Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: griz on August 16, 2020, 09:28:25 AM
-
Just looking at Biden's plan to end gun violence, https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# which links guns to pretty much everything bad, and this statistic jumped out of the page to me:
" This deadly connection tragically impacts children as well: 86% of children killed in shootings with four or more victims were involved in domestic or family violence."
It just sounds unlikely to me. Admittedly (and thankfully) there aren't a lot of mass shootings of kids, and I'm assuming they can't say that those school kids are 'involved" in domestic violence only by virtue of being a shooting victim. But are there really enough instances of people killing their families to make that large number of 86 percent true? Any idea where that convoluted stat comes from?
-
I like how they put all of the 5 million "loopholes" in "scare quotes," as if to confirm they know how silly these little phrases really are.
And I appreciate how Biden keeps punching at domestic violence, and punching at it.
-
The article, from what I could read before it knocked me off the 'net, included all sorts of extraordinarily unfeasible and un constitutional stuff . Putting pre-existing "assault-weapons" on the NFA list? Really?
Oh wait ..... I thought they were just going to confiscate ("buyback") them. What happened to that?
-
Hell yes they're going to put those guns on the list.
-
Just looking at Biden's plan to end gun violence, https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# which links guns to pretty much everything bad, and this statistic jumped out of the page to me:
" This deadly connection tragically impacts children as well: 86% of children killed in shootings with four or more victims were involved in domestic or family violence."
It just sounds unlikely to me. Admittedly (and thankfully) there aren't a lot of mass shootings of kids, and I'm assuming they can't say that those school kids are 'involved" in domestic violence only by virtue of being a shooting victim. But are there really enough instances of people killing their families to make that large number of 86 percent true? Any idea where that convoluted stat comes from?
Likely or unlikely as the statistic may be, it's a false narrative. It's like saying "100 percent of people who die from gunshot wounds have been shot by a gun." Or "100 percent of people who were killed last year had ingested water within 24 hours of their deaths. Drinking water is fatal. Ban water!"
If 86% of children killed by gunfire were killed in domestic violence situations, why isn't the emphasis on addressing domestic violence?
-
If 86% of children killed by gunfire were killed in domestic violence situations, why isn't the emphasis on addressing domestic violence?
It's from Joe Biden's website. He has a plan (https://youtu.be/CAzRtZ1GErI) to deal with domestic violence.
-
The article, from what I could read before it knocked me off the 'net, included all sorts of extraordinarily unfeasible and un constitutional stuff . Putting pre-existing "assault-weapons" on the NFA list? Really?
Oh wait ..... I thought they were just going to confiscate ("buyback") them. What happened to that?
The "buyback"* is in there. You'll have a choice of registering them as a NFA item or the Gov will compensate you for it at the price they think is fair.
* I really don't like the term Buyback. If it was anything else related to one of the rights guaranteed in the BOR, your computer for instance, that the government wanted to ban and they offered you some fraction of it's value, people would be incensed that they are using the word buyback to disguise confiscation.
-
Likely or unlikely as the statistic may be, it's a false narrative. It's like saying "100 percent of people who die from gunshot wounds have been shot by a gun." Or "100 percent of people who were killed last year had ingested water within 24 hours of their deaths. Drinking water is fatal. Ban water!"
If 86% of children killed by gunfire were killed in domestic violence situations, why isn't the emphasis on addressing domestic violence?
That's kind of my take as well. Sort of like saying owning an automobile makes you more likely to die in an automobile accident.
-
The "buyback"* is in there. You'll have a choice of registering them as a NFA item or the Gov will compensate you for it at the price they think is fair.
* I really don't like the term Buyback. If it was anything else related to one of the rights guaranteed in the BOR, your computer for instance, that the government wanted to ban and they offered you some fraction of it's value, people would be incensed that they are using the word buyback to disguise confiscation.
The govt. cannot "buyback" something it never owned in the first place. Buying is an act of consent; an agreement between seller and buyer, so however it's parsed, it remains an infringement on the Second Amendment.