Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

[protectionist]

read the thread.

dodge

 

[2aguy]

Wrong. States and countries that have stricker gun laws have in average lower gun crime rates. The lone exceptions are states like Maine where there are more trees then people per acre.

Wrong...that isn't true....as Chicago, and other democrat party controlled cities show...but thanks for playing.

 

[2aguy]

10 round limit seems to be the ones floated around. With 9 shot revolvers on the market and every 9 mm already with a 10 rd mag option, it will do little to disturb the market. Really, no law abiding civilian will be affected Or limited much for self defense. If they are, they need a lot more target practice.

There is no reason to limit magazine size, other than as baby steps to limiting them more and more ...sorry, screw you......no limits on magazines simply cause you got feelz......

 

[2aguy]

Blues ALWAYS had guns. It’s a fallacy thinking they didn’t. The biggest difference without question is, the blue house hold might have 5 firearms and the red will have 15.

Wrong......in cities under total democrat party control crime rates are high...because they keep releasing the most violent criminals, the ones most likely to use illegal guns for murder.

 

[2aguy]

So what good does any of this do when his fellow Democrats appoint AG's or prosecutors that give the most liberal sentences to violent criminals? Again, guns don't hurt anybody, it's people that hurt and kill other people. of course the NRA opposes it. Look at what he offers from your link:

Supports local law enforcement with federal tools and resources to address violent crime

What federal tools are they speaking of they didn't have before?

Invests in evidence-based community violence interventions

Okay can you give me one example of what this means?

• Expands summer programming, employment opportunities, and other services and supports for teenagers and young adults, and
• Helps formerly incarcerated individuals successfully reenter their communities.

So removing a deterrent is going to help in stopping gun crimes? Where has that ever worked before? Businesses move out of high crime areas, they don't create them. Nobody wants to open up a business in a high crime environment.

Crack down on the “Iron Pipeline” – the illegal flow of guns sold in the south, transported up the East Coast, and found at crime scenes in cities from Baltimore to New York City – and other firearms trafficking by adding personnel and other resources to strengthen the Justice Department’s multijurisdictional task forces that target interstate firearms trafficking.

This, from the party that allowed over 2 million illegals to enter this country last year, most untested, most unvaxed? Then busing or flying them all over our nation coast to coast?

Launch a National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative, which will train a national cadre of prosecutors and disseminate investigation and prosecution tools to help bring cases against those who use ghost guns to commit crimes.

Most violent crimes don't involve any ghost guns. Next?

Pursue unlawful gun sellers that put firearms in the wrong hands by taking steps such as prioritizing federal prosecutions of those who criminally sell or transfer firearms that are used in violent crimes, including unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals without the required background checks.

In other words sales of firearms from person to person, few of which are ever involved in violent crimes.

This is all nothing but a dog and pony show that won't reduce violent crimes by a percentage of 1%. Most all of what's contained in this post has to do with federalizing local law enforcment. I don't have the time to respond to each one, but it's all bullshit.

It's always funny........ they bitch about criminals going to states like Indiana to get guns...but the gun murder rate in Indiana...where the guns are...are lower than Chicago's...where they have extreme gun control.....they never address that point...dittos New York.........where their criminals leave the state to get guns, but the states where they get the guns have lower gun crime rates....they are insane.

 

[2aguy]

Blues ALWAYS had guns. It’s a fallacy thinking they didn’t. The biggest difference without question is, the blue house hold might have 5 firearms and the red will have 15.

And they way the anti-gun fascists make that claim is to use suicides in Red states and lump them into their total....otherwise their lie is exposed...

New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:

Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).


http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?
The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!


Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.


Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.

"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."


Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

Public health researcher Garen Wintemute, who advocates stronger gun laws, assessed the spate of gun-law studies during an October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."

Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."

 

[Dagosa]

Why should they? Most people never heard of them before the Vegas shooting, and those that have never owned one.



Nobody is going to hurt me at 600 yards, that's why I carry a light weight short range gun. However in doing so I also realize that a shorter barrel will make me much less accurate which is why I have a 18 round magazine. If needed, I will miss most of my shots, no different than any gun expert or even your average police officer. And I'm not going to go to my convenience store to buy a half-gallon of milk some night with a loaded shotgun.

Exactly. But other then a shot gun, there is no such thing as a short range gun. There are firearms that are inaccurate short range. Now, nearly all rifles especially, kill out to hundreds of yards. That’s why assault style rifles are popular and more lethal in the hands of kids and otherwise, people who normally wouldn’t have them. They were originally used by draftees who liked to pray and spray....up to 600 yards.
The move towards police armored vehicles has followed the path of the AR15.

 

[Dagosa]

That's one way the most successful people for the sales of guns are those in the Democrat party. The other is the high spikes in crime they cause.

Really ? Many more Conservatives buy guns and ammo by the cart load.... huge difference. Then, gun holders resell them on the private market. With few exceptions, firearms found their way into the hands of criminals FIRST through a legal sale by an FFL dealer. Gun makers know this. The gun hoarders of the world are united on this effort.

 

[Dagosa]

Crime is going up everywhere and blue people are buying guns to protect themselves.

Funny, states and cities with highest crime rates are more likely red populated and run. So much for that guess. 8 of 10. Seems to be questionable about who is arming themselves more. Conservatives are more fearful and buy firearms in larger numbers IMO.

• Anchorage, Alaska.
• Memphis, Tennessee Mississippi-Arkansas.
• Lubbock, Texas.
• Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, Michigan.
• Springfield, Missouri.
• San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California.
• Corpus Christi, Texas.
• Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana.

 

[Dagosa]

Every much like the Russia hoax, that dupes Ds and libs.

Oh, Russia is filled with nice guys…..ha ha. Russia is obviously behind anti democratic effort throughout the world. Helping Trump was no different. Every intel agency we have says the same thing. Trump took Putin’s word over them in fking public. Trump even refused to arm Ukraine unless their pres made up shit on Biden. He didn’t. So blame Trump and Putin love birds for not having enough defense in the invasion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

dodge

I prefer Ford

 

[Dagosa]

I prefer Ford

Most do.

 

[gipper]

Oh, Russia is filled with nice guys…..ha ha. Russia is obviously behind anti democratic effort throughout the world. Helping Trump was no different. Every intel agency we have says the same thing. Trump took Putin’s word over them in fking public. Trump even refused to arm Ukraine unless their pres made up shit on Biden. He didn’t. So blame Trump and Putin love birds for not having enough defense in the invasion.

Delusional.

 

[Dagosa]

Delusional.

Russia is filled with nice guys, if you’re No. Korea, Iran or Moscow Mitch and his band of Fascist sympathizers. QAnon loves Putin too.

 

[gipper]

Russia is filled with nice guys, if you’re No. Korea, Iran or Moscow Mitch and his band of Fascist sympathizers. QAnon loves Putin too.

Crazy!

 

[Dagosa]

Crazy!

Yup. Reds are crazy. Between QAnon and believing every conspiracy theory regurgitated by Fix News, no wonder they are bonkers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, Russia is filled with nice guys…..ha ha. Russia is obviously behind anti democratic effort throughout the world. Helping Trump was no different. Every intel agency we have says the same thing. Trump took Putin’s word over them in fking public. Trump even refused to arm Ukraine unless their pres made up shit on Biden. He didn’t. So blame Trump and Putin love birds for not having enough defense in the invasion.

You're been here quite a while. You should know by now lies don't fly very far here.

 

[DBA]

Oh, Russia is filled with nice guys…..ha ha. Russia is obviously behind anti democratic effort throughout the world. Helping Trump was no different. Every intel agency we have says the same thing. Trump took Putin’s word over them in fking public. Trump even refused to arm Ukraine unless their pres made up shit on Biden. He didn’t. So blame Trump and Putin love birds for not having enough defense in the invasion.

You have a thorough misunderstanding of Trump’s relationship with Russia and their reason behind invading Ukraine on Biden’s watch.

 

[gipper]

Yup. Reds are crazy. Between QAnon and believing every conspiracy theory regurgitated by Fix News, no wonder they are bonkers.

STUPID!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's always funny........ they bitch about criminals going to states like Indiana to get guns...but the gun murder rate in Indiana...where the guns are...are lower than Chicago's...where they have extreme gun control.....they never address that point...dittos New York.........where their criminals leave the state to get guns, but the states where they get the guns have lower gun crime rates....they are insane.

They are told what to think and not why they should be thinking it. When our suburb started to change, our gun store closed down. Why? Because there was no business to be had with poor people and felons. That gun store was open for years when we were a white middle-class suburbs because we could afford those nice guns, and were able to buy them with no police record.

So if guns are the problem, how is it all those white middle-class suburbs have a large group of gun owners and never any real problems with violent crime? These anti-gunners never ask themselves such a question.