All of that is to say that whatever is causing murders to spike this year, political party isn’t it.
So what’s going on? Criminologists and other experts caution that they don’t really know yet. But they’ve offered several potential explanations: The Covid-19 pandemic, and all the chaos that it’s wrought, could have led to more homicides — by hurting social support programs that can prevent escalating violence, damaging the economy, and overwhelming hospitals that treat violent crime victims, among other possibilities. The protests around police brutality and systemic racism may have led cops to back off proactive policing, or caused the general public to trust the police less and subsequently work with the cops less often, both of which could have led to more unchecked violence. A surge in gun purchases this year could have fueled more gun violence.
Biden is in power, so an opposition politician can take the liberty to blame him. That's how politics works
ReplyDeleteyes trump can make up more likes that are repeated bt republicans
ReplyDeleteYou of course see nothing wrong with making up lies to attack your opponent?!
a) I am describing how politics works
ReplyDeleteB) it's not a lie to emphasise part of the picture.
C) Biden himself told big porkie pies - how he would make Saudi a pariah state, now he's sucking up to them asking for help.
To quote you: Nope!
ReplyDeleteCrime and murders are up far more in Democrat cities than in Republican ones. It's like if you throw a party and cover the street with 100's of beeer cans and I throw a party and throw out maybe a dozen and you say "See! We both littered!"
Here's the root cause on the right - when government is seen as benign and the police are trusted then societies are quiet. When government is seen as corrupt and the police are as well, then societies start to rebel. If I can't trust the cops, then I'll have my own gun to defend myself. If the government is out to get me, then I'll take steps to protect myself.
And on the left, it's a belief that being oppressed means you can break laws with impunity. After a summer of BLM "mostly peaceful protests" causing billions of dollars and hundreds of deaths and no punishment for any of it, the left has decided they can do what they want. Break into someone's car? If you're Black, you're allowed because you're just striking back at your White oppressor and even if you're arrested, the Liberal DA won't press charges. So where's the reason not to?
Nope!
ReplyDeleteper capita it isn't true
So you are in twisting statistics if done to support Republicans!
so you approve of lies to support your candidate!?
ReplyDeleteThe Woke like to say there's no absolute truth. That means there's no absolute lies.
ReplyDeleteSince you are ignoring most of what I said, are you cherry picking and telling untruths?
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, do you support all Democrat positions, including LGBTq and abortion?
ReplyDeleteIf not, why would a right winger be required to support every act or policy of Trump and GOP?
But they do!
ReplyDeleteyou have always criticized religious views which you feel distort the truth but have no problem when a politician does worse
ReplyDeleteWow now you are using the Devil's tools to justify trump
ReplyDeleteIn sum you know the lies must be true so they can't be lies even though the data doesn't support them - a true believer
ReplyDeleteOf course it is a lie. Just pretend a kiruv rabbi said what you just sai but about religion instead of politics
ReplyDeleteThe tools of democracy are not up to addressing the social upheaval we're facing in this country. It seems inevitable that we're going to slip into a fascist state.
ReplyDeleteAnd the data to support that contention is not going to be found on Big Tech social media platforms. But if one delves into underground social media and immerses oneself in it, one may very well come to the same conclusion.
People have had enough.
Wow don't confuse me with facts when social media is the real source of reality!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/16/if-trump-looks-like-a-fascist-and-acts-like-a-fascist-then-maybe-he-is-one
ReplyDeleteHaha, very funny. But you are caught in this yourself. Not all right wing or republicans follow Trump blindly.
ReplyDeleteKiruv make various types of claims. Some make jumps from their own personal position, eg the frum way of life is so enjoyable. But it's not always enjoyable and the texts say it's a tough life of dry bread and salt water.
ReplyDeleteCertain proofs are not accepted when scrutinised by experts.
some claims make misinterpretations eg suicide rate in Sweden because of their alleged sexual immorality.
This statement is a partial truth.
Murder rates up in blue states, true, but ignoring they are also up in red ( sorry we have red for left and blue for right) .
This kind of partial truth is standard or pretty good in kiruv, and hardly worth sweating over.
I'm saying I expect politicians to be liars, but I don't expect that to be the case for talmidei chachamim.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy by definition means rule of the people. Or something like that.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have instead are "elites" like yourself who feel the people can't be trusted because they might re-elect Donald Trump.
That is a fact.
Democracy is not rule of the people - it is the chance that the people get every few years to vote for a party to rule. The elected party rules, and they ignore the people until it is time for the next election.
ReplyDeleteThe way to reduce shootings would theoretically be to outlaw the sale of guns. Dems and GOP have different views on gun laws. Also abortion, GOP tend to echo the halachic view, IE it's murder, whereas Dems are mattir, saying it's freedom of choice.
ReplyDeletehttps://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic
ReplyDeleteWhy? the two standards?
ReplyDeleteAt least you admit the tools exist and who the Devil is in this case. However: yes, what's good for the goose is good for the danger. If liberals can use unelected courts to overturn legislature-passed plaws, the conservatives can too. If liberals can cry that they're oppressed and allowed to resist, then so can conservatives. If liberals believe that "my truth" is a real things, conservatives can too.
ReplyDeleteI've asked a few people this question but never got a good answer. Okay, the Constitution permits anyone to own a gun. Why not just ban bullets?
ReplyDeleteyou equate the Torah to some political manifesto?
ReplyDeletein the UK they banned handguns. so the smugglers when speaking about it, disguised of course, say that bullets are much easier to manufacture than guns.
ReplyDeleteSecond Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ReplyDeleteGuns without bullets are not "arms".
They are merely showpieces.
So banning bullets, which make the guns into "arms", would run afoul of the Constitution.
A good posek could push it through.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it says that the point of bearing arms is so the US can have militias at the ready in case of invasion. However, given the presence of police forces that are armed more heavily than some Thirs World armies, along with the National Guard and the actual Army, militias are nowadays no longer necessary.
And even if you say that militias are still necessary, since the complexity of firearms and tactics in fighting have increased, then someone who wants a gun and by implication wants to be part of a militia must first undergo extensive military training to ensure that he'll actually be of us in case of an actual invasion.
And even if you shoot that down by claiming that by definition a militia is a bunch of untrained rednecks willing to randomly shoot in any direction, bullets are still not necessary as guns make excellent clubs with which to beat people and are therefore still weapons even without bullets.
The word, "invasion", does not appear in the the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It depends how you understand the phrase: "being necessary to the security of a free State".
Is it referring to security from local criminals and foreign invaders, or is it referring to security from government encroaching on the People's freedom?
I'll suggest that perhaps the framers of the constitution had both interpretations in mind, and therefore both are correct.
In any event, we need to remember that "shall not be infringed", means exactly what it says, and any attempt to regulate the right to bear arms, is an infringement of that Constitutionally enshrined right.
You have police to handle criminals. You have an army to handle foreign invaders. It is common sense that a militia wouldn't handle criminals. That's called being a vigilante and only Batman has a licence to do it.
ReplyDeleteThe framers were worried that the UK might decide they wanted their lucrative colonies back or that Span might decide to expand north. Militias were useful for isolated places the army couldn't get to in time.
The right to bear arms, by immediately following the word militia, implies a connection. A person has a right to bear arms so he can join a militia in times of need. You could further say that this could be interpreted as "He has the right to own a gun but can only use it in the service of a militia."
We saw with the "Burn, Loot, Murder" movement, how effective the police were.
ReplyDeleteWhen seconds count, the police are only minutes away...