Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

Yes, that's what I said of course 😂 tens of millions of people turned up to protest the memorial 🙄.
The question was something like who is "the left" of which you speak.
I said anyone who claims they are left are left

I never suggested an outright ban. No country in the world has an outright ban. What other countries do have however are very strict regulatory environments. You want to own a gun in Germany? Fill out the paperwork detailing your reasons why (hunting, range shooting etc; never 'self-defence') and come back after a cooling off period of a few months. You want to own a semi-automatic rifle in the UK? No chance, there's no reason for you to have one. You can have a hunting rifle, shotgun or air rifle if you pass the background checks and regular police spot checks on how you store them.

No chance the GOP would approve even one of those regulations.

They didn’t need armed guards on the streets. There was no war going on in DC. The troops stuck to tourist areas rather than the places where there are actually problems. If there was any sign of trouble they kept well out of the way (literally moving out of sight) and let the actual law enforcement handle it because they knew that they had no law enforcement powers.

Once again, the most dangerous states are Louisiana and Mississippi. Why weren't the NG sent there? Oh yeah, they voted for Trump.

Are you going to come up with some actual evidence? Or just Fox 'News' talking points? Because Fox have argued that they're not actually news and therefore have no obligation to be factual.

In the US these days, just about anyone short of Bush is "left-wing" by comparison with the GOP. So you're suggesting that all of these people (starting with the 75 million who voted for Harris) were in favour of attacking the funeral? That is what your sweeping statement implies.

You certainly don't need to amend the Constitution to do it. However you are not going to get a licencing system for as long as the GOP controls the House or the Senate. Nor would you get a revival of FAWA which was very effective at preventing the proliferation of the most lethal forms of firearm.

If you're not just saying that out of blind loyalty then you're just too stupid to recognise rhetoric from reality.

Crime was dropping in DC already, and it was far from the worst the city has seen in the last 30 years. It was a long way from the worst city in the US too.
www.npr.org/2025/08/19/nx-s1-5506208/dc-crime-trump-explained

You don't seriously think that having a bunch of troops with no law enforcement powers picking litter (and moving away whenever something might happen) made any difference to the crime rate? Meanwhile businesses suffered because tourists were scared off.

If he really cared about crime rates rather than intimidating his opponents, he'd start with Mississippi and Louisiana.

Still, maybe "assault by sandwich" offences are down...

Don't be so naive. The last time that the Republicans enacted protectionist tariffs on this scale it caused the Great Depression and ultimately triggered a world war. Businesses hate uncertainty and TACO has been changing his mind more often than he changes his underpants. The labour and housing markets have been drastically underperforming.

You do know that Biden issued over 4,000 pardons
No he didn't. He issued 80 pardons.

Trump pardoned 1,600 people in one day. Some of whom had very lengthy sentences. Not only that, he's just pardoned a number of wealthy fraudsters who will no longer have to recompense their victims. Apart from the fact that he would be behind bars himself if the Supreme Court wasn't heavily politicised - no other president in history has been granted immunity like this.

That's a mistype. Every other time I have referred to socio economic reasons. Refer to those posts if you need to.

I bet you thought you had me. 😁. I'm out. Enjoy your day.

I give up. You are very dogmatic and seemingly won't be budged by any amount of evidence that may contradict your feelings.

Let's agree to disagree. But I do hope you educate yourself via that Harvard study.

Pls link

Why did you say solely economic reasons here then?

It is not realistic to think you can rehabilitate violent men. It is more reasonable to keep them in prison.

There’s nothing to say you can’t try to improve outcomes for upcoming generations. You can actually do both, you know?

I don't, no, and have never said as much. But, again, you are arguing with peer reviewed studies, not me.

Did you read the summary? Any thoughts?

That's not realistic, so rehabilitation should be uppermost in your mind.

As it should be in any civilised society.

You can’t possibly believe poverty is the sole factor, can you?

See, here is where our divergence is highlighted.

I just don’t care about rehabilitation. I care about public safety.

I want violent men of all and any group to remain in prison, and I don’t care if they ever come out.

Harsher sentencing in what context? Each case, regardless of race of the offenders should be weighed up and sentencing should be decided on evidence, mitigating factors and risk to the public. And of course the colour of the defendants skin should be irrelevant.

Prison doesn't work in its current morph. As far as rehabilitation is concerned, anyway.

There is zero correlation between length of time served and reduced rate of reoffending. It works the other way.

Cultural factors? What are 'cultural' factors? These kind of comments are exactly why you are being accused of racism.

Google 'Harvard Sampson crime rate study'. And read a summary

You might have some of this. I’m sure public defenders aren’t breaking their hearts for their clients.

But I think this shows we need a color blind approach that will dole out harsher sentencing. I would be hugely in favor of that—wouldn’t you?

I do not dismiss cultural factors and indeed,
I don’t think this stuff is necessarily hard wired. Crime rates have gone up and down throughout history and among different groups.

But we need to be clear about what is going on.

Please link the study you cite

You are continually dismissing social factors. Why?

But, you're arguing with peer reviewed studies, not me. I've done all I can to educate you, to point you in the right direction so you can at least question your beliefs. You refuse to, for whatever reason.

Why don't you repeat what you've said so that we can test that theory for ourselves? Justify your argument in some way?

You do realise that your position embodies a self fulfilling prophecy? More black people show up in crime stats because of systemic racism. Black people get pulled over more because there are inbuilt prejudices and assumptions of criminality. They receive harsher sentences so are more likely to be over represented in the prison population if they do offend. They can be "fitted up" due to ingrained prejudice from those who resent the on paper equality afforded to them post segregation.

Are you really going to deny these long established facts?

No it’s not.

Native Americans have the highest poverty rates of any American group. This is not disputed. And while they have higher than average rates of violence, they don’t have the highest rates of violent crime.