DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass shootings & how politics gets in the way of solutions

j/c...

In support of what you're saying.....if you bring up any gun control legislation presented in the last 20-30 years, you'll find politicians saying "it's a good start".

Each side has extremists. Every side has extremists. Quoting or listening to them - or reacting to them and forgoing common sense and the middle ground is part of the problem. Good politics, good government means compromise. Because you can find or quote someone with an extreme view doesn't mean there isn't some middle ground that is a good solution. I'm certain there are lots of Gun Enthusiasts who would advocate for fully automatic weapons - no restrictions .... we don't have to listen or try to combat that extreme view. Block out the idiots, focus on what might be practical and work for the overwhelming majority. again - jmo.

I have to disagree. I see the primary causes of mass shootings related to the age and type of weapon.

You can toss in additional requirements for prior ownership and training to be allowed to use a weapon that has a history of use in mass shootings.

I will agree that there are some on the left that would favor much more restrictions. I don't think they even have the support of the majority of those on the left.

Here's a small sample of 'school' shootings. And, what constitutes a 'school shooting." it's not the link I was looking for, though.

https://www.westword.com/news/school-shootings-since-columbine-list-april-2021-update-11948426

Why do we have to limit the discussion to school shootings, those in Buffalo were similarly affected.

We don't.

A mass shooting is where 4 or more are injured or killed at a shooting scene-by defination.

There were 14 mass shootings-this weekend alone

On a side note, my wife was telling me about an event my mother in law was at last week where she was talking to a school teacher in my area that was in the school in the vicinity of where a 13 year old kid shot himself in school about 3 weeks ago. She walked out of the cafeteria and there were a bunch of kids in there-it was lunch right after the school ran a drill. A bunch of other kids ran out of the cafeteria and she didn't know what was going on and then she went in the cafeteria and the kid was laying on the ground.

He strapped a holster with a handgun under his hoodie and waited until the drill was over and went in the cafeteria and shot himself. He has died.

the teacher said that when the police went to search his house-this 13 year old had (4) other guns in his closet-Where in the hell does a 13 year old get 5 guns?

The teacher also said that this kid made the 6th middle school or high school suicide in the last 2 or 3 years-in their pretty small school district- a website says their school only has 262 kids total from grades 7 to 12.

She also said she is pretty much done with the whole teaching deal-she didn't sign up for this.

This is what weaponized victimhood looks like when it lashes out over its feelings of white suppression, which are truly just latent remnants of bigotry and white supremacy. And THIS IS NOT an accusation that you are these things, it's just where those feelings you've been manipulated to feel originate. Understanding that might help you see things a little better.

And since you brought up the violence in Chicago's black community being ignored, let me educate you. Ignoring the problems in black communities in America is NOTHING NEW. The rates of black girls going missing are quite a bit higher in comparison to white suburban kids, yet this receives almost zero coverage. The rates of poverty, drugs, and crime are all higher than in the average suburb. And very few of those bad things receive coverage in the same way it would for a white suburban neighborhood. That fact also helps increase shooting rates. But you know what else is higher? The stoic willpower these kids have to fight and endure all the crap life has dumped on them while trying to make their way OUT. So the next time you want to say black Chicago is bad too, think about that first.

So if you ever shoot at somebody or shoot somebody, we should lock you up forever? Am I getting this correct? And I thought the far left was harsh.

So essentially the surrounding red states are feeding the problem while pissing and moaning about it. Imagine that.

But since we are talking criminals, stealing an AR in Indiana or having some dupe buy and supply you with them illegally probably isn't an issue. They have enough money to make it happen, and intimidation factor or violence if it doesn't. So the higher gun laws fail when surrounding areas don't follow suit. BUT if the guns were not available anywhere, only the existing 400 Million would be available to move around. Hmm...


What a crazy number of guns 400 million is. That's more than one gun per person in the US! And one side wants an unlimited amount more of them. Wants them to be insanely powerful. And wants this more than the safety of kids in school, people at public events, the safety of police and first responders, or we should say the safety of everyone. All over guns. I can think of about an even crazier number though, and that's the infinite number of things truly more important than owning or shooting a gun.

This has been my experience as well. Was visiting my brother in NM, he was checking stuff out and I was chatting up the guy manning the register. He put on his salesman's hat and started working on me until I told him I was from out of state (California). He went right back to talking about the weather, local stuff to check out.

well, if criminals would follow the law we wouldn't have any issues.

You supposed to be better than silly spin. It is quite obvious I was referring to criminal violence not self defense. And yes, I am harsh, I am tired of it.

We need stricter laws so criminals will not get guns but they won't follow the stricter laws so we should have even stricter laws.... and you think gun owners are crazy?

Consider for a moment, how much would you pay for a gun in the instant you realize without it you are going to die? Hopefully you will never have to find out. I'd rather be prepared than not. And no one else should tell me what tool is "ok" for the job. For someone that "fights fascists" daily one would think you would want to be prepared as well.

Yet Chicago has documented evidence that this has happened thousands of times. So much by one gun store they are suing.

'Eye-popping numbers': Chicago sues Indiana gun store tied to 850 firearms recovered from crime scenes

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-guns-recovered-crime-scenes/4854619001/

You've stated why it shouldn't happen. I'm showing you that it does.

That gun store should be (in the legal sense) worked over so bad they won't be able to continue existing. I'm 90% sure there are laws already on the books that would have them criminally liable, if what you're linking is true (no reason to believe it's not). If they are somehow able to be let off the hook, those laws should be fixed.

I'm not sure what federal laws are actually in place to prevent this. I would say on a state to state level it would be impossible for one state to create a state law that could be enforceable in yet a another state.

If there are actually laws in place at the federal level to make this a crime, obviously the feds have not enforced it or brought charges forward.

The gun was also from the same manufacturer as the guns used in the Las Vegas massacre, but gun manufacturers and retailers are protected because their products work exactly as they were designed to work. They don't malfunction and ammosexuals use this reasoning to claim it's operator error. So why are certain drugs regulated? Oh yea, drugs don't have a special, misinterpreted amendment. So, the bottom line is these kids were slaughtered by a "well regulated militia".

Yet people have found ways to successfully sue.

Sandy Hook families settle with Remington, marking 1st time gun-maker held liable for mass shooting

https://abcnews.go.com/US/sandy-hook-families-settle-remington-marking-1st-time/story?id=82881639

I'm curious on this. Did westorth (think that's the name of the gun dealer), sell the guns illegally, as in no mandatory background check?

What a legal buyer does with a gun after a legal sale is NOT the store's problem or issue.

However, and I don't know the answer here: Is selling a gun as a retailer, to a resident of another state, illegal?

Illinois is a decent size state - why is Chicago the problem?

I'm not sure. Frank Z claims you can't sell a gun to someone in a different state if having that gun where they live is illegal.


In the law suit Chicago is claiming it's illegal to do so. From my link....


I will say the entire thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How can a gun shop owner be expected to know the laws in every state and city in the United states?

Gun store owners (and their employees) should know the patchwork laws, that is part of being a FFL and a professional at what you do. I do think the patchwork of laws is a mine field and frankly nothing I would want to have to deal with to feed my family. That said, any store even close to IL should know about the FOID (of course I disagree with the requirement but that is a different discussion) and require one for any IL resident they sell to. I would suspect that in this is not a case of just a missing FOID, I would suspect that this is an organized criminal activity. BAFTE doesn't inspect FFL holders routinely so those sales can fly under the radar for a long time, there was a store just south of us that did this for years. When the state caught on they got crushed (jail time, fines, etc).

While I am not happy with the current rules, and I do think changes towards more freedom and less infringements are needed, the current law is the current law and needs to be followed until the laws can be changed.

Tulsa shooting: Everything we know about hospital attack that killed four people

Josh Marcus
Wed, June 1, 2022, 8:36 PM·5 min read
link

Another deadly shooting has struck America, following tragic incidents this month in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.

Three people were killed in a deadly gun attack at a medical building in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Wednesday, 1 June. The gunman also died at the scene, according to police.

Here’s what we know so far:

Shooting in a hospital building

Tulsa police were called on Wednesday afternoon on reports of a man armed with a rifle at the Natalie Medical Building within the city’s Saint Francis Hospital.

The call came in at 4.52pm, according to Tulsa deputy police chief Eric Dalgleish, who address the press on Wednesday.

Officers arrived at the scene and made contact with the suspected shooter and victims by 5.01, he added.

The officers that did arrive were hearing shots in the building,” Mr Dalgleish said. “That’s what directed them to the second floor.”

The floor of the building is at least partially taken up by an orthopedic medicine centre.

Tulsa police captain Richard Muelenberg told reporters the scene inside the hospital was tragic.

“It’s a catastrophic scene in there right now,” he said.

The gunfire occured on the building’s second floor, NBC News reports.

Four victims dead in shooting, plus gunman

The gunman killed three people, Tulsa police said on Wednesday.

The shooter is also deceased, though it’s unclear if he shot himself or was taken down by police.

Deputy chief Dalgleish said he was fairly “certain” the shooter killed himself.

“Right now we believe that is self-inflicted,” he said.

The victims were on a lower floor and were dressed like medical personnel, the police official added.

Tulsa Police
@TulsaPolice
ACTIVE SHOOTER UPDATE: We can confirm 4 people are deceased, including the shooter, in the active shooting situation at St. Francis hospital campus.
Officers are still clearing the building. More info to follow.
7:22 PM · Jun 1, 2022

No names released


The identities of the victims and the shooter have not been disclosed publicly.

Police described the gunman as a Black male, aged 35 to 40, and said they were “getting close” to discovering his identity.

Rifle and pistol used in shooting

The individual was wielding a rifle and a pistol, both of which appeared to have been used in the shooting, according to police.

An active investigation

Police were moving through each room of the Natalie Building, verifying there were no other threats within the facility.

Federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are on the scene to assist with the investigation.

Detectives are now interviewing witnesses from inside the hospital building.

ATF Dallas
@ATFDallas
.@ATFDallas Tulsa office personnel are on scene at St. Francis Hospital to provide assistance in the active shooter incident. Tulsa Police Department is the point of contact and will release more information as it becomes available.

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is also assisting with the law enforcement response.

The White House has briefed the president about the shooting, according to officials.

Family reunification ongoing

Families waiting to learn about the status of their loved ones are being directed to Tulsa’s Memorial High School for reunification and information updates.

Shocked witnesses

Bystanders and officials said they were shocked by the shooting at a bustling hospital complex in Tulsa.

“There are over 10,000 people that are part of the Saint Francis health system that every day commit their lives to taking care or people in need, taking care of everyone in need,” said Dr Cliff Robertson, president and CEO of the Saint Francis Health System, during a press conference on Wednesday. “This sensless, horrible, incomprehensible act is not going to change that.”

“Tulsa is a safe, nice community to start a family in. It’s kind of shocking to me it’s happening in our own backyard,” a man named Sal told Fox 23.

Debra Proctor was in another building at the hospital for a doctor’s appointment when the “shocking” shooting began.

“Police were everywhere in the parking lot, up and down the surrounding blocks,” she told CNN. “They were still arriving when I was leaving.”

US Representative Kevin Hern said he was in touch with Tulsa police about the “terrible situation” at the hospital.

“There’s still a lot we don’t know about what happened tonight in the Natalie Building, but what we do know is this: multiple lives were taken from us, and many more changed forever,” he wrote in a statement. “My prayers are with those who lost loved ones tonight.”

Two mass shootings in one week

The shooting follows another attack earlier in the week, when one died and seven were injured at a Memorial Day festival in Taft, Oklahoma, about 45 miles outside of Tulsa.

The Tulsa police department trained new recruits on active shooter tactics as recently as 27 May, according to the department.

Tulsa Police
@TulsaPolice
ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING
Today, 29 Apprentice Police Officers (APOs) in Tulsa Police Academy Class 2022-122 are going through Active Shooter Training at a local Tulsa school.
MORE INFO: https://facebook.com/tulsapolice/posts/372773734885591

A time for grief

Tulsa mayor GT Bynum said on Wednesday he didn’t want to discuss politics or policy around access to guns at this stage, given the grief families are experiencing right.

“If we want to have policy discussions, that is something to be had in the future, but not tonight,” he said at a press conference.

This is a developing story and will be updated with new information.

A fifth person has died. There are "multiple" other people with injuries.

There were four mass shootings today alone (by about 7 pm Eastern tonight)

Hey FrankZ, don't take these posts in the wrong way, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate and spitballing solutions while trying to process how what everyone is calling for in one form or other might play out if we could get along long enough and do the right thing to protect these kids. Personally, I believe in gun ownership for hunting and self-defense. I'm just not big on public open carry or concealed carry and think we should all agree on reasonable abilities for guns, that would limit how much death and destruction could be brought to a crime in seconds or minutes. Surely we don't need military-grade power like an M2 50 Cal, and in my opinion, that's the direction that AR and other high-powered rapid-fire weapons bring. But a lot of gun enthusiasts enjoy those on the range and very much want to own one just in case the ish hit's the fan. I get that, but there has to be some way to limit access to these weapons in a responsible manner that we can all agree to and live with. And I'm not talking outright bans.

One way would be a system similar to licensing animals. For a common dog that can bite somebody, you can be sued over what they do, and most have that covered in their insurance, but they still have to buy a dog license and meet the minimum requirements of rabies shots. Not a big deal if you are a responsible gun owner, but if you get caught without, you could lose your dog, face legal issues, or both. However, you can't buy a dog license for a pure Wolfe. Wild animals require a special license and have different rules and requirements, a couple of which I'm sure are liability insurance and a safe confinement/handling environment.

Any gun can kill, just like any dog can bite. But if we set a bar, below which are common guns like single shots, small cal revolvers, pump loading shotguns, Winchester style lever rifles, etc. are the dogs, and weapons that are rapid-fire, high capacity, use more destructive rounds or generally make you feel like Rambo on the range are the wolves. Make owning those guns tougher, but legal, and anyone caught committing a crime with them gets a gun terrorism-style charge. Also, make public carry of them subject to licensing, training, insurance, and permit OR just ban them from open public carry and make owners keep them in locked cases for home storage or transport to and from places designated for their use, like Ranges. If somebody wants to hunt with them, let each state determine how that happens, but don't just any idiot possess them without all the checks and balances.

Gun laws like this would cost gun owners a bit more but might go a long way to stopping these shootings. Another thing too, would be to make the purchaser legally co-responsible for the gun use, regardless of who is firing. And make anything short of malicious, violent theft of the gun used a co-criminal charge. If you leave it unlocked and your kid gets it and shoots up a school and then kills themselves, you go to prison for allowing that gun to be used like this. This part might not save lives, but it would damn sure mean storage, security, ownership transfers would be taken very seriously. This is one way we could try to tighten up gun laws without taking guns away.

I agree with this post. IMO, if we are going to start looking at restricting types of guns, we should be looking at caliber of bullet instead of features on a gun. Govt laws on gun features have just been one swing-and-miss after another.

Earlier on, a couple posters responded to one of my posts about how many things we do in our lives, jobs, tasks, etc require permitting/fees, etc. They said all the things I listed are privileges and not rights specific in the Constitution (which gun ownership is). They definitely got me there, but I'll still reiterate my point. Rights cannot and should not exist without responsibilities. The right to bear arms does not extend to doing so irresponsibly because, as we've seen, that leads to infringing on others right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. If we can't agree on this (exercising a right implies accepting the appropriate responsibility), then IMO we shouldn't be entitled to that right. Gun owners should be on the hook for keeping their weapons secured, the manner in which their guns are used, and keeping their guns in good working order. I also think that there should be conversations around gun owners that have dangerous/unstable people in their home (children/family), and what they should and shouldn't do with their firearms.

I totally disagree. Caliber is probably the least important of the factors involved in these recent mass killings. Magazine capacity is the biggest factor IMO.

Caliber is nothing more than the size of the bullet. The most common weapon used in these mass shootings is AR15 type semi auto rifles, and by far the most common round in AR15's is a .223 caliber bullet. It is a very small round compared to everything else out there. BUT, it is attached to a large shell casing which holds a lot of powder making it an explosive round that can do a lot of damage. Even the .17HMR, which is a tiny bullet, can cause a lot of damage. Limiting the caliber won't do much to help the situation. Also, as pointed out here, the type of bullet also plays a big role in the lethality of the round. Full metal jacket rounds go thru or embed with minimal expansion while hollow points create shock damage and a greatly exaggerated wound channel.

That kid that shot up Robb Elementary School followed the law.... So, that tells me the law ain't worth spit..

That argument is so old and wrong it's disgusting.

Super, if you don't like it, or in fact HATE it when mass shooting occur, then lobby the NRA to develop MEANINGFUL solutions to the problem.


MEANINGFUL is the key word there.


That would be a better use of NRA money then to plow it into the campaigns of loser do nothing politicians

Caveat, I know almost nothing about guns/gun differences. But I would think an important aspect would be the time being discharge of bullets.

A small caliber and big caliber bullet will kill just the same. But it seems there is a big difference between 1 bullet discharge every 5 seconds vs 10 every 5 seconds in regards to kill capacity

I probably should have said "in these situations". I am sure in other situations bullet caliber is more important.

AR-15's isn't close to being the highest caliber rifle on the open market. it's not even a high powered rifle. its a low power rifle. about as basic as one can get.

The army just dropped a new rifle for the soldiers called the XM5, that comes out in 2024.

here's the problem: the civilian version of that rifle is already on the market.

https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-spear.html

yay. and they are often sold out.

and this brings up the posters who pointed out regulating bullets. the bullets used in AR's have less mass than the new rifle; .223 vs .277, and you better believe the amount of damage it can cause is significant.

the gun lovers won't admit that the AR-15 is a status symbol in their culture. it's like having that big ass lifted truck in the driveway, despite the fact that you don't even do truck things with it; it's just a road queen. but it looks like the rifle the army has, which is why it's the most popular rifle in the country.


right now, i can walk into a gun store and by an M1A or a MCX-SPEAR that would destroy somebody with an AR in a gunfight. all legally and readily available.

which also means the SPEAR is about to be the new status symbol for the gun nuts, because they want the toys the Army has. so yall think we have mass shooting problems now, wait til the new ones get popularized. the damage done by those will make the AR-15 shootings look like practice runs.

and this has to be stated: we all know in a couple years max, we're gonna have dudes on this board talking about they need an SPEAR to - lmfao - protect their home and fight the government.

yea, sure you do.

A couple of points from what you said:

1) You conflate the AR-15 and the M2 as "powerful military" weapons. A .223 round has a muzzle energy of about 1175ft-lb while a .50BMG is about 13,350ft-lb. These are not even close in terms of ballistics. The purpose of the two weapons is also different in a military aspect, one being anti-personnel and one being anti-material in mission. I've never shot a M2 but they look fun, but likely would get to be way too spendy too quickly at $10 a round or such.

When we talk about rate of fire (ROF) we need to understand first the weapon we are discussing mostly (the AR-15 pattern rifle) only goes as fast as you can pull the trigger. Yes you can bump fire them, most people don't. The AR-15 has a theoretical ROF that is close to an M16/M4 in full auto, however there is some reduction due to differing internal function. But let's put the number for the ROF for a AR-15 at 900rounds/minute (near the upper end of the rated ROF for the M16). That is theoretical mind you. You would need a magazine capable of holding enough ammunition to make that a reality. You would also need to be able to control it. Full auto doesn't behave like the movies, you don't just drop 100 rounds through a small hole in microseconds. Discounting world class shooters, most people the faster the pull the trigger the more inaccurate they get, from recoil (the rifle moving backwards), muzzle jerk (the muzzle moving up and away and frantically trying to squeeze the trigger faster causes you to jerk around. Inaccurate rounds are not as concerning in these situations, the accurate ones are. So in the end someone who has worked at it can probably empty a standard 30 round magazine accurately in 45 seconds, someone who hasn't worked at it will take double or triple that for accuracy.

In the TX shooting the timeline shows the shooter was in the building unopposed for 30 minutes I believe. What gun do you think would have been less deadly in a situation where you are fighting 3rd graders and no one is opposing you? He could have done just as much damage with a 6 shot revolver in that time frame. A pump shotgun is easy to have continuous ammo feed for if you practice loading while shooting. The LV shooting was a different animal, accuracy was not really required as the shooter there only needed to hit the mass of crowd and ROF became more important.

As far as licensing animals, this is sold as ways to track dogs that bite people, but why does the city expect me to license my cats that never leave the house except to go to the vet? They get $10/year per animal is why. Most licensing and regulation is a way of generating income so politicians can spread the money to their friends and stay in office and get rich off the public. Illinois has a FOID (Firearms Owners ID) that is required to buy and own firearms in the state. You may need to show it to buy ammo as well, but I am not certain on that. the city of Chicago is a great example of how licensing fixes things. It doesn't, it burdens people who are responsible. In MD you have to show "good and substantial reason" for a carry permit. Self-defense is not good enough. Basically the state wants to know you are protecting business money (seriously the best way to get a permit is to operate a business and claim to have business cash with you). Even if you get a permit it can be restricted to time and place (only to and from work, only while carrying your prescription pad, etc). Baltimore shows that carry permit restrictions are ineffective, lots of guns getting carried in the city, and they aren't by permitted people.

As I have also pointed out previously, permitting and licensing is a way to ban something without banning it. Every state and DC are required to offer a carry permit (Wrenn vs DC sorted that). The scheme is left to the jurisdiction. HI is a "may issue" state, which means when you apply they can decide if you meet whatever arbitrary criteria they set and then they may issue you a permit. They haven't issued one in over 20 years, which is a de facto ban.

it has been shown time and again laws do not stop people from commiting crimes, if they did we would fix murder rates by making murder illegal. Gun laws only affect people who follow them. Guns are not the issue, even scary looking military style guns. People are the issue, but solving the people problem is far more difficult. The easy ineffective solution is more laws limiting/banning guns. We really need to fix the people problem.

As far as owning common guns, the AR-15 pattern rifle is the most popularly owned long gun in America, which makes it the most common amongst your common. I don't know a lot of people that have lever action rifles any more (we have an heirloom 30-30) unless they are lever action collectors.

Lastly when I am at the range shooting I don't feel like Rambo. I take pride in being an accurate shooter. I challenge myself in distance as best I can with indoor ranges being the norm here and speed on target. I like to know when I shoot I get better at it. it is fun to shoot whatever we take to the range that day, handguns, AR pattern, shotguns, etc. I like zombie targets mostly, they make me laugh.

I'm certainly glad that the type of ammo you use has nothing to do with the damage it causes. That the load has no impact on damage. You know it does.

And speaking in terms of how "you" use and see these weapons doesn't mean anything in the big picture, grand scheme of things. It's purely anecdotal.

But I agree with you more than I disagree with you. Here are a couple of examples being bantered around that concern me.

Red Flag Laws.

On the surface these are presented as good things. But are they? What evidence is needed to show proof that you "made a threat to kill someone" before they take your guns? Could any vindictive person simply make that up? An ex, spurned girlfriend or angry family member? How hard would it be to get your guns back and would it be a part of your permanent record? Would it prevent you from legally buying firearms in the future?

In theory it's a good idea but as with most things the devil is in the details.

Mental background checks.

Once again something that sounds great in theory. Something that would seem like an idea everyone should support. But exactly what does that mean?

I'll use this mass shooting in Texas for a possible scenario. I'm sure at least some of the parents of these victims own guns. Can you imagine how hard it would be to move forward with your life in a normal manner had this have happened to one of your children? So let's say that some of these parents will need mental help to move forward with their life. That due to this mass shooting and the death of one of their own children that need mental help. They get diagnosed with depression and or major anxiety. They undergo treatment for a year or even maybe two. This is now a part of their mental health record. They were both diagnosed and treated.

Does that mean they can never purchase a firearm again?

I'm not saying these laws couldn't be written with qualifiers to prevent these type of things from happening. I'm asking if we as Americans can depend on our politicians to do so? I for one do not. It's not the principals these laws try and address that I object to. It's the very real possibility of the actual ramifications they pose that concern me.

That's fair. My point was more a comparison to what we're currently doing in many states (features on a rifle).

As you mention, certain caliber bullets are more suited to certain activities than others. To me, it makes far more sense to look at crafting legislation around that than (as an example) the length of the barrel or if it has a pistol grip.

I'm certainly glad you continue to put words in other people's mouth. I mean, I didn't say the " type of ammo you use has nothing to do with the damage it causes". But of course you PitDAWG because you just can't help yourself. Take your pedantic arguments and yell at a mirror.

This is the kind of conversation we should expect from our "leaders". Leaders that should be expected to work together to find solutions to complex problems.

Instead we get the polar opposite with narrow-minded rhetoric coming from their mouths... and their media mouthpieces. Sad.