownership. If you are pro second amendment, then stop being so hypocritical. This is the cost. And its worth it. Deal with it.
How can you be pro second amendment, and then whine about this? I wish folks would stop being hypocritical, shooting deaths? They're the price of having the second amendment. And its a price that while I may dislike it, I recognize is associated with that. If you dont like it? Add a new amendment changing it.
People whining about this? Get over it. Whine about the real root cause-gun ownership. If you are pro second amendment, then stop being so hypocritical. This is the cost. And its worth it. Deal with it.
Actually, they’re the price of thugs stealing guns, obtaining them illegally, the revolving door of justice setting them free, etc...
It’s worth watching areas and the powers that be reap what they sow. Makes for great tv.
But we don’t live in that world. The only way, and I mean the only way, to stop mass shootings is if every single person is armed and ready.
The only way to stop a government from going Stalin on everyone is to be armed.
A slight correction.
The only way to stop mass shootings is if every single person is allowed to be armed.
It's not mandatory for every single person to be armed. Though it's not a bad idea.
But if everyone is allowed to... that is, if the 2nd amendment is the only "gun control" law in force... then govt can't "force" everyone to carry 24/7.
If a bad guy is thinking about trying something, he'll know that there's probably SOME people in the crowd who are carrying, and who know how to use their weapons. And he'll never know whom the bullet may come from. That will provide all the deterrence possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
