they must keep the firearms they were issued with at home (locked in the bombproof cellar which every Swiss residential property is obliged to have)
This I did not know. Please explain more about this requirement to have bombproof cellars in EVERY home.
Oh, Wikipedia says that it's not entirely mandatory. If the house doesn't, it has to have directions to the closest one.
And pls check the references before accusing me of trolling
Check your own references. Your leads to a biased organization without any credible numbers. The 2.5 million number is ludicrously high given the total amount of crime.
The government statistic is for 2007-2011. This is a five year span, not a one year span.
Your argumentation here does not reflect well on you.
Lets then talk about other facts.
Fact: Even the governments estimate, which has a major methodology problem, [2] estimates people defend themselves 235,700 times each year with guns. [3]
Sources : 2. This ongoing victimization survey involved people from the government personally interviewing victims in person. Some criminologists believe this induces self-reporting biases (e.g., people don’t like to tell the government they own a gun). Thus this low number from the National Crime Victimization Survey is considered to be an outlier and not reliable. Back
3. Firearm Violence, 1993-2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2013 Back
As I stated before the site before your link is incorrect - their own primary source (your [²]) says that the number is for 2007-2011. Please read the primary source, otherwise not worth continuing this discussion.
And when people prefix their claims with "Fact:" it is usually a warning sign....
Here is a direct quote from their misused source:
In 2007-11, about 1% of nonfatal violent crime victims
used a firearm in self defense
In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the
victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender
(table
11).
Oh look, now it magically dropped 98.1%! From 2,500,000 PER YEAR to 235,700 over FIVE YEARS.
IT'S A MIRACLE!
You know what else?
Victims threatened or attacked back with OTHER weapons 391,100 times, and attacked back WITH NO WEAPON 6,552,900 times. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Table 11, page 12. Yeah, big numbers. We're talking like almost 30 million violent crimes over 5 years. Looking at the actual raw data from bjs.gov, behind this pdf publication, roughly 70% of violent crime is just assault or aggravated assault, 20% is robbery, 10% is rape, give or take some. Homicide doesn't count because the data is taken from surveys of living victims. (But homicide is a very small number proportionally anyways, in the low tens of thousands versus half a million to millions for other categories of violent crime). The PDF did not give absolute numbers of the crimes in order to do a breakdown of the numbers, and I wanted to know.
A gun is involved with about 70% of homicides, but only about 6-9% of other violent crime. Table 2, Page 3. Again, proportionally, homicide is a miniscule amount of violent crime, not even 1/200th of violent crimes.
More than 3/4ths of the time, the victim isn't even injured. Table 9, Page 10. They are called "violent" crimes because of at LEAST the THREAT of force. Which is why even displaying an unloaded handgun jacks a robbery up from usually a severe misdemeanor to a middle-grade felony. Although a robbery uses force to steal by definition.
You're more likely to be shot by a stranger than someone you know. But you're MUCH more likely to be a victim of violent crime from someone you know than a stranger. Table 6, page 8.
A lot of people here will not care about woman being raped since it is not "gun violence", but if the woman kill the rapist in self defense, then is an seriously problem because is "gun violence"...
The main reason people on the right claim to want to own guns is to fight Government oppression or to defend the country. The real reason is they think it's cool and macho...
A lot of people here will not care about woman being raped since it is not "gun violence", but if the woman kill the rapist in self defense, then is an seriously problem because is "gun violence"...
No, that's called justifiable homicide, and is not a crime.
There were 500,000 rapes IN ONE YEAR.
What, EVERY raped woman should have a gun to shoot the attacker? That's the argument you want to go with?
Also, again, rape went down in the United States, but so did ALL violent crime, not just rape.
Edit-And NO, it is not a matter of more people being armed. The proportion of gun ownership in America has stayed relatively constant over 40 years, cycling between 37-47% (37% in 2013, 47% in 1990. I haven't done a mean, but it looks about 42-43%.
The truth is, like earlier with your graph of Czech Republic, some people are just owning more and more guns.
Edit 2 - Well, technically that DOES means MORE people are armed, because the population of the U.S. has increased by 50%. Anyways, proportions vs. absolutes.
[<...>There were 500,000 rapes IN ONE YEAR.
What, EVERY raped woman should have a gun to shoot the attacker? That's the argument you want to go with?
Yes, if every woman have access to defend themselves, rapists would have an much more hard time in committing their crimes. Unfortunately there are much more man owning guns than woman... One rapist who die means that a lot of innocent woman would be saved an a lot of tax money saved from being wasted with prison.
Is like some people who say that the homicide on Uruguay raised after the legalization of marijuana. The reality is that the homicide only raised among criminals but the general population is safer.
I am not going to entertain your latest switch (from quoting general numbers to now discuss rape specifically) unless you acknowledge that both you and a source you heavily relied on in your argumentation incorrectly used government statistics.
"whatabout rapes"
"whatabout terrorism"
"gun laws never work ever anywhere"
pointless to try and convince him, he's going to change the subject or ignore what we're saying because the truth might contradict his deeply held beliefs.
The main reason people on the right claim to want to own guns is to fight Government oppression or to defend the country. The real reason is they think it's cool and macho...
That and at this point some are open carrying in public for no other reason than to piss off liberals. It's their way of saying "look what I can do, and you can't stop me". People talk about "virtue signaling" on the left, but there is an equally prominent thing that doesn't have a name on the right, and I'm dubbing it "vice signaling", which basically means enjoying being able to get away with asshole-like behavior in public because it gets a reaction out of people you don't like. This is, without question, Trump's #1 appeal. There are people who simply want to unleash their id with no filter or compliance to socially acceptable behavior and he is their permission slip.
A lot of people here will not care about woman being raped since it is not "gun violence", but if the woman kill the rapist in self defense, then is an seriously problem because is "gun violence"...
It's also massively disingenuous/insulting to assume that people do not care about rape simply because they believe gun control. It undercuts your credibility in the current argument substantially.
The main reason people on the right claim to want to own guns is to fight Government oppression or to defend the country. The real reason is they think it's cool and macho...
That and at this point some are open carrying in public for no other reason than to piss off liberals. It's their way of saying "look what I can do, and you can't stop me". People talk about "virtue signaling" on the left, but there is an equally prominent thing that doesn't have a name on the right, and I'm dubbing it "vice signaling", which basically means enjoying being able to get away with asshole-like behavior in public because it gets a reaction out of people you don't like. This is, without question, Trump's #1 appeal. There are people who simply want to unleash their id with no filter or compliance to socially acceptable behavior and he is their permission slip.
Meanwhile, people who are politically opposed to Trump see nothing wrong with publicly accosting people while they are out having dinner, which makes for great "public freakout" videos. We have shifted from "I oppose that politician" to "I oppose people who support that politician" and everyone is settling for this as being our new normal.
"Being a jerk" is not a crime. We don't have to like it and we don't have to emulate it but when you see someone doing it the best thing to do is to ignore them. Well...now that I have said that...that's almost like bullying and we don't want to tolerate that. Still, calling out someone for being a troll typically winds up with the troll targeting you. These days, though, you run the risk of the offline trolls doxxing you.
The main reason people on the right claim to want to own guns is to fight Government oppression or to defend the country. The real reason is they think it's cool and macho...
That and at this point some are open carrying in public for no other reason than to piss off liberals. It's their way of saying "look what I can do, and you can't stop me". People talk about "virtue signaling" on the left, but there is an equally prominent thing that doesn't have a name on the right, and I'm dubbing it "vice signaling", which basically means enjoying being able to get away with asshole-like behavior in public because it gets a reaction out of people you don't like. This is, without question, Trump's #1 appeal. There are people who simply want to unleash their id with no filter or compliance to socially acceptable behavior and he is their permission slip.
Meanwhile, people who are politically opposed to Trump see nothing wrong with publicly accosting people while they are out having dinner, which makes for great "public freakout" videos. We have shifted from "I oppose that politician" to "I oppose people who support that politician" and everyone is settling for this as being our new normal.
"Being a jerk" is not a crime. We don't have to like it and we don't have to emulate it but when you see someone doing it the best thing to do is to ignore them. Well...now that I have said that...that's almost like bullying and we don't want to tolerate that. Still, calling out someone for being a troll typically winds up with the troll targeting you. These days, though, you run the risk of the offline trolls doxxing you.
It's not only people politically opposed to Trump who do this, you know that right? Why would you frame it that way? Are you not aware or intentionally trying to deceive?
The right has plenty who do this. James O'Keefe's whole thing is deceptively editing, "being a jerk", and ambushing people. Jesse Waters on Fox News does this same thing all the time. The conservatives that ambushed Chris Cuomo and called him "Fredo". The right is perhaps worse since it is encouraged by institutions like James O'Keefe's project veritas (funded by Trump, Kochs and others) and Fox New's Jesse Waters while the left, such your example of people using their first amendment right to address politicians, does not appear to be supported by billionaires (despite the george soros conspiracy lies).
Its a LOT more than just "being a jerk." Hate crimes are up speciifcally because hate speech and encouraging violence against minorities has been defended as just, "people being jerks." Look at how its escalated. A lot of people having been screaming for years now that this behaviour was going to become actively dangerous becasause so many people are willing to defend it either under a poor understanding of
"free speech" or just as an excuse to be openly racist. Now we have literal concentration camps for children and American citizens being arrested and held near the border for the crime of being brown-ish.
@jjstraka34 had already addressed people on the Right being jerks; I was giving examples of people on the Left doing it. Don't worry, though--it is normal for people to defend those with whom they agree.
Some polling data indicates not only that Biden is back on the way up, but that Harris is on the way down *and* that a slim majority of likely Democrat voters would willingly vote for anyone who has decent odds at beating Trump next November. I cannot disagree with their goals--everyone wants to beat their political opponent--but the reasoning is weak because they are voting against Trump as opposed to *for* someone else.
It is not against the law for a person to be racist. It is illogical, irrational, and distasteful, but not illegal. Just like it is impossible to legislate morality it is impossible to legislate "good thoughts".
@Mathsorcerer You left out "dangerous" and "deadly" from your list. Speech like this ALWAYS leads to violence unless its addressed early. Its the EXACT same rhetoric that Hitler used to to demonize the jewish poulation in Germany and stir up politcal fervor. We all know how that turned out.
"whatabout rapes"
"whatabout terrorism"
"gun laws never work ever anywhere"
pointless to try and convince him, he's going to change the subject or ignore what we're saying because the truth might contradict his deeply held beliefs.
Not true. I pointed out that gun control increased violent crime, particularly rape with statistics and gave an ton of statistics to base other affirmations that i made.
A lot of people here will not care about woman being raped since it is not "gun violence", but if the woman kill the rapist in self defense, then is an seriously problem because is "gun violence"...
It's also massively disingenuous/insulting to assume that people do not care about rape simply because they believe gun control. It undercuts your credibility in the current argument substantially.
This is another example of arguing in bad faith.
Is not arguing in bad faith. I posted many different statistics showing that less guns = more rape.
Its a LOT more than just "being a jerk." Hate crimes are up speciifcally because hate speech and encouraging violence against minorities has been defended as just, "people being jerks." Look at how its escalated. A lot of people having been screaming for years now that this behaviour was going to become actively dangerous becasause so many people are willing to defend it either under a poor understanding of
"free speech" or just as an excuse to be openly racist. Now we have literal concentration camps for children and American citizens being arrested and held near the border for the crime of being brown-ish.
And people should have the right of being racist. As longs they don't engage on violence.
Unfortunately only minorities have this right and anti discrimination laws are only enforced against an group.
And yes when you are literally repeating the rhetoric of Nazi Germany, parallells are going to inevitably be drawn.
Then perhaps Democrats might want to quit trying to take away everyone's guns.
Meanwhile, The Mooch says that he is putting together a coalition to stop Trump. Okay, sure, if you say so.
In Hong Kong, protesters are waving American flags and taking a stand against the Communist Party. In Portland, protesters are throwing American flags on the ground and standing up for Communists. Weird.
I am not going to entertain your latest switch (from quoting general numbers to now discuss rape specifically) unless you acknowledge that both you and a source you heavily relied on in your argumentation incorrectly used government statistics.
Seriously Victor, if you cannot correct the record here, no one should trust any references you post here. "Let's then talk about other facts" after someone has pointed out that you are posting incorrect information is insufficient.
In Hong Kong, protesters are waving American flags and taking a stand against the Communist Party. In Portland, protesters are throwing American flags on the ground and standing up for Communists. Weird.
Do you think that US would accept political refugees from HK?
I mean, imagine if someone creates an private city project and everyone who hates communism go live there. In few years will be the most prosperous city in the human history...
And yes when you are literally repeating the rhetoric of Nazi Germany, parallells are going to inevitably be drawn.
Then perhaps Democrats might want to quit trying to take away everyone's guns.
Meanwhile, The Mooch says that he is putting together a coalition to stop Trump. Okay, sure, if you say so.
In Hong Kong, protesters are waving American flags and taking a stand against the Communist Party. In Portland, protesters are throwing American flags on the ground and standing up for Communists. Weird.
Except I've never heard any Democratic politician push for this. But sure, let's blame people trying to reduce gun violence for the actions of the people actually commiting the violence. "It's not my fault that I shot 15 people officer, someone on tv told me that Democrats want to take away all our guns. I'm clearly not responsiblef or my own actions."
In Hong Kong, protesters are waving American flags and taking a stand against the Communist Party. In Portland, protesters are throwing American flags on the ground and standing up for Communists. Weird.
Do you think that US would accept political refugees from HK?
I mean, imagine if someone creates an private city project and everyone who hates communism go live there. In few years will be the most prosperous city in the human history...
Ahahaha. No.
It has been done before. It ended in MISERABLE FAILURE as even the most basic of public works were not done.
Edit-Put it this way. Society, by definition requires compromise in order to live together. If no one agrees on even the barest minimum of compomise, how can you have a civil society?
Julian Castro managed to make it to the next round of Democrat debates; this is the equivalent of earning a 70 in a class--you passed, but only barely.
In Hong Kong, protesters are waving American flags and taking a stand against the Communist Party. In Portland, protesters are throwing American flags on the ground and standing up for Communists. Weird.
Do you think that US would accept political refugees from HK?
I mean, imagine if someone creates an private city project and everyone who hates communism go live there. In few years will be the most prosperous city in the human history...
Ahahaha. No.
It has been done before. It ended in MISERABLE FAILURE as even the most basic of public works were not done.
Edit-Put it this way. Society, by definition requires compromise in order to live together. If no one agrees on even the barest minimum of compomise, how can you have a civil society?
Where and when ended in a miserable failure?? Unfortunately the private city project doesn't exist yet.
Then perhaps Democrats might want to quit trying to take away everyone's guns.
And this is the problem with a political party, the Republicans, that lie and use false equivalence and propaganda to strawman their opponents.
People just pretend like "democrats want to take everyone's guns" because Republican talking points repeat this propaganda often enough that people regurgitate it - not taking in to account that no Democrat has said this.
They are repeating Russian Republican talking points.
And that's why Trump's talk about how immigrants are (inhuman) INVADERS! who are dirty rapists are so dangerous. People believe his bullshit and regurgitate it and people get killed. So sorry if your dinner gets interrupted over your authoritarian lies. It's sad how many people are failing to recognize - and even encouraging - a slide towards authoritarianism.
No to illegals but yes to Italian descendants said Salvini
Salvini met with deputies Eduardo Bolsonaro (PSL) and Roberto Lorenzato (Lega). Photo: Playback / YouTube
“We defend the Italian borders to talk about the immigration that interests us, which are the descendants of Italians in the world, in Brazil, in Argentina and in Europe. Which are culturally and historically close, by religion, by way of thinking, by working. Now, with the borders closed to illegal migrations, we hope to reopen them to positive immigration to siblings, ”said Salvini.
Comments
Lets then talk about other facts.
Fact: Even the governments estimate, which has a major methodology problem, [2] estimates people defend themselves 235,700 times each year with guns. [3]
Sources : 2. This ongoing victimization survey involved people from the government personally interviewing victims in person. Some criminologists believe this induces self-reporting biases (e.g., people don’t like to tell the government they own a gun). Thus this low number from the National Crime Victimization Survey is considered to be an outlier and not reliable. Back
3. Firearm Violence, 1993-2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2013 Back
http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/guns-and-crime-prevention.htm
And when people prefix their claims with "Fact:" it is usually a warning sign....
Here is a direct quote from their misused source:
In 2007-11, about 1% of nonfatal violent crime victims
used a firearm in self defense
In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the
victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender
(table
11).
Bolding mine.
IT'S A MIRACLE!
You know what else?
Victims threatened or attacked back with OTHER weapons 391,100 times, and attacked back WITH NO WEAPON 6,552,900 times. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf Table 11, page 12. Yeah, big numbers. We're talking like almost 30 million violent crimes over 5 years. Looking at the actual raw data from bjs.gov, behind this pdf publication, roughly 70% of violent crime is just assault or aggravated assault, 20% is robbery, 10% is rape, give or take some. Homicide doesn't count because the data is taken from surveys of living victims. (But homicide is a very small number proportionally anyways, in the low tens of thousands versus half a million to millions for other categories of violent crime). The PDF did not give absolute numbers of the crimes in order to do a breakdown of the numbers, and I wanted to know.
A gun is involved with about 70% of homicides, but only about 6-9% of other violent crime. Table 2, Page 3. Again, proportionally, homicide is a miniscule amount of violent crime, not even 1/200th of violent crimes.
More than 3/4ths of the time, the victim isn't even injured. Table 9, Page 10. They are called "violent" crimes because of at LEAST the THREAT of force. Which is why even displaying an unloaded handgun jacks a robbery up from usually a severe misdemeanor to a middle-grade felony. Although a robbery uses force to steal by definition.
You're more likely to be shot by a stranger than someone you know. But you're MUCH more likely to be a victim of violent crime from someone you know than a stranger. Table 6, page 8.
source http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/guns-and-crime-prevention.htm
A lot of people here will not care about woman being raped since it is not "gun violence", but if the woman kill the rapist in self defense, then is an seriously problem because is "gun violence"...
No, that's called justifiable homicide, and is not a crime.
There were 500,000 rapes IN ONE YEAR.
What, EVERY raped woman should have a gun to shoot the attacker? That's the argument you want to go with?
Also, again, rape went down in the United States, but so did ALL violent crime, not just rape.
Edit-And NO, it is not a matter of more people being armed. The proportion of gun ownership in America has stayed relatively constant over 40 years, cycling between 37-47% (37% in 2013, 47% in 1990. I haven't done a mean, but it looks about 42-43%.
The truth is, like earlier with your graph of Czech Republic, some people are just owning more and more guns.
Edit 2 - Well, technically that DOES means MORE people are armed, because the population of the U.S. has increased by 50%. Anyways, proportions vs. absolutes.
Yes, if every woman have access to defend themselves, rapists would have an much more hard time in committing their crimes. Unfortunately there are much more man owning guns than woman... One rapist who die means that a lot of innocent woman would be saved an a lot of tax money saved from being wasted with prison.
Is like some people who say that the homicide on Uruguay raised after the legalization of marijuana. The reality is that the homicide only raised among criminals but the general population is safer.
"whatabout rapes"
"whatabout terrorism"
"gun laws never work ever anywhere"
pointless to try and convince him, he's going to change the subject or ignore what we're saying because the truth might contradict his deeply held beliefs.
That and at this point some are open carrying in public for no other reason than to piss off liberals. It's their way of saying "look what I can do, and you can't stop me". People talk about "virtue signaling" on the left, but there is an equally prominent thing that doesn't have a name on the right, and I'm dubbing it "vice signaling", which basically means enjoying being able to get away with asshole-like behavior in public because it gets a reaction out of people you don't like. This is, without question, Trump's #1 appeal. There are people who simply want to unleash their id with no filter or compliance to socially acceptable behavior and he is their permission slip.
It's also massively disingenuous/insulting to assume that people do not care about rape simply because they believe gun control. It undercuts your credibility in the current argument substantially.
This is another example of arguing in bad faith.
Meanwhile, people who are politically opposed to Trump see nothing wrong with publicly accosting people while they are out having dinner, which makes for great "public freakout" videos. We have shifted from "I oppose that politician" to "I oppose people who support that politician" and everyone is settling for this as being our new normal.
"Being a jerk" is not a crime. We don't have to like it and we don't have to emulate it but when you see someone doing it the best thing to do is to ignore them. Well...now that I have said that...that's almost like bullying and we don't want to tolerate that. Still, calling out someone for being a troll typically winds up with the troll targeting you. These days, though, you run the risk of the offline trolls doxxing you.
It's not only people politically opposed to Trump who do this, you know that right? Why would you frame it that way? Are you not aware or intentionally trying to deceive?
The right has plenty who do this. James O'Keefe's whole thing is deceptively editing, "being a jerk", and ambushing people. Jesse Waters on Fox News does this same thing all the time. The conservatives that ambushed Chris Cuomo and called him "Fredo". The right is perhaps worse since it is encouraged by institutions like James O'Keefe's project veritas (funded by Trump, Kochs and others) and Fox New's Jesse Waters while the left, such your example of people using their first amendment right to address politicians, does not appear to be supported by billionaires (despite the george soros conspiracy lies).
"free speech" or just as an excuse to be openly racist. Now we have literal concentration camps for children and American citizens being arrested and held near the border for the crime of being brown-ish.
Some polling data indicates not only that Biden is back on the way up, but that Harris is on the way down *and* that a slim majority of likely Democrat voters would willingly vote for anyone who has decent odds at beating Trump next November. I cannot disagree with their goals--everyone wants to beat their political opponent--but the reasoning is weak because they are voting against Trump as opposed to *for* someone else.
It is not against the law for a person to be racist. It is illogical, irrational, and distasteful, but not illegal. Just like it is impossible to legislate morality it is impossible to legislate "good thoughts".
Weak arguments often fall back on "but the Nazis did it"; it is a version of "poisoning the well".
Those aren't rquivalent.
"We should kill all immigrants and blacks!"
"That's legitimately horrible and you should be ashamed."
Not remotely equivalent. And yes when you are literally repeating the rhetoric of Nazi Germany, parallells are going to inevitably be drawn.
Not true. I pointed out that gun control increased violent crime, particularly rape with statistics and gave an ton of statistics to base other affirmations that i made.
Is not arguing in bad faith. I posted many different statistics showing that less guns = more rape.
And people should have the right of being racist. As longs they don't engage on violence.
Unfortunately only minorities have this right and anti discrimination laws are only enforced against an group.
Then perhaps Democrats might want to quit trying to take away everyone's guns.
Meanwhile, The Mooch says that he is putting together a coalition to stop Trump. Okay, sure, if you say so.
In Hong Kong, protesters are waving American flags and taking a stand against the Communist Party. In Portland, protesters are throwing American flags on the ground and standing up for Communists. Weird.
Seriously Victor, if you cannot correct the record here, no one should trust any references you post here. "Let's then talk about other facts" after someone has pointed out that you are posting incorrect information is insufficient.
Do you think that US would accept political refugees from HK?
I mean, imagine if someone creates an private city project and everyone who hates communism go live there. In few years will be the most prosperous city in the human history...
Please reference or quote any democratic candidate who has ever said this.
Except I've never heard any Democratic politician push for this. But sure, let's blame people trying to reduce gun violence for the actions of the people actually commiting the violence. "It's not my fault that I shot 15 people officer, someone on tv told me that Democrats want to take away all our guns. I'm clearly not responsiblef or my own actions."
Ahahaha. No.
It has been done before. It ended in MISERABLE FAILURE as even the most basic of public works were not done.
Edit-Put it this way. Society, by definition requires compromise in order to live together. If no one agrees on even the barest minimum of compomise, how can you have a civil society?
Where and when ended in a miserable failure?? Unfortunately the private city project doesn't exist yet.
And this is the problem with a political party, the Republicans, that lie and use false equivalence and propaganda to strawman their opponents.
People just pretend like "democrats want to take everyone's guns" because Republican talking points repeat this propaganda often enough that people regurgitate it - not taking in to account that no Democrat has said this.
They are repeating Russian Republican talking points.
And that's why Trump's talk about how immigrants are (inhuman) INVADERS! who are dirty rapists are so dangerous. People believe his bullshit and regurgitate it and people get killed. So sorry if your dinner gets interrupted over your authoritarian lies. It's sad how many people are failing to recognize - and even encouraging - a slide towards authoritarianism.
Say did you hear about Trump's plan to censor the internet?
Maybe this real thing is more of a problem than the lie about Democrats taking everyone's guns that you heard from Ben Shapiro or Fox News.
You don't believe it? Yeah maybe his tactic of denying reality as fake news whenever inconvenient is a terrible way to run a country.
Salvini met with deputies Eduardo Bolsonaro (PSL) and Roberto Lorenzato (Lega). Photo: Playback / YouTube
“We defend the Italian borders to talk about the immigration that interests us, which are the descendants of Italians in the world, in Brazil, in Argentina and in Europe. Which are culturally and historically close, by religion, by way of thinking, by working. Now, with the borders closed to illegal migrations, we hope to reopen them to positive immigration to siblings, ”said Salvini.
(...)
This is the second time in less than a month that the Italian vice premier has defended citizenship jus sanguinis, that is, by right of blood. In late March he said that " the citizenship law looks great this way ."
source(translated) > https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http://italianismo.com.br/2019/04/20/nao-aos-ilegais-e-sim-aos-italianos-no-exterior-diz-vice-premier-salvini/
IMO immigration should be an matter for the local population to decide. I an only bringing the news here. Not agreeing or disagreeing.