This statement from the article: He (Joe Biden) 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.
really bothers me.
So why do it if you acknowledge beforehand that it’s an ineffective measure?
Of course you could say that about anything - laws criminalizing theft, rape and murder do not “eliminate the possibility of another” theft, rape or murder, or “guarantee” to bring down the numbers of thefts, rapes and murders - does that mean they are “ineffective measures”, or that we shouldn’t have them at all?
My issue is that the language Biden used in that comment is defeatist in nature. And the release of this photograph is really just an attempt to score political points.
He released the picture because he’d been asked if he’d fired a gun before, and when he said he went shooting at Camp David, the press wouldn’t stop pestering him for proof.
Because it’s true. The possibility of another mass shooting will always be there. The possibility of gun deaths remaining the same is also the case if the number of shootings was going to go up anyway and these measures brought them back down, the number of net killings will be the same.
These words are an inoculation against any future claims of “we restricted access to guns like you wanted and we still had shootings and deaths, therefore, it didn’t work!”
Well, we do already have laws against theft, rape, and murder, even if a firearm is not involved. Most states have laws that increase the penalties if a firearm is involved. I think you would have to search very far to find a “pro gun” person who objected to such laws. Heck, propose even greater penalties for use of “assault weapons” or “high capacity” magazines in the commission of a crime , and I think you would find few who would argue against you.
But they are acknowledging that restricting access to guns “won’t work”. So what’s the point?
I am a gun owner (a single handgun). I want gun control, but I want it to make sense.
The ease of access to deadly weapons seems to be the issue to me, not the weapon “type”, despite AR-15’s recently being used in a few mass shootings…in terms of the overall picture rifles of ANY sort represent a miniscule percentage of murders committed with guns.
So what is the answer? BAN those quasi-military looking guns on the one hand while admitting on the other that it won’t do anything? Brilliant!
There are more issues at play here, most of which in my mind center around tighter access and mental health issues. I am no NRA “beacon of the 2nd Amendment” here but outright bans on things that politicians don’t even understand, especially when bolstered by statistics that show that these types of weapons are in a very small minority of guns used in homicides is just stupid.
People will argue that “at least we’re doing something” when in fact we are doing nothing. If you want strict gun regulation, do it with handguns. I will abide that.
Foiegrasisevil, this is entirely unresponsive to the OP. This is an official warning for an inappropriate political jab in GQ. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Moderator Note
zombiewoof, moriah, dexter, and excavating (for a mind), I recognize that these are responses to previous posts, but none of these comments is relevant to the OP and are inappropriate for GQ. The next response that is not directly responsive to the OP will receive an official warning.
Moderator Note dexter, I recognize that these are responses to previous posts, but none of these comments is relevant to the OP and are inappropriate for GQ. The next response that is not directly responsive to the OP will receive an official warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. And I’m sure this sounds like a suckup, but I should have known better. I’ll try to think a little better next time.
I have to admit that my response wasn’t in keeping with the OP’s question. Sorry if I “politicized” a GQ thread. Now I’ve been warned over it when I was at first included in a mod note.
I do not wish to run afoul of the mods or the rules. That statement by Biden bugged me though, and I am for gun control. So I started another thread in GD, which I don’t expect to end well, but hopefully I won’t get warned for.
Even though he is left-handed, I am right-handed yet hold a rifle left-handedly (also a guitar, and throwing a ball). I understand that’s not uncommon.