Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 28    Average: 2.5/5]
113 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 14108
Rating: 2.5
Category:
Date: 02/07/13 03:36 PM

113 Responses to Biden Admits Gun Measures Will Fail

  1. Profile photo of dognose82
    dognose82 Male 18-29
    153 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    Link: Biden Admits Gun Measures Will Fail - Apparently Ol`Joe didn`t know the cameras were rolling. . .
  2. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    I don`t see a contradiction there.. He said he has a moral obligation to do whatever he can to stop a mass shooting from happening, but that doesn`t mean that he has the actual power to do so. It`s impossible to stop eliminate the possibility of a mass shooting as long guns are around. To do that you would need to completely remove guns from civilians, not just try to restrict them.
  3. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    This is pretty much a terrible hatchet job. What he said after this was that lawmakers can take steps "that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self-defense and recreation but can save some lives."

    Here is the story
  4. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    Joe "Teh Sherrif" Biden is a walking gaff machine. He makes Dan Quail (remember him?) look like a genius.
    The ONLY reason we don`t see this sort of nonsense constantly (as we did with Quail) is because the MSM is 100% biased.

    @FP: When a Democrat is quoted accurately? It`s a "hatchet job"? Nice link, but it confirms that he said what he said, eh?
  5. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4711 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    I see no contradiction with what he said.
  6. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    Even in the context they put it in which is clearly meant to make him look bad, the message is still clear and doesn`t contradict what he said while the kids were there. He said they have to do what they can to try and prevent these types of shootings from happening but realistically there`s no way anyone or any laws can can guarantee it won`t happen again.
  7. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm
    Wow.. That`s really horrible journalism.. He didn`t contradict himself at all.. Less than 100% success does not equal "not trying/not worth the effort"

    Also the "maybe he didn`t know the cameras were rolling" is complete bs. He was surrounded by reporters, and there were at least 3 cellphones in his face recording every word (as far as i could see from that video). They used a clip from the back to make it look like a plausible statement. That`s plainly misleading.

    They`re going so far to get a "scoop", they`ve left reality.
  8. Profile photo of MadnessLvl2
    MadnessLvl2 Male 18-29
    144 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    Yeah I see no problem here...
  9. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    @5Cats: I hope you`re just trolling.. Either that, or you need English lessons.
  10. Profile photo of chicagojay
    chicagojay Male 40-49
    2018 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    Yeah, I hate the guy and oppose the silly hysteria, but he did not contradict himself. "Diminish" is not "put an end to".
  11. Profile photo of SephirothA83
    SephirothA83 Male 18-29
    955 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm
    this is awful journalism. nothing he said contradicted himself.
  12. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm



    I have a question.
    Why do we care what he says? He`s just a lousty vice-president.

    Old joke:
    There were 2 brothers. 1 traveled up the amazon, the other became Vice President.
    Neither were ever heard from again.
  13. Profile photo of pirhomaniak
    pirhomaniak Male 30-39
    185 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    Reporting like this is why politicians lie to the media. Moments of honesty are blown way out of proportion to the spirit of what was said.
  14. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    Am I missing something or is this little news blurb idiotic?

    Clip 1: Biden says (I`m paraphrasing): "Nothing we are proposing will eliminate the possibility of another massacre."

    Clip 2: Biden says (I`m paraphrasing): "We must do everything we can to try to lower the possibility of another massacre."

    Any reporter who thinks the above quotes constitute a "gotcha" moment should be pulled off the air and forced to attend a class in logic at the local community college.
  15. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    There is no more evil phrase than "moral obligation."
  16. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 7:47 pm
    I`m not at all surprised that Joe said it. He`s known for letting the truth slip out at inopportune times. I am, however, shocked as hell that CNN aired it, since they are known for hiding the truth when it conflicts with their left-wing agenda.
  17. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    Does anyone honestly see a contradiction here? Even Crakr or 5Cats or McGovern1981?

    He says: "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting"

    Yes. Absolutely. Complete realistic honesty. Nobody rational thinks we are going to END gun violence.

    Next: "We have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to diminish the prospect that something like this could happen again."

    Yes. Absolutely. Let`s do whatever we can to try to make it more difficult to commit these atrocities.

    Conclusion: "We can`t do anything to guarantee that another shooting will happen, but we should try to do everything we can to lessen the chance."

    I`m not spinning, those are the statements. Where the f.uck is the "gaffe"?
  18. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    HG, first Biden says we have to do everything in our power to stop gun violence. Then he admits that what they are proposing isn`t going to do Jack $#!+ to accomplish that. So, we are left to ask, if all these new gun laws are in response to a mass shooting, but they won`t alter the possibility of another mass shooting, why in hell ARE they proposing all these new laws? It`s obviously for some reason other than their stated purpose. So, what is it?
  19. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    OldOllie

    "first Biden says we have to do everything in our power to stop gun violence."

    Did he say that in another instance? He most certainly doesn`t say it here. I`ve watched it three times and gave you a transcript.

    He says "diminish" not "stop".

  20. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 11:09 pm
    2 minutes later....

    "In other news, dippoo hillbilly Ted Nugent has something important to say about the gun debate..."

    apparently CNN didn`t realize that the camera`s were rolling either
  21. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    February 7, 2013 at 11:34 pm
    HG: I see your mincing words, when you`re loosing the debate, again.

    His statement is clearly contradictory to his previous speeches, yet you and the other liberals here keep trying to play Jedi mind games and try to convince people otherwise.

    No perceived/proposed decrease in the likelihood of mass shootings is worth loosing our constitutional, God given, rights.
  22. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 1:03 am
    CrakrJak

    "God given"

    Holy poo. Seriously? Please inform me where that is even remotely implied anywhere by anyone. I seem to remember Jesus preaching peace, forgiveness, and turning thr other cheek. Maybe you and I have different versions of the Bible. That would explain alot.
  23. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 3:48 am
    HolyGod: I`m not surprised that the words, "Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" would be foreign to you.

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer `unalienable rights`. Our rights are NOT given to us by the government, they were endowed to us by God.

    Here`s another that I`m sure is unfamiliar to you.

    "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams
  24. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 5:40 am

  25. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2310 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:17 am
    It`s a ploy to get the republicans to relax/back down. Then they swoop in and get their way. It`s no different than how the election went. The illusion of losing followed by dishing out a clobbering because the repubs are so utterly clueless.
  26. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:22 am
    No Jedi mind games here, CJ. The reporter`s remarks are just plain stupid.

    And before you jump down my throat about God only knows what, let me state I`m not even sure where I stand on the issue of gun control, which is why I`ve stayed on the sidelines in most of these discussions.

    Let`s remove gun control from this discussion since it`s such a hot button topic for you. Honestly, what would *you* call it if someone said, "We must do everything we can to reduce the number of forest fires, but the legislation we`re proposing will never eliminate them" -- and a reporter smugly announced, "AHA! You`re a hyprocite!"

    I`d call it idiotic reporting (and I`m an ex-newspaper reporter).
  27. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:28 am
    @HolyGod
    "God given"...

    "Seriously? Please inform me where that is even remotely implied anywhere by anyone."

    Wow, you`re obviously not qualified to debate this issue.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
  28. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:36 am
    I think he means they are obligated to try, though it most likely won`t do anything. It can be both, the news just like to be dicks.
  29. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    596 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 7:00 am
    >>>> Let`s do whatever we can to try to make it more difficult to commit these atrocities. <<<

    You are not really in favor of that are you? I mean really you are suggesting that we do "whatever we can". Would putting an armed guard at every intersection be one of the "whatever" items you advocate? How about requiring all citizens to wear an ankle monitoring system so the government will always know where they were?

    You seem quick to support taking limiting rights of others, that have done no harm. I wonder how you will feel when the government decides to take your right?
  30. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
    @Squrlz4Sale
    I think you are right in that the reporter did not do a good job of making her point, But Biden did say:
    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 to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,

    ...there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely.

    So essentially what he is saying, and what I believe the reporter is trying to say is that they will enact a bunch of laws that will do almost nothing but punish law abiding citizens. Also considering that the AR-15 rifle that was present at Sandy Hook was in the trunk of the shooters vehicle and he used four hand guns to commit the murders why are they targeting AR-15s and their high capacity clips?
  31. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 7:28 am
    @MrPeabody: I can only evaluate the story that was aired, not the one the reporter may have meant to air but didn`t. And all that I`m saying is that the premise of her piece is that she`s caught Biden in a gaffe where he states two contradicting ideas ("Which is it?" she asks). But the statements are NOT contradicting at all. They require a soupcon of sophistication to grasp (in essence: "We must strive to reduce X, while at the same time acknowledging we can never eliminate X"). The fact that she trips up on such simple logic makes me wonder whether she`s qualified to be reporting the news in the first place.

    I`m steering clear of your question regarding AR-15s, as I never went there. All I`ve been commenting on is the shoddy reporting.
  32. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 7:35 am
    Right wing nut bars are at it again, huh? I always used to laugh at the tree huggers, but you guys really take the cake with your craziness. First, believing in a magical sky wizard and then this. You guys should really be writing this stuff down. A hundred years from now, no one will believe that you were this dense.
  33. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
    why are they targeting AR-15s and their high capacity clips?
  34. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:06 am

  35. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:30 am
    Squrlz: Forest fires are not the same. Just for the simple fact that lightning starts forest fires without humans being involved.

    But even if that wasn`t the case, as I said before, no small amount of safety is worth loosing our essential freedom(s) for. We`ve already given up our 4th amendment rights for safer travel and that`s bad enough.
  36. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 9:13 am
    Blah, blah, blah rights.

    Why do you have a right to a machine gun but not a right to a nuclear weapon? Have your rights been compromised? Or could it be that giving military grade weapons to civilians is just plain stupid?
  37. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:00 am
    MrPeabody

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

    Ya. I`m familiar with that. What exactly does that have to do with guns?
  38. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4711 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:03 am

    "Why do you have a right to a machine gun but not a right to a nuclear weapon? Have your rights been compromised? Or could it be that giving military grade weapons to civilians is just plain stupid?"

    Machine guns are not legal in America.
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:06 am
    He says: "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting"

    So passing all these laws will... DO NOTHING? THAT is the contradiction. Biden is the guy IN CHARGE of the whole "gun control" thing for the White House. If HE says it`s useless? Then WHY spend billions on it?
    Oh yes, it will cost billions. One way or another.

    @Squirlz: After a horrific forest fire in British Columbia (Canada) they studied how such a thing could have happened.
    The cause? Because so many `small` fires were put out, there was lots of material for the BIG fire to burn!
    In other words, the big fire was (at least partly) the result of effective fire-fighting. The suggested solution was more "controled burns" and underbrush clearing.
  40. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4711 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:08 am

    "Ya. I`m familiar with that. What exactly does that have to do with guns?"

    It`s pretty simple HG. There are many laws that can and should be revised as democracy dictates...but the bill of rights is the foundation which this country is built on. Those rights are NOT NEGOTIABLE. Their exact definition may up for debate, but removing any of those rights is not. The bill of rights is America, if you can`t accept it, you don`t belong here.
  41. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:10 am
    Turdburglar

    "Machine guns are not legal in America."

    Yes. Yes. Yes they are. My gilrfriend`s father owns a perfectly legal AK-47. Go research and then come back and join the conversation.
  42. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:14 am
    turdburglar

    "but the bill of rights is the foundation which this country is built on. Those rights are NOT NEGOTIABLE."

    We already don`t follow the 7th amendment. If the bill of rights are so important are you honestly telling me you know all 10 exactly? I can admit I didn`t. I got hazy on 7-10 and had to go back and look them up. The point is the people screaming at the top of their lungs about how important the bill of rights are usually can`t name all 10. You and I know that.
  43. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:18 am
    I am literally blown away by this debate.

    diminish =/= stop

    He was being frank and honest that while they will do everything to try to stop mass shootings the possibility of another would always exist.

    If this was bush talking and he wasn`t contradicting himself and some news story tried to make it appear that way I would be on here slamming it just as much. This is common sense. Several conservatives on here admitted this wasn`t a contradiction.
  44. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:25 am
    @5Cats:

  45. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:34 am
    The AR15 style rifles are being targeted simply because of their appearance. The information you`re given by the media is aimed to influence those with little or no knowledge of them to believe that the AR15 you can buy at your local gun store is the same as the M4 I carried in the mountains/villages of Afghanistan & the streets of Iraq. Cosmetically, they look the same but they are different functionally. By definition, a TRUE "assault rifle" is selective fire (SAFE, SEMI-AUTO, BURST, AUTO). The gov`t labels civilian models "assault weapons" (which is still wrong, technically speaking) NOT "assault rifles." The selector switch on a legal, store bought AR15 has two positions, SAFE & FIRE. Therefore, it`s NOT an "assault rifle." States that allow AUTO or BURST require it to be registered with the ATF.
  46. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:39 am
    whodat6484

    I agree with everything you said. I think the media plays off people`s ignorance and fears. However would you agree I could buy an AR-15, a bump stock, and a 100 round barrel all legally and without any registration and then walk into a public place with the ability to fire 100 shots in less than 30 seconds?
  47. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 10:53 am
    @HolyGod - Sure, you could do it. Good luck hitting what you`re aiming at though. I know 100 round drums are illegal here in NY but I can`t speak for the rest of the country.
  48. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:02 am
    High capacity mags are legal in some states other states you can get them if they`re preban meaning made before the first "assault weapon" ban. Anything full auto or like a sawed off shotgun is class 3 and you have to get a license for that which takes alot of time and then a class 3 weapon will take alot of money plus it has to have been made before 1985 I think.
  49. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:09 am
    You`ll all be happy to know I`ve solved the shooting massacre problem. I call it "The Squrlz Solution." Modeled on newer techniques of forest management, the SS will periodically place AR-15s with high-capacity clips in the hands of the mentally deranged and encourage them to commit controlled schoolyard shootings of just three or four children. These shooters will then be picked off by trained police snipers kept on standby. In the same way that controlled burns prevent massive forest fires (thanks, 5Cats, for the reminder) this controlled release of 2nd Amendment rights and psychotic behavior will prevent larger tragedies while also appeasing the NRA--at a cost of just 8 to 12 schoolchildren a year.

    Thank you. ~bows~
  50. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:18 am
    whodat1964

    "@HolyGod - Sure, you could do it. Good luck hitting what you`re aiming at though."

    Well if it is a packed dark movie theater or a room full of kindergarteners you don`t have to be all that precise, wouldn`t you agree?
  51. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
    McGovern1981

    "will take alot of money plus it has to have been made before 1985 I think."

    Absolutely. I believe 1985 for domestic automatics and 1965 for imported automatics. Just to be clear I DO NOT think automatic weapons are much of a problem here. They are very hard to get a hold of. I was just responding to the comment that they are illegal which is not the case.
  52. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:40 am
    Very funny @Squirlz! The idea of "Gladiator Games" as bloodsport has been around for a while.
    Movies: Running Man, Hunger Games, The Warriors?

    Anyhow, that`s what Pro-2nd Amendment folks are trying to PREVENT eh? A world where only the criminals (and cops) have guns.

    When seconds count? The cops are minutes away!
  53. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:41 am
    @Squrlz4Sale - Why children? You`re just using them as an example because people tend to be outraged more if children are involved. There have been 62 "mass shootings" in the US since 1982, 25 of those 62 have occurred since 2006. 12 of these shootings were at schools, 19 in the workplace, the remaining 31 took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious & government buildings. Contrary to what you see in the news, mass shootings are not more common in schools as opposed to other public places.

    @HolyGod - Yes and no. You`ll get a few of them but after 5 or 6 rounds you`ll be hitting the ceiling and the only way to compensate is to muscle it back on target which also greatly reduces accuracy. Also, since they`re not designed or made to handle that rate of fire chances are it will jam on you pretty quick. That`s one of the main reasons the standard issue M16A4 doesn`t have a full-auto option, just semi & 3 round burst.
  54. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4711 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:42 am

    HG - A semi auto AK 47 is not a machine gun. Machine gun implies full auto capability. They are not legal to carry without very specific, and expensive permits and registration.

    So what if I couldn`t recite ALL 10 of the bill of rights from the top of my head. I never said I could, no one has. That is just you changing the topic. My point is that most laws come and go as time progresses, but the bill of rights was the basis of this country. The framework of America was built around these unalienable RIGHTS. America without those rights would not be America.

    As for the 7th amendment, I am unaware of it`s removal. This is the first time I`ve ever heard that "We already don`t follow the 7th amendment".
  55. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:46 am
    Did he say that in another instance?

    He says "diminish" not "stop".
    HG, you`re just nitpicking over a trifling detail to avoid answering the question. Okay, fine, change "stop" to "diminish" in my statement. Now, answer the damned question.
  56. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    Turdburgler

    "HG - A semi auto AK 47 is not a machine gun."

    When did I use the word semi? He has a fully automatic AK-47.

    "So what if I couldn`t recite ALL 10 of the bill of rights from the top of my head."

    Do you really not see the contradiction in acting as if something is SOOO important when in fact you don`t actually fully know what that thing is?

    "As for the 7th amendment, I am unaware of it`s removal."

    States: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"

    Good luck getting a trial jury for a lawsuit of $24 bucks. We don`t do that anymore because times changed and $20 USED to be a significant amount of money, much in the same way "arms" USED to be a muzzle loaded musket. The point is times change.
  57. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 12:13 pm
    OldOllie

    "you`re just nitpicking over a trifling detail to avoid answering the question. Okay, fine, change "stop" to "diminish" in my statement. Now, answer the damned question."

    Well your question is based off of the statement:

    "Then he admits that what they are proposing isn`t going to do Jack $#!+ to accomplish that."

    I completely disagree about him saying that.

    The quote is "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting"

    In my opinion he is saying we can never eliminate the possibility of another shooting, which is true. However that statement can be true while still trying to make the possibility as low as possible. Would you not agree?
  58. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    To everyone on the opposite side of this issue:

    I do not know if the president`s proposal will do anything to help. I don`t. Maybe it won`t. Please give me some alternatives that you think will help the situation.

    I have seen hundreds of comments on here on dozens of gun related posts and I do not recall a SINGLE attempt to put forth an alternative solution.

    I refuse to believe we have to live in a country that just has to deal with a room full of dead kindergarteners, or a mall shooting, or a theater massacre every few months. We have to do something. SO unless you have an alternative suggestion as to what that something is, I don`t feel that you have a whole lot of right to slam the people that are at least TRYING to do SOMETHING.
  59. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    ~pulls whiskers in frustration~

    Can we all just agree, wherever we may stand on the issue of gun control, that this is a sloppy piece of journalism? It muddies the waters with a logical fallacy and does nothing whatsoever to bring light to the issue.

    Way to go, Ms. Crappy Journalist.
  60. Profile photo of SoCal
    SoCal Male 18-29
    650 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    who cares.
  61. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    @HolyGod:

    I have seen hundreds of comments on here on dozens of gun related posts and I do not recall a SINGLE attempt to put forth an alternative solution.

    *ahem* See my earlier post regarding The Squrlz Solution.
  62. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    HG, "fundamentally alter or eliminate" = "do Jack $#!+ about." Once again you weasel out of answering the question: if he admits that their proposals won`t accomplish their stated goals, what, then, are their ACTUAL goals?
  63. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    OldOllie

    "if he admits that their proposals won`t accomplish their stated goals, what, then, are their ACTUAL goals?"

    Has their stated goal ever been to eliminate all chances of mass shootings? If not, then his statement does not admit the proposal won`t accomplish the stated goal.

    I would say the ACTUAL goal is to do whatever possible to lessen the chance of a mass shooting, while acknowledging that no action will ever eliminate the possibility entirely.

    I feel like we are arguing over what the definition of "is" is. 1 statement is that nothing we do will stop all future gun shootings. The other is we have to diminish the possibility of future shootings. Those statements simply DO NOT contradict each other.
  64. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    Seriously, are you guys still going on about this?? This should be really simple to resolve. All you need is a basic understanding of logic and the English language.

    statement 1: We need to do everything we can to diminish the number of school shootings.

    Statement 2: It is impossible to eliminate school shootings all together.

    Lets express this by using mathematics.

    We`ll start with some arbitrary number, that will represent the current number of shootings per year. Let`s take 10 for example. (this number is arbitrary and has no basis in reality. It`s purely for the sake of argument)

    We want to get the number of shootings to a number less than it is today, less than 10. But there is a further constraint. The number cannot be 0, because that is "impossible". (we`ll ignore negative numbers since they don`t make sense in this context)

    Our goal, "g", is a number less than 10, but not equal to or less than 0 (ergo, g
  65. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    ..-(ergo, greater than 0)

    10 > g > 0

    Are there any numbers we can insert in the place of g, such that the statement is true?

    I`m pretty sure we can all agree that there are in fact 9 such numbers.

    Thus, Biden`s remarks are logically compatible (do not contradict each other)

    End of argument!
  66. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    However that statement can be true while still trying to make the possibility as low as possible. Would you not agree?
    @HG: because that`s NOT what he said! He said NOTHING they do will alter the occurance of mass killings.
    Right or wrong? True or false? DOESN`T MATTER! It`s WHAT <HE> SAID and that`s the topic of conversation here.
    And it is correct! Joe Biden gets it right for a change! NO LAW will stop or even slow down a determined killer. Period.

    Please give me some alternatives that you think will help the situation.
    #1 Legalize Pot and end the "War on Drugs".
    #2 Put actual criminals in jail, not pot smokers.
    #3 With the billions saved on not enforcing idiotic laws? Increase police resources across the USA.

    We`ve offered many solutions that are better than Joe`s. His are actually COUNTER-productive...
  67. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm
    Joe Biden`s (gun grabbers) solution?

    SPEND BILLIONS while doing NOTHING about the probelm!

    Look how well it`s working in Chicago!
    Look how well that worked in Canada!

    Hint: It didn`t do squat. Billions spent, not one single crime solved or prevented. The rights of tousands were trampled however, but that`s OK because they legally owned guns! Right?
  68. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    Then after I do some things the next year there is 1 mass shooting.

    Did I "diminish the prospect that something like this could happen again"? YES I did there were many fewer shootings. Did I "eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting" NO I did not because another mass shooting did occur.

    NO CONTRADICTION.

    Reasonable people can have reasonable debates about the issue, but NOT about what words mean.
  69. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    Holy f.uckballs. The stupidity is overwhelming. Let`s do this in kindergarten terms.

    Let`s say there are 100 mass shootings in a year.

    I say "We have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to diminish the PROSPECT that something like this could happen again" because I want to try anything to attempt to lower their FREQUENCY or ODDS OF HAPPENING.

    Then I say "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the POSSIBILITY of another mass shooting" because I know while I can try to lower the FREQUENCY or ODDS OF HAPPENING I can not alter or eliminate their EXISTENCE (the possibility that one will happen again).
  70. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 7:27 pm
    You`ve convinced me @HG! Simply by completely altering what Joe said, you`ve made it make perfect sense!

    Using a little, OK a LOT of imagination = solid logic!

    I was a fool to actually listen to his own words! I should have "read the correct meanings" into those words, as you so splendidly have done!

    So he said what he said (you don`t disagree, you`ve quoted it yourself) but it doesn`t MEAN what he said! ic...

    Obviously!
  71. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:20 pm
    @5Cats - you`re either trolling or f*cking retarded, probably both. They even have subtitles in the first video so you can read exactly what he says.

    "Nothing we can do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring uh... uh... gun deaths down to a thousand a year from, from what it is now."

    OK? Watch the f*cking video and read along if that`s too much to process in your brain housing group. Now, the next clip...

    "We have a moral obligation, a moral obligation, to do anything in our power to diminish the prospect that something like this could happen again."

    Still with me? He says nothing will "alter or ELIMINATE" the possibility of another mass shooting (1st clip) and we have a "moral obligation to do anything in our power to DIMINISH" (make smaller, decrease,reduce, etc) the chances. HOW F*CKING HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
  72. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    whodat6484

    I know right? Whenever I talk to 5Cats I am certain one of us is crazy. I used to engage him frequently, especially leading up to the election, and I used to stare at my screen in complete and total disbelief as if he was telling me the sky was red and being sarcastic, condescending, and belittling because I had suggested it was blue.

    Just to clarify, you are against the proposed gun legislation and most gun control in general right? So it isn`t as if you are biased. I don`t get how this is not complete and total common sense. He in no way contradicts himself.
  73. Profile photo of slut_etta
    slut_etta Female 50-59
    3774 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:31 pm
    if a person is out to commit a crime that causes panic and mass chaos, they will find a way, gun or no gun. the guy in aurora, colorado who shot up the BATMAN premiere boobytrapped his apartment. if his guns had jammed that night, all he would have had to do was trigger the explosive devices he already had rigged. and this is just one example of many.

    if you happen to be crazy as a sh*t house rat (as my father used to say), you will find a way to further your own twisted agenda, no matter what the government outlaws, be it guns, bic lighters, or pineapples filled with C4.

    crazy trumps everything. always has, always will. no matter what the PC police tell you.
  74. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    @HolyGod - Nope, no bias here as I am a long time gun owner and a USMC Veteran of OEF/OIF. I also live in NY State which happens to have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Although I think some of the sh*t I`ve heard coming from Washington is a bit much, like the high capacity magazines. I can understand it for less skilled shooters though, but a 10 or 30 round mag makes no difference to me, I can drop an empty mag and have a new one in with a round chambered in less than 2 seconds while still on target. I don`t mind background checks, licenses & registrations or even psych evals. In fact, I was surprised that psych evals weren`t needed when I became a civilian and got my concealed carry license in NY. When I start hearing the word "banned" I get fired up, but that`s all. 5Cats is just on a level that is mind-boggling. I too question my own sanity when reading some of the poo he posts here!
  75. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    slutt etta

    "crazy trumps everything. always has, always will. no matter what the PC police tell you."

    Ok. I tend to agree with you. But then how do you explain the lack of school shootings or mass shootings in other countries like England or Australia? They have crazy people there too don`t they?

    Read this article: http://tinyurl.com/bmbt9hw About what has happened in Australia since they passed sweeping gun legislation in 1996.

    Wouldn`t you say that trumps your personal opinion?

  76. Profile photo of synaw
    synaw Male 18-29
    58 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    @whodat6484, @HolyGod - love you guys.
  77. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 9:26 pm
    He says: "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting"
    Quoting @HG`s quoting of Joe Biden.

    NOTHING they`re going to do will ALTER the occurance of another mass shooting. "Eliminate" is a seperate issue. See the word "or" in there? Stupid @HG...

    @WhoDat: You know full well how respectful mass murderers are of "laws" right? A few more laws will stop them in their tracks? Right! Even JOE BIDEN (the guy IN CHARGE of new gun laws) doesn`t think so!

    So WHY place more, expensive laws on the books? Why make life less free for law-abiding citizens?

    @HG and others like him are "gun grabbers" and that`s all there is to it. They`re happy to "remove the rights of others" because THEY know better than YOU!
  78. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    @HG Always lowers himself to insults. ALWAYS! Without fail! It`s ALL he`s got!

    Sad eh?

    Name calling, insults = liberal playbook.
    Every. Single. Time. @HG! Don`t you get tired of being a complete jerk?

    Oooo! I insulted YOU! Oooo! That "makes us even" right? Pfft. 20:1, yeah even-Stevens! Your ends justify your means @HG, just admit it!
  79. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 9:50 pm
    @5Cats - No, not a separate issue, you`re just making it a separate issue. It`s plain & simple, right there in English. Take the f*cking blinders off and go see a doctor, I seriously think you have a problem. You and this CNN "reporter" are apparently the only people who interpreted it that way, that`s your first clue.

    No one`s taking anything away. Like I said, I was surprised when I became a civilian that background checks, psych evals and licenses/registrations weren`t mandatory. I`m for it, it proves that you are competent, capable of and responsible enough to own and operate something that can be dangerous or deadly. When you get in your car aren`t you comforted by the fact that, for the most part, everyone else on the road has passed a written test, road test and eye exam to prove they can drive a 2 ton machine without killing everyone else around them?
  80. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 8, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    5Cats

    "@HG and others like him are "gun grabbers""

    I have a gun. I have NEVER once advocated for taking people`s guns.

    "NOTHING they`re going to do will ALTER the occurrence"

    No. Jesus H. W. Christ. Can you not listen to a quote and transcribe it? That is not what he says. He says "alter or eliminate the possibility" because the possibility will always exist and you can`t alter that. Why is this simple issue so hard for you?

    "HG Always lowers himself to insults."

    I am not being insulting. I truly, honestly believe you are crazy. Calling a crazy person crazy is not an insult.

    "It`s ALL he`s got"

    See this is my point. You fully believe you are right and i have NO point even though almost EVERYONE who has commented on this post, including whoday6484 and several others on your side of the issue, agree with me and think you are wrong. That is crazy.
  81. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 6:06 am
    @HG: You might actually be right.. Maybe he is crazy.. Being unable to even entertain the possibility that you are wrong, even about something like the meaning of words and sentences which really isn`t up for debate, may be a sign of narcissism and/or psychopathy. At least it shows a complete inability to think rationally.

    5cats, i think you should maybe go see a psychiatrist.
  82. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 9:03 am
    Holy f.uckballs. The stupidity is overwhelming. Let`s do this in kindergarten terms.
    @HG: So polite, like `Blessed Teresa of Calcutta` (I thought she was a Saint already, not yet eh?)

    @WhoDat: But the position he takes to "reduce" has proven over and over to either be useless or COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE! ie: it will make things WORSE. Trying to improve things is fine, that`s not being debated. Admitting that nothing HE can do will "alter... the possibility" of further shootings is remarkably honest.
    Yes that`s a valid interpritation of his quote. Alter OR eliminate includes BOTH, not only the second one.

    @kain1: @HolyGod has a long history at IAB of being caught DEAD WRONG on an issue and absolutely refusing to admit it. He`ll use ANY trick to avoid the remotest chance of the "other side" being correct. It`s a fact.
  83. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 9:53 am
    It is clear to me what Biden is saying and it sounds pretty damn realistic. We`re never going to be able to eliminate mass shootings but we should at least try to reduce the number of them. I just hope they are also looking into the mental health side of things. The shocking story here should be that a politician in being honest.
  84. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 9:57 am
    5Cats, you inspired me to send in a new word to Urban Dictionary. Sadly it was rejected:

    Attentioncon

    A conservative lurking in the comments section who can turn anything into a partisan argument against liberals, all for the purpose of getting attention.

    Ignore that troll he`s an attentioncon.
  85. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 10:04 am
    5Cats

    "@HolyGod has a long history at IAB of being caught DEAD WRONG"

    This is you being insane again. The only people that have ever accused me of being DEAD WRONG on something are you, or Crakr, or MeGrendel, or OldOllie. I`ve NEVER had an entire thread tell me I`m wrong like you are having here. In fact if you go back and read most of our election debates people chime in and agree with me and tell you that you are wrong JUST like they are in this thread.
  86. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 10:46 am
    Here`s what Biden says in the first clip (I transcribed this myself from the audio):"Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from now from what it is now*." *Approx. 30,000 in 2010, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. (The footnote, of course, is my own.)

    Most listeners have essentially discarded Biden`s "fundamentally alter" words because they conflict with the point he seems to want to make, based on the rest of the sentence.

    5Cats, however, is focusing on those initial words and excluding the rest, yielding: "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter the possibility of another mass shooting...." Read that way, it does, indeed, sound as if Biden`s saying "this is a waste of time."
  87. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 11:19 am
    @Squrlz4Sale - Exactly, he`s focusing on one word and ignoring the rest which is typical.

    This reminds me of the mind-boggling flow of stupidity after Obama said "Well Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets," in one of the debates. Every single republican went apesh*t saying he didn`t know anything about our military because bayonets are still issued (but rarely used, I never used mine and neither did anyone else I know) and some of the Special Forces guys were using horses in Afghanistan. Apparently they all decided that the word "fewer" is now synonymous with "none."
  88. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 11:58 am
    @HolyGod has a long history at IAB of being caught DEAD WRONG on an issue and absolutely refusing to admit it. He`ll use ANY trick to avoid the remotest chance of the "other side" being correct. It`s a fact.
    This may be true, I have no idea. But i do know that it is completely irrelevant to what i said. You´re clearly projecting onto HG, so you don`t have to give my words any thought.
  89. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    It is clear to me what Biden is saying and it sounds pretty damn realistic. We`re never going to be able to eliminate mass shootings but we should at least try to reduce the number of them.
    @markust: I`ve said repeatedly that Joe is correct. What I`ve objected to is:
    - Liberals spinning for Joe: "He didn`t mean THAT! He meant to say this!"
    - Joe`s support of stupid, counter-productive measures which are purely political.

    I`ve NEVER had an entire thread tell me I`m wrong like you are having here.
    @HG: Being truthful or not is based on a vote now? Calling someone names = logical arguements now?
    I CAN SEE your point, DUH! I just don`t agree with you. You & @WhoDat are saying that his "overall message" is not altered by a mis-spoken word. I know, I know! I still disagree.

    Thanks @Squrlz, I appreciate the support :-)
  90. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    @Kain1: Explain to me how I am "dead wrong" for having a different opinion than you or others who post here?

    OPINIONS! Mine may be different than yours and we could BOTH be correct, eh?

    NOT according to @HG of course, ONLY HIS opinion is correct. Anyone who disagrees must be INSANE!

    Oh BTW @Kain1: Your 10 > g > 0 example? It refers to the SECOND thing Joe says (eliminate), I am refering to the FIRST part (alter), so it`s MOOT. I am not arguing with the second part of it at all, get it now?
  91. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    5Cats

    "I am refering to the FIRST part (alter)"

    OK. Last time. Here is the quote: "Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the POSSIBILITY of another mass shooting"

    Definition of possibility: 1. the state or fact of being possible 2. something possible

    So you CAN NOT ALTER the fact that it WILL BE POSSIBLE.

    Hence nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter the possibility.

    I think the problem here is that you think "possibility" means the odds of something happening or the frequency. Either something IS possible or it ISN`T possible. The possibility EXISTS or it DOESN`T. There is no range. He is simply admitting that the possibility will always exist and can not be altered.

    Do you understand now?
  92. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    @HolyGod: Actually, I think you`ve hit the nail on the head. It`s the word "possibility" that was tripping me up in my interpretation of the anti-gun-control reading of that sentence. In that instance, I was reading it as synonymous with "likelihood," which it isn`t.

    Honestly, it`s a bit tricky.
  93. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    @HG: If there "is no range" how could he "alter" it at all?
    If he`s talking about "altering the possibility", which he clearly IS, then he is indeed talking about changing the "possible likelyhood" of another mass killing. This is the entire point of making new gun laws!

    If I flip a coin, how many "possible outcomes" are there? 2! Heads OR tails, correct? Each has a "range" of 50%. If I could "alter the possibility" then it wouldn`t be 50-50 anymore.
    Probability and possibility are SYNONYMS yes?

    That`s how I read it. Like it or not.

    "eliminate" is a completely different subject! EVERYONE AGREES that "eliminating" all future mass shootings is... IMPOSSIBLE! So I`m discussing the word "alter" and the idea that "gun laws" can alte
  94. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    ...alter the likelyhood (it`s another synonym!) of a future event.

    Unless you can "read Joe Biden`s mind" and KNOW what he INTENDED? Our opinions are both valid.
  95. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    Probability and possibility are SYNONYMS yes?

    No.. Probability refers to likelihood of an event. Possibility refers to if an event is possible or not.
    Ex: "It is entirely possible that i will win the lottery tomorrow. It is, however, extremely improbable."

    That is not a matter of opinion. And yes, you are still dead wrong, in the factual sense. Please come back to reality.
  96. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    @Kain1: So Joe Biden is an idiot who doesn`t understand the English language? And you`re defending him? After all, HE is the one who says "altering... the possibility".

    You`re proving (in your own mind) that I`m wrong by proving that HE`S wrong?

    WIN!
    NEXT!
  97. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    @5Cats - You live in CANADA, you`re CANADIAN, why the f*ck do you feel the need to be one of the most vocal people here when it comes to AMERICAN politics & legislation that has absolutely no effect on you personally, as well as your country?

    I`ve said it several times before and here it is one more time. It`s quite obvious that you love to argue about anything & everything so you might as well get a job here, you`ll make a killing.

    p.s. adding "WIN!" & "NEXT!" at the end of an argument doesn`t mean you won. We`re not in grade school. If we were, you`d most definitely be the kid eating paste and shoving crayons up his nose.
  98. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 7:38 pm
    @WhoDat: I like you, really I do!
    We`ve both been in the military. We`re both opinionated SOB`s!
    I have no tattoos... do you have cats? I forget.
    Meanwhile: I see your
    "Get A Job" and raise!

    Eating Paste? You`ll have to do MUCH better than that to get under MY skin Bro!

    PS: @madest OFTEN used the "your a Canadian" arguement as a last resort. I sincerely hope you`re not nearly as STUPID as @madest, eh?

    Hint: "Brookers" > Anything you can post... pure genius!
  99. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm
    I dare you!
    I double dog dare you!
    Watch those two videos and NOT crack a smile? It`s impossible!
  100. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    HG, there`s no point in arguing with you. You`re obviously suffering from the late stages of chronic concrete brain syndrome: all mixed up and permanently set.
  101. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 9:21 pm
    Just to be clear here: Although I can see how some of you are focusing on the "This is all a waste of time" reading of Biden`s utterance, I think that was Biden basically clearing his throat and working up to the point he was really trying to make: that no prohibitions are going to reduce the number of gun homicides to zero.

    Frankly, I think he thought the words "fundamentally alter" sounded impressive so he said them as he was trying to figure out how to say what he meant.
  102. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    @5Cats - Nope, I`m not a fan of cats. They`re too arrogant thinking they run sh*t and it annoys me.

    I just don`t understand why people, not just you, are so immersed in what goes on here. It`s like the Americans who worship celebutards and are always up in their business, but it`s Canadians or Europeans who are all watching us. My mother`s from Greece and she gets all the Greek channels on her dish, when I`m at her house I`m amazed at their news coverage. There were all those riots in Athens, city burning to the f*cking ground, politicians fighting and robbing the citizens of their pensions, huge f*cking mess. Even then, more than half the sh*t on the news is about what`s going on over here! I just don`t get it, it`s crazy!
  103. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 10:57 pm
    ...no prohibitions are going to reduce the number of gun homicides to zero.
    Leave off the words "to zero," and you would have a true statement.
  104. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 9, 2013 at 11:22 pm
    @OldOllie: Oh, c`mon, do you really think that? Thought experiment: Let`s say you prohibit virtually anyone, aside from the police and the military, from owning guns of any kind. (Not that I`m in favor of that.) You really think there wouldn`t be a reduction in the number of gun homicides?
  105. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 10, 2013 at 4:02 am
    WIN!
    NEXT!

    wauw.. impressive... Am i supposed to cower back to my cave now?

    I`ll give you, that he formulates it in a weird way. Mavbe he wanted to sound cool or something. But it`s pretty clear to me that what he meant by "fundamentally alter the possibility" is clarified in his next words:
    "or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from, from what it is now."

    - Which would be about a 95% reduction.
  106. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31771 posts
    February 10, 2013 at 9:19 am
    @WhoDat: America is 10X as big as Canada, about 70% of our economy depends on the USA, and almost everything America does ends up happening here too.
    Plus Canadian politcis is BLOODY boring!

    @Squrlz: The gun murder rate dropped a bit in Canada, but overall it stayed about the same. People used knives a lot for murder even before the registration. In Australia it remained level.

    In the USA the gun murder rate would drop, sure, but overall I think it`d stay about the same. Other weapons would be used. And gang-bangers would still be shooting each other, like in Chicago.
  107. Profile photo of Suicism
    Suicism Male 18-29
    3625 posts
    February 10, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    Nice - I agree with Joe on this one. Very telling.
  108. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    @OldOllie: Oh, c`mon, do you really think that? Thought experiment: Let`s say you prohibit virtually anyone, aside from the police and the military, from owning guns of any kind. (Not that I`m in favor of that.) You really think there wouldn`t be a reduction in the number of gun homicides?
    Actually, I`d wager that they would go UP. Law-abiding citizens would turn in turn in their guns, but criminals would not. That would leave the rest of us as defenseless as fish in a barrel.

    But let`s say that you actually could confiscate ALL the guns, even from the criminals. How are you going to keep illegal guns out of the country? If the government can`t stop millions of illegal aliens and tons of illegal drugs from coming in, how do you expect them to stop guns?

    Crooks will ALWAYS be able to get guns. If they have to smuggle them in, though, they might as well go for fully automatic AKs. That would NOT be an improvement.
  109. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 10, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    @Squirrels, BTW Germany outlawed private ownership of guns, and they ended up murdering 11 million people. That`s why we will NEVER give up our guns -- we will not be put on a train and taken to be slaughtered like cattle.

    Now, tell me I`m a paranoid nut; then try to imagine yourself saying that in 1936 Germany.
  110. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 11, 2013 at 3:00 am
    Godwin`s law strikes again...
  111. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    February 11, 2013 at 6:00 am
    @Kain1

    Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao there`s a pretty big list of exactly what OldOllie is talking about.
  112. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    February 11, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    @McGovern: There is a much much longer list of countries with very strict gun laws where nothing like that ever happened.. I`m not gonna write one here, you obviously have google too.. That, by itself, renders you point fallacious..

    Furthermore, you still need to demonstrate at the very least a single case, where civilians averted genocide by being armed with guns. Which never happened.. Making your point even more fallacious..

    It`s hyperbolic bullpoo aimed at making people afraid and compliant..
  113. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    February 11, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    @OldOllie: No, I don`t think you`re a paranoid nut. I do worry that the weapons technology being employed by our military and even police departments has gotten so advanced that citizens simply couldn`t offer any meaningful resistance to it, if they ever needed to.

    Your thoughts?

Leave a Reply