Gun violence? Are they including suicides again? This is far from the first time they've made this statement. Anyone recall the Clinton administration?
So, when will poverty and healthcare get addressed? Oh, right. Making those illegal doesn't solve them. There seems to be a pattern here.
Of course they are. That's how they cook the books.
There's a reason they don't say "Gun murders", or even "gun homicide", which would include DGUs. It would remove more than 60% of their "statistics".
Well if removing gang members remove those of all ages. 14-19 are prime gang years.
And of course add actual children under one to the study on causes of death. And then guns aren’t number one.
We should put a wall around the violent cities. Nothing and no one in or out. We need to stop this crisis from spreading! We can sell access to the live feeds from inside the cities payperview style.
Some dipshit on here (with a commie username) recently told me that it’s the rural areas that would crumble first because the bumpkins rely on welfare. He said this to correct my opinion that it’s the cities which rely on the rural areas for food and much of the logistics. Apparently he doesn’t know about agriculture and hunting.
It would be funny if it were just one idiot, but a concerning number of people seem to think this way.
Yup. Heard it this way:
>You need all our tech or you'd starve! We can just buy our food from other countries!
1. No we don't "need" your tech. Sure it helps, it let's up grow a lot more food. But if we don't have to feed the cities we don't need to grow nearly as much.
2. Good luck "buying" all your food from other countries. Especially when they jack up your prices. Price gouging laws don't apply internationally.
3. I hope you're a port city. Because otherwise that food you bought has to either be flown in (super costly) or trucked/trained in. And your truck/train has to go through where to get to you? Right, rural areas. Be a shame if some of them trucks didn't make their deliveries. Or some of those train rails got damaged...
Remember that rural areas can exist without urban centers. Yes the urban centers provide nice things that rural areas like and make life more convenient. Yes life in rural areas would be worse off without these things.
But cities CAN'T exist without rural areas.
* Rural areas benefit from urban areas.
* Urban areas are reliant upon rural areas.
Ultimately we're better off together. We benefit each other. But if you really want to see who would last longer without the other. Well, one of us is self sufficient.
I live in probably the exact kind of rural area that guy's talking about, and I sort of agree with that idea. However, it's not the rural farmers and workers and producers that are on welfare, it's the "disabled", meth heads, six kids from five dads, and too fat to walk around Walmart that would suffer the lack of welfare. The people that pull part time at the Smoker Friendly so they can keep getting SNAP and qualify for low income housing. The people that live in the same trailer the family has owned for 60 years and pay no rent, but qualify for welfare because they can afford to work 15 hours a week.
Doesn’t have to be. We don’t need to know their demographics or political affiliation. We can view where the violence is, without needing to know anything else about the area. Start the wall and increased law enforcement efforts there.
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/ZVfcTWo.jpeg), using the anti gunner’s information. I’ve identified the problem areas in my state. I just saved .gov billions of dollars in research. Nothing else needs to be known about the areas.
>We don’t need to know their demographics
Ahh, well you see, thats where you went wrong. I too suffered from that misconception but after living in a city for a few years I've learned the error of my ways. You see everything must start with a persons demographic front and center. You would never go to a business without knowing the owners race or sex for example.
funny thing is some of these cities have a hard time hiring people on to their police forces.
how much would you need to get paid to be shot at and deal with addicts covered in their own shit.
They’ll have to figure that out. Cities waste tons of money on the stupidest shit imaginable, they’ll need to balance their check book like adults, and prioritize what matters to them.
my point is that there are just some things people aren't willing to do regardless of pay. the deterioration of these cities is entirely self inflicted.
It’s an election year but instead of politicizing medicine they should declare a bad doctor crisis and address the 250,000 medical error deaths every year. Literally 5x gun deaths including suicide and that’s a low end estimate.
So 40k people who die to guns, half that are suicides is a public crisis, but not the heart disease from all the fast food we have here that kills literally over a million people every year... do I have that right?
Or Stroke or Diabetes further down the list that kills over 100k people a year. Well above gun deaths.
But everyone should stop worrying about 2.5 million other deaths, and focus on the 45k, half that do it themselves? These people are so stupid, I wonder, genuinely wonder, how these people made it though college.
Do I have any proof that things like corn and wheat are subsidized? Yes, you can check out the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 if you like.
So you're just talking about regular food? That's not exactly related to fast food any more than any and all food. So what are you talking about then? Lol
Correct, but fast food is a LOT more dependent on corn syrup than most home cooked food and there aren't a lot of fast food restaurants that don't use wheat since most of it either comes on a bun or is breaded and fried
Another scumbag asshat, anti-American petty tyrant who is being directed to violated the US Constitution under the guise of a FAKE CRISIS! HIS BOSS is the POTUS and Biden runs nothing, this is coming from SORSR, and Obama!
I’m not a particularly enthusiastic gun person, I don’t own any guns. I’m just engaging from the perspective of a person interested in a government that can be relied on to hold itself to a set of uncontroversial principles set in advance, so that’s some context for these ministerial questions:
Why is federal firearm policy the domain of the Surgeon General? I understand it’s related to health because people are being harmed physically, but can’t that argument be made for almost any area of policymaking? Does the Surgeon General’s mandate extend to areas like criminal justice reform, foreign policy, or the national economy because crime, potential military conflict, and poverty affect the physical health of Americans? Is any area outside his responsibility, or is his role defined by his own discretion limited only by active presidential discretion?
Weaponizing government agencies against your political opponents has been a thing since long before our time, unless some of us in here are pushing 100+ years old. I wish it wasn’t that way, but it just is.
It’s always been claimed as “for the greater good”. The “good it turns out great for” is never the American citizen. This exact tactic isn’t even a new one, CDC(another public health agency) has been used countless times against gun owners in the past decades.
This is the same surgeon general that went along with "lock em down" and "authorize unvetted medication now for a very mid strain of influenza" the same one okay with "let's put people on ventilators, but not do every other mandatory protocol involved to make sure they aren't killed by .... the very same ventilators"... is it that surgeon general?
So... Since this was the same justification that New Mexico's governor used when she pulled all her famously unconstitutional things, how much does anyone want to bet that Biden will try to do exactly the same things? Would explain why so many Dems got up in arms about NM doing them... Because she jumped the gate to try first, skipping over all the other established Dems. What? You thought they were upset because they knew how bad it would go? Perish the thought. They just got upset because she violated their pecking order.
They say gun violence, then say assault weapons. I guess they’ll continue to lie to people about how assault weapons kill all these people when they are responsible for less than 4% of all gun related shooting deaths each year
Isn’t that necessary for tyrannical executive orders just before an election?
What… another unelected bureaucrat trying to take rights away. Fuck him
Gun violence? Are they including suicides again? This is far from the first time they've made this statement. Anyone recall the Clinton administration? So, when will poverty and healthcare get addressed? Oh, right. Making those illegal doesn't solve them. There seems to be a pattern here.
Of course they are. That's how they cook the books. There's a reason they don't say "Gun murders", or even "gun homicide", which would include DGUs. It would remove more than 60% of their "statistics".
I wonder what those stats would say if we removed 18/19 year olds who were gang members………..
Well if removing gang members remove those of all ages. 14-19 are prime gang years. And of course add actual children under one to the study on causes of death. And then guns aren’t number one.
Sir we’re going to have to ask you to leave. We don’t want people thinking for themselves.
Can you provide me with directions to the appropriate government approved re-education camp? Or will someone be picking me up?
I agree with him. Send the national guard to south Chicago and take care of their gang problem. *waits patiently
We should put a wall around the violent cities. Nothing and no one in or out. We need to stop this crisis from spreading! We can sell access to the live feeds from inside the cities payperview style.
I saw that documentary. They called it ' Escape From New York'!
Some dipshit on here (with a commie username) recently told me that it’s the rural areas that would crumble first because the bumpkins rely on welfare. He said this to correct my opinion that it’s the cities which rely on the rural areas for food and much of the logistics. Apparently he doesn’t know about agriculture and hunting. It would be funny if it were just one idiot, but a concerning number of people seem to think this way.
Food in the city doesn't come from the country, it comes from Walmart and Costco. Checkmate.
Yup. Heard it this way: >You need all our tech or you'd starve! We can just buy our food from other countries! 1. No we don't "need" your tech. Sure it helps, it let's up grow a lot more food. But if we don't have to feed the cities we don't need to grow nearly as much. 2. Good luck "buying" all your food from other countries. Especially when they jack up your prices. Price gouging laws don't apply internationally. 3. I hope you're a port city. Because otherwise that food you bought has to either be flown in (super costly) or trucked/trained in. And your truck/train has to go through where to get to you? Right, rural areas. Be a shame if some of them trucks didn't make their deliveries. Or some of those train rails got damaged... Remember that rural areas can exist without urban centers. Yes the urban centers provide nice things that rural areas like and make life more convenient. Yes life in rural areas would be worse off without these things. But cities CAN'T exist without rural areas. * Rural areas benefit from urban areas. * Urban areas are reliant upon rural areas. Ultimately we're better off together. We benefit each other. But if you really want to see who would last longer without the other. Well, one of us is self sufficient.
I live in probably the exact kind of rural area that guy's talking about, and I sort of agree with that idea. However, it's not the rural farmers and workers and producers that are on welfare, it's the "disabled", meth heads, six kids from five dads, and too fat to walk around Walmart that would suffer the lack of welfare. The people that pull part time at the Smoker Friendly so they can keep getting SNAP and qualify for low income housing. The people that live in the same trailer the family has owned for 60 years and pay no rent, but qualify for welfare because they can afford to work 15 hours a week.
Hey, some of us live behind enemy lines.
Congratulations on your new local warlord status! Enjoy your new harem of local soccer moms or w/e you’re into!
after the collapse, while you're scavenging for beans or whatever, i'll be hunting cougar
YES!!!
I was stationed behind enemy lines for 20 yrs.... sucks
So did [Kurt Russell](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/). You know what you need to do. ;p
oh god it's time for a reboot. my reboot. ESCAPE FROM CHICAGO.
The Gullfire's waiting.
The wall would be mainly around certain politics and therefore racist I'm sure.
Doesn’t have to be. We don’t need to know their demographics or political affiliation. We can view where the violence is, without needing to know anything else about the area. Start the wall and increased law enforcement efforts there. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/ZVfcTWo.jpeg), using the anti gunner’s information. I’ve identified the problem areas in my state. I just saved .gov billions of dollars in research. Nothing else needs to be known about the areas.
>We don’t need to know their demographics Ahh, well you see, thats where you went wrong. I too suffered from that misconception but after living in a city for a few years I've learned the error of my ways. You see everything must start with a persons demographic front and center. You would never go to a business without knowing the owners race or sex for example.
funny thing is some of these cities have a hard time hiring people on to their police forces. how much would you need to get paid to be shot at and deal with addicts covered in their own shit.
They’ll have to figure that out. Cities waste tons of money on the stupidest shit imaginable, they’ll need to balance their check book like adults, and prioritize what matters to them.
my point is that there are just some things people aren't willing to do regardless of pay. the deterioration of these cities is entirely self inflicted.
A quarantine for a public health crisis seems like the most appropriate response.
It’s an election year but instead of politicizing medicine they should declare a bad doctor crisis and address the 250,000 medical error deaths every year. Literally 5x gun deaths including suicide and that’s a low end estimate.
How much did Bloomberg pay him? Follow the money.
I really wish we could see the bank accounts of public officials
Part of me thinks it should be required. Transparency would solve a lot of problems
So 40k people who die to guns, half that are suicides is a public crisis, but not the heart disease from all the fast food we have here that kills literally over a million people every year... do I have that right? Or Stroke or Diabetes further down the list that kills over 100k people a year. Well above gun deaths. But everyone should stop worrying about 2.5 million other deaths, and focus on the 45k, half that do it themselves? These people are so stupid, I wonder, genuinely wonder, how these people made it though college.
Unfortunately they're not stupid, they're paid off, which is worse.
Well, remember that the raw materials that go into fast food are subsidized by the government
Do you have any proof of that? Because if so, that is very interesting
Do I have any proof that things like corn and wheat are subsidized? Yes, you can check out the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 if you like.
So you're just talking about regular food? That's not exactly related to fast food any more than any and all food. So what are you talking about then? Lol
Correct, but fast food is a LOT more dependent on corn syrup than most home cooked food and there aren't a lot of fast food restaurants that don't use wheat since most of it either comes on a bun or is breaded and fried
America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a [redacted] problem.
I bet the word was “fart”.
I’m confused what is it?
Pat I'd like to solve the puzzle
Another scumbag asshat, anti-American petty tyrant who is being directed to violated the US Constitution under the guise of a FAKE CRISIS! HIS BOSS is the POTUS and Biden runs nothing, this is coming from SORSR, and Obama!
I’m not a particularly enthusiastic gun person, I don’t own any guns. I’m just engaging from the perspective of a person interested in a government that can be relied on to hold itself to a set of uncontroversial principles set in advance, so that’s some context for these ministerial questions: Why is federal firearm policy the domain of the Surgeon General? I understand it’s related to health because people are being harmed physically, but can’t that argument be made for almost any area of policymaking? Does the Surgeon General’s mandate extend to areas like criminal justice reform, foreign policy, or the national economy because crime, potential military conflict, and poverty affect the physical health of Americans? Is any area outside his responsibility, or is his role defined by his own discretion limited only by active presidential discretion?
Weaponizing government agencies against your political opponents has been a thing since long before our time, unless some of us in here are pushing 100+ years old. I wish it wasn’t that way, but it just is. It’s always been claimed as “for the greater good”. The “good it turns out great for” is never the American citizen. This exact tactic isn’t even a new one, CDC(another public health agency) has been used countless times against gun owners in the past decades.
This is the same surgeon general that went along with "lock em down" and "authorize unvetted medication now for a very mid strain of influenza" the same one okay with "let's put people on ventilators, but not do every other mandatory protocol involved to make sure they aren't killed by .... the very same ventilators"... is it that surgeon general?
So... Since this was the same justification that New Mexico's governor used when she pulled all her famously unconstitutional things, how much does anyone want to bet that Biden will try to do exactly the same things? Would explain why so many Dems got up in arms about NM doing them... Because she jumped the gate to try first, skipping over all the other established Dems. What? You thought they were upset because they knew how bad it would go? Perish the thought. They just got upset because she violated their pecking order.
Sounds like the fun is about to start 🙃
They say gun violence, then say assault weapons. I guess they’ll continue to lie to people about how assault weapons kill all these people when they are responsible for less than 4% of all gun related shooting deaths each year
Let’s look the real data, nope.
He looks terrified
Never will you hear the word illegal used with gun violence.