I take it all back, Trump DOES have the answers…I’m all on board now that I know he has a plan to “take out the slums” and create “crime free zones” where crime is illegal. BRILLIANT! Why hasn’t anyone else thought to try that?
I have to admit he really knows how to solve America’s issues, I can ignore all the criminality and fascism and failed policies now. 🤦‍♂️

Your point?
States with highest gun violence rates
Mississippi -- 28.6 per 100000
Louisiana -- 26.3.
Wyoming -- 25.9.
Missouri -- 23.9.
Alabama -- 23.6.
Alaska -- 23.5.
The list, and trend continues.
Republican states consistently have higher gun death rates, the top ten states for gun deaths are all Republican led….so much for blaming Democrats.
Republicans don’t care. The #’s point this out horrifically and consistently.
Republican states also don’t care about keeping the lights on or having running water in their cities anymore…I’m looking at you, Texas and Mississippi. Florida has abandoned education in favor of far right wing indoctrination for children (maybe with field trips to Epstein island with the ex president if they’re good and pretty and will sign a binding NDA).

(Pretty chicken shit to claim Dems don’t care, while Cons block every attempt they make to solve the issue, but you do you.)

Um….did I EVER advocate gun free zones, or even indicate I think they’re possible in America? I don’t think so. Why must you always fight windmills and paper tigers? It doesn’t make you sound sane.
It would be excellent…if it were possible. No one is hunting inside city limits, if no one had guns, no one would need guns. It’s not possible unless we take drastic, unconstitutional actions (or change the constitution like the founders intended).

There aren’t enough gun regulations when a schizophrenic person can legally buy as many guns and as much ammo as they wish, and so can murderous gang members who served their sentence/probation.

They DO need MUCH better enforcement of existing gun laws, we agree there. If laws were applied consistently regardless of the perp, there would already be less gun crime. The problem with that being prisons are so overcrowded they simply cannot house more, and most police seem to not be interested in or capable of legal crime-preventative policing, so making illegal gun possession/use come with harsher sentences simply isn’t going to happen….and has never worked to stop crime.

They also need to remove “loopholes” (intentional back doors) that allow mentally ill and violent criminals to legally purchase firearms with absolutely no background checks and no paperwork. Seems to be a no brainer, but your ilk calls that “terkin’ er guns” (I have to believe because you know you’re all insane and can’t pass mental health screenings), not sane regulation.

No surprise you think more draconian punishment is the answer….how’s that been working out? Not great. Countries that focus on rehabilitation of convicts instead of simple housing for profit have recidivism rates near zero, unlike the US.

Using a gun in the commission of a crime already comes with pretty harsh penalties, btw….often turning misdemeanors into felonies just by having it, not using it.

Prison reform is one part of any functional answer, not more, bigger, worse prisons for longer sentences. Funny, you thought the same when Jan 6 defendants started being rounded up and denied bail…odd you cared about all those ANTIFA and BLM activist though. 😂

Philly PA is a Democrat city/ state..
Democrats don't care. You #'s point this out.

2016 277 murders in Philly
2020 500 murders in Philly.
1990 500 murders in Philly.
2022 300 murders 2/3 of the way.

You want Philly to be a gun free zone?

Sorry can't do that.
There are enough gun laws.

Need to make the punishment for improper gun use that causes these occurrences extremely harsh.

Funny, but the robbers had axes. The owners had a defensible position and swords. Since this is known now, the robbers can bring bows and...soon you end back up with guns.

The only alternative to this is to disarm everyone, knowing the criminals will not obey, and hope that the 'safer' weapons the criminals do use will at least allow for a less wounded victim. This method also relies on the victim to capitulate completely in mortal fear.

Many might prefer the second method, I do not. Sadly, most nutjobs and criminals know that good targets can be found in any state, some much more than others but realistically any state is vulnerable.

Why? Because even in gun friendly states, 'gun free' zones exist. Nine times out of ten, that 'gun free' zone is going to be the target. You will hear stories that say "Oh, a person was shot at a gun range/show" or "Chris Kyle was killed with a friend at a gune range." What those stories leave out are the details, because the headline is what matters when you are pushing an agenda.

The gun range Chris Kyle was shot at is an outdoor one, the three men were alone and isolated. The mental one shot two men and fled. You will hardly read that, usually the image they want to present is that multiple other gun owners were standing around and did nothing.

You will see stories about people shot at other ranges or at gun shows. What they generally won't mention is that almost all of them are due to either a self wound (suicide) or an accidental shooting from poor handling.

Wait...your take there is that Muslims are <1/4 as violent as Christians? Did you get whiplash turning around that fast?
What would I propose?
First, more assistance for the indigent, as economic status is far more important than race when determining a person's likelihood to use a gun on others. Remove the desperation, I expect you stop well over 1/2 of gun violence.
Second, recognizing that fighting the advanced military with semi auto rifles is futile, I would ban all full auto and mods, and extended mags with a buy back at market value (granted, a ban doesn't remove them, but stops more from being legally sold).
Don't pretend that, because that wouldn't stop all gun crime, it's useless. There is no silver bullet, that's no reason to take a moonlit walk on the moors during werewolf season. You can't stop all auto deaths, but we still stop people from jogging on the freeway

Edit: I agree with better mental health reporting/testing and better background checks (not necessarily longer, but remove the congressional roadblocks to making it near instant, nation wide, computerized, and more thorough)
Gun free zones are a failed experiment...ask DC. Unless you search everyone and everything entering the zone, it's worse than useless.

Pakistan are 95%+ Muslime They follow a higher power..
371 murder cases, 28 cases of gang murder, nine of abduction for ransom, 4 terrorism incidents were registered in 2015,
not quite as violent as America.

Then look at who is doing the shooting?
Lone nuts--- insignificant
Pissed off spouses -- insignificant
Inner city gang bangers -- root cause of American gun violence

Inner cities have excessive gun violence. Why is that?
No jobs?
No respect for life?
No desire to educate oneself to get out of the situation?
No real deterrent for gun use?

Would a strict gun free zone in such high gun use are be an OK solution that carries the strictest punishment for those that commit crimes with guns ( as apposed to guns being used to defend)? Ho about a 1 year of PSA on the local media before it goes into effect? then strictly enforced?


Until you can get people to respect life and or use the strictest punishment -- I think this will continue.

Better mental health links to ATF where friends and worker can nark to the ATF? This also might help send a flag to re investigate and or to investigate even more on the background check.

Longer waiting period to give ATF more time to do more thorough background check.



What would you propose?

In those cases, they're being douchey.
I didn't read you to mean a perceived problem meant it wasn't a real problem, now I get you.

Children will be children, but can still be incredibly annoying to some, even if they're well behaved....like a baby on an airplane, it's often not the child's fault. I can support them thinking that all children are annoying (at times), and even communicating it to each other with, say, a knowing wink, but the open, blatant derision is uncalled for.....usually.

That said, there should be child free zones in public spaces imo. Just Tuesday we used our once a year passes to the United Airlines club in SFO to have a nice, quiet place to relax between long flights, and a family came in with two <5 year olds and instantly turned it into the loud, raucous environment everyone there paid to escape. Their children weren't being bad, just being loud children in a quiet place. That's the parent's being douchbags imo. Just as the childless shouldn't insist on no children in public, parents shouldn't insist they must be allowed to go everywhere. Don't take a baby to an adult movie.

The simple point is that you are not superior. You have made a lifestyle choice because you wanted to. You have no solid scientific evidence that food animals are fully sentient. Both dogs and pigs routinely fail self-awareness tests, they may be intelligent and able to learn, but they ARE NOT PEOPLE. Vegans want us to believe that eating a pig is tantamount to eating a 3 year old baby, and simply isn't. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the subject, but that is all.

Now to address your issue with how people treat vegans. I know that I have never went out of my way to lambaste a vegan for choosing to be vegan. I will, and have, severely castigate vegans who start telling me that they are superior to other people because they choose to not eat meat. How can you not see that having the attitude that you are better than someone else because of your choices is not the same manner of thinking that leads to church people condemning people for not following their ethos?

So, let me ask you, how many people have given you shit for being vegan out of the blue? For instance, you were minding your own business and eating a salad, then a person jumped in your face and said "How dare you eat that salad next to me?" I'm willing to bet you might have gotten some gentle ribbing if you went to a friend's barbecue and asked for a vegan option, but I doubt anyone got in your face about it. On the other hand, I have absolutely had more than one vegan get in my face and tell me that I am a murderer and a beast because I ate a hamburger at a desk across from them or sat down at a table with some brisket without making sure it wasn't a 'meat-free' zone.

The sheer chutzpah that most vegans have towards non-vegans is what makes them a target for ridicule. I get it, you think you are better than us, but we wouldn't care if you didn't feel the need to trot it out every five seconds.

I wonder what the effect of plastic particles will be on them. I was thinking they may be screwed by the sheer amount, but maybe the low metabolic rates may do something about that?

It's a neat creature, and one that can survive in the growing oxygen free zones in the ocean.

Maybe life has found a way with this thing. =)

Guns and PPH kill more blacks than any other group.

To sum it up:
The Democrats have PPH ( Planned Parent Hood) to limit black population and Republican have the 2nd Amendment to limit black population.

If you want to truly want to change that, the left needs to go pro life and the right needs promote gun free zones in the inner drug ridden cities.

Lantern, Just wanting your opinion. If you were king.
Under what circumstances should citizens be allowed to have firearms?

should there be mandatory safety training? Gun free zones in high crime areas with excessive stiff penalties if caught?

Whats the probability of you stopping a citizen and they have a gun?

Just curious from your POV.

He said an average of 150 times larger. That seems ... unlikely. 150 percent, maybe -- and still a statistically significant increase.

A quick google search suggests yellowfin tuna commonly range from 40-150cm long, and up to 70kg in weight/mass. If they are close to the "average" of 150 (times? or percent?) larger, the species would have started out at about a half kilogram MAX (more like a small trout) if "size" is determined by mass. Or about 1/4 to 1 cm long (like half a guppy) if determined by length.

Both of those make more sense if it was 150% -- that would be early tuna in the range of 50kg (by mass) or 26-100cm (by length).


And then there was the "maximum size increased by 100,000 times" line. By mass, that is like the trout evolving into a blue whale. Yeah, I am guessing that is a percent again. Still means 1000 times bigger, which is massive.


I tried searching YouTube comments to see if anyone else brought this up, but they are YouTube comments. Hah! Silly me, thinking that YouTube comments on something like SciSchow might be at least partially exempt from the "sanity free zone" that pervades YT.

Hello all,
I've just been alerted to this thread through the a few fans of this band. Maybe I can shed some light on what seems to have happened. First of all, I co-manage this band and NO, I will not be posting any videos, because obviously that would be a violation of this websites rules. Understood, they're trying to keep this an entirely "spam free zone" and not used for any type of promotional tool.
That being said, I also understand why KellyMML posted the video here. KellyMML has not "lied" or tried to spam anyone in anyway, NOR did she post this video for some type of self promotion, as Kelly is NOT a band member nor is she a paid employee in any way shape or form. She IS however a street team leader, but is not paid, given any types of gifts or holds any kind of "rank" within the management company.
Kelly was one of the artists earliest fans, and through her own enjoyment and wanting to be a part of their growth, as taken to sharing their work online through out the world, and I must say has done an incredible job of it.

I completely understand the views that the site owners take on spam, and not wanting VideoSift to become some annoying sounding board of musicians/comedians/actors and up-and-comers posting constantly about their "not yet anything" dreams. I get it. There are plenty of websites out there that allow this and I myself have become irritated at having to scroll through trash to see something good lol.

After some digging, I was able to contact Kelly myself and figure out why this may have happened. Kelly informed me that when she email the website to find out how to put a video up, they replied to her with instructions AND the rules. Still confused, I asked her to forward me that email.
I immediately saw where the confusion begin.
Kelly worded her email as if she WERE either a bandmember, or in the very least someone who works for them. This isn't the case, but it's noticeable by reading her inquiry why it looked that way.
After she read the rules, she posted the video. I'm guessing that because she used those terms when she first contacted VideoSift, they assumed (understandably so) that "we and our" meant this was some type of self promotion.
Since I've been notified of this issue, Kelly has been instructed that while she is more than welcome to run a street team for MML and we appreciate her spreading the word, to please not refer to herself, or any of her posts/shares/activities as if she were connected with the band either AS a member, or as an employee of management, and to also identify herself as a fan. She is also welcomed to explain that she runs her own street team but is not employed by or managed by anyone on their professional team.

Hope this clears some things up. Feel free to contact me at cassie at mondaysmonalisa dot com if you need any other information. We would like to dispell any negativity affiliated with Monday's Mona Lisa.
Thank you!

Part 1 has already been answered, if there's no border control, and no national regulation, it's fairly useless. If done nation wide, it could be effective.
The drug legalization point is a total red herring. People don't get addicted to guns, like the do to drugs. People rarely use drugs to rob others so they can buy guns, but the reverse does happen constantly. You can't grow guns in your back yard, or smuggle them in your asshole (well, I can't).
Most school shootings happen in schools because that's where the targets are, because the shooters are also school kids and the targets are their peers, and that's where you find them in a group, school. It's not about them being 'gun free zones' and so 'safe' to go shoot people there, or we would see more mass shootings in banks and amusement parks and other 'gun free zones'.
Yes, suicide by firearm is far easier and quicker than most other methods, meaning when you remove that method, suicide goes WAY down, because having just an extra minute to think about killing yourself often means you change your mind and don't do it. That especially goes for those 'crying for help' that really want to be caught and stopped. If a gun is not available, a HUGE percentage just don't go through with trying to kill themselves, and another large portion tries a method that either doesn't work or takes long enough to 'save' them.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)