Hanaguma

Generally speaking, the people who resort to euphemisms the most are the ones losing the argument. Seems to be the case here as well. "Gender affirming health care" means what exactly other than castration, mastectomies, and chemical treatment to surpress the natural cycle of maturing? Minors who are confused and unsure about their gender need care and treatment and therapy and above all they need TIME to grow up. Permanent, life changing medical procedures are not beneficial.

There is a lot to unpack in this commentary, a lot that is inaccurate and gaslighting and over political. People who think this kind of treatment is dangerous for kids are NOT default transphobes or bigots or even right wing. Deliberately mutilating a physically healthy child, either by surgery or by chemical, is horrid.

Pumping young prepubescent kids full of life altering chemicals when there is little/no research on the long term effects is cruel. Unfortunately these days the medical profession is being infected with the same woke claptrap that has been driving politics. Children simply are not mature enough to make these decisions. Here is an interesting article on the growing number of youth who regret the speed at which they transitioned, and are suffering permanent harm as a result; https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

The problem being that puberty blockers don't just delay puberty, they destroy it. There is no long term research to suggest that the effects can be reversed. Kids who are experiencing insecurity over gender can be treated with therapy and compassion until they are mature enough to decide what to do.

This is a bad thing? Seems logical to me. "Gender affirming" is a very euphemistic term for castration or removal of healthy body parts. Minors aren't allowed to smoke, drink, drive, or join the military. There is no reason for them to be allowed to mutilate themselves.

Good to see the NABAT crowd out in force to discuss Biden's speech. Understandable though, since Joe is deeply unpopular even within the Democratic Party. More than half of democrats DONT want him to run for re-election if recent polls are to be believed. His only saving grace is that he managed to pick a VP that is even less popular than he is! https://apnews.com/article/ap-norc-poll-biden-2024-presidential-prospects-c843c5af6775b4c8a0cff8e2b1db03f6

I guess President Biden quietly removed the sign on his desk that says, "The Buck Stops Here" that Truman left...

Are you serious? People don't realize that the guys they pay hundreds/thousands of dollars to drive them to the border are not criminals? That beggars belief. The overwhelming influence of gangs and organized crime in smuggling people from central/south America to the US and Canada is well documented.

Yeah, cause it worked so well the first time. And in Australia too. Or not. How about instead changing laws that don't require Constitutional amending? For example, an automatic 10 year non-negotiable addition to any crime that involves a firearm. Same for theft of a weapon or possession of an unregistered one.

Yeah, that pesky Constitution thingy... if only there was a way to amend it so that you could get the gun laws changed the way you like... that would be cool!

Which is it? These seem to be contradictory statements. Lots of young single men suggest migrating for purely economic reasons, which is outside the purview of asylum. Not family cases Yet economics seems to be the norm.

Best of luck with that. You are talking about more than half the guns in America.

Well, they are not designed for military use. Styled for? In other words, scary looking. Single shots? Just like myriad other firearms. Bursts? Generally not allowed- as others have said, far less than 1% of weapons have this capability. Use on the battlefield? Again, not civilian weapons. As for the utility value, that is entirely up to the owner. Who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their legally acquired property? If you truly want to have an impact on crime, start with the criminal not the tool.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. Handguns are also used in many mass shootings. They are also used in the vast majority of homicides in general, unlike rifles and even so-called "assault weapons". For mass killings, handguns are probably better because they are lighter, easier to conceal, and better for use in confined spaces.

You tell me. The 300 Blackout is the name of a bullet, not a weapon. It is designed so Special Forces can use captured weapons and ammo while on long missions.

As I stated above, these are NOT "weapons of war". No military uses them. Such useless hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion. They are not magical super powerful space weapons that do anything other than what other firearms do. They just look scary to uninformed and easily frightened people. In most cases, they are the equivalent of a Ferrari car body housing a 4 cylinder 90hp engine. All show and no go.

Any idea how many are legally passing through Mexico though? How many use illegal means like human traffickers? Please show your stats on family unification if you have them. And why this would matter to mexico.

Are you of the opinion that the possible presence of a gun does not deter crime? Try this experiment then. If you truly believe that, put a sign on your front lawn that says, "This House is a Gun Free Zone". Should make no difference to your safety. From what I have read, the difference in countries like the UK, that actually has a high rate of crime and burglary (if not murder) is that thieves don't care whether or not you are at home when they break in. Many more home break-ins happen when the home owners are still home. In the US, the criminals wait until the residence is unoccupied. Wonder why...

Thank you for proving my point. Less than one percent of firearms in the US are full auto. More than 99% are semi auto or single shot. And, using this definition of "assault rifle", almost never used in mass shootings.

Then why do you call them "weapons of war"? The rhetoric is inaccurate and unhelpful. Still waiting to hear your definition of what "they" are...

Nothing at all. But hysterical shouting will not solve anything. And focusing on a relatively rare and (from a statistical perspective) minor issue like mass shootings does nothing to impact the overall crime rate or murder rate. Banning Weapon A will only make criminals use Weapon B.

But what are "they"? Not weapons of war, that is for sure. No army in the world uses the AR15. Most militaries use fully automatic weapons, which are virtually unobtainable in the US. You want to ban the most popular gun in the US, you had better come up with a more compelling reason.

uh.......... I get it. Stream of thought. And you are wrong. ALL long guns together account for 3% of murders committed with firearms. And mass killings about 3% of all firearms murders. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ So you are really spending a great deal of energy and attention on something that is not a significant part of the problem. Handguns work just as well to kill lots of people as do long guns, plus they are easier to carry and conceal.

Sorry to sound cold, but reducing mass killings is irrelevant. Even factcheck.org, hardly a friend of the NRA, said it is "unclear" whether the ban had any measurable effect. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/factchecking-bidens-claim-that-assault-weapons-ban-worked/

Enormous body counts are a result of handguns. Knives kill more people in a year than ALL long guns combined- rifles, shotguns etc. Mass shooters use handguns as often as rifles. Again ,waiting to hear what an "assault style weapon" is...