“If there’s ever a problem here, just walk out on the balcony, here, walk out, put that double barrel shotgun and just fire two blasts outside the house.”— Vice President Joe Biden to his wife Jill on how to protect herself, according to Parents Magazine. Biden believes you should purchase shotguns instead of assault weapons for protection.
53_3: I understand he was attempting to make a point. I believe he did not need to stoke the fires. It's bad enough. Their is enough statistical data in just three states where regulation works. Using that information and the full 2nd Amendment provides enough "ammunition" to garner support. Just using a weighted average of Massachusetts and New Jersey suggests a reduction of firearm deaths to 4.03 per 100,000 citizens nationally. Now, if the Nation observes the same rules then the overall numbers of firearm deaths should drop further. However, like waiting for water to clear once you start inserting clean water in a dirty stream, it takes time to take the filth out of the water. Time is what is needed until the true results will show effectiveness. Probably 10 or 15 years though the numbers will descend toward these effective numbers. Now, the savings could be measured [(10.19-4.03)x212M/100,000] 6.16 lives per 100,000. Largely, total murders do not rise beyond the standard for other murder rates that already exists. However,suicides will increase by other means but the suicide life savings exist at over 40% reduction in saved lives from suicide when firearm ownership is regulated. So, this means total lives saved should be in the minimum of 3.65 lives from firearm deaths for every 100,000. The end result is about 11,240 lives saved from firearm deaths to include total murders, total suicides, total accidental deaths and total unknown lives saved. I am sure this is a conservative number. The lives saved, once states have to all live by the same standards will improve these numbers. However, it is hard to mathematical be certain of the results, so just using common sense lends to this belief. This alone is an excellent reason for ALL AMERICANS to vote for a permit process or registration requirements on firearms. Anything short of that is a callousness towards life, selfishness without justification and a sad indictment of the humanity of those who fail to support these requirements that already exists in three states in the Union, states that are in complete agreement with all parts of the second amendment, that is, the right to keep and bear arms and the responsibility to accept a well regulated citizenry.
I think Biden got off path. He should use only solid figures and stay of target. Don't give selfish, calloused people who wish to be irresponsible in relationship to their perceived rights a potential to win in this sort of idiocy. This type of legislation should have occurred 20 years ago.
I believe in regulation but that is not a good statement to make about shotguns, Mr. Biden. Oh, lord, this is out of hand. There is a statistical correlations regarding states in our Union of where regulation works and where it does not work. 27 large developed nations have interesting regulations but we have three states that either have a permit process, registration or both on all repeating firearms. These states are first, second and third lowest in the country in firearm deaths. Neighboring states creep in to elevate these number for two of the states at yet Massachusetts (lowest in Nation) has a 3.12 firearm death rate per 100,000 and New Jersey (3rd lowest in Nation) has a 4.72 firearm death rate per 100,000. Hawaii in second lowest at 3.63 firearm deaths per 100,000 but they do not have boundary issues. The U.S stand at 10.19/100,000. It doesn't matter if these numbers make sense to people. The numbers are the numbers and the end result is lower number of deaths by firearms. So, bring in registration modeled after Massachusetts regulations or a permit process modeled after New Jersey regulations and, eventually, death rates will fall. However, patience is a must. Their are a large number of arms out there that are not "well regulated" and the arms DO need to be "well regulated" but according to the second amendment and Heller vs. D.C., the militia is no longer part of the constitution but the citizens are replaced in that concept. So, the Second Amendment state the "right" also has responsibility for a "well regulated citizen". The question is: Does that work? Yes, look to Massachusetts and New Jersey even with border issues. Weigh those numbers against the following states with TERRIBLE firearm death rates from 18.03 to 10.61 per 100,000 in order from highest to lowest: Louisiana, Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia, Idaho, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia. If you don't want you state to be called out on this list, do something regulatory about it. Colorado is attempting to change their horrid ranking. By the way, singular incidence of murders, suicides, accidents or unknown causes to not matter. If the lower rates are accomplished ALL DEATHS DROP: Total murder rates, Total suicide rates, Total accident rates and Total deaths from unknown causes. Argue and get angry. The truth remains the truth.
Notice, Pennsylvania at 10.7 firearm deaths per 100,000 citizens borders New Jersey. That is a flow of easily purchased weapons with no tight border crossings to minimize the risk. This infects law enforcement ability to compete with Massachusetts low numbers. I am very happy with what Christie and his legislature has done with their legislation considering there is no national standard set for the responsibility of well regulated citizens.
Mr. Biden, these statements of shotguns hurt any purpose you may of getting the right thing done. Sometimes the best thing to do is remain silent. By the way, I own two firearms-a semi-automatic rifle that is tube loaded and a muzzle loader. Test me. License me. Register my weapon. Require a permit from me for my weapon. I believe in my right to keep and bear arms but I believe in the full 2nd Amendment. A citizen has a responsibility to be well regulated. Ignoring part of an amendment to suit selfish purposes is not only self centered but dangerous.
It's funny how criminals really have this thing about not wanting to be instantly turned into hamburger.
The only reason this guy is VP is to make sure nobody takes a shot at Obama. Could you imagine if Biden was President?
> Biden believes you should purchase shotguns instead of assault weapons.
These things from what I understand (your comments are very difficult to read) are precisely what the NRA doesn't want.
I'm not sure what the "full" 2nd Amendment is, but banning assault rifles is a good idea to me. Every right under the constitution has limitations, and the 2nd should be no exception.
To fend off the argument that you or anyone else who ones one hasn't broken the law with it, I say this: Unlimited rights for individuals to own guns of any type are not worth even the 20 kids who died in Sandy Hill - but that I admit is preemptive and I can't ell where you stand.
@53_3 wow! that's deep, man
Hey, worked for Bush.
I have a deadbolt. Worked for my parents so far. Worked for my grandparents their entire life. Every one of my aunts and uncles - no problems. Sure, between them they might've been robbed a few times when they weren't home, but not once has there ever been a reason to question their security.
Actually, I think quite a few of my aunts and uncles haven't even bothered that much with the deadbolt.
It'll slow down their escape through superior humping.
Plus most of the shots won't go through your walls and risk hitting someone else. Home defense shot guns are the best option against home invasions.
You disagree with his assessment? A shotgun is a very effective home security weapon. That or a handgun.
Unlike you, groeny.
I believe in regulation. I do read like a textbook. Sorry. The data has to be thorough and accurate. Otherwise, in my opinion, there is no point in saying anything. To be more succinct, Louisiana, with no firearm regulation, has a firearm death rate of 18.03/100,000. Massachusetts, with a requirement to register ALL repeating firearms, has a firearm death rate of 3.12/100,000. Almost 15 people less die from firearms in Massachusetts then in Louisiana for every 100,000 people. That is a HUGE difference due to regulation. Unfortunately, these numbers may be foreign to you but it is how law enforcement looks to see how they stack comparative to other states. Too bad they don't use that information to improve state laws but that is too political. As you know Louisiana is a red state and Massachusetts is a blue state. It is easier to do the right thing in a blue state and save lives. So let me make this clear, REGULATE ALL REPEATING FIREARMS. If you ask me how that could possibly work, I don't know and I don't care. I just know it works. The history is already their that it saves A LOT of lives. Doing new stuff may achieve something but it's all a guess unless somebody has been down some path, any path, before so we can analyze what they do right. Many states have been down the regulation path. Don't reinvent but do what they do well. If you try to eliminate all death by firearms from regulations you are seeking Utopia. Even the safest countries have some people dying from firearm murders, suicides, accidents and unknown causes. However, our firearm death numbers are HORRIBLE and they can be reduced dramatically. Keep it simple and do what works and, like the second amendment states, create a well regulated citizenry (aka militia).
Maybe that's the point, lowlife.
forgottenlord, we don't have a gun in the house and live in a crime free neighborhood. My mailbox was blown up once but I think it had more to do with a large "BUSH SUCKS" sign that I had in my yard for a few months. Until I remarried, I seldom even bothered to lock my doors at night.
As usual, you're a buffoon. The issues is that it's the state of Delaware is irrelevant to the advise he's giving. It sounds like you don't actually own a firearm or have ever had to use one to deal with a home invasion Kevin - a shotgun actually is ideal for dealing with an intruder.
And there’s even one MORE problem with this advice: it’s all wrong. The right advice that Joe Biden should have given to Jill Biden on this issue would be Get out of the Secret Service’s multiple lines of fire, dear. But then, that’s really the issue, here? Vice President Biden has no idea at all what reality is like for most of the population; worse, Biden thinks that he does have an idea, and there’s nobody around willing to explain how things work.
I can't believe you read petty garbage like this, but then again it explains why you're such a faffing moron.
Would never happened. You, like 99.9% of liberals, are too much of a coward.
once you've seen a dumbarse you've seen them all. Why would I waste my money on seeing someone like you for real when the whole interweb is lousy with dime a dozen smartipant trolls like you?
You give yourself way to much credit. No wonder you have to troll your worthless arse around here, otherwise no one would here the tree falling in the forest.
As for hypocrite; that's a little rich coming from you but entirely predictable.
"I wonder if he'd still hide behind it if I flew down to his town and introduced myself."
Would never happened. You, like 99.9% of liberals, are too much of a coward.
"I also find it insanely humorous how he is now claiming that no timeframe was ever stated on his bet when last month his claim was that he never made a bet and demanding that we prove the bet was made."
A blatant falsehood. I have never claimed that I made no bet, and you would not be able to show us where I made such a claim. You're both a coward and a liar.
I love how every time Kevin is attacked, he hides behind the Anonymous Coward wall. Even when I remove the veil of anonymity, he still calls me an Anonymous Coward. So either he doesn't understand the term "Anonymous".... or his usage of Anonymous is sufficient that it would cover his own actions under the veil of "Anonymous Coward". I wonder if he'd still hide behind it if I flew down to his town and introduced myself. (I wonder if I'd end up being shot)
I also find it insanely humorous how he is now claiming that no timeframe was ever stated on his bet when last month his claim was that he never made a bet and demanding that we prove the bet was made.
Kevin, at this point, if you were to tell me "2+2=4", I'd ask you for your source. Well, no I wouldn't - I'd have to give a damn - but you get my drift: you cannot be trusted. Not by anyone on Swampland. You have zero credibility. I wouldn't be surprised if even Paulie rolls his eyes at your posts.
Thank you for confirming why I hold you as an exception to the thanks I give to all the others who served, groeny.
@53_3 Says the anonymous coward while hiding behind a tree.
Normally, I thank service veterans for their service to our county, but you, groeny, are different.
You use your service as a club. And besides that, you're not as brave as you claim, so you remain one of the few exceptions to that rule.
You really should not ask others to bail you out. EOF.
groeny, you are both.
You are a liar, a hypocrite, and an anonymous coward.
Porjection from an anonymous coward
Worth saving when Kevin start his grammar and spelling nazism.
As usual, you misread the comment. You're very dense.
Kevins contribution to swampland. If you look up his comments you'll find that 90 percent of it is porjections and argument through ad hominem - always first to shoot the messenger. And when someone responds in kind they're the instigator and hypocrite.
Methink Kevin don't know the type of words he use.
I remember every bit of it, too, Mr. O.
Plus, groeny's DD213 1/2 is just that - an admission of cowardice in itself.
I can't pull your nuts out of this fire groeny. You did this to yourself.
Again, my bet did not entail a time frame
'Cause most people would think ' I will leave' is a pretty finite statement. Not 'I will leave and then decide whenever I will come back'. But I digress.
And we take Patricks words over yours anyday because you're not trustworthy. You have a history of coming across like a rabid dog and a lying sack of dogshit. So you can swear yourself up and down the isle blue in your face and it'll always come back to the trust factor. And no one trusts what you say because you simply do not interact with people here in a honest way.
You blew that when you start combat people personally instead of their arguments.
@forgottenlord @KevinGroenhagen The anonymous coward returns with more lies. Again, my bet did not entail a time frame. You moonbats here failed to ask for one. I never called Patrick Sartor's office. That's a fabrication from Patrick that you moonbats bought even though Patrick had a record of fabrication here. (Note that I know the actual names of other posters here, such as mantisdragon. Ask if their bosses have received any phone calls.) I have never exaggerated my military record. Some of your fellow moonbats here questioned my record, but they were proven wrong with my DD 214. I guess you'll never know for certain who I am since you are an anonymous coward who is unlikely to venture from the safety of his mother's basement.
Right, just like you never lied about the bets you lost that meant we wouldn't have to ever read your posts again and whether you actually called Patrick Sator's office in real life to solve an online debate by trying to get him fired. I believe there were questions about your supposed military history and many other details you've provided. Not to mention that with the quality of your posts, I have a hard time believing you are the middle-aged man in your photo and not some 13 year old punk kid who think he's all that - it would certainly explain why you think you're so clever.