Do Joe Biden's Recent Comments On Gun Control Bother You?

Great Debates
1

From this article, in which there is a GQ thread, I found some language from Joe Biden that is somewhat disturbing.

Here’s the linked article, which shows Obama shooting a shotgun apparently skeet shooting, and what Biden says:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/02/white-house-releases-photo-of-obama-shooting-shotgun/?hpt=hp_t2

Now, the part that bothers me, as a semi-conservative owner of a single handgun is this weaselly language: *Vice President Joe Biden led Obama’s gun violence task force convened after the December 14 shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

He acknowledged to reporters after a Thursday meeting with Democrats on Capitol Hill that “Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down.” Obama had made similar comments earlier in the month.*

It bothers me because it is essentially an admission (while having the President pose for a “see, I can shoot guns, ya’ll” photo-op) that it will not do DICK to reduce gun violence, because THEY and WE know that the vast majority of thos homicides is by handgun. NOT some self-stylized military rifle…and NOR does the AR-15 afford any extra opportunity to kill MORE people than with a semi auto handgun…its just not true.
Nor will it ever be. Banning AR-15’s due to their recent and highly publicized involvement in some heinous spree crimes doesn’t change the facts about what type of guns are actually used in the vast majority of gun related homicides. Reducing a magazine size seems fruitless in the wake of handguns.

I own a handgun and just might give it up to the government…if their stance made sense.

This smacks of a “we gotta do something” ball-busting issue but is not properly investigated by people that actually know something about weapons…of which the likes of Feinstein cannot include themselves, nor can Obama, despite his photo-op.

2

If you really want to do something meaningful on gun control, then universal registration and universal pre-check before selling on to someone will be a giant first step.

I’ve said before, it’s almost as if Feinstein is a NRA and GOP mole. Reframe the debate so that it rat holes on “assault style” weapons. The Republicans get alienation of a large swath of gun owners at a massive political cost. Net net, even if it passes, the Dems lose a lot of political capital and it does nothing on the handgun front…

Feinstein was an idiot when she was the mayor of SF (if only Jello Biafra had won that race :wink: ) and doesn’t seem to have matured any since then.

3

Most of the somethings Obama wants to do at this point, as reflected in his recent stack of 23* gun-related executive orders, involve properly investigating the problems. He is not taking any precipitate gun-banning action.

4

No matter how much gun people insist the ban is illogical - there is some logic to things like restricting magazine size.

Will it prevent all deaths? Of course not. Will it prevent even 1 percent of deaths? Maybe not.

Will it actually never prevent a death? I doubt it. Thos against it see it as a needless intrusion into their 2nd amendment rights - those for it see it as a reasonable restriction.

You don’t have to know much of anything about wine or beer to have an opinion on drunk driving.

If banning large capacity magazines is such a useless step - why do people want them? My understanding (perhaps incorrect) was that Gabrielle Giffords shooter was only stopped when he ran out of ammo and was trying to change magazines.

Gun rights advocates are parsing his language - everyone knows what he meant.

5

I don’t agree that “everyone knows what he means”. The whole thing to me seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to recently highly publicized gun crimes that involved a certain weapon, while the 98% of murders committed with handguns gets a collective “ho-hum” from the legislative AND executive branch. Obama is presumably from Chicago, why has he not spoken out against the rampant handgun violence there? Or proposed legislation against handguns as a result?

Does ANYONE think that the reason this issue is solely revolving around “assault weapons” (which is a ridiculous term, when handguns are of the same ilk) because of recent events involving them rather than reasoned, rational debate about what to do about it?

6

What is he going to do about handgun violence - other than the steps he outlined that covers all guns (like background checks)?

Do you really think Obama/Biden were saying that there was nothing they could do about gun violence - and therefore - that is proof that what they are trying to do is BS?

Is this debate solely brought on by the 2% of weapons (as you put it - not sure if that is true, but I am not disputing it - I agree it is small - and you may have just been taking an educated guess)?

Yes - I absolutely agree you are correct there. I don’t see the problem. It still addresses (I am assuming the stuff about the background checks for example - applies to all guns - feel free to correct if I am wrong) all guns in some aspects.

Is some of this a political stunt? Yes. Sure it is. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. No one is trying to ban guns. Just cause there aren’t double blind placebo controlled studies on all these things - doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense to try some of them.

7

Foie Gras,I understand what you are saying about “assault weapons” being an inappropriate term. You and others on the SD have helped me to see the error of my claims.

If some of us had our druthers, all guns would be banned. That’s not going to happen and maybe that’s why Obama’s executive orders don’t address banning ordinary hand guns, shotguns or ordinary rifles. He is making a compromise. (I don’t claim to have special knowledge of his preferences.)

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mention what arms Americans are entitled to. At the time of its conception, muskets were the “arm” of the day. I acknowledge that we are not going to return to that measure either. We need to be able to compromise to satisfy the Amendment and those who prefer no guns at all.

What specifically from BrainGlutton’s list of Obama’s executive orders do you think violates the 2nd Amendment? You say that this is a “knee jerk” reaction. I think it hasn’t come quickly enough and certainly isn’t based on one mass murder. However, the term “knee jerk” implies a quick reaction and that is exactly what is needed – even if it is late in coming!

Since the Brady Bill (5 day waiting period on handguns) didn’t seem to have much of an effect, why not have stronger measures?

8

Fist step? I hear a lot that about Obamas proposals being a good first step, but a first step to what? This:

No thanks.

9

About Biden’s recent comment:

Biden: “Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down.”

Although this is one sentence taken out of context, he did not say what the exaggeration says that he said.

He talks about the possibility of another mass shooting not being altered. That makes sense to me. The possibility will always exist. And he said that nothing is going to guarantee that gun deaths will come down. He is not a stupid man. But we can hope that these measures do make a discernable difference.

What are the laws that have worked so well in New York?

Kable, we are long passed “No thanks” if you had rather have more children mass slaughtered. You did not read my post carefully, apparently. What I do stand behind is compromise. I know that I won’t get my way on a gun ban. I hope that the NRA doesn’t have it their way either. COMPROMISE!

10

If gun control advocates describe the problem as simple, they’re hypocrites or imbeciles. If gun control advocates describe the problem as complex, they’re hypocrites or imbeciles. Got it.

If the law required that you forfeit your handgun, you might do so … if the law made sense to you. That’s a concession!

Present company accepted, I have been amused to observe that it is the very people so concerned about 2nd Amendment sanctity that are most eager to break laws they disapprove of.

11

A lot of us think you have had your compromise already. You just want us to compromise again, as a “step” in the direction of getting all guns banned, which we know (and you admitted) is what a lot of you really want. Like I said, not thanks.

And nobody wants children to be murdered. We hope that they will be protected. Like this girl…

…who if you had your druthers would have been defenseless. Is that really what you want?

12

:rolleyes: No, sir. Univeral registration and pre-check are not first steps to banning all guns. That’s just an instance of the slippery-slope fallacy.

13

There have been a ton of gun control “debate” threads lately, and because most people have long ago made up their minds about their position, I have tried to be somewhat reticent about voicing mine. But now I will try to communicate my opinion as best I can.

First, I think one of the things that could be realistically accomplished, and that might eventually do some good, would be to require the same background check for private transfer of firearms as is currently required for transfer from a FFL license holder (my reasoning is that it would make straw purchasers easier to prosecute). My understanding is that some states already require this, and it would probably be easier from a constitutional standpoint (the commerce clause has been abused enough, IMO) to work at the state level to accomplish this.

Now, if you really wish to ban or even seriously lower gun ownership in the US, you might want to think about what that would require. I’m not suggesting that it can’t be done. China was able to rid herself of a serious opiate problem, but it was rather bloody. Singapore also seems to know how to get serious when it wants to rid its society of gum chewers and graffiti artists, and I say more power to them, if that’s what the people there want. But I wouldn’t want to see that level of totalitarianism in the US, even though I think we flirt with it on such things as the “war on drugs”. Yes, I know that a drug and a gun are different things. Being able to effect real change on the possession of either requires a commonality of state powers, though.

Since one of the more common suggestions seems to be limits on high capacity magazines, I will take a moment to address this. For every round you add to a magazine’s capacity, there is a cost. The biggest cost is reliable feeding. For most inline magazines, the practical limit is between 20 and 30 rounds. Is this excessive? I won’t argue the point. I will say that if everything else is equal, two or three 10 round magazines will be more reliable than their larger kin. And it takes longer to clear a jam than it does to swap a successfully emptied magazine. To get to 50 or 100 rounds generally requires a drum magazine, and even the best of those are notorious for causing feed problems. It is my understanding that the theater shooter of recent history was using a 100 round “twin drum” magazine, it quickly jammed. Now that tragedy was plenty bad, but fact is that it could have been worse if the shooter’s gun had not jammed.

BTW, if you are open to hearing about use of firearms for non-criminal purposes, I would suggest you check out:

Yes, it is an NRA site, but the stories come from local news. These stories rarely make the national news wire feeds.

14

The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don’t care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else’s. They care about guns. Period.

15

You say “photo-op” twice, yet the picture was taken last August well before the shit hit the fan, and the White House apparently had to go digging to find it. There was nothing “photo-op” about it.

But I can see how you’d object to Biden’s statement. On the surface, it does look like he isn’t holding out much hope for any new measures. I suspect he could have worded it better (good ol’ Uncle Joe:smack:), but I haven’t seen the context in which he said it, so I’m not going to rush to judgment on it.

I got a kick out of Marsha Blackburn’s hissy fit, though. It looks like she’s pissed that Obama can’t be characterized anymore as a pansy-ass pussy who doesn’t know anything about guns.:smiley: She seems to think that if you don’t advertise the fact that you shoot guns, you can’t be a shooter, whereas I’d find it plausible if he, as an influential figure, didn’t want to make a public display of shooting guns.

And this–"National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam reacted to the photo, telling CNN, “One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun control scheme imaginable.”–is utter hyperbolic bullshit from a lying fucktard. Just another ignorant bozo caught with his pants around his ankles by assuming Obama knew nothing about guns just because he supports more gun control.

16

It’s not fallacy at all when your side admits such and such regulations are the first step towards your ultimate goal. Call it incrementalism if you prefer. Incrementalism - Wikipedia

17

I would like to think you are exaggerating but you probably really do think this don’t you? You should really try and make friends with someone who shoots and go out shooting a few times. You’ll find the vast majority of the people are not demons and their beloved guns really are not implements of evil.

Sorry if I’m biased, but a gun did save my life. That’s good isn’t it?

18

That’s why we should ban 40’s, what is wrong with 12 oz.
That is the level of ignorance on the issue. Yeah you don’t have to know much, but even a little would help. Yeah maybe the drunk driver will think twice before reaching for another can of Busch something that would not happen if he was drinking a 40 oz bottle of malt liquor, and I might win the lotto. Could happen. would it make any meaningful difference I doubt it.

19

Biden’s comment is perhaps the most intelligent thing said by a Democrat about this issue in the last six weeks. You cannot create a utopia through making more and more things illegal. There were serial killers in the Soviet Union, for god’s sake. No matter how many civil liberties you are willing to give up, perfect safety is impossible. People whose first reaction to every “bad thing” is “government need make bad thing go way” just don’t understand this. It’s not just about “yes, I’m willing to accept the occasional terrorist attack or school massacre as the cost of having a free society.” It’s about the reality that we don’t even get to make the choice to begin with–you can have the most unfree society imaginable, ban all guns, shoot anyone who looks Muslim on sight (or stab them, I guess), whatever, and there will STILL be terrorist attacks and school massacres. You don’t get to “trade liberty for safety,” only trade liberty for nothing.

20

The sentence “Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down” seems to me to simply be a factual statement and nothing more.

You may be reading more into it than I am, but I guess that’s all the rage these days.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA saying ‘You can’t trust the government. They’re taking your guns away,’ like he said to Chris Wallace this weekend, is far, far more disturbing because it is not true and is designed to upset and alarm.