jross

Yes, regardless of educational improvements and such, other parts of life were diminished, and that's why after the initial 250K golden exile, another 260K working-class immigrants came to the USA as part of the Freedom Flights. Again, more immigrants in two individual immigrant waves than from 1900 to 1959 combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Flights

Uncle's comment supports that China strives to do what it says in its constitution. We've been talking now about Deng Xiaoping Theory. China is ruled by a single majority party that suppresses political consent and criticism... as it favors the CCP political party and the "collective" taking precedence over individual liberties. It spies on its citizens and censures... showing elements of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. State-owned enterprises in China are still common and often have monopolies... You can point out that different ideologies overlap, but much of the ascribed country behavior fits Communism... the party name is Communism... the constitution says Communism...

China is failing on the classless front. The country's wealth disparity rivals the USA.

Communism is not a monolithic ideology

...support it depends on what characteristics and actions you want to emphasize. Since you say China is not what it says it is, and China is not what it says it strives to be, how does Plasi label the ideology? China describes its economic system as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but does that mean the 'country' is not communist?

Well, my family friend 'Angel' (who left China and still has family living in China) also says and criticizes...

I answered your question strongly. It is a subjective question with pros/cons documented by folks who lived in both situations (quora). Rather than debating subjective opinions, I pointed out that the actions the Cubans took were the answer. Sure the initial departure was the ruling class, but that's the minority overall.

Well, their constitution says:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party

What does it imply when considering there were 125,000 Cuban immigrants in America across 50 years before the revolution, 250,000 Cuban immigrants in the first 3 years post-revolution, and over 1 million Cuban immigrants in the US across the next 50 years?

If a gunman was holding your entire bloodline of 20 children/grandchildren as a human shield, would you be okay with the police killing them all to also take out the gunman? Whether it is 1 or 20 children, who is the gunman, and how many more will die if the gunman lives another day?

Profit

Does the Second Amendment allow for a well-regulated militia to protect security and from government tyranny? (yes) Given that it is (assumed) unrealistic to protect oneself from government tyranny, explain the Bundy Standoff outcome. Does the US citizen need to be concerned about other countries (with guns) invading the US country? If nobody had a gun in the US, why would one need to bear arms to protect oneself?

Does the Second Amendment protect citizens' right to hunt animals and shoot for sport? Neither hunting nor clay pigeon shooting fits with the right to bear arms for self-defense. The amendment protects self-defense from a bear but does not grant the right to hunt the bear. Have gun ban advocates challenged the right to ban arms for hunting and sport?

Does the Second Amendment protect citizens' right to bear arms for self-defense? Yes, read the history documented in these BRIEFs OF AMICUS CURIAE CENTER of petitioners (NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASS’N) of respondents (CITY OF NEW YORK) Key points Self-defense is long recognized: Aristotle stated that “arms bearing” was an essential aspect of each citizen’s proper role (300 BC) On the Law of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius (1625) It has already been proved that when our lives are threatened with immediate danger, it is lawful to kill the aggressor if the danger cannot otherwise be avoided: an instance, as it has been shown, on which the justice of private war rests. We must observe that this kind of defense originates from the principle of self-preservation, which nature has given to every living creature, and not from the injustice or misconduct of the aggressor. Wherefore though he may be clear of guilt, as, for instance, a soldier in actual service, mistaking my person for that of another, or a madman in his frenzy, or a man walking in his sleep, none of these cases deprive me of the right of self-defense against those persons. For I am not bound to submit to the danger or mischief intended, any more than to expose myself to the attacks of a wild beast. John Locke wrote (1690) For no Man, or Society of Men, having a Power to deliver up their Preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the Absolute Will and arbitrary Dominion of another; whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a Slavish Condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a Power to part with; and to rid themselves of those who invade this Fundamental, Sacred, and unalterable Law of Self-Preservation, for which they enter'd into Society. And thus the Community may be said in this respect to be always the Supream Power, but not as considered under any Form of Government, because this Power of the People can never take place till the Government be dissolved. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 and based on prior understanding Of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789, at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense. This is strong evidence that the founding generation understood the right to bear arms as part of the fundamental right of self-defense. In the first published appellate decision on the right to bear arms, Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822), an opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals (then the state's highest court), the court invalidated a state statute prohibiting concealed carrying of weapons. The court ruled that this prohibition infringed upon the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.

Would this work? Folks have been creating and reloading ammo at home for years... we've also got folks 3d printing guns at home now...

We use smaller plates in my house to make it easier to portion control. Nobody needs to check my family's mental health or educate us on food portions. We eat less food because less food fits on our plates. I treat my stress with food... I plead to my wife to keep sugars out of the house, and she tells me to have some self-control. I ask her to help by keeping temptation away. Restrict the guns and the gun violence will reduce. (regardless of the underlying harder to solve causes)

The article claims it is a false assumption "that mental illness causes gun violence." Like MSPart, I judge this statement as false! It cites this research on a small case study that found 13% of the mentally ill had perpetrated violence in the past few years, whereas 34% had been violently victimized. This supports that not all mentally ill people commit violence, and that is factual. It is dishonest to use that information to minimize the fact that many people who commit mass shootings have mental illnesses. Fortunately/unfortunately, many published findings indicate mental illness is a contributor (over 25% and potentially much higher). I found this article interesting and was disappointed to see this quack-a-framing article (teases out non-psychotic psychiatric or neurological illnesses as separate from mental illness).

Should one disregard someone's information solely because they are compensated and may have biases?

Hamas is committing war crimes by using Palestine citizens as human shields. People are debating whether Israel is taking all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. To me, the military advantage gained from attacks is not in proportion to the amount of civilian deaths. Israel is "innocent" because the USA backs them, and the standard of 'feasible precaution' is subjective. I'm not picking on Israel for any ideological reason. A war crime is inevitable in war. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/#:~:text=As Israeli forces continue to,be investigated as war crimes.

It annoyed me that my kid's schools are locked down and I cannot freely walk into the office during school hours. I thought to myself "WTF - school shootings are so rare that this isn't a concern." Then I looked up a school shooting data tracker and discovered shootings at schools near me and mine. https://www.chds.us/sssc/data-map/. Also, these charts are interesting. I live in a low-crime area...

Interesting information about mass shootings, including recommendations. https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/mass-shootings/ MEDIA COVERAGE OF MASS SHOOTINGS The media plays a significant role in how the American public discusses gun violence. The media focuses primarily on mass shootings and other high-profile homicides, even though suicides make up three in every five gun deaths in the United States. In doing so, the media may lead the public to believe that mass shootings contribute to a large percentage of gun deaths in the United States, while in fact, firearm suicides comprise the majority of gun deaths. In fact, dying in a mass shooting is about as rare as being struck by lightning. Media coverage following a mass shooting also has implications for gun sales. For example, one study found that media coverage of mass shootings is associated with an increase in the number of firearms sold, as indicated by the number of background checks run. ... FALSE NARRATIVES There are often two false narratives that emerge in the media after a mass shooting: that mental illness causes gun violence that if more people were armed, there would be fewer firearm-related deaths. ... RECOMMENDATIONS ...We recommend the following policies: Banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines: Research has found that banning large-capacity magazines is effective at reducing mass shootings. Extreme risk laws: allow law enforcement, family, and household members, among others, to petition a judge to temporarily limit an individual’s access to firearms if they are at elevated risk of violence. Universal background checks with licensing: Background checks should be required on every gun sale and transfer in the United States, including private and online sales. Domestic violence firearm prohibitions: Many mass shootings are related to domestic violence. Laws that reduce abusers’ access to firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide and may also prevent mass shootings.

The lesser of two war crimes is still a war crime.

Nope, none. But the enforcement may not be practical.