Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Biden Gun Control

Joe has lots of gun control plans, probably the most significant being a Beto-like approach to

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

 

Quote

 

Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will:

  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. 
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. 
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
  • Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.

 

Like the rest of the candidates from a certain part of the Duopoly, he thinks squirrel rifles and plinking pistols in the censored caliber are "weapons of war" which seems silly to me but I guess passes as common sense gun control. I won't say which part of the Duopoly since doing so seems to upset ben and I like him, but let's just say this fact has a liberal bias.
The big difference between his plan and Beto's is that Beto wants to take your "assault" weapons regardless of your wealth. Biden's idea is to take your property only if you can't come up with the $200 tax in the National Firearms Act, so basically is aimed at taking them from poor people. In any other context, people might point out that this disproportionately affects minorities. In this context, it's like New York and New Jersey charging hundreds of dollars for permission to exercise second amendment rights. Just common sense gun control.

Quote


  • Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.

 

I'm still with the ACLU on that one. They said in a 2017 letter to the House of Representatives:
 

Quote

 

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases. We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental  disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent.

There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. 

 

Meaningful due process is such a bummer.

Quote


Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns. But, right now the NRA and gun manufacturers are bullying firearms dealers who try to sell these guns. Biden will stand up against these bullying tactics and issue a call to action for gun manufacturers, dealers, and other public and private entities to take steps to accelerate our transition to smart guns.

 

I've addressed this one and voiced my support for the technology in the relevant thread, but also noted that

On 11/22/2015 at 5:59 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Acknowledging how this law has actually inadvertently impeded smart guns from coming onto the marketplace, New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the original mandate, tells 60 Minutes that as early as next week, she will ask her state's legislature to repeal the law and replace it with one mandating at least one smart gun be for sale wherever weapons are sold in her state....


Weinberg's bill didn't go as far as Biden wishes to go since it covered new guns. "100% of firearms sold" would include used ones.

Quote


  • Stop “ghost guns.” One way people who cannot legally obtain a gun may gain access to a weapon is by assembling a one on their own, either by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts or 3D printing a working firearm. Biden will stop the proliferation of these so-called “ghost guns” by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check. Additionally, Biden will ensure that the authority for firearms exports stays with the State Department, and if needed reverse a proposed rule by President Trump. This will ensure the State Department continues to block the code used to 3D print firearms from being made available on the Internet.

 

As mentioned in the relevant thread, the problem with attempting to censor code on the internet is that contumacious individuals will do stuff like this in response to any such attempt.

On 5/21/2019 at 7:02 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Twitter Heeds Senator Menedez's Censorship Call

Maybe.
 

For whatever reason, I haven't been banned for this:

 


I'm not sure that Biden's rule would apply to my actions, since I didn't buy nor sell the information he wants to censor. I'm pretty sure my actions would undermine any such censorship, which is kinda the point, just like when I exported PGP to Anguilla in response to attempted censorship of that code in the 90's. That one was definitely a felony at the time but I never got in trouble. 

Quote

Address the epidemic of suicides by firearms. Biden believes any plan to address the gun violence epidemic must address suicides by firearms, which account for 6 in 10 gun-related deaths but are often left out of the conversation. Many of the policies noted above – including safe storage requirements and extreme risk protection orders – will have a serious impact on efforts to reduce gun violence. But there’s so much more we need to do to support people experiencing suicidal ideation. In the months ahead, Biden will put forward a comprehensive plan to improve access to mental health services.

As mentioned in the relevant thread, the US has a pretty average suicide rate. That thread has grown to epic length because suicides are so frequently brought up as a justification for gun control. The suicides that are left out are not the ones using guns, but all the others. They don't support any political agenda so are seldom discussed.

On 4/16/2015 at 9:52 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.


Biden also wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but I already talked about that in the relevant thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Think through that statement?   Okay... I'll think it through... You think a bicycle makes for a good mass replacement for the automobile. Giving this some thought.....  Okay... I've go

Easy peasy Wikipedia picks it up in the 1920s and includes things like the Tulsa race "riot" (ie mass murder and arson against black people by numerous white people) but it also will send you to

I can sorta tell you have never been to a USAean shopping mall . . 

Posted Images

20 hours ago, warbird said:

Does this meean dogballs might be outlawed?:ph34r:

Already done in some places and proposed nationwide. They're too lethal for the Israeli Defense Forces, as noted previously...

On 3/26/2018 at 6:40 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I learned something about battlefield dogballs's today.

On 3/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, badlatitude said:

Did you tell them that the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons? 

8.jpg

Operator armed with the Ruger0/Dogballs Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000. Note that the sniper has a Sig Sauer handgun tacked in his vest.


I guess badlat must have forgotten to include his source.

http://ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm
 

Quote

 

...the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) searched for a 0dogballs caliber accurate rifle that will be used to take out the key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs.

The Ruger0/Dogballs, fitted with a X4 day optic, a full length suppressor and a Harris bipod was selected for this role and was due to be issued to all infantry oriented units, including both special and conventional forces. However, as often happens in the shoestring budget IDF, financial problems prevented the weapon’s mass distribution, and it was mainly issued to Special Forces (SF) units. Moreover, instead of using the rifle as a riot control weapon, as originally intended, the Israeli SF deployed the Ruger0/Dogballs more as a “Hush Puppy” weapon used to silently and effectively eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations.

In the recent Israeli-Palestinian clashes began in 2000, the Ruger resumes it’s original role as a less lethal riot control weapon. However, it’s usage in this role was rather controversial this time. After several incidents involving the death of Palestinians by the Ruger fire, the IDF conducted a field experiment in the Ruger at the IDF Sniper School in Mitkan Adam under the supervision of the IDF Judge Advocate General (JAG). The test showed that the Ruger was more lethal then thought especially in upper body injuries. Also, since it’s suppressed and was considered less lethal by the troops, the soldiers were much more likely to use the Ruger loosely then intended.

As a result of this test, the JAG reclassified the Ruger as a lethal weapon. As a lethal weapon, the usage of the Ruger in riot control is much more limited today. In the IDF Center Command it was completely prohibited to use and the IDF South Command it’s deployment was cut down dramatically.

 

So it turns out that guns like my wife's are actually too dangerous for the IDF! Yikes! It's really weird that it's so darn popular in Canada. Bloodthirsty, eh?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

They're too lethal for the Israeli Defense Forces, as noted previously...

...and Penitentiary Tom whips out a file from the ol' database...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with these weapons as the operation of them is probably covered in the required assembly occurring with a frequency of somewhere between twice a year and once every 10,000 or so years.  (Don't hold me to the upper limit.  It could be longer.). 

No cite is available at this time.  We regret any emotional distress this may case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 5:45 AM, warbird said:

Does this meean dogballs might be outlawed?:ph34r:

Got innuendo? No such evidence has been presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Already done in some places and proposed nationwide. They're too lethal for the Israeli Defense Forces, as noted previously...

 

Dear Plentyimpotent Tom, if your wife's weapon is too dangerous for the IDF, why do you complain about Diane Feinstein's move to ban it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Dear Plentyimpotent Tom, if your wife's weapon is too dangerous for the IDF, why do you complain about Diane Feinstein's move to ban it?

Sorry, should have used the sarcasm font some more in mocking your cite-free attempt to say that guns like hers are weapons of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, benwynn said:

I don't have a problem with these weapons as the operation of them is probably covered in the required assembly occurring with a frequency of somewhere between twice a year and once every 10,000 or so years. 

But what if we need participation by people who can't afford to pay for the required permission to exercise their rights? Not that there's anything racist, regressive, or troubling about such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Dear Plentyimpotent Tom, if your wife's weapon is too dangerous for the IDF, why do you complain about Diane Feinstein's move to ban it?

 

The Ruger0/Dogballs rimfire is so dangerous the Israelis stopped using it in favour of centrefire rifles with much higher power.

The English and New Zealanders still allow people to own these semi auto rimfire0/Dogballs, why do you think the US should have tougher laws with this type of firearm ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

The Ruger0/Dogballs rimfire is so dangerous the Israelis stopped using it in favour of centrefire rifles with much higher power.

The English and New Zealanders still allow people to own these semi auto rimfire0/Dogballs, why do you think the US should have tougher laws with this type of firearm ?

I could source the articles which encourage the use of this weapon as a centerpiece of any 'prepper' provisioning plans; I am sure you have already read them. I have also discussed this with Tom at length, so I would recommend you ask him to dig them up since I am not inclined to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Proposals to outlaw them are such evidence. Joseph Pelleteri's case is proof that the intent has been carried out.

Pelleteri had an eighteen shooter in 1991, after New Jersey wisely legislated that was over the top in NJ. Too bad for Pelleteri , in NJ.

 

*********

 

Hmmm.  The USA is swimming with bona fide AW's not being collected, three per each AW owner on average. These battle guns are presently un-collectable, and you maintain that even the plinkers are gonners.

You are wailing away, for years on end, about shit which you made up. And this brings you fulfillment? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Pelleteri had an eighteen shooter in 1991, after New Jersey wisely legislated that was over the top in NJ. Too bad for Pelleteri , in NJ.

He had a tube magazine in the censored caliber, something that we get constantly assured that "nobody wants to ban". Go figure, history says otherwise.

56 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

These battle guns are presently un-collectable, and you maintain that even the plinkers are gonners.

Well Joe, some of use actually read the legislation Brady/Giffords/Bloomburg wrote that have been introduced both federally and in various states. They have been quoted in here several times.

Many of those messages contained pictures of some of these far to dangerous for civilian ownership firearms. I can't help it if some of these firearms are used in ISSF target shooting.

Pointing this out to the sponsor of the legislation in NJ didn't even get a response, so either they don't understand the difference or don't care, because "guns bad" (except for the ones that protect legislators.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The never ending spin on gun control...  When will it stop? 

Pass laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who should never have a gun in their possession.  How hard can that be?  Identify those who are only concerned about corporate profits and remove them from the conversation and maybe we can get sensible gun legislation passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jules said:

The never ending spin on gun control...  When will it stop? 

Pass laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who should never have a gun in their possession.  How hard can that be?  Identify those who are only concerned about corporate profits and remove them from the conversation and maybe we can get sensible gun legislation passed.

It won't until the real issues are addressed.  Guns are just a proxy for much larger divisions and arguments; big government v small, white v others, urban v rural, elite v masses, individual v community etc. We can't move on gun issues is not that the radical gun rights guys don't care about the innocent victims, it's that they believe there are issues more important than the number of dead. Until that gap is addressed, we're arguing apples and aardvarks. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

It won't until the real issues are addressed.  Guns are just a proxy for much larger divisions and arguments; big government v small, white v others, urban v rural, elite v masses, individual v community etc. We can't move on gun issues is not that the radical gun rights guys don't care about the innocent victims, it's that they believe there are issues more important than the number of dead. Until that gap is addressed, we're arguing apples and aardvarks. 

But how did those things get into their heads?  Gun lobbyists, AKA the NRA.  Fear sells.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

The Ruger0/Dogballs rimfire is so dangerous the Israelis stopped using it in favour of centrefire rifles with much higher power.

The English and New Zealanders still allow people to own these semi auto rimfire0/Dogballs, why do you think the US should have tougher laws with this type of firearm ?

Trick question? To piss off Tom, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Not at all. The modern gunnut is a conservative political reactionary against the modern world and it's perceived threat to their way of life.

Not arguing, but conservative political reactionaries have been around much longer than the gun debate. The NRA just leveraged the fracture when promoted by forced busing.  Louis Beam influenced this round of reaction with his "leaderless rebellion" and , later, moderating the language to "freedom" rather than "race war". Watch the Lee Attwater video again for the discussion of dogwhistles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bpm57 said:

He had a tube magazine in the censored caliber, something that we get constantly assured that "nobody wants to ban". Go figure, history says otherwise.

From the messenger attacks directed at me, I'd say most here did not know that ordinary squirrel guns in the censored caliber are "assault" weapons that TeamD wants to ban until I brought it up. I doubt any of them will admit that's the case, but so many have had an incredulous reaction that I believe they really didn't know just how far over the edge grabbers have gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 1:09 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol:

the best thing about tomballs threads ares watching the own goals from team gunnut

I know that your ilk are fond of pretending that the NRA is the only group that spends money lobbying, yet bills with near identical wording appeared in multiple states and congress at the same time. It is an "own goal" to point this out?

Imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I know that your ilk are fond of pretending that the NRA is the only group that spends money lobbying, yet bills with near identical wording appeared in multiple states and congress at the same time. It is an "own goal" to point this out?

Imagine.

I'll take ALEC for 100, Alex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 1:45 PM, learningJ24 said:

It won't until the real issues are addressed.  Guns are just a proxy for much larger divisions and arguments; big government v small, white v others, urban v rural, elite v masses, individual v community etc. We can't move on gun issues is not that the radical gun rights guys don't care about the innocent victims, it's that they believe there are issues more important than the number of dead.

Well then, address a couple of them from the topic post.
 

Quote

 

Like the rest of the candidates from a certain part of the Duopoly, he thinks squirrel rifles and plinking pistols in the censored caliber are "weapons of war" which seems silly to me but I guess passes as common sense gun control. I won't say which part of the Duopoly since doing so seems to upset ben and I like him, but let's just say this fact has a liberal bias.


The big difference between his plan and Beto's is that Beto wants to take your "assault" weapons regardless of your wealth. Biden's idea is to take your property only if you can't come up with the $200 tax in the National Firearms Act, so basically is aimed at taking them from poor people. In any other context, people might point out that this disproportionately affects minorities. In this context, it's like New York and New Jersey charging hundreds of dollars for permission to exercise second amendment rights. Just common sense gun control.

 

FWIW, I agree with you that the whole "white v others" and "elite v masses" aspects of gun control are regressive and troubling. That is what you were trying to say, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 2:02 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Given that the US murder rate is at a 51 year Low point, according the the FBI - I would say that yes there ARE definitely more pressing issues to deal with.  

 

It's definitely not pressing that the US is firmly in the third world when it comes to safety from homicide.  If we just let things continue the way they are, in a few more years we might be as safe as Cubans, Venezuelans, Kazakhstanis, Angolans, and Tanzanians. #KAG

 

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/murder-rate-by-country/

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 12:02 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Given that the US murder rate is at a 51 year Low point, according the the FBI - I would say that yes there ARE definitely more pressing issues to deal with.  

homicide_51yr.JPG?itok=_t-CI6j6

This is bullshit, Jeffie. No cite? Where did you get your wrong-ass figure? 

I got mine right here       https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/murder

Quote

Overview

  • In 2017, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 17,284. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2016 estimate, a 20.7 percent increase from the 2013 figure, and a 5.0 percent rise from the number in 2008. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
  • There were 5.3 murders per 100,000 people in 2017. The murder rate in 2017 was down from the rates in 2016 (1.4 percent) and 2008 (2.0 percent). However, the murder rate climbed 17.3 percent when compared with the 2013 rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
  • Of the estimated number of murders in the United States, 45.9 percent were reported in the South, 22.6 percent were reported in the Midwest, 20.2 percent were reported in the West, and 11.3 percent were reported in the Northeast. (See Table 3.)

 

Quote

According to the research, 39,773 people were fatally shot in 2017, a figure that has grown by more than 10,000 people since 1999. CDC data going back to 1979 shows that last year had the highest rates of gun deaths in nearly 40 years.  

https://time.com/5479993/gun-deaths-us-cdc/>

 

 

2015 and 2016 showed significant spikes, and they were based in big cities. The pattern did not continue, 2017 leveleled off and did not get worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 2:02 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

From the messenger attacks directed at me, I'd say most here did not know that ordinary squirrel guns in the censored caliber are "assault" weapons that TeamD wants to ban until I brought it up. I doubt any of them will admit that's the case, but so many have had an incredulous reaction that I believe they really didn't know just how far over the edge grabbers have gone.

given the utter lack of usefullness of a dogballs cal weapon to a militia, yeah, they should be banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

In 2017, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 17,284. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2016 estimate, a 20.7 percent increase from the 2013 figure, and a 5.0 percent rise from the number in 2008.

His chart ends 2014 and your numbers seem to show a low point ~2013 and in that you both are right.

The murder rates seem to be trending down again in the last 3 years following the trend from the early '90s barring a small spike in 2015-16 (4.9 and 5.3). Last year i.e. 2018 the rate was down to 5 from the 2017 5.3 which was itself 0.7% lower than 2016. 

5.3 is the 2017 figure, the average from the '70s to the '90s was above 8, spiking over 10. In the last 30 years the rates have almost halved, along with the improved reporting and scrutiny leading to less murders written off as natural causes. It obviously could be better, should be a few decimals at least, I wouldn't trust 0s for this population size.

Latest figures are here, just change the 2018s in the address to whichever years data you want

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/murder

 

BTW the FBI numbers are a bit wonky in 2016 & 17, 34 more murders in 2017 which supposedly translates to a decrease of 0.7%. That may be due to reclassification or some such, finding out that it was a murder or not. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Raz'r said:

given the utter lack of usefullness of a dogballs cal weapon to a militia, yeah, they should be banned.

But

On 3/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, badlatitude said:

the Israeli Army uses them for sniper weapons

8.jpg

Operator armed with the Ruger ten/twenty two Suppressed sniper rifle during the Israeli-Palestinian clashes in the Occupied Territories, October 2000.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A paywall is what greets me.

I provided actual numbers, under FBI and CDC letterheads. Go ahead and admit when you are wrong ormyour sources are weak: 5.3/100k will bring you back to the real world. I join you in wanting it to go down.

But the gun problem is not suitably in remission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in U.S. Last Year, Highest in 50 Years

More people died from firearm injuries in the United States last year than in any other year since at least 1968, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides. It was the largest yearly total on record in the C.D.C.’s electronic database, which goes back 50 years, and reflects the sheer number of lives lost.

When adjusted for population size, the rate of gun deaths in 2017 also increased slightly to 12 deaths for every 100,000 people, up from 11.8 per 100,000 in 2016. By this measure, last year had the highest rate of firearm deaths since the mid-1990s, the data showed.

It was the third consecutive year that the rate of firearm deaths rose in the United States, after remaining relatively steady throughout the 2000s and the first part of this decade.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html

After declining in late 1990s, U.S. gun suicide and gun murder rates have edged higher in recent years

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple. Ask all the gun owners to hand in all their guns and ammo. Then get them to come in for a 2-hour psych assessment (with possible follow-ups required), a 2-hour interview with some concerned officials, and bring at least three character witnesses who have known them for over 10 years. (One of whom has to a doctor, lawyer, banker, priest or law enforcement.)

If they pass that test, and pay a $500 tax per gun, they can have 'em back. Ammo would go up to about $60-$100 a round.

That would work, wouldn't it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sorry, but I’m not giving up my gunz because of a bunch of self-murdering quitters.  

Let's be honest, Jeff, you're not going to accept any form of gun control even if it was reasonable and saved lives.   You've stated over and over that your right to potentially shoot US military members or US law enforcement is more important than innocent lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

What's the matter? Biden's $200 tax to exercise our rights wasn't racist, regressive, and troubling enough for you? 

If you are a champion of racial equality in this crowd, you'll need to change up. You'll need to somehow separate guns from race, and racial matters from guns.

Stacy, Black-Panthers-West-End.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 2:09 PM, learningJ24 said:

There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides.

On 4/16/2015 at 9:52 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

 

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

Our self murderization rate continues to be pretty average compared to much more gungrabby countries.

Which part(s) of Biden's gun control plans do you think will save those lives? And what about the seldom-mentioned people who use some other means to kill themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Biden on banning ordinary handguns

Quote

While saying he supports the Second Amendment, Biden called the absolutist arguments of some gun-rights supporters “bizarre.” Noting people can’t own machine guns or bazookas, Biden said, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Last I checked, there are a couple hundred thousand machine guns that are legally owned by rich people, the only kind of people who can afford them since Saint Ronald closed the registry in 1986. Not that there's anything regressive, racist, or troubling about rights that are only for the rich.

Despite the false premise, one answer to his question would be that having weapons that are useful in military or militia service is exactly what was intended by the all-important prefatory clause of the second amendment. Another would be, which militaries around the world actually use 9mm handguns with "large" magazines (meaning 10 rounds in some places, 7 in others, and 5 in others)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Biden joins Bloomberg in attacking noted NRA asset Bernie
 

Quote

 

..."I'm the only one who ever got it done nationally," Biden said in response to a question about why voters should trust him to tackle an alleged "gun crisis" in America. "I beat the NRA twice. I got assault weapons banned. I got magazines that could not hold more than 10 rounds, I got them eliminated."

Biden also noted his support for the Brady Act, which mandated a waiting period for firearm purchases and established the federal background check system.

This was all a wind-up for Biden's attack on Sanders, who he faulted for voting in favor of legislation that prevents gun makers from being sued should their products be used by third parties to commit crimes.

"My friend on my right and others have given into gun manufacturers absolute immunity," said Biden, before engaging in some characteristic rambling. "150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than all the wars, including Vietnam."

There were a couple of things wrong with that statement. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to which Biden was referring, was passed in 2005, not 2007.

Even going by that earlier date, 150 million Americans (a little under half the country's current population) have not, in fact, been killed as a result of gun violence. Biden likely meant 150,000 people have been killed in gun homicides in the 15 years since Sanders' vote, which is roughly accurate.

...

 

As usual with the Gaffe-O-Matic, the bolded part requires some interpretation of what he may have actually meant.

I assume he meant to say that he, all by his little self, "eliminated" magazines that could hold more than ten rounds, not "could not."

Even that would be false, since the ban he's talking about drew the line at 15 rounds, not ten. It also didn't cover ordinary .22's as the current proposal supported by the Presidential contenders does. It also did not include the cherished confiscation provision, so people were allowed to continue to own, buy, and sell their property. The fact that it was naughty caused me to buy an old aftermarket 30 round magazine with a worn out spring for my Glock during that time. Now that I can get a new one legally, it doesn't really interest me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto has endorsed Joe

and got this response.

Quote

Biden, taking the microphone after O'Rourke spoke, then announced, "I want to make something clear -- I'm gonna guarantee you, this is not the last you're seeing of this guy -- you're gonna take care of the gun problem with me, you're gonna be the one who leads this effort. I'm counting on you, I'm counting on you, we need you badly."

So I guess he also heard the roar from the debate crowd when Beto said, Hell yes we're going to take your (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 3:19 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The fact that it was naughty caused me to buy an old aftermarket 30 round magazine with a worn out spring for my Glock during that time. Now that I can get a new one legally, it doesn't really interest me.

You kinda need to choose one side or the other.

You have often hailed CCP types as more legally pure than the cops. But here you are extending yourself to be smarmy ...while breaking a law (and while coaching others to be felons). Hmmm, we have a pattern of lawbreaking (on top of an extended pattern of race-baiting).

You don't get to have it both ways. And when you fight the law, the law wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

You kinda need to choose one side or the other.

You have often hailed CCP types as more legally pure than the cops. But here you are extending yourself to be smarmy ...while breaking a law (and while coaching others to be felons). Hmmm, we have a pattern of lawbreaking (on top of an extended pattern of race-baiting).

You don't get to have it both ways. And when you fight the law, the law wins.

What law do you think I broke?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

What law do you think I broke?

The one you claimed to have broken? What do I win?

 

On 11/20/2019 at 2:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
Quote

research by Tom Ray, which needs a cite:

Last I checked, there are a couple hundred thousand machine guns that are legally owned by rich people,

FALSE. I found 115,000 registered just in Nevada at the time of the concert shooting, the one with the 700 injuries.

2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

So I guess he also heard the roar from the debate crowd when Beto said, Hell yes we're going to take your (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

It was a mighty roar indeed. dogballs, he sniff away and he hate the sentiment in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 1:41 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Which part(s) of Biden's gun control plans do you think will save those lives?

The general direction of Biden and Beto is the keeper. Basically, educate the public (in order to counter the disinformation of Larry Pratt) until guns are not welcome in the home setting. Once educated, the voters in each state will guide the Senate well, or else. 

The "or else" is that they face the known statistical consequences in that state. The consequences are demonstrably negative.

Quote

The states with the highest rates of gun mortality were Mississippi, Alabama, and Wyoming. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Hawaii had the lowest rates.

Provisional data collected by the Gun Violence Archive suggests that gun deaths rose again in 2019, although those figures do not include suicides.

(...) 

·February 12, 2020

The number of gun deaths in America held steady in 2018, following three straight years of significant increases, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A total of 39,740 people were killed by firearms in 2018. The age-adjusted death rate also remained virtually unchanged, at 11.9 deaths per 100,000 people. 

The new figures, published today on the CDC’s interactive WONDER database, establish gun violence as the 14th leading cause of death for Americans, killing slightly more people than falls or motor vehicle accidents. The CDC’s mortality data is derived from death certificates collected at the state level.

The plateau follows three consecutive years in which the number of people killed by guns increased. The 2017 figures marked the highest firearm mortality rate recorded since 1996, and the largest number of gun deaths ever tallied by the CDC. The slight downtick in 2018 came amid an overall increase in life expectancy, which reversed three years of decline.

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/02/gun-deaths-suicide-cdc-data-2018/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The one you claimed to have broken? What do I win?

But I never claimed to have broken a law. You of all people should know that keeping and selling "assault" weapons and parts that were already owned when the 1994 ban was passed was allowed. The law didn't feature the confiscation upgrade, a major loophole about which your elk have complained a LOT.

Buying a new one would have been illegal when I bought mine, but buying a used one was not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

But I never claimed to have broken a law. You of all people should know that keeping and selling "assault" weapons and parts that were already owned when the 1994 ban was passed was allowed. The law didn't feature the confiscation upgrade, a major loophole about which your elk have complained a LOT.

Buying a new one would have been illegal when I bought mine, but buying a used one was not.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were prancing around like Freddy Mercury, bragging about "naughty", while breaking a magazine law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

FALSE. I found 115,000 registered just in Nevada at the time of the concert shooting, the one with the 700 injuries.

Cite, Joe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Much easier to unthinkingly troll, eh Tomballs?

Does it offend you that others might start following your example?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Oh, sorry, I thought you were prancing around like Freddy Mercury, bragging about "naughty", while breaking a magazine law.

The fact that you have no idea what the law was is not surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Cite, Joe.

 

I can't find  the full auto weapons in Nevada isolated as a state, but it has a tourism industry build around machine guns.  We had a popular thread called  9 yr old kills instructor with an Uzi. It was a about a planned family trip to NV, to get the child to shoot a machine gun. 

 

Tom's half-baked  figures are one third of the national total.

Quote

Dear Robert Farago

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States, a number that includes both assault rifles like the M16 and more novel products, like the Uzi submachine gun.

 

From <https://www.bing.com/search?q=how%20many%20maching%20guns%20in%20the%20USA%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=how%20many%20maching%20guns%20in%20the%20usa%3F&sc=0-33&sk=&cvid=0ED2647539C1429BA6B5AB213B0980FD>

 

I see many writers on your site making statements about how many machine guns exist on the NFRTR.  To be sure, lots of folks have speculated on the number since NFATCA obtained the transferable number ~10 years ago from then NFA Branch Chief, Ken Houchens, at Knob Creek.  Back then, the transferable count was a little over 182,000.

For several years NFATCA has been “battling” DOJ/ATF for release of current numbers.  After a rejection and several well-fought appeals we have the numbers.  The total number on the books as of February 24, 2016 is just under a half million:

  • Pre 86 (transferables): 175,977
  • Sales Samples (pre May keepers): 17,020
  • Restricted 922(o) (posties): 297,667

There is a caveat in that there is a built in margin of error resulting from manual entries to disparate systems.  A copy of the FOIA response is here:

http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

The fact that you have no idea what the law was is not surprising.

You think I memorize magazine laws? Why would I?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 5:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Last I checked, there are a couple hundred thousand machine guns that are legally owned by rich people, the only kind of people who can afford them since Saint Ronald closed the registry in 1986.

Looks like I was just a bit high.

29 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The total number on the books as of February 24, 2016 is just under a half million:

  • Pre 86 (transferables): 175,977
  • Sales Samples (pre May keepers): 17,020
  • Restricted 922(o) (posties): 297,667

I was talking about the 176k.

The rest are owned by governments and dealers who can only sell them to governments. Of course that's still allowed after the 1986 closure of the registry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You think I memorize magazine laws? Why would I?

Joe, you write all the time about how great AW ban laws are. The fact that you don't know what the last federal "AW ban" did is disturbing, but not surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I can't find  the full auto weapons in Nevada isolated as a state

Joe, I've seen that FOIA response before. But you said:

11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

FALSE. I found 115,000 registered just in Nevada

It is almost like you are doing your normal routine called "make shit up". Where did your false claim come from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Joe, I've seen that FOIA response before. But you said:

It is almost like you are doing your normal routine called "make shit up". Where did your false claim come from?

Go ahead, DeadEye, and list the shit I made up, right here. If they were mental typos which were soon corrected, they don't count. We've got all night bro.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Looks like I was just a bit high.

I was talking about the 176k.

The rest are owned by governments and dealers who can only sell them to governments. Of course that's still allowed after the 1986 closure of the registry.

Like Sol said, yer a bulshitter.

Quote
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

But here you are extending yourself to be smarmy ...while breaking a law (and while coaching others to be felons).

There are actually two lies to start the list here.

Joe has already apologized for the first one but observing the fact that gun confiscation programs are yuge failures around the country and around the world is not "coaching" anyone to do anything and he can't quote a post of mine that is coaching anyone to commit a felony.

As for the machine gun lie he just posted, "in circulation" means transferable or they're not in circulation. And there are about 176,000 of those, as Joe just showed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Go ahead, DeadEye, and list the shit I made up, right here. If they were mental typos which were soon corrected, they don't count. We've got all night bro.

 

11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

FALSE. I found 115,000 registered just in Nevada

Do you want to talk about Shay's & the Whiskey rebellions? Your "mental typos" went on for months despite being told you were wrong.

How about the ratification of the BoR? Even after being told the date, you still kept repeating dates that were years off.

How about your hot take on multiple antigun wins in court.. like Wrenn

Should I mention your presenting an appeal from DC (which got rejected) as "proof" that the anti argument is the one true way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Like Sol said, yer a bulshitter.

Quote
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States

 

You are all for banning them, yet you have no fucking clue what the categories mean.

The civilian available ones are the 176k, as 5 minutes of research would show.

All of the others belong to manufacturers, dealers, or governments (Police, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Joe has already apologized for the first one but observing the fact that gun confiscation programs are yuge failures around the country and around the world is not "coaching" anyone to do anything and he can't quote a post of mine that is coaching anyone to commit a felony

Bullshit. You have pranced around for years, featuring, extolling, and stroking the lawbreakers. You lay out your plans for joining them some day when FL goes mainstream. 

 

26 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

gun confiscation programs are yuge failures around the country and around the world

dogballs, he decide the facts for us

26 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

transferable

LMFAO. The word is a favorite, and it comes back to haunt you. I hear that a "transfer" is when you share a gun in your back yard.

 

Let's review the question. How many fully auto guns are there in the USA?

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Dear Robert Farago

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

Let's review the question. Now many fully auto guns are there in the USA?

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The total number on the books as of February 24, 2016 is just under a half million:

  • Pre 86 (transferables): 175,977

Those are the only kind I could have been talking about in making this statement:

 

On 11/20/2019 at 5:31 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Last I checked, there are a couple hundred thousand machine guns that are legally owned by rich people, the only kind of people who can afford them since Saint Ronald closed the registry in 1986.

If you didn't want to talk about them, why did you bring them up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE BUTTHURT RUNS DEEPLY IN THIS ONE. 

27 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

 

Do you want to talk about Shay's & the Whiskey rebellions? Your "mental typos" went on for months despite being told you were wrong. 

How about the ratification of the BoR? Even after being told the date, you still kept repeating dates that were years off.

How about your hot take on multiple antigun wins in court.. like Wrenn

Should I mention your presenting an appeal from DC (which got rejected) as "proof" that the anti argument is the one true way.

 

Not bad, I guess. Please recall that each of these was corrected, respectfully, and without delay.

I have 14,000 posts and have sorted a lot of details. And dude, our conversations will continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Those are the only kind I could have been talking about in making this statement:

 

If you didn't want to talk about them, why did you bring them up?

Not impressive. Misleading content, designed to mis-inform. You are a bullshitter, carefully couching the existence of hundreds of thousands of machine guns in the USA. More than half a million of them are out there, and the bumpstocka master wanted some made for himself.

 

Whom should we believe, on this subject? Your creds and figures are dogballs poor when contrasted with the ATF. 

13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Let's review the question. Now many fully auto guns are there in the USA?

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Dear Robert Farago

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Tom's half-baked  figures are one third of the national total.

Quote

Dear Robert Farago

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States...

 

For several years NFATCA has been “battling” DOJ/ATF for release of current numbers.  After a rejection and several well-fought appeals we have the numbers.  The total number on the books as of February 24, 2016 is just under a half million...  A copy of the FOIA response is here:

http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

 

The FOIA link is the only actual source offered, and it says just under half a million.

Do you have a source where the ATF says 638,000?

You keep repeating it as if it were true, or relevant to my slightly-high estimate of the number actually in circulation. Yes, governments have a lot more but I was talking about the ones owned by those rich enough to have a pre-1986 one legally.

I don't expect you to actually understand that law any more than you do the one on magazines you falsely accused me of breaking, but that's really how it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

nThe FOIA link is the only actual source offered, and it says just under half a million.

Do you have a source where the ATF says 638,000?

You keep repeating it as if it were true, or relevant to my slightly-high estimate of the number actually in circulation. Yes, governments have a lot more but I was talking about the ones owned by those rich enough to have a pre-1986 one legally.

I don't expect you to actually understand that law any more than you do the one on magazines you falsely accused me of breaking, but that's really how it is.

See the source, which is quoted directly, for the 638,000 figure. (And I would take most ANY source over Tom Ray.)

But let's slant our eyes and say you are credible, and go with your 500K figure. The let's subtract the 176,000 machine guns, whose existence you recognize.

DOGBALLED AGAIN. You need to manipulate shit to disguise the existence of 324,000 machine guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Yes, governments have a lot more but I was talking about the ones owned by those rich enough to have a pre-1986 one legally.

'Rich" is not accurate, for these individuals, in this context. Rich is NOT the criterium here. The word is a selective choice of words in this matter.

Many guys and gals are rich, but few of them go out and get a machine gun. "Rich," if oft-repeated and generalized as a solitary description, does not address the core of the owner of a machine gun, IMO.

Other adjectives can be applied, but psychology is not my area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Biden’s pledge to confiscate dogballs is laudable.

He hasn't been anywhere near that honest.

Beto did, and look where it got him.

Biden seems to want Beto to be his Gun Czar, because any stupid prohibition program needs a stupid authority figure inspired by Russian royalty.

It does suggest he agrees with Beto's debate pledge to take (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) but he didn't come out and say so yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Rich" is not accurate, for these individuals, in this context.

I don't suppose you have any idea how much one of the machine guns that are in circulation costs. They start in the thousands and quickly reach tens of thousands.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites