Doc91678
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
By John Semmens
2 Feb 2013
Vice-President Joe Biden, the man tapped by President Obama to lead his Administrations efforts to push gun control legislation, acknowledged that 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.
Biden insisted that critics contention gun control laws are, therefore, useless or counterproductive represents a short-sighted view. While the projected impact on criminals is likely to be minor, the number of firearm fatalities at the hands of the law-abiding will go down. To the extent that the laws deter or delay access to weapons by those willing to conform to the rules, fewer people will be shot by these persons.
Look, everybody with any sense knows that your hardcore criminal isnt going to be swayed by any rules we can enact, Biden added. Case in point, Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. In fact, many of the measures were looking at for a nationwide program are modeled on what Chicago has already done. Yet Chicago has one of the worse murder rates in the country precisely because criminals there dont obey the Citys laws. But just because we cant keep guns out of the hands of these outlaws doesnt mean we have to give up on the idea of disarming as many others as we can.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) took issue with Bidens perspective saying that the Vice-Presidents distinction between criminals and the so-called law-abiding is flawed. If we do it right, mere possession of a gun will be a criminal offense. So by definition the number of criminals we will be able to crackdown on will be expanded. If police are the only ones allowed to legally have weapons the whole job of enforcing gun control would be simplifiedanyone else brandishing a gun would automatically be classified as an armed and dangerous felon and could be legitimately shot on sight.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) asserted that while Senator Durbin is, I think, on the right track. I believe that there may be a need for persons other than the police to be authorized to carry weapons. Those of us in government who may be targeted by extremists should be permitted to defend ourselves. Tragic as it may be for a private citizen to be victimized by a gun-toting assailant, it cannot compare with the threat to our whole social and political system that an assault on a member of our government poses. There is a paramount need for us to prevent such a possibility in any way that we can.
***snip***
Continue reading: -->
Democrats Debate Nuances of Gun Control « The Arizona Conservative
2 Feb 2013
Vice-President Joe Biden, the man tapped by President Obama to lead his Administrations efforts to push gun control legislation, acknowledged that 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.
Biden insisted that critics contention gun control laws are, therefore, useless or counterproductive represents a short-sighted view. While the projected impact on criminals is likely to be minor, the number of firearm fatalities at the hands of the law-abiding will go down. To the extent that the laws deter or delay access to weapons by those willing to conform to the rules, fewer people will be shot by these persons.
Look, everybody with any sense knows that your hardcore criminal isnt going to be swayed by any rules we can enact, Biden added. Case in point, Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. In fact, many of the measures were looking at for a nationwide program are modeled on what Chicago has already done. Yet Chicago has one of the worse murder rates in the country precisely because criminals there dont obey the Citys laws. But just because we cant keep guns out of the hands of these outlaws doesnt mean we have to give up on the idea of disarming as many others as we can.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) took issue with Bidens perspective saying that the Vice-Presidents distinction between criminals and the so-called law-abiding is flawed. If we do it right, mere possession of a gun will be a criminal offense. So by definition the number of criminals we will be able to crackdown on will be expanded. If police are the only ones allowed to legally have weapons the whole job of enforcing gun control would be simplifiedanyone else brandishing a gun would automatically be classified as an armed and dangerous felon and could be legitimately shot on sight.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) asserted that while Senator Durbin is, I think, on the right track. I believe that there may be a need for persons other than the police to be authorized to carry weapons. Those of us in government who may be targeted by extremists should be permitted to defend ourselves. Tragic as it may be for a private citizen to be victimized by a gun-toting assailant, it cannot compare with the threat to our whole social and political system that an assault on a member of our government poses. There is a paramount need for us to prevent such a possibility in any way that we can.
***snip***
Continue reading: -->
Democrats Debate Nuances of Gun Control « The Arizona Conservative
