A gun owner is 90% more likely to use that gun on him/herself rather than on someone else. Of course, if the rapist grabs your purse first - then he holds your own gun on you and rapes you at gunpoint.
No, you are not 90% more likely to use your gun on yourself. That is just not true. If it were there would be much more firearms deaths.
And yes, I should just allow the pervert to rape me rather than try to defend myself... That is how Australia does it. Sexual assaults are up since the gun ban. Poor women there...sitting ducks the pervs know they have no firearm for defense.
Cherry picking. There was a slight increase in 2014 - EIGHTEEN YEARS after the gun ban, and over 99% of Australian women didn't carry them before that. https://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678
Your assaults (40%) and sexual assault (20%) are up as well. Think that has anything to do with disarming victims?
Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group.
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359
Notice the source in my link is the Australian government.
Nope. After the Democrats regain control at the midterms (the GOP is headed for a train wreck) he'll be impeached almost immediately. And convicted, slam dunk. Trump isn't as smart as Nixon, they'll have to drag him outta there kicking and screaming.
An unprecedented 20% swing in Pennsylvania. A Democrat senator elected in Alabama - that's actually impossible. An approval rating below 40%, that's also unprecedented so early in a first term. His own side is equally likely to move the impeachment motion, due to his being an electoral liability.
Obstruction of justice, receipt of emoluments, libel, criminal assault and interference with Presidential records. There's also tax evasion, fraud and racketeering, but he did those before he was elected.
President Trump is not in violation of the emuloments clause:
Let's read the section of Article 1 of the Constitution: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Now let's define
emolument
Advantage, benefit, profit, or wagereceived as compensation for being employed or holding an office. Foreign members of governments are not staying there as a form of payment for Trump holding office. President Trump is not employed by the Trump Organization so it would not apply to him. Just as I own my business...I am not an employee of my business I don't receive an emulument from my business or from my customers. My employees receive an emulument...
Pres Obama should have fired Comey before the election for inserting himself into the election more than once. Yates was not doing what she was told....hence "you are fired". I am quite sure the government has an agreement with Twitter to keep a record for the archives. The Obama adminstration did spy on the Trump campaign...that is not libel that is a fact.
So again no, President Trump has not committed any impeachable offense. Anything before inauguration is not impeachable. How would you know about tax evasion when he has not released his returns? And the IRS has never filed charges of evasion.
No, he won't resign or be impeached. He will either serve out his presidency or be assassinated. I'd say the odds are about 50/50. The deep state is pissed.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at April 18, 2018 8:43 PM MDT