Before responding to the substance of this post, one correction: There is no political party of any significance in this country that "supports defunding the police." Unlike the Republicans who simply supported Donald Trump in lieu of a party platform, the Democrats adopted one and defund the police ain't in there. Moreover, to the best …
Before responding to the substance of this post, one correction: There is no political party of any significance in this country that "supports defunding the police." Unlike the Republicans who simply supported Donald Trump in lieu of a party platform, the Democrats adopted one and defund the police ain't in there. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, out of the many cities that are controlled by Democrats, I don't know of any that have actually decreased police funding. There is definitely merit to the charge that Democrats tend not to strenuously enforce gun laws in minority communities. As for defunding the police, however, there is none. The few pinheads who once called for defunding the police are just that: a few pinheads.
That said, my overall reaction to this post, and the featured video, is that they are a deflection. Yes, the number of kids killed in school shootings is negligible in comparison to the those who are the victims of street violence. And yes, due to the disproportionate impact on young men of color, existing gun laws tend to be inadequately enforced in predominantly minority, urban communities. However, mass shootings are on the increase and other than "thoughts and prayers," Republicans have no answer. So they deflect.
Being black and in my 60's, I can walk the streets in any part of Chicago with little fear of becoming a victim of gun violence, which is mostly related to gang activity that is the province of much younger men. I might go to a concert, though. Or a movie theatre. Or a 4th of July parade. And of course, my grandchildren have to go to school. Not only have mass shootings occurred in all of these places, the phenomenon seems to be on the increase. This is not to say that I am unconcerned with the routine levels of gun violence in many urban communities. However, that concern is not enough to make me content with "thoughts and prayers" being our only response to mass shootings.
Irrespective of whether the AR-15 was originally a "military" weapon, it still seems to me that mere civilians have no need for the same weaponry used by the military. The M-16 that I carried as a soldier being virtually identical to the AR-15, that is enough for me to conclude that it, and anything featuring similar levels of lethality, needs to be banned. The assault weapons ban that was once in place focused on certain features thought common to "assault weapons," which features were easily modified in order to get around the ban. In my view, it is a weapon's level of lethality that matters, and that has more to due with muzzle velocity and caliber size, among other things. Regardless of any manufacturer's original designation of a weapon as being for civilian or military use, I see no need for civilians to possess weaponry as lethal as that of a soldier.
I post this in the hope of drawing responses that might further educate me on this issue. For anyone who might care to do so, I am also intensely curious as to how avowed Christians manage to reconcile "turn the other cheek" with being armed to the teeth.
I stopped reading at your factual inacurracy about no party supporting defunding the police. This falls into the category of "don't believe your lying eyes" for all of us who watched the "fiery but mostly peaceful protests." If you want me to read your very long post and seriously consider it, do not open with an easily demonstrable falsehood.
This was the third result from DuckDuckGo and it's even CNN.
Before responding to the substance of this post, one correction: There is no political party of any significance in this country that "supports defunding the police." Unlike the Republicans who simply supported Donald Trump in lieu of a party platform, the Democrats adopted one and defund the police ain't in there. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, out of the many cities that are controlled by Democrats, I don't know of any that have actually decreased police funding. There is definitely merit to the charge that Democrats tend not to strenuously enforce gun laws in minority communities. As for defunding the police, however, there is none. The few pinheads who once called for defunding the police are just that: a few pinheads.
That said, my overall reaction to this post, and the featured video, is that they are a deflection. Yes, the number of kids killed in school shootings is negligible in comparison to the those who are the victims of street violence. And yes, due to the disproportionate impact on young men of color, existing gun laws tend to be inadequately enforced in predominantly minority, urban communities. However, mass shootings are on the increase and other than "thoughts and prayers," Republicans have no answer. So they deflect.
Being black and in my 60's, I can walk the streets in any part of Chicago with little fear of becoming a victim of gun violence, which is mostly related to gang activity that is the province of much younger men. I might go to a concert, though. Or a movie theatre. Or a 4th of July parade. And of course, my grandchildren have to go to school. Not only have mass shootings occurred in all of these places, the phenomenon seems to be on the increase. This is not to say that I am unconcerned with the routine levels of gun violence in many urban communities. However, that concern is not enough to make me content with "thoughts and prayers" being our only response to mass shootings.
Irrespective of whether the AR-15 was originally a "military" weapon, it still seems to me that mere civilians have no need for the same weaponry used by the military. The M-16 that I carried as a soldier being virtually identical to the AR-15, that is enough for me to conclude that it, and anything featuring similar levels of lethality, needs to be banned. The assault weapons ban that was once in place focused on certain features thought common to "assault weapons," which features were easily modified in order to get around the ban. In my view, it is a weapon's level of lethality that matters, and that has more to due with muzzle velocity and caliber size, among other things. Regardless of any manufacturer's original designation of a weapon as being for civilian or military use, I see no need for civilians to possess weaponry as lethal as that of a soldier.
I post this in the hope of drawing responses that might further educate me on this issue. For anyone who might care to do so, I am also intensely curious as to how avowed Christians manage to reconcile "turn the other cheek" with being armed to the teeth.
I stopped reading at your factual inacurracy about no party supporting defunding the police. This falls into the category of "don't believe your lying eyes" for all of us who watched the "fiery but mostly peaceful protests." If you want me to read your very long post and seriously consider it, do not open with an easily demonstrable falsehood.
This was the third result from DuckDuckGo and it's even CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/defund-the-police-democrats/index.html
Some pinheads just so happen to be Democrats, but that does not make their positions that of the Democratic Party.