An E-Mail from Biden on Orlando/AR-15

[IVC]

How about this: If taking commonsense steps to reduce (insert whichever cause here) had the potential to save even one life, it would be worth doing.

Every talking point on our/anti side has a matching "counter-talking point." Addressing these counter-talking points is where the discussion is/should be.

Bringing up other causes of death is used in two contexts: (1) to invalidate "if it saves only one life," and (2) to show that there are common activities that cause more damage than guns. Both of these will be "counter-talked back" by an anti with a variation of: "guns have no utility in the society, while all the above activities are valuable."

It is how you answer the "utility of guns in the modern society" that will make or break your argument with an anti.

[IVC]

The "utility of guns in the society" is a tricky topic to discuss with an anti because it's a mix of "it's a right" (which antis are reluctant to accept) and self defense facts (which both sides tend to exaggerate.)

It's further complicated due to rights (any right) not being unlimited, so the discussion must address the *permissible* (non-infringement) regulation vs. "infringement under the guise of regulation."

Then we have a problem with the "self defense facts," where people use statistics (correlation) in completely the wrong way. This goes for both sides. Throwing out numbers and claiming they mean something they actually don't is how it usually works. This is where the dead end is - unless both sides have studied the mathematics behind the statistics, the discussion ends with quoting incompatible numbers and each side believing they are proving their point.

[Jimi Jah]

In six months Joe, no one will remember your name.

[HardwoodRods]

In six months Joe, no one will remember your name.

Who?

[HardwoodRods]

Not to mention the fact that the murder rate is lower no than it was in the 1960's. And less than half what it was it the 70s and 80s.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice the marked uptick in 1966 the year the Black Panthers were formed, or 1969, the year the CRIPS were formed..... Wonder if there is a relation there? Not being racist (before the shouts start) just wondering if this is cause and effect

[EastCoaster]

(snip).......Both of these will be "counter-talked back" by an anti with a variation of: "guns have no utility in the society, while all the above activities are valuable."

It is how you answer the "utility of guns in the modern society" that will make or break your argument with an anti.

Preface: Not that it matters, because we know that "need" or "utility" is supposed to be a moot point.

Except that there are antis that will refuse to accept any utility as an answer, even in remote areas that hunting is the only means of sustenance. Even if accepted, antis wish to remain ignorant why one requires varying calibers for deer, duck, or rabbit.

.......But Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden would know. After all, Hillary goes duck hunting with a rifle, and Joe is an expert upon home defense with the only thing needed is a double barrel shotgun.

[surfgeorge]

Biden inanities

My comments and questions:

“The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.”

If they are “banned” from ownership, rather than purchase or transfer, that means he's referring to confiscation of the existing stock of AR platform rifles in "civilian" hands, or perhaps “compensated confiscation”. I don't see Biden or anyone else calling for “a ban on ownership” discussing the consfiscation side of the proposal.

* * * * *

“They've been called "the perfect killing machines."”

I can't seem to find an attribution in a quick search. Anyone know to whom Biden is referring? Just curious. Michael Bloomberg?

* * * * *

“As we learned this week from the family of the gun’s inventor, he himself did not intend that this gun be used by civilians, only by our soldiers in combat.“

That (use by our soldiers in combat) would mean that Stoner was referring to an AR platform rifle having select fire/full auto capability. Civilians can't get those very easily, if at all, except in relatively rare cases. Why do they have to lie about everything?

And “"We think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more, by these events."”

Okay, maybe. But so what? Every sane person is horrified and sickened by these events. He's just one person with his own opinion, and of course no one really knows what that opinion would be. His opinion on law and rights has no special weight nor merit simply because he was an inventor of the tool being discussed.

* * * * *

On the original 1994-2004 AWB: “46 House Republicans voted for that ban in 1994. Forty-six.”

There's a big part of the problem right there.

* * * * *

“prevent people who are suspected of having terrorist ties and can’t get on a plane from buying weapons of war -- that’s just common sense.”

Conflating the “No Fly” list with the much broader “Terrorist Watch List” which even the Inspector General concluded has a 37% error rate, and that many who are on the list that are not via error are merely acquaintances, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, etc. of a person who MAY have some connection to some terrorist activity or organization. No mention of due process and the problems with a government generated “secret list”. I wonder why?

* * * * *

And there's more of course, but I don't have time right now to list any more stupidity from the vice president.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/join-conversation-banning-ar-15-civilian-ownership?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email613-text1&utm_campaign=wtp

I can hardly wait to hear Valerie Jarrett's answers to my questions! I think that's really great that they are being so transparent and willing to provide full and accurate data about precisely to what degree AR-15 rifles pose a threat to public safety, including compared to how often they are used for self-defense. I mean, usually they have had a tendency to obfuscate (or just lie) about these things in the past. Great to see such a big change for the better in the White House. Perhaps I'll have to retract several of my previous emails to the White House wherein I explained why I believed that Obama was a "traitor" and should resign if Congress didn't impeach him. I'm holding off on that until I see and hear the clear and accurate answers to my questions.

What is the proposed definition(s) of "assault weapon" this time? How does that definition delineate between actual functionality of a firearm and mere cosmetic features that have never been demonstrated to have a statistically significant effect on the function of the firearm (e.g. bayonet lug, grenade launcher, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, etc.)?

What percentage of total homicides in the U.S. involve AR-15 platform rifles?

What percentage of homicides using firearms use AR-15 platform rifles?

What percentage of all homicides committed using rifles are AR-15 platform rifles? (Excluding "justifiable" homicides and all law enforcement killings.) Since "all rifles" are responsible for 2% of gun homicides, I suspect the number is very small, but please be specific as to both the percentage and total number).

How many times per year do citizens use AR-15 platform rifles in self-defense (this should include all instances of crimes being averted, including brandishing a weapon where no shots are fired and no criminal is injured or killed by firing the weapon).