Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.
Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.
He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.
“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.
Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.
It’s almost like having guns freely and widely accessible with few restrictions leads to a lot of death and injury, and the group with higher empathy has a problem with that.
Yes because other places without firearms, have no crime at all…
No gun crime, that can be said quite easily. Or at least the numbers of shootings are small enough that they make international news when they happen.
And also, the cops in those countries tend not to shoot people or pets. Like ever. Cases where an officer is forced to discharge their weapon are also international news stories.
But here in the states, we wouldn’t know any of that, because here there are two or three mass shootings per day.
Just let that dichotomy sink in a bit.
These countries also have safety nets and generally give a shit about their citizens. The usa doesn’t have any of that.
We need to end qualified immunity here big time. Also something other countries(western) don’t have. 1 in 38ish deaths via firearms are from police. That’s including suicides which account for 66% of all gun deaths in the usa.
No there is not. This is the issue with data from the anti2a crowd, it’s like talking to the anti-abortion groups…made up and fully exaggerated shit.
https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts/index.html
It was one per day for a while there, but the numbers have been up the last few years.
So yes, two or three per day.
As a note, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed, not including the gunman.
Don’t know how many times I’ve got to say this but the GVA is junk data.
Here is one from the 2024 list…it states 1 dead 9 injured…but if you go to the article referenced you have to go to another to see that…gang shooting surprise…
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/10/14/police-say-five-people-involved-jefferson-street-mass-shooting-had-gang-affiliations/
Even better is the 9 people injured, were injured after the shooting, and not from the gun fire(usually crowds panic and people get hurt from running). So no not what should be considered a mass shooting but it’s there because of some bullshit definition. The public hears mass shooting and thinks random person shot up a mall…not “gang members got into a fight and shot each other”
Don’t know how many times I’ve got to say this but the GVA is junk data.
Here is one from the 2024 list…it states 1 dead 9 injured…but if you go to the article referenced you have to go to another to see that…gang shooting surprise…
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/10/14/police-say-five-people-involved-jefferson-street-mass-shooting-had-gang-affiliations/
Even better is the 9 people injured, were injured after the shooting, and not from the gun fire(usually crowds panic and people get hurt from running). So no not what should be considered a mass shooting but it’s there because of some bullshit definition. The public hears mass shooting and thinks random person shot up a mall…not “gang members got into a fight and shot each other”
Are you saying that a gang shooting isn’t a mass shooting? Why? Are they not people?
In countries with sensible gun laws, the gangs don’t have guns.
The gangs still exist, because we’re humans, but they don’t have easy guns and thus, there are no mass shootings,
No it’s not what the public thinks of a mass shooting. You can stop pretending it is.
In countries with sensible gun laws …they never had 400+ million firearms in civ hands to start…they also aren’t running a war on drugs that creates gangs like ours…we literally created the cartels from our war on drugs.
The gangs in other Western countries are like bikers gangs that go to ihop here in the states… they’re a fuckin joke.
So you claim the public doesn’t count gang members as people. Or gang victims, because gang related shootings don’t always result in just gang members being injured, quite often innocent people are caught up in it.
But rather than being a racist jackass, let’s just accept the given definition of a mass shooting, Four or more people injured, not counting the gunman.
See how simple that definition is? And no need to let racist bias pretend that some people aren’t people just because a gang member was somewhere near the shooting.
Four or more people injured or killed, not including the gunman. That’s a mass shooting, and we had over 600 of them last year,
Then you pretend that some gangs are worse than others. No, they’re just better armed.
And the old “we have too many guns to implement gun control” bullshit. The vast majority of mass shootings are done with new guns, so simply stop selling new guns (and throw the CEOs of the gun companies in jail, but that’s not for their reckless disregard for human life, all CEOs of major corporations should do a few years in jail)
Also, you’re ignoring things like Australia, where they had more guns than people, and after a mass shooting, they said fuck this, and did a huge gun buyback coupled with actual gun control. Now Australia doesn’t have mass shootings. Amazing how that works.
idiot, other places without firears have far less, and taking away of guns always lowers the violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes far less firearm deaths. Not less crime or other deaths… it’s a reason London had a higher knife homicide rate than NYC at one point. It also helps that those other places have safety nets and support their citizens.