A better comparison to the introduction of gun control would be to look at the number of gun deaths - there was no increase in the UK in these after 1997.(...)
So doesn't matter if the rapes, if tortures, murderers. etc, etc, etc become extreme more frequent. Only "gun violence" matters?
Note that in USA according to this "gun violence" statistics, if someone invade a farm and get killed, is "gun violence"(yes, statistics tends to put self defense and suicide as "gun violence), but if gun control is approved and the attacker invade the farm, kill all man and rape all woman, then is not "gun violence"... What scenario is better?
Meanwhile in Canada:
Let me point you to this very recent case of gun violence in Canada.
A group of friends were heading back home from a swimming hole in rural Saskatchewan when they got a flat tire. They turned onto private property looking for help. With no one around they thought their best course of action was to steal a tire from a nearby parked truck so they could get home safely.
The owner of the property appeared and began firing both a rifle and a hand gun up in the air as he approached the truck with a bad tire. Before reaching the car, he removed the magazine from his gun but still had it in his hand while he reached into the truck to remove the keys from it. While doing so, the gun fired, going into the drivers head killing him instantly.
Does stealing a tire warrant a death sentence?
One person should not be able to decide if another individual is guilty of a crime. They also should not be able to pass a death sentence regardless of what that crime is. This isn't self defence. The farmer was never in danger
The farmer btw was found not guilty, and started a massive backlash against the verdict delivered, him and his gofundme page as well as how Canada selects potential jurors in cases such as these. There is also the debate of the castle doctrine in how the farmer has every right to use deadly force to defend his home.
A small silver lining in the case is that the farmer still faces more charges and is going back to court for them. Those are for gun laws requiring proper storage . This will probably result in a fine. a nice small slap in the face to the victims family and a smaller slap on the wrist for him.
Well, it sounds like the correct verdict, given the charge of second degree murder and your reiteration of the facts. Second degree murder has to be intentional, and from what you describe (I'm assuming the accuracy of your post) it sounds like the gunshot was accidental. This looks like a classic case of the prosecutor overcharging in the face of public pressure.
The castle doctrine wouldn't even be applicable, but I guess its a good time to debate it in Canada.
Yes the government will make the laws or change the laws. Right now, things are not great due to Republicans gerrymandering we hg Ave a government that only represents a small fraction of the people correctly. We must vote these sonofabitches out despite this. We must replace them with people who will represent people more than corporate interests.
Good luck finding politicians who are not in the pockets of corporate interests.
Well, it sounds like the correct verdict, given the charge of second degree murder and your reiteration of the facts. Second degree murder has to be intentional, and from what you describe (I'm assuming the accuracy of your post) it sounds like the gunshot was accidental. This looks like a classic case of the prosecutor overcharging in the face of public pressure.
The castle doctrine wouldn't even be applicable, but I guess its a good time to debate it in Canada.
Well, it sounds like the correct verdict, given the charge of second degree murder and your reiteration of the facts. Second degree murder has to be intentional, and from what you describe (I'm assuming the accuracy of your post) it sounds like the gunshot was accidental. This looks like a classic case of the prosecutor overcharging in the face of public pressure.
The castle doctrine wouldn't even be applicable, but I guess its a good time to debate it in Canada.
Manslaughter was also an option to the jurors.
Ah, ok I didn't see that. That's a much closer call.
The US had children laboring away and women who could not vote and on and on. We have had the great depression due to unregulated wall street.
The great depression was because FED manipulated credit like in 2008. See the video Peter Schiff was Right. A comment on the video from ska8mark Peter was better at describing what happened in the financial crisis before it actually happened than any of these analysts were after all the dominoes had fallen.
Just because Argentina has had a bad experience with leftist stuff - which I would need to research to discuss - doesn't mean it will be the same in every country. In fact it seems like you have the one exception to the rule. The UK, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia have governments that would be extremely far left compared to the US and are very successful countries.
Look to all countries who was forced annexed by Bolshevik communist. Only few countries are "developed" now. Sweden is the Rape capital of Europe. The average woman is much safer in Switzerland than in Sweden.
The US had children laboring away and women who could not vote and on and on. We have had the great depression due to unregulated wall street.
The great depression was because FED manipulated credit like in 2008. See the video Peter Schiff was Right. A comment on the video from ska8mark Peter was better at describing what happened in the financial crisis before it actually happened than any of these analysts were after all the dominoes had fallen.
Just because Argentina has had a bad experience with leftist stuff - which I would need to research to discuss - doesn't mean it will be the same in every country. In fact it seems like you have the one exception to the rule. The UK, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia have governments that would be extremely far left compared to the US and are very successful countries.
Look to all countries who was forced annexed by Bolshevik communist. Only few countries are "developed" now. Sweden is the Rape capital of Europe. The average woman is much safer in Switzerland than in Sweden.
"Educate yourself" is a poor way to argue. It shows little respect for the other side and imparts no useful information. I've never seen any good come from that phrase.
If somebody doesn't know something that they need to know, tell them what the thing is, specifically. Don't just order them to "get enlightened, like I am."
In 2010 Sweden had the 15th place in the HDI rankings but according to UN forecasts, Sweden will be #25 in 2015, and in 2030 on the 45th place.
This article predicted that Sweden would be 25th in terms of HDI in the year 2015. As it happens, we have data for 2015, and it placed Sweden in 14th for HDI, and 8th for inequality-adjusted HDI. The article's prediction was pretty far off the mark: rather than dropping its position, Sweden's position got better between 2010 and 2015.
It seems like the author just wanted an excuse to say that immigration is bad because poor countries have low-quality immigrants. That's actually the ending sentence for the article:
Rick Gates is going to plead guilty to new charges of money laundering and tax evasion which were filed by the Mueller Investigation. That means white collar prison, which is like staying at a decent hotel except there is no bar and you can't check out.
I'd probably be much more skeptical of leftist politics if I lived in South America than in the United States. South American countries have a much longer tradition of far-left politics, including communism. Up here, we're not really at risk for implementing any radical leftist policies.
Obama didn't even implement a single-payer health care system; he borrowed Romney's model. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency in the first couple years of Obama's first term, we saw no skyrocketing taxes, no big affirmative action programs, no spike in welfare spending or a loosening of its requirements, no gun confiscation or gun owner databases, and no amnesty for illegal immigrants, nor an increase in immigration, legal or illegal.
Those are some of the things that are most alarming to conservatives about the Democratic agenda. Yet none of them happened even when the Democrats had the votes to implement all of them.
"Educate yourself" is a poor way to argue. It shows little respect for the other side and imparts no useful information. I've never seen any good come from that phrase.
If somebody doesn't know something that they need to know, tell them what the thing is, specifically. Don't just order them to "get enlightened, like I am."
I have responded to his fake news links and then he just repeats them or changes the subject to something totally unrelated. Other people including you have responded and clearly disproven his fake news and he just throws some other thing at the window.
What do you do when people don't accept the truth and spread false information?
We can't get bogged down responding to the rumor of the moon being made of cheese and then it's changed to now sponges spread cancer. By the time you present the truth about the moon its just a waste of time. You'll never be able to discuss really important things if you are chasing around your tail like that and it's a waste of your time.
This guy wants to believe "left bad, government bad. Sweden rape. Guns guns guns answer to everything." Even in spite of evidence. So fine, I'm not going to waste my time replying to sources from alt-right propaganda websites.
If you give someone evidence and they choose to ignore it and instead push fake news, whats a guy to do?
I'm going to focus my energy in a positive manner.
In 2010 Sweden had the 15th place in the HDI rankings but according to UN forecasts, Sweden will be #25 in 2015, and in 2030 on the 45th place.
This article predicted that Sweden would be 25th in terms of HDI in the year 2015. As it happens, we have data for 2015, and it placed Sweden in 14th for HDI, and 8th for inequality-adjusted HDI. The article's prediction was pretty far off the mark: rather than dropping its position, Sweden's position got better between 2010 and 2015.
It seems like the author just wanted an excuse to say that immigration is bad because poor countries have low-quality immigrants. That's actually the ending sentence for the article:
Spesia: Overall, this site is a questionable source due to publication of anti-Muslim propaganda and poor sourcing with an extreme right wing bias. (M. Huitsing 1/29/2018)
I'd probably be much more skeptical of leftist politics if I lived in South America than in the United States. South American countries have a much longer tradition of far-left politics, including communism. Up here, we're not really at risk for implementing any radical leftist policies.
Obama didn't even implement a single-payer health care system; he borrowed Romney's model. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency in the first couple years of Obama's first term, we saw no skyrocketing taxes, no big affirmative action programs, no spike in welfare spending or a loosening of its requirements, no gun confiscation or gun owner databases, and no amnesty for illegal immigrants, nor an increase in immigration, legal or illegal.
Those are some of the things that are most alarming to conservatives about the Democratic agenda. Yet none of them happened even when the Democrats had the votes to implement all of them.
The majority of immigrants from latin america in north america vote for left(except Argentinians, Cubans and Chileans who are a minority in USA). The same happens in the unique "high income" country in south america(Chile), They move to Chile and try vote to make Chile into Venezuela. If you managed to get into a better country, why try make your "new country" like your "old country"?
Americans in particular tends to see Latin America as a racially and culturally, 'climatically', homogeneous group; from North of Mexico to South of Patagonia(except Falklands because they speak English)... When i visited Bariloche, i saw some USA tourists won't believing that they are seeing "latin people" in fact Bariloche is (IN)famous for receiving a lot of war criminals from WW2 Germany ( http://lookatallthepoorpeople.com/nazi-hunting-in-bariloche-argentina/ ) and was 'founded' by immigrants... i personally an libertarian. I think that if you wanna voluntary live in a far left community is your right. If you wanna live in a far right community is your right but i an very skeptical of any centralized government because i saw how it will always fail in short or long therm.
Obama didn't even implement a single-payer health care system; he borrowed Romney's model. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency in the first couple years of Obama's first term, we saw no skyrocketing taxes, no big affirmative action programs, no spike in welfare spending or a loosening of its requirements, no gun confiscation or gun owner databases, and no amnesty for illegal immigrants, nor an increase in immigration, legal or illegal.
Those are some of the things that are most alarming to conservatives about the Democratic agenda. Yet none of them happened even when the Democrats had the votes to implement all of them.
Based on these observations we may draw a few conclusions: either 1) Democrats do not want those things, 2) they didn't think they could successfully implement those policy items because a) the SCOTUS might have said "no" or b) they would have needed Republican votes to satisfy supermajority requirements for some measures, or 3) both 1 and 2. I suspect the third option--they don't actually want those things and they didn't they could get them passed.
Of course, this just serves to highlight how little the two sides understand each other--what conservatives *think* liberals want is not what liberals actually want just like what liberals *think* conservatives want is not what conservatives actually want. Consider a rallying point for NRA/molon labe folks--Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment. Not only would this require a two-thirds majority of *both* Houses of Congress, the measure would then also have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of them--we have to round up). Even if Democrats retake Congress they won't retake both Houses with a 2/3 majority and it is even less likely they will realize majorities in 38 State Legislatures. On the other side, Trump cannot simply open a desk drawer in the Oval Office and press a button to launch a nuclear missile at the DPRK just like he cannot send out a tweet to implement universal background checks (in fact, the Presdident typically cannot do *anything* about guns or gun control *at all*).
Of course, this just serves to highlight how little the two sides understand each other--what conservatives *think* liberals want is not what liberals actually want just like what liberals *think* conservatives want is not what conservatives actually want.
That's an oversimplification of the factions in American politics. Not *all* liberals/conservatives want the same thing, but certain factions within each party may want different things.
For example, most American liberals don't want the government to enact a heavily leftist agenda, but certainly the Bernie Sanders faction does. Each party is a big tent, and they must be in order to survive the electoral landscape.
These myths about Sweden have been debunked so many times (even just in this thread). I feel like a broken record whenever I have to repeat the whole thing about different definitions of rape, misreading statistics and so on. Trying to argue against these constant myths, misconceptions and fake news about Sweden is like an endless game of Whac-A-Mole.
These myths about Sweden have been debunked so many times (even just in this thread). I feel like a broken record whenever I have to repeat the whole thing about different definitions of rape, misreading statistics and so on. Trying to argue against these constant myths, misconceptions and fake news about Sweden is like an endless game of Whac-A-Mole.
Yes, i posted wrong information, but only one question. The average woman is safer in Switzerland or in Sweden?
That's an oversimplification of the factions in American politics. Not *all* liberals/conservatives want the same thing, but certain factions within each party may want different things.
True. I wasn't trying to give an overview of every subgroup--not only would I not have enough time to type all that out, but I wouldn't want to bore everyone else with a wall of text. The principle still holds, though--in general, political group A has mistaken ideas about what political group B wants.
I mentioned before that trying to compare rape statistics between countries is extremely difficult, but didn't explain why. Some of the reasons include:
Definition of rape There is not a single definition used for the physical act and many countries use different legislation to cover some aspects of rape. Sweden widened the definition they use in 2005 and have continued to extend it further since then.
Recording of cases Most countries record separate acts of rape between the same people as a single case. In Sweden every separate act gets a separate record. Thus if a husband regularly rapes his wife over the course of years you can see how the statistics can shoot up (of course in some legal systems intercourse between a husband and wife is specifically prohibited from being classed as rape anyway).
Treatment of victims In some countries there is not a single case of reported rape. That may reflect official discouragement, but is also very strongly linked with social acceptability. If a woman lives in a society that regards having been raped as shameful they are very unlikely to report it.
The changes referred to above in Sweden reflect the fact that the authorities there made a conscious attempt to change the way rape was perceived and reported. Those changes have been successful in getting rape victims treated more sympathetically and less subject to social stigma. As a result of that the proportion of rapes reported to police in Sweden in recent years has been rising and the number of rapes recorded in relation to each report has also been rising. That does not mean, however, that the underlying rate of offences has increased. The Swedish authorities do an annual survey of people's experiences of crime. That shows that there has been no increase in sexual offences since 2005, i.e. the rise in the crime statistics reflects changes in reporting and recording rather than an underlying increase in crime.
As an illustration of how significant methods of recording are in relation to crime statistics it's worth looking at conviction rates for rape. According to the published statistics Sweden appears to have the lowest conviction rate in Europe. However, that rate is based on the recorded offences - and as explained above Sweden records multiple offences in situations where other countries do not. If you look at the conviction rate against population size, rather than number of offences, Sweden has the second highest rate in Europe - which should not be surprising given the amount of effort put into this area by the authorities.
These myths about Sweden have been debunked so many times (even just in this thread). I feel like a broken record whenever I have to repeat the whole thing about different definitions of rape, misreading statistics and so on. Trying to argue against these constant myths, misconceptions and fake news about Sweden is like an endless game of Whac-A-Mole.
Yes, i posted wrong information, but only one question. The average woman is safer in Switzerland or in Sweden?
To point out the absurdity of your question, here's an absurd answer the average woman is 91% safe in Switzerland and also 91% protected in Sweden.
Consider a rallying point for NRA--Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment.
Fear tactics. Conservatives are a fearful frightended bunch of people and they rely on fear to keep their people in line. They need the working class and the poor to be scared of something so that their corporate masters can run off with all the cash. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Democrats are going to be accused of wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment and being socialists or whatever. Is it because the NRA or Trump has done careful research and will present proof? No, they are just throwing that BS out there but they are going to say it anyway! These people are so disingenuous. Many democrats don't want to do anything about guns because they're scared it might cost them some votes. But the NRA says they are going to repeal the 2nd amendment the second they get in office. The right wing excels at mudslinging. Screw those guys See two can play that game. Wacth this: the NRA and republican party wants to kill your kids with guns. See two can play the ridiculous conclusion game.
The NRA is a paid lobbying group that wants to sell as many guns as possible. They are a capitalist organization that hides behind patriotism. Their special patriotism lets the love the 2nd amendment but they are against the 1st amendment. The paid spokesperson for the NRA was asked "what about letting 18 yr olds get AR-15 has to do with a WELL REGULATED MILITIA?" She said like when it was written the founding fathers meant a well regulated militia is a person that could load a gun. So they are willing to interpret, when convenient, the 2nd amendment in the context of the time but of course when you ask them about hey they had muskets back then firing one round every now and then they are like "oh no! the 2nd amendment is clear, we need all the guns! you can't interpret the document from the times! Its there in plain language! Originalist!"
These people are not genuine. They are paid lobbyists of gun manufacturers. They accuse others of being paid protestors or whatever but these guys literally are paid lobbyists for guns.
Well, i rather have everyone armed than only criminals and rather have legal companies profiting by selling weapons than illegal weapon traffickers...
I know I said I wouldn't respond further in relation to weapons, but @SorcererV1ct0r is making a good point in a more general context - ultimately a law is only useful if it gets public support. That doesn't necessarily mean that most people would have voted for a particular law at the time it was introduced, but it does mean that they need to be willing to support it once it has been introduced. An example of that distinction would be drink driving legislation in the UK which has grown in popularity over time (and most people are now in favor of tougher limits).
An obvious example of a law in the US that didn't have public support would be prohibition, where the introduction of the law resulted in increases in crime and disorder rather than the intended reductions. In the UK there was a relatively recent (or at least it seems that way to me ) example of this sort of effect with the introduction of the Community Charge (generally known as Poll Tax). That was a locally administered tax introduced in 1990 to replace local property taxes. However, large numbers of people refused to pay and there were also civil disturbances - that led to the tax being replaced from 1993.
I would expect similar effects to occur in the US if an attempt were made to ban guns outright, i.e. the cure would probably be worse than the disease and unlikely to last. However, there's no chance of such an attempt being made. That doesn't mean that no improvements in the current situation are possible, however. Several people have referred in this thread to the possibility of a ban on assault weapons. If that were backed by a properly funded government buyback scheme, together with provisions for continued use of weapons on licensed premises I think it would get support from a large majority of the public. There would undoubtedly still be a lot of opposition from a vociferous minority, but I think that could be overcome if it were clear the weight of public opinion were against them. At present a lot of the pressure to retain and increase numbers and types of guns is driven by lobbyists for the gun industry. It's quite conceivable to me that this activism could be ended quite quickly though. For instance both the following would have a big impact:
1) All or nearly all politicians refuse political contributions. This is not a particularly far-fetched scenario if I'm correct about the weight of public opinion. Politicians are affected by that directly and also vulnerable to 'bandwagon' effects. It's quite possible in the current climate that just one or two politicians publicly refusing contributions could start the sort of chain reaction seen with 'Me Too' recently. Of course once a politician refuses contributions they will want to demonstrate how independent they are from pressure by their former contributors - which could lead them to be more radical than their own core beliefs would suggest.
2) Use shareholder pressure. Some of the gun industry is privately owned, but much is also publicly traded stock. If major investors (like insurance companies and pension funds) all decided to sell their direct or indirect holdings in gun companies that would have a disastrous effect on the companies and force them to reconsider their priorities.
Mueller continues to throw the book at Manafort, and appears to have flipped his #2. At this point, it seems like the only intent here is to make Manafort realize he is facing the rest of his life in a prison cell if he doesn't sing.
Mueller continues to throw the book at Manafort, and appears to have flipped his #2. At this point, it seems like the only intent here is to make Manafort realize he is facing the rest of his life in a prison cell if he doesn't sing.
Trump will pardon him if he gets any serious time. Because he believes he and his buddies and his corrupt family are above the law.
If that happens, then New York state charges will be filed.
Great. There is probably stuff that they know about that he's done that they have not charged him with yet. They are holding back so they can spring it on him later once Trump pardons him. But that gives conservatives a talking point about how "that's all he's charged with??"
The reality that he would be charged by the state of New York and the lack of any sentence so far are probably the only reasons he hasn't been pardoned already. With Sheriff Joe, he knew there were no pending state charges so Trump pardoned him before he was sentenced
I doubt that. If Federal charges lead to a pardon which, in turn, leads to State charges, the State charges will be seen as being only politically motivated. That may also be justification for Mueller to be removed from his position as Special Investigator (or whatever his "official" job title is). Besides, I am uncertain if Federal crimes such as money laundering can be filed as a State charge--we would need a criminal attorney to address that question.
Apparently there were *four* Broward County deputies already at the scene when Coral Springs PD arrived at the school, none of whom had entered the building(s) in an attempt to rescue hostages/survivors and/or engage the shooter. That is going to be a nightmare to untangle with accusations being made as to who was or was not in charge, what tactical decisions were or were not made, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think any answer any law enforcement agency gives is going to be sufficient or satisfactory to the parents of the victims--all they are going to see is that their child is dead while law enforcement stood by doing nothing. Whether that view is correct is irrelevant--in this instance the *perception* is what matters.
Clueless prettyboy Trudeau is blowing the country's budget and keeps spending like crazy. All the millenials that voted for him will pay the price one day.
I'm sure that some people would see state charges as being only politically motivated, but I'm equally sure that the same people already see the federal charges as being only politically motivated. From a political optics standpoint, I'd much rather be the party saying that Manafort should be held accountable for his crimes than the party saying "No fair! Trump already gave him a freebie!"
A broad pardon would likely end Mueller's investigation, but he's been cooperating with the New York Attorney General, so investigative efforts could continue in some capacity.
Comments
The castle doctrine wouldn't even be applicable, but I guess its a good time to debate it in Canada.
Ah, ok I didn't see that. That's a much closer call.
Sweden to become a Third World Country by 2030, according to UN
http://www.speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.454/sweden-to-become-a-third-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html
Here is the projections for very high HDI countries ( http://ww.rrojasdatabank.info/HDRP_2010_40.pdf )
If somebody doesn't know something that they need to know, tell them what the thing is, specifically. Don't just order them to "get enlightened, like I am."
It seems like the author just wanted an excuse to say that immigration is bad because poor countries have low-quality immigrants. That's actually the ending sentence for the article:
Obama didn't even implement a single-payer health care system; he borrowed Romney's model. Even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency in the first couple years of Obama's first term, we saw no skyrocketing taxes, no big affirmative action programs, no spike in welfare spending or a loosening of its requirements, no gun confiscation or gun owner databases, and no amnesty for illegal immigrants, nor an increase in immigration, legal or illegal.
Those are some of the things that are most alarming to conservatives about the Democratic agenda. Yet none of them happened even when the Democrats had the votes to implement all of them.
What do you do when people don't accept the truth and spread false information?
We can't get bogged down responding to the rumor of the moon being made of cheese and then it's changed to now sponges spread cancer.
By the time you present the truth about the moon its just a waste of time. You'll never be able to discuss really important things if you are chasing around your tail like that and it's a waste of your time.
This guy wants to believe "left bad, government bad. Sweden rape. Guns guns guns answer to everything." Even in spite of evidence. So fine, I'm not going to waste my time replying to sources from alt-right propaganda websites.
If you give someone evidence and they choose to ignore it and instead push fake news, whats a guy to do?
I'm going to focus my energy in a positive manner.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/speisa/
Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam
Spesia:
Overall, this site is a questionable source due to publication of anti-Muslim propaganda and poor sourcing with an extreme right wing bias. (M. Huitsing 1/29/2018)
Americans in particular tends to see Latin America as a racially and culturally, 'climatically', homogeneous group; from North of Mexico to South of Patagonia(except Falklands because they speak English)... When i visited Bariloche, i saw some USA tourists won't believing that they are seeing "latin people" in fact Bariloche is (IN)famous for receiving a lot of war criminals from WW2 Germany ( http://lookatallthepoorpeople.com/nazi-hunting-in-bariloche-argentina/ ) and was 'founded' by immigrants... i personally an libertarian. I think that if you wanna voluntary live in a far left community is your right. If you wanna live in a far right community is your right but i an very skeptical of any centralized government because i saw how it will always fail in short or long therm.
Of course, this just serves to highlight how little the two sides understand each other--what conservatives *think* liberals want is not what liberals actually want just like what liberals *think* conservatives want is not what conservatives actually want. Consider a rallying point for NRA/molon labe folks--Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment. Not only would this require a two-thirds majority of *both* Houses of Congress, the measure would then also have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of them--we have to round up). Even if Democrats retake Congress they won't retake both Houses with a 2/3 majority and it is even less likely they will realize majorities in 38 State Legislatures. On the other side, Trump cannot simply open a desk drawer in the Oval Office and press a button to launch a nuclear missile at the DPRK just like he cannot send out a tweet to implement universal background checks (in fact, the Presdident typically cannot do *anything* about guns or gun control *at all*). Ignore them.
For example, most American liberals don't want the government to enact a heavily leftist agenda, but certainly the Bernie Sanders faction does. Each party is a big tent, and they must be in order to survive the electoral landscape.
Definition of rape
There is not a single definition used for the physical act and many countries use different legislation to cover some aspects of rape. Sweden widened the definition they use in 2005 and have continued to extend it further since then.
Recording of cases
Most countries record separate acts of rape between the same people as a single case. In Sweden every separate act gets a separate record. Thus if a husband regularly rapes his wife over the course of years you can see how the statistics can shoot up (of course in some legal systems intercourse between a husband and wife is specifically prohibited from being classed as rape anyway).
Treatment of victims
In some countries there is not a single case of reported rape. That may reflect official discouragement, but is also very strongly linked with social acceptability. If a woman lives in a society that regards having been raped as shameful they are very unlikely to report it.
The changes referred to above in Sweden reflect the fact that the authorities there made a conscious attempt to change the way rape was perceived and reported. Those changes have been successful in getting rape victims treated more sympathetically and less subject to social stigma. As a result of that the proportion of rapes reported to police in Sweden in recent years has been rising and the number of rapes recorded in relation to each report has also been rising. That does not mean, however, that the underlying rate of offences has increased. The Swedish authorities do an annual survey of people's experiences of crime. That shows that there has been no increase in sexual offences since 2005, i.e. the rise in the crime statistics reflects changes in reporting and recording rather than an underlying increase in crime.
As an illustration of how significant methods of recording are in relation to crime statistics it's worth looking at conviction rates for rape. According to the published statistics Sweden appears to have the lowest conviction rate in Europe. However, that rate is based on the recorded offences - and as explained above Sweden records multiple offences in situations where other countries do not. If you look at the conviction rate against population size, rather than number of offences, Sweden has the second highest rate in Europe - which should not be surprising given the amount of effort put into this area by the authorities.
More detail can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372
Democrats are going to be accused of wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment and being socialists or whatever. Is it because the NRA or Trump has done careful research and will present proof? No, they are just throwing that BS out there but they are going to say it anyway! These people are so disingenuous. Many democrats don't want to do anything about guns because they're scared it might cost them some votes. But the NRA says they are going to repeal the 2nd amendment the second they get in office. The right wing excels at mudslinging. Screw those guys
The NRA is a paid lobbying group that wants to sell as many guns as possible. They are a capitalist organization that hides behind patriotism. Their special patriotism lets the love the 2nd amendment but they are against the 1st amendment. The paid spokesperson for the NRA was asked "what about letting 18 yr olds get AR-15 has to do with a WELL REGULATED MILITIA?" She said like when it was written the founding fathers meant a well regulated militia is a person that could load a gun. So they are willing to interpret, when convenient, the 2nd amendment in the context of the time but of course when you ask them about hey they had muskets back then firing one round every now and then they are like "oh no! the 2nd amendment is clear, we need all the guns! you can't interpret the document from the times! Its there in plain language! Originalist!"
These people are not genuine. They are paid lobbyists of gun manufacturers. They accuse others of being paid protestors or whatever but these guys literally are paid lobbyists for guns.
An obvious example of a law in the US that didn't have public support would be prohibition, where the introduction of the law resulted in increases in crime and disorder rather than the intended reductions. In the UK there was a relatively recent (or at least it seems that way to me
I would expect similar effects to occur in the US if an attempt were made to ban guns outright, i.e. the cure would probably be worse than the disease and unlikely to last. However, there's no chance of such an attempt being made. That doesn't mean that no improvements in the current situation are possible, however. Several people have referred in this thread to the possibility of a ban on assault weapons. If that were backed by a properly funded government buyback scheme, together with provisions for continued use of weapons on licensed premises I think it would get support from a large majority of the public. There would undoubtedly still be a lot of opposition from a vociferous minority, but I think that could be overcome if it were clear the weight of public opinion were against them. At present a lot of the pressure to retain and increase numbers and types of guns is driven by lobbyists for the gun industry. It's quite conceivable to me that this activism could be ended quite quickly though. For instance both the following would have a big impact:
1) All or nearly all politicians refuse political contributions.
This is not a particularly far-fetched scenario if I'm correct about the weight of public opinion. Politicians are affected by that directly and also vulnerable to 'bandwagon' effects. It's quite possible in the current climate that just one or two politicians publicly refusing contributions could start the sort of chain reaction seen with 'Me Too' recently. Of course once a politician refuses contributions they will want to demonstrate how independent they are from pressure by their former contributors - which could lead them to be more radical than their own core beliefs would suggest.
2) Use shareholder pressure.
Some of the gun industry is privately owned, but much is also publicly traded stock. If major investors (like insurance companies and pension funds) all decided to sell their direct or indirect holdings in gun companies that would have a disastrous effect on the companies and force them to reconsider their priorities.
The reality that he would be charged by the state of New York and the lack of any sentence so far are probably the only reasons he hasn't been pardoned already. With Sheriff Joe, he knew there were no pending state charges so Trump pardoned him before he was sentenced
Apparently there were *four* Broward County deputies already at the scene when Coral Springs PD arrived at the school, none of whom had entered the building(s) in an attempt to rescue hostages/survivors and/or engage the shooter. That is going to be a nightmare to untangle with accusations being made as to who was or was not in charge, what tactical decisions were or were not made, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think any answer any law enforcement agency gives is going to be sufficient or satisfactory to the parents of the victims--all they are going to see is that their child is dead while law enforcement stood by doing nothing. Whether that view is correct is irrelevant--in this instance the *perception* is what matters.
Clueless prettyboy Trudeau is blowing the country's budget and keeps spending like crazy. All the millenials that voted for him will pay the price one day.
A broad pardon would likely end Mueller's investigation, but he's been cooperating with the New York Attorney General, so investigative efforts could continue in some capacity.