HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Biden says gun curbs won’...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:28 PM

Biden says gun curbs won’t end mass killings

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden says curbs on guns can reduce firearm deaths but won’t ensure an end to mass killings like December’s slaying of 20 first-graders in Newtown, Conn.

Biden met with Senate Democrats on Thursday to urge them to support the gun restrictions that President Barack Obama has proposed. They include bans on assault weapons and on high-capacity magazines for ammunition and requiring all gun buyers to undergo background checks.

After that session, Biden told reporters that the administration’s plans would not eliminate the chances of another mass shooting, or bring gun deaths down to 1,000 yearly from the current 30,000 estimated by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence.

Biden said lives can be saved by curbing firearms without restricting the right to bear arms.

-30-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/biden_says_gun_curbs_wont_end_mass_killings/

74 replies, 5677 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Biden says gun curbs won’t end mass killings (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
mac56 Jan 2013 #1
Warpy Jan 2013 #2
PSPS Jan 2013 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #9
PSPS Jan 2013 #10
randome Jan 2013 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
Laurian Jan 2013 #4
pkdu Jan 2013 #5
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #30
pkdu Jan 2013 #38
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #6
spin Jan 2013 #12
Pholus Feb 2013 #53
spin Feb 2013 #70
frylock Jan 2013 #7
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #15
frylock Jan 2013 #17
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #18
frylock Feb 2013 #45
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #66
frylock Feb 2013 #67
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #68
ReRe Jan 2013 #8
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #33
ReRe Jan 2013 #42
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #43
ReRe Feb 2013 #44
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #47
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #14
Bonobo Jan 2013 #16
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #19
Bonobo Jan 2013 #20
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #21
Bonobo Jan 2013 #22
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #23
Bonobo Jan 2013 #24
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #25
Bonobo Jan 2013 #27
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #34
Bonobo Jan 2013 #36
frylock Feb 2013 #46
hack89 Feb 2013 #52
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #64
Ter Jan 2013 #28
Bonobo Jan 2013 #29
Ter Jan 2013 #31
Bonobo Jan 2013 #35
NickB79 Feb 2013 #48
Bonobo Feb 2013 #49
Recursion Feb 2013 #55
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #32
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #37
Bonobo Jan 2013 #40
Bonobo Jan 2013 #39
sendero Jan 2013 #26
Blandocyte Feb 2013 #50
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #51
Pholus Feb 2013 #54
Recursion Feb 2013 #56
Pholus Feb 2013 #57
Recursion Feb 2013 #58
Pholus Feb 2013 #60
Recursion Feb 2013 #61
Pholus Feb 2013 #71
Recursion Feb 2013 #72
Pholus Feb 2013 #73
Recursion Feb 2013 #74
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #59
Recursion Feb 2013 #62
marshall Feb 2013 #63
Arkana Feb 2013 #65
primavera Feb 2013 #69

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:32 PM

1. Well, there you are. May as well reject them.

Because if you can't fix everything 100% guaranteed, there's no point trying to do anything, is there?

(Do I even need to post the thingy?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:33 PM

2. End, no. Decrease, yes. Decrease the body count, definitely

Consider the mass attack in China the same day as the Newtown slaughter. 22 children were stabbed. They are all alive. I'm sure their parents would not want to exchange places with the Newtown parents.

Sometimes slowing things down is the very best we can do because trying to end them completely would take totalitarianism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:35 PM

3. Certainly the proposals so far won't "end" them, but it will help reduce them a lot.

One can only hope that continued pressure will bring an end to our illogical accommodation of the gun fetishists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:59 PM

9. Assumes facts not in evidence

Nothing proposed to date would have prevented this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:22 PM

10. Whatever. I don't even know what "this" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:49 PM

11. Let's find out, shall we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:13 PM

13. Let's try things that address root causes first? High probability of success

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:35 PM

4. He's probably right, but it will reduce the gun violence and over

time we will see more and more improvement. He's just saying this is not a miracle cure, but a first step in prevention. I don't know why people want to pile on Biden and make it seem like he's contradicting himself or the President. I just think he's more honest than the average politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:41 PM

5. Hah...news?.....or Gungeon fodder?...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:38 PM

30. So, VP Biden has been watching the Gungeon for hiz analysis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:48 PM

38. Are you accusing our Democratic Vice President Joeseph Biden of

Circle-jerking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:51 PM

41. Well, in New Orleans anything is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:45 PM

6. The type of gun is much less important

than whether there is a gun at all.

We would be better off with fewer guns out there. Damned if I can think of a law that would make that happen. Making it harder to sell guns to people probably would do something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:02 PM

12. The sad part is talk of "bans" has caused firearms of all types to fly off gun store shelves. ...

Gun owners are also stocking up on ammo.

Many of these buyers have little reason to own another firearm or even their first firearm. Some have little knowledge on how to safely handle a firearm and will not spend the money and time to take a gun safety course. Many new owners will not secure their weapons properly and consequently they may be stolen or lead to a family tragedy.

New legislation may help some but it is possible that that it will not even offset the problems created by the current skyrocketing sales of these weapons.

The political reality is that there is little chance of another assault weapons ban passing and even if it does it will most likely be another useless "feel good" law. It is more possible that the manufacture of magazines for civilian sale that hold over 10 rounds will pass but it will accomplish little as millions and millions of hi-cap magazines currently exist.

Most likely is that in the end we will see an NICS background check required for the sale of all weapons and this will be positive. The NICS background check system will likely be improved to more quickly update the names of those who are convicted violent criminals or have been legally adjudged as having severe mental issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:22 AM

53. Look, idiots will part with their cash one way or another. Fact of life.


You'd just live in the sad hope they'll be slightly smarter about how they do it. Seen it in my own family. Gunloon stocks up while family lives in rags and house falling apart.

But we have to have our priorities you see. When the whole of your existence is tied in propping up your self-worth by the ego accessories you strap on, you'll pay a premium in order to keep those endorphins flowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:52 PM

70. Sadly true. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:58 PM

7. it will save some lives, however..

and if a few humpers have to be inconvenienced by reloading 10 rd mags more frequently, then so fucking what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:37 PM

15. Why do you think that?

The proposals made by the President and the bill that will be proposed in the Senate do little to reduce the number of large capacity magazines that are out there. They would ban future production of magazines that hold over ten rounds. Given the fact that there are tens of millions of large capacity mags already in circulation, it's unlikely to do much except drive the price up on pre-ban magazines and rifles.

The AWB as is being proposed in the Senate only eliminates some semi-auto weapons based on cosmetic features that have nothing to do with functionality.

If a person is disturbed enough to commit these types of heinous crimes, the fact that he would have to use a rifle without a pistol grip or flash suppressor, is unlikely to pose much of a deterrent.

The Vice-President is spot on in his analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:59 PM

17. how long do you suppose james holmes had his 100 rd mag?

you think he inherited it from his granddaddy? did you even read Biden's message?! these laws aren't going to prevent another massacre from happening tomorrow, next month, or next year. but ten years from now? who knows. I know that i'm willing to take that chance, and if being inconvenienced is a little too much for you, then tough fucking shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 08:59 PM

18. Ten years?

Ten years? Try a hundred maybe. 30 round mags for the M1 carbine that were made 40 - 50 years ago are readily available. Of course, the M1, a semi-automatic carbine first developed for the US military and used in combat during WWII, Korea and Vietnam, is specifically exempted from Di-Fi's new proposed "assault weapons" ban, so they will continue to be bought and sold, along with their high capacity magazines, despite any executive orders or new legislation that has been suggested.

Ignorance is believing that purely cosmetic restrictions will have a tangible impact on reducing gun violence. Unfortunately it abounds these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:41 AM

45. how many of those are changing hands?

how many will LEGALLY change hands once they're restricted? james holmes and adam lanza weren't using surplus wwii mags they had sitting around. those were purchased somewhere and somewhat recently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:46 AM

66. millions

I don't think you understand the scope of what would be banned under the proposed legislation, only NEWLY MANUFACTURED high capacity magazines would be banned, any that were in existence prior to the date of the enactment of the bill would be perfectly legal to own and sell. There are tens of millions of those magazines in existence. During the last AWB bill, they were readily available and they will be under the proposed ban, which is unlikely to be passed.

You and others have the illusion that passing the proposed AWB will result in the disappearance of high capacity magazines and "scary" looking assault weapons, when all that will happen is that prices will go up slightly and manufacturers will remove some cosmetic features like flash suppressors and pistol grips, from the guns they are producing and selling, none of which will have a tangible impact on reducing the availability or the functionality of semi-automatic weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #66)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:27 AM

67. i'm not living under any illusion..

I think we need to start somewhere, sometime. and this attitude that it's just too monumental a task, so just fuck it all, is counterproductive. so if that's all you have to add to the debate, then we're done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:34 AM

68. I don't think that the vice-President

or anyone else is saying "fuck it all", I think what's being said is that much of what is being proposed is unlikely to yield the substantial results that some people seem to believe will happen. With that being said, there are some changes that are politically possible to achieve and which would have a tangible impact on curbing gun violence, such as requiring that all transfers to go through an FFL holder and establishing a Federal gun owners license that would require background checks, including mental health screenings. Instead of grandstanding over proposals that accomplish little and which have virtually no chance of being enacted, why not proceed with legislation that could actually pass and which would yield tangible results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:59 PM

8. Combine what Biden says....

....with a revival of a national mental health agency, and maybe we can make a dent in this mass-murder epidemic. Yes, there is no instant fix. Just like the flu, we'll get sicker before we get better. But we will get better. We just can't stand idly by while our society completely and totally goes to hell in a hand-basket. And we won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:44 PM

33. Theory: Hand-helds give us intense individuation in an era of blow it out celebrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:19 PM

42. I'm a dummy...

...speak ordinary mid-west English. Are you speaking of violent gun-toting movies and video games?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:53 PM

43. Don't watch/play either. I'm suggesting that Inet/innerTube cimmunication..

presents unprecedented individuation and self-absorbing life alternatives, even as we are drilled in the need for celebrity as a measure of self worth. In the old days, we would call this cognitive dissonance; nowadays it is routine mind-scramble with a rare mass murder. IMO.

Get ripped and try to figure it out.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:11 AM

44. I wish my doctor would LET me get ripped...

... and since I can't, I'm going to forget that I ever asked for a translation to begin with. I apologize for interrupting your trip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:51 AM

47. Sometimes that's what it takes. Consider my notion...

It's no solution, but it's a fresh outlook on social atomization.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:26 PM

14. Biden is right

The bans will not address root causes. Until you do, its band aids on a arterial wound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:44 PM

16. Of course they would.

Find a mass gun killing in Japan. There has not been one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:03 PM

19. Of course they won't.

There are approx. 270 million guns in this country and nothing that has been proposed in either the Presidents executive orders or in the AWB that's coming in the senate would reduce that number by a single gun. In fact, the proposed AWB allows the continued manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons that can use readily available high capacity magazines. 5 - 10 million new guns a year will be added to the numbers currently in private ownership.

How would that equate in any way to the level of private gun ownership in Japan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:07 PM

20. Let me restate.

I WOULD, if it were possible, take away 99.9% of those 270 million guns.

THAT is what I meant by a a gun ban. Not some bullshit fake one. Really get rid of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:30 PM

21. Huge difference

It's certainly likely that if you could wave a magic wand and instantly make every one of those 270 million guns disappear, that gun violence would drop dramatically. But that is never going to happen and nobody is suggesting any kind of regulatory change that would eliminate a single gun from private ownership, or even eliminate certain types of guns, only some cosmetic features that can be removed and do nothing to influence the functionality of the weapon.

It's both a distraction and a waste of time and energy lamenting what should happen, politics is the art of the possible, and the reality is that the only kind of reform that has a chance of being passed in this climate that may have a tangible impact on gun violence is to pass legislation that would require that all firearms transfers go through an FFL and to require some kind of a firearms owners license that would include a background check and some mental health screening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:38 PM

22. Doesn't take that much energy and it is a necessary antidote to the bullshit claim often made

that "guns don't kill" or "it's not because of the guns" or that "getting rid of guns wouldn't stop mass killings".

We need to be clear that yes, the killings happen because of guns.

You say it is "never going to happen" and I say that that is a self-fulfilling prophecy that should not be accepted as an argument against the common sense realization that it is the presence of the guns that is the most obvious cause of the violence.

I reject it that self-fulfilling prophecy. You might be right that it will never happen, but it is never a waste of time to make clear what the real issue is.

It is not mental health issues, it is not a breakdown of morality, it is not "gun safety". It is gun access.

You say "politics is the art of the possible" and I say politics is the art of making people think they have choice.

In reality, power is what gets shit done. If a plant that can be grown in the ground can be made illegal and millions of people thrown in jail over it, you can bet your ass the govt. has enough power to take away the guns if it chooses to do so. So yes, it is a choice and no, it is not impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:46 PM

23. It may make you feel good

to stand on a soapbox but they are meaningless protestations unless there is political will backing them up and that just is not the reality in this country. Even the watered down, irrelevant bill that Feinstein is proposing does not have a prayer of being passed, let alone anything substantive.

You claim that it's a gun access issue when the reality is that it's much, much more complex than just the availability of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:49 PM

24. Take away the guns and most of the killings stop. It is not complex.

As for it making me feel good, yes, being honest and seeing clearly does make me feel good.

On the other hand, bullshit obfuscation irritates me.

Creating political will to take away the guns is what I am interested in, and as you said if the will is there it could happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:04 PM

25. It's not complex

It's a fantasy. You are simply dreaming if you think that there is the political will that would result in the confiscation of guns in this country. Not going to happen and I think you probably realize that. As long as we are drifting into fantasy land, let's cure the common cold and eliminate poverty by waving a magic wand. Not holding my breath on that happening any time soon, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:14 PM

27. Why do you think America is SO different from the rest of the world?

In order to believe that removing guns from America (largely) is so impossible, you must have some near magical belief in America's uniqueness?

Failing that, you can only conclude that America is errant in its gun-acceptance and that it should be corrected.

Political beliefs change -through effort. Not long ago, America had an active Communist Party with millions of members. Now such a thing is inconceivable.

No, I am not in fantasy land. But you are stubbornly in the land of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The will is not there now, I admit. But to say it can never be there is foolish given the scale of change one sees possible in a relatively short amount of time AND given the state of gun accessibility in the rest of the world.

America is not special but I can see why some people may come to believe that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:44 PM

34. Ironic



Sorry, I just had to chuckle at the irony of someone calling for gun control using a quote from Hunter S. Thompson in his sig. The Good Doctor loved his .44 magnum with a vengeance. Kind of doubt he would be agreeing with you. Good luck with the gun confiscation fantasy, hope that works out for you!



"I think George Washington owned guns. I've never seen any contradiction with that. I'm not a liberal, by the way. I think that's what's wrong with liberals. I believe I have every right to have guns. I just bought another huge weapon. A lot of people shouldn't own guns. I should. I have a safety record. Guns are a lot of fun out here." - Hunter S. Thompson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:48 PM

36. I can live with the notion that HST would have disagreed with me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:46 AM

46. what do you think dr. thompson's take on military-style semi-autos with 30 rd mags would be?

that's a 6 shot revolver dr. gonzo has there in his hands. a far cry from anything anyone is proposing to ban, let alone any limitation whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:09 AM

52. Considering he shot guns for fun

I suspect he would have loved them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:34 AM

64. LoL!

I'd guess that Gonzo would be ardently advocating for protecting the rights of individuals to own any style of weapons, hell, he enjoyed shooting fully automatic machine guns!

You might find this archived thread from the old DU interesting; As was aptly put by a poster in that thread "Pro-gun? He was pro-bazooka!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3152218

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:25 PM

28. So how do you do it?

 

If you ban guns, who will give them up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:30 PM

29. Most people. But that is irrelevant.

If it is illegal, law enforcement would eventually do it. If the punishment for having an illegal gun was sufficient, people would not consider the risk worthwhile and would surrender their guns.

Those that would not would either have them taken from them or go to prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:39 PM

31. It's all speculation

 

However, my take is a massive Civil War would erupt, and this time the Union loses. Would 5 million dead be worth the price?

Also, how would we know those who have guns that aren't giving them up? Some states have no registration on file.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:47 PM

35. Talk about crazy ass, wild-eyes speculation!

5 million dead. That's crazy.

As for people secretly keeping their guns? Not a problem. If they are SO secret that no one notices them, it's okay. It would mean they had not been shot off, used in a crime or otherwise. Once they WERE used for that, they would be scooped up and melted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:26 AM

48. And in your world, gun owners don't vote?

If your fantasy were implemented within the next few decades, most of those who own guns MIGHT turn them in. But then you'd have 50-80 million really, really pissed off people to contend with.

Assuming no major violence occurred, they would line up in droves at the next election and vote for the political group that DIDN'T fuck them over and promised to let them have their guns again.

What party do you think that might be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:30 AM

49. If we only pursued policies that were popular with conservatives, WE

would be conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:38 AM

55. Well sure. Buy low and sell high, and you get rich

The consequent is simple; the antecedent, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:41 PM

32. To pass an admendment to remove the second, you need 3/4ths of the states to approve it.

So that means that if 12 states say 'no', its not going to happen. Please, list 38 states that would pass an amendment to ban 99% of all guns.

I'll be waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:48 PM

37. You're no fun. Jeeez...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:51 PM

40. Yes he is.

Because he's wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:50 PM

39. Can't do it right now.

But that doesn't mean things won't or can't change.

As for your claim that an amendment would be necessary, I disagree.

The 2nd amendment is open to interpretation and a law could be written as desired. Yes, the Supreme Court would have to take it up, but one not made up of conservatives would reject the challenge on the basis that the 2nd amendment is conditional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:05 PM

26. Anyone with 2 brain cells..

.... knows that, which excludes many folks here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:53 AM

50. Biden gives us a blinding flash of the obvious


and echoes some NRA talking points. What a show this has been. My prediction is that we'll end up with more feel-good measures like those in the AWB. All that does is poke the gun lobby with a stick and gets them riled up enough to pour even more money into their candidates' war chests to bring about a sea change over the next few elections.

Let's just have a total ban and see how that goes. If it works, great, if not, we'll know it won't work and maybe we can stop the song and dance that leads to banning bayonet lugs and arguing that 10 bullets are safe enough to let people have, but permission for 11 bullets is an open door to massacre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:01 AM

51. And DUI laws don't stop all drunk driving deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:24 AM

54. SO we should repeal them. Heck I haven't seen murder laws work for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:42 AM

56. DUI laws work. Banning alcohol didn't

Regulating behavior doesn't have some of the unintended consequences that banning objects has seemed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:45 AM

57. It's a pity there is no equivalent of a drivers license to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:48 AM

58. It is. We should change that

That's actually a great way to achieve universal background checks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:04 AM

60. Registration was the NRA bogeyman in the 80's and 90's.


A to-do list for a cataclysmic mass-seizure later. I can't see that attitude changing today.

So as usual, reasonable responses are the first casualty in an ideological battle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:16 AM

61. I didn't say register guns. I said license gun and ammo purchasers

Just like having a drivers license doesn't mean you own a car

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #61)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:10 PM

71. But registering either is enough to identify who has what.

So I don't think it'd fly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:47 PM

72. Not really. Imagine cars were unregistered.

Look at everyone's driver's license. Tell me which of them owns a car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:50 PM

73. If I were to decide to grab all the cars, I have a list of where to start.

Hey I think it's a peachy idea. But I can see the pushback a mile away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #73)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:52 PM

74. Also, as basic as this sounds, cars are large

Guns are small. Cars are generally in public view; guns are generally not. It sounds elementary, but those are huge differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:01 AM

59. How can you claim they work if people still die as a result of drunk drivers?????

That's what the NRA says ..... right?

If a particular law could not prevent EVERY mass killing, then that law should not be passed.

I find it funny you saw my analogy as a call to BAN something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:27 AM

62. Sigh

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not in the NRA, so I don't really care what they say except to note that Wayne be crazy.

Second, I think Biden is reminding us that laws ultimately can't stop crazy mass murderers, and that's not how we should judge them. It's much more important to prevent "normal" gun violence than to rack our brain thinking of every possible thing a mass shooter might do.

I find it funny you saw my analogy as a call to BAN something.

I find it funny that you think I saw what you said as a call to BAN something. Alcohol is something that, when misused, ends up killing a lot of people; roughly as many people as gun homicides. Previous attempts to prohibit the thing that was being dangerously misused ended up causing more problems than they solved, whereas recent attempts to treat it as a public health problem seem to have done a lot of good. These sorts of analogies are often good things to keep in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:28 AM

63. In concert with very strict mental health guidelines, it will certainly help

It's not just the access to guns, it is also the fact that mentally ill people have access to guns and no access, voluntary or not, to mental health treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:35 AM

65. And he's right--they won't.

But it might make it more difficult for the people who want to do them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:46 PM

69. Kind of a pointless waste of breath

Of course gun curbs won't end killings. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever said that they would. What people are saying is that guns are an important piece of the bigger, more complex puzzle, so gun control plays a role in reducing gun violence, no more, no less. Misleadingly suggesting that gun control advocates expect gun restrictions all by themselves to accomplish some instantaneous miracle and magically end all forms of violence once and for all is preposterous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread