637
If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
637 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2522 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts/index.html
It was one per day for a while there, but the numbers have been up the last few years.
So yes, two or three per day.
As a note, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed, not including the gunman.
Don't know how many times I've got to say this but the GVA is junk data.
Here is one from the 2024 list....it states 1 dead 9 injured...but if you go to the article referenced you have to go to another to see that...gang shooting surprise....
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/10/14/police-say-five-people-involved-jefferson-street-mass-shooting-had-gang-affiliations/
Even better is the 9 people injured, were injured after the shooting, and not from the gun fire(usually crowds panic and people get hurt from running). So no not what should be considered a mass shooting but it's there because of some bullshit definition. The public hears mass shooting and thinks random person shot up a mall....not "gang members got into a fight and shot each other"
Are you saying that a gang shooting isn't a mass shooting? Why? Are they not people?
In countries with sensible gun laws, the gangs don't have guns.
The gangs still exist, because we're humans, but they don't have easy guns and thus, there are no mass shootings,
No it's not what the public thinks of a mass shooting. You can stop pretending it is.
In countries with sensible gun laws ...they never had 400+ million firearms in civ hands to start...they also aren't running a war on drugs that creates gangs like ours...we literally created the cartels from our war on drugs.
The gangs in other Western countries are like bikers gangs that go to ihop here in the states... they're a fuckin joke.
So you claim the public doesn't count gang members as people. Or gang victims, because gang related shootings don't always result in just gang members being injured, quite often innocent people are caught up in it.
But rather than being a racist jackass, let's just accept the given definition of a mass shooting, Four or more people injured, not counting the gunman.
See how simple that definition is? And no need to let racist bias pretend that some people aren't people just because a gang member was somewhere near the shooting.
Four or more people injured or killed, not including the gunman. That's a mass shooting, and we had over 600 of them last year,
Then you pretend that some gangs are worse than others. No, they're just better armed.
And the old "we have too many guns to implement gun control" bullshit. The vast majority of mass shootings are done with new guns, so simply stop selling new guns (and throw the CEOs of the gun companies in jail, but that's not for their reckless disregard for human life, all CEOs of major corporations should do a few years in jail)
Also, you're ignoring things like Australia, where they had more guns than people, and after a mass shooting, they said fuck this, and did a huge gun buyback coupled with actual gun control. Now Australia doesn't have mass shootings. Amazing how that works.
No the public assumes a mass shooting is a random act. Not a gang shooting.
The fuck? No where did I bring race into this discussion, you just did...sounds like you're assuming only minorities make up gangs...
Or not, because there isn't really one.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-considered-a-mass-shooting/
Lol you're grasping here buddy. The majority of our shootings are gang related, meaning it was gangs doing the shooting. Not near the shooting, but you keep up that racism stick...
Again, that's what the GVA uses and it's how the numbers get pumped.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-considered-a-mass-shooting/
Congress goes with 3 or more killed even, not just injured.
Lol not how that works....you seem to think gangs are all the same, when they're not. Our gangs aren't hanging people under bridges like in Mexico, but sure it's the arms they have.
The majority of them are had via straw purchases, which ...are illegal.
Australia never had more guns than people, they also had a 60% turn in rate. And now they have more guns than before the forced confiscation. I've talked about this plenty before. 60% still leaves over 100 million guns in civ hands. Of which the majority will be kept by criminals.
Injured is still shot, does it make it any less of a shooting if the person survived?
Are you seriously arguing that we don't have a gun problem because people survive?
The rest of you nitpicks seem to be just random nonsense.
First it was that some shootings don't count because a gang was involved. Are the victims any less shot due to a gang being involved?
Then you say, but that's not the definition of a mass shooting, people have to die for it to count. But are the survivors any less shot?
Then you ignore the fact that Australia implemented Gun Control. Say it again here, Gun Control. And look, no new mass shootings, regardless of the definition.
Buybacks and seizures to reduce the number of guns, and then strict controls on new purchases. A blueprint for functional gun control.
Unless that somehow doesn't count, like all the people who have been shot that you just don't seem to care about.
Don't know how many times I've got to say this but the GVA is junk data.
Here is one from the 2024 list....it states 1 dead 9 injured...but if you go to the article referenced you have to go to another to see that...gang shooting surprise....
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/10/14/police-say-five-people-involved-jefferson-street-mass-shooting-had-gang-affiliations/
Even better is the 9 people injured, were injured after the shooting, and not from the gun fire(usually crowds panic and people get hurt from running). So no not what should be considered a mass shooting but it's there because of some bullshit definition. The public hears mass shooting and thinks random person shot up a mall....not "gang members got into a fight and shot each other"