If mandatory confiscation of ANY type of firearm was taken off the table, perhaps actual progress could be made. I do not blame people who own guns fearing that the ultimate goal is confiscation.
11
Who ever mentioned mandatory gun confiscation. No one.
24
@Steveb With respect sir, you and I both know that is the ultimate goal. The reason it is not usually made public is because it is a Truth-nuke.
6
@Steveb
???
Scroll up or down. There are plenty of commenters demanding mandatory confiscation of all guns, outlawing of semi-automatics, imprisoning of gun owners, etc.
4
Freedom-loving Americans should be very concerned about allowing civilian law-enforcement officers to carry "weapons of war" that are denied the common citizen. All of the Assault Weapons Bans I've seen in actual Bill-form exempt civilian police and private security contractors. Why is it OK for a private security contractor to have access to "weapons of war" to protect their wealthy clientele, but the common citizen is banned from these weapons?
8
@Larry: I agree with you about the private security contractors, that's a good point. And as we begin to demilitarize our environment, it will be great to see the police appear less like heavily armed troops occupying a hostile territory, and more like a civilian police force. But the idea that any civilian should have the same weaponry as the police or military is all wrong. Those who think that they can seriously wage war with their own government (or, the existing government, if they don't think it's theirs anymore)... well, it's about distinguishing reality from fiction.
16
The assault weapon ban has been tried before. It did not work. The Brady rule did not work. Either change the 2nd amendment or stop talking about banning guns.
3
The part of this that makes sense is abolishing the second amendment. It is a useless appendage that as allowed a gun culture to flourish while citizens perish.
Owning and using a gun needs to be highly regulated and paired with credible safety training and clearly defined responsibilities of gun owners. Like capitalism its an idea that has go e wild and is out of control. Responsible gun owners should be allowed to use them in safe and responsible ways. Too many pro gun arguments are an outright insult to responsible gun owners, they need to speak up too.
7
Would it be possible to amend the 2nd Amendment?
1
How do you "buy back" something that I neither bought from the government nor am selling?
What you mean is confiscation of arms that fall well within the "Common Use" test SCOTUS has affirmed in Miller and Heller.
Folks used to say it was a slippery slope argument to say that "common sense" gun reform would lead to confiscation, yet look where we are now.
8
@Ray
As you point out, it isn't "buy back" because the gun manufacture isn't buying back your gun but "gun confiscation" being the government either taking your gun without compensation or buying it from you.
6
Advocates of gun rights simply don't trust gun control advocates anymore because it is all about gun confiscation.
You really can't give in to gun control advocates because if you do then the gun control advocates will never stop.
What would be better is that if the gun control advocates just come out and try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That would be a discussion worth having.
44
@hoapres theoretically the 2nd amendment also includes the right to own nuclear weapons. Does that make any sense to you?
31
@lancerp
While not intended you brought up an interesting point, being what weapons one has the right to own.
Gun owners don't trust gun control advocates because it is all about making it more difficult to own firearms.
It is getting out of hand in California,
1. We have a 10 round magazine ban that is being litigated in courts. Why stop at 10 rounds, why not make it 5 rounds ?
2. We now have a background check for every ammo purchase which is now going through a court challenge.
3. You have a restriction of the handguns you can buy in CA. No new Glock gen 5 can be purchased in California and buy 2022 thanks to the micro stamping requirement, then one might not be able to buy a handgun legally in CA as none will be approved for sale. That is being litigated in the courts as well.
4. San Jose wants to require individual firearm owners to buy an insurance policy. That is likely to end up in court.
So when it is going to end ? That's why I advocate gun right advocates to be up front and lobby for removing the 2nd Amendment. If you don't have the right to own firearms in the first place then you won't have these issues.
9
@hoapres Your pro-gun argument is based on the straw man fallacy. You refute the argument "all guns should be banned", ignoring the fact that the real argument is, "high-capacity assault weapons should be banned".
For example:
"I think it's safe for you to step off this curb".
"You might as well just have me jump off a cliff, then". You see why your argument doesn't work? Stepping off a curb is not the same as jumping off a cliff. Making it illegal to own assault rifles is not the same as banning all firearms.
56
All of what we read and hear about the dangers presented by the proliferation of guns seems to come as a knee jerk reaction that regurgitates the same old uninformed lines about “assault weapons.” When will someone who knows guns or who has done the research present an idea to ban firearms based not on scary appearances and their military lineage but on caliber, load, muzzle velocity and bullet design? At the risk of sounding facetious, the popular response to shootings is like responding to high speed highway accidents by banning cars with loud exhausts, spoilers and fancy graphics.
25
@From Where I Sit That's very sensible. It sounds like you agree with Biden in spirit and disagree only on the details used to define what an "assault weapon" is.
6
@Lucy
The term assault weapon is meaningless outside of its use within the structure of a gun control law wherein it is specifically defined only for the purposes of that law. And that definition has always been of the “scary gun” kind.
2
@From Where I Sit
Well, let's talk about firing rate. We limit all firearms to 1 round a minute, all magazines to 3 rounds. Problem solved.
17
"A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".[30][31]
A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]"
Wikipedia
In other words, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2004 had no impact on violent crime.
Try again.
1
Well, duh! It's' madness to construe owning and needing a military assault weapon with anything the founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment.
It's almost as foolish and as much of a stretch as is taking one obscure, verse written thousands of years ago in another time and culture, and using it to condemn being gay.
2
The "assault rifle" is the same rifle owned by Americans since the 1930s. A ban on assault rifles would set 2ND Amendment rights back 100-years.
The lies being told about "assault" rifles are enormous. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. It does not fire any more quickly than you can pull the trigger. The AR-15 stands for Armalite Revision Number 15; not "assault rifle."
Gun control is not the objective of these American Communists and Progressive Socialist Democrats -- gun confiscation is.
All gun control laws as they currently stand are illegal and unconstitutional. The current gun control laws, like the NYSafe Act are routinely ignored by the people who pass gun confiscation laws in the middle of the night.
Governor Andrew Cuomo (who wants all the guns for himself and none for the citizens of New York), his security detail is armed to the teeth with fully-automatic machine guns, in full violation of what is provided for under NY State law.
Their thinking is hostile to their own citizens. Professional politicians want to ban assault rifles because only mass shooters own assault rifles. They want to confiscate guns because only crazy people own guns. With logic like this, our politicians are even sicker than these mass shooters.
Just today, NY Senator Chuck Schumer wants to ban body armor because only mass shooters wear body armor. NYS even has a ban on slingshots. Funny how gun confiscation laws are being determined by crazy people who should be banned themselves.
5
I shoot trap and skeet and yet agree with Joe Biden; no one needs assault weapons. My freiends agree with me on this.
As he explains it is just commone sense to re-enact that legislation.
6
And still no news about the mass stabbing of strangers by a Latino in California that killed several people, including two whites, and injured several others. Was it racially motivated? Will knives be banned too?
3
So, to be clear, there are in fact four branches of government today in the United States of America (USA): The Judiciary, responsible for interpreting and applying the laws of the USA as established by: The Legislative, comprising the Congress and the Senate, responsible for drafting and forwarding the laws of the USA to: The Executive, responsible for enforcing and maintaining the rule of law to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the USA; and then today there is The NRA, responsible for nothing but mayhem, mass murder, and chaos, beholden to none but their corporate arms dealer $ponsor$ and intent upon holding the other three branches of the USA government hostage to their warped and distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution (“A well regulated militia” — Bah Humbug!) Arms include not only muskets and deer hunting rifles but also military assault weapons of mass destruction! Why Not RPGs, Bazookas, Flame Throwers, Tactical Nukes? Huh?!? NRA Says So! Katie Barr the Door! Annie Get Your Gun!
2
We had a ban on assault weapons and Congress let it expire. So what's different? A more highly politicized NRA, plenty of money from the NRA buying Congressmen and Senators to do their bidding.
I think assault weapons have no business in the general public's hands--these are military weapons of war best left to those who are actually fighting wars (our servicemen).
But I also think an assault weapons ban will never happen. The NRA is too strong, too powerful, too influential.
I'm not against repealing the 2nd Amendment, but what the NRA and those gunning for no laws, no restrictions often ignore or forget is the rest of that amendment, the part about "a well-regulated militia". At one time, the S.Ct. interpreted the amendment to mean that states could restrict gun ownership. With Heller, that's gone. States have eliminated or relaxed regulations, and thus more gun deaths.
The other thing is that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the most high-tech gun was a single loading flintlock musket. The founders couldn't have foreseen the kinds of weapons available now. Men had to be able to have guns should they need to be made part of a militia during a war. Guns were also needed by most people because they had to hunt for their food. Today, we have a professional military (no more minutemen) and most people get their food at the grocery store, not by hunting.
I have no problem with responsible gun owners, but it seems they're too few.
2
The issue is what you define as an 'assault weapon'.
We keep seeing certain gun models used over and over again in mass shootings - eg, the AR-15 and it's derivatives. Instead of banning things like pistol grip stocks, why not simply define an assault weapon as one which has been used in the last year to kill, say, 3 people or more at a time.
1
Just a few more thoughts, for any who propose "buybacks" or confiscation: If any are jesting, then it's a poor joke. If any are truly serious, then they are ignoring some crucial facts. There aren't enough law enforcement officers on this continent to enforce either of such provisions. Even if there were, would they just toss the Fourth Amendment, too, and search private homes without warrants? On what information would a judge find reasonable cause to believe any banned arms were in the home of a particular person, so as to issue a warrant?
Continued spouting of far-reaching, unworkable, or unconstitutional proposals accomplishes little except convince many law-abiding owners, if they weren't convinced already, that confiscation is the real goal after all.
4
Mr. Biden, what will you do to make sure this new assault weapons ban does not have an expiration date? I assume there was a compromise that resulted in the assault weapons ban only lasting for ten years. Perhaps it was a bet that Democrats would be in control come 2004 that backfired, I have no idea. But what can you do to make sure we ban these things for a lot longer?
1
Joe—are you choosing truth over facts again?
2
What's next Joe?
Are you gonna declare people like me "super predators" and "deplorables" ?
2
As I have argued before, a citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading flintlock or percussion firearms as they wish. If my history is correct, those were the available weapons when the 2nd Amendment was written – for all of the “originalists” out there.
And yes, I own guns. However, I gave up my membership in the NRA in the 80’s following their shift from gun safety, sport shooting, and hunting to irrational militant support for concealed carry and high capacity magazines. That, and unending obstruction of meaningful background check regulations. We can – and must – do better.
4
There are many politicians and jurists both high and low who pride themselves as constitutional originalists. The second amendment was written in the 18th century when firearms were simple. The well regulated militia was a necessity and today is the modern military. Hunting is a valid pursuit where large capacity magazine semi-automatic weapons have no place, none. I am a hunter and have a variety of shotguns and rifles for deer, upland birds, bear, and small game. I enjoy black powder hunting the most for the challenge of the pursuit of game. A majority of the guns I use would be familiar to a hunter in the first half of the 20th century or earlier. The rest are simple upgrades on those. Constitutional originalists should reread the 2nd amendment, have the NRA do the same, repeatedly, until a safer USA is the result. Guns are deadly tools that demand proficiency and utmost care in use. There should and must be a limit of what is available and possessed by the public.
5
Thank you Joe for this reasonable letter. I love you.
3
Plenty of fire arms were in public hands before the assault weapons ban. We don’t ban cars because of drunk drivers; we don’t ban alcohol because of drunk drivers; we don’t ban forks & spoons because of obesity deaths; we don’t ban knives because of stabbing homicides; we don’t ban bats & blunt objects because of bludgeoning deaths...
The culture is the problem. The psychoses are the problem. The guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. They require a human to wield them.
5
Your comparison to cars is specious. No, we don't ban cars even though they are capable of killing people, but we do regulate them, heavily:
We have maximum speeds you are allowed to drive to make cars less dangerous, why can't we have a maximum capacity of rounds of ammunition allowed in a gun?
We have seatbelt laws, why can't we have laws mandating fingerprint ID trigger technology?
We have drivers license laws that require months of waiting, multiple hours of training, and the successful completion of a written exam and a driving safety test to get a license. Why can't we have at least that much training and testing as a requirement to getting a gun permit?
12
How can there be a repeal of the 2nd amendment with the republicans in control of the Senate? Stop the lying and obfuscation--there is no chance of repealing the 2nd amendment. Background checks and bans on assault rifles, large magazine clips, bump stocks and body armor are common sense answers to modern day gun problems.
3
Couldn’t agree more . Go Joe!
2
The GOP Congressmen who decided not to renew the assault weapons ban, have blood on their hands. I will call out, in particular, Tom Delay, then majority leader, and Pres. George W. Bush, who did not ask Congress to vote for a continuing ban. Blood. On. Their. Hands!
2
Immigration and gun control are dog and pony issues. The real crime of this administration is the further consolidation of wealth and Trump's complicity with Putin's war on the West.
2
The data doesn’t lie: The assault weapons ban didn’t work. At all. Moreover, gun ownership rates and gun deaths have an inversely proportional relationship (both total guns and per capita). From a common sense perspective, simply making “assault weapons” (which most non-owners don’t understand) illegal won’t remove a single one from “the street.” Even a confiscation would only get a small percentage, amid massive backlash. The answers are mental/emotional/social health, concealed carry, more training opportunities, the elimination of gun free zones, possible “smart” grip technology, possibly requiring checks for private sales outside of family, tighter straw purchase laws, and PERHAPS red flag laws if properly written with strict due process protections. Our culture is broken, not our gun laws.
4
@Scott
Only people who have little experience with people carrying guns would recommend your ideas. There are too many people who just have not got the temperament needed to safely carry guns and not lose them irresponsibly or to misuse them sooner or later.
2
"Advocates of gun rights simply don't trust gun control advocates anymore because it is all about gun confiscation.
You really can't give in to gun control advocates because if you do then the gun control advocates will never stop."--hoapres
Ya got that right, "haopres."
3
No, Joe, it doesn't work.
Those Americans who believe they need guns to protect themselves already have various police and law enforcement agencies protecting them. Furthermore, if they want to play with assault rifles, join the National Guard or Regular Army to have fun with their toys.
Idiotic and stupid. Hunting rifles Yes, Handguns Yes. Assault Rifles No.
6
@Buzz D
How well did police protect Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Jordan Edwards, or Sandra Bland?
Joe Biden - Thanks for the excellent editorial. Trump calls you “sleepy Joe”. If this is your “sleepy”, wait till you debate Trump on stage and show him his “Creepy Don” Photo, grinning with his thumbs up sign next to the Latino orphan of El Paso, his parents killed by one of Trump’s disciples summoned by Trump from the depths of hell to do his bidding with an assault weapon. Joe, your “Man-Card” has been reissued, because you are obviously more wide awake than Trump and have rightfully called for a ban on assault weapons to make America safer again!
2
Anything short of a ban on military weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens would be a political failure. Although it may be difficult to draw a bright line on the specific weapons and accessories which should be banned and even though manufacturers and enthusiasts will relentlessly attack any set boundaries, it is a fight worth waging.
While we are on the subject, it is a bit surprising more people in law enforcement do not publicly protest the availability of military type weapons on the streets. I can only imagine what it would be like to be outgunned by a perpetrator. I recall law enforcement came out strongly against assault weapons after the North Hollywood Bank of America heist back in the 90s, and they were banned for several years in response to that episode, among others. Not so much since then. Perhaps it takes more courage to oppose the weapons than to risk facing them in a fire fight?
2
Weapons designed for the military should not be in the hands of civilians. If we stop the sale of these weapons now it will take years to get them off the street but we have to start somewhere.
8
Guns should be like abortions - legal but regulated, rare but available as a last line of defense for those facing a difficult situation. There's absolutely no need for any sort of normal person to have the types of guns that can fire hundreds of rounds in a minute or tow - particularly at targets that are far away. No law abiding person, outside of witness protection, is facing that type of threat. These are offensive not defensive weapons.
That said I am strong supporter of allowing people to possess pistols, true hunting rifles, and shotguns at a federal level provided the person licenses the weapon (at a non-prohibitive cost), clears a background check, and passes a safety training course. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than a driver's license. However as someone who grew up in the Midwest, I can attest that guns are not merely a part of the culture, but an actual necessity for some people. In rural parts of the country there are no local police to call if there's an emergency. At best you could reach a county sheriff's dispatcher who might arrive 20 minutes at the soonest. Additionally beyond safety, many poor families in rural areas rely on hunting to help feed themselves and in certain northern and western areas of the country guns are needed to protect people and livestock from wolves, bears, cougars and other large predators.
However, urban areas should absolutely pass their own more restrictive rules on top of a federal assault weapons ban.
3
There is and never has been a good reason for individuals to own assault weapons. They are tools of war, not hunting, not defense. This ban should not have been subject to sunsetting and needs to be reinstated now, not a month from now, a year from now or when Mitch McConnell is good and ready.
4
Suffering that isn't transformed instead is transmitted.
There is no goodness in inaction. It doesn't make any of us safer, and hiding behind this or that excuse or rationalization is itself inexcusable. We shouldn't pretend that we can end gun violence, but neither can we ignore that we have the ability to mitigate the scale of deaths endured.
I won't decide my vote based on a single issue, but Mr. Biden's position is a reasonable, transformative one.
3
All semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines were banned by Congress (Biden says that was one of his successes) for 10 years and the ban was a total failure. It didn’t save one extra life. After 10 years the ban expired as a failure and Congress did not renew. FBI reports that rifles are found in shootings only 2% of the time. FBI says they dont even track rifles because they are seen so rarely. FBI also says there are NO ASSAULT RIFLES available to civilians in retail stores. Of all causes of death, firearms are listed as #107. That means there are 106 other causes of death that kill more people each year than all firearms of all types and all calibers — COMBINED. More people are killed each year by the FLU, Measles, and fals thannare killed by all types of firearms combined.
4
Apart from this retread of the assault weapons ban, Biden has taken part in incarcerating millions of Americans, turning the surveillance state on we Americans after the attack by foreigners, and reinforced the nations police forces with machine guns and armored vehicles. I say; everybody buy more guns and lots of ammo to defend our freedom. The time will come when either Trump or a Democrat will take over the nation militarily and we will be Constitutionally correct in defending our freedom.
2
Assault weapons were banned for a long time. During that time we had very few mass shootings. The ban was killed ('allowed to expire') by the NRA and Republicans, and since then we've had about ten times more mass shootings and fatalities.
This proves two things.
First - it's a simple equation - weapons of mass murder being available means more mass murder. Every study proves the difference between here and places without mass murder isn't the violent video games (present worldwide, played worldwide), not mental illness, not racism (also present worldwide) - the only difference is the legal availability of those weapons.
Second - we had the assault weapons ban, and there was no gun confiscation, no escalation, no UN takeover, no regressive government - all the NRA fearmongering was proven untrue.
4
@SusanStoHelit Your unsupported assertion in the first paragraph is "fake news" and the only thing simple about your "equation" is your reasoning.
1
@SusanStoHelit your unsupported assertion in the first paragraph is "fake news" and the only thing simple about your "equation" is your reasoning.
the outpouring of thoughts and prayers is totally hollow.
4
If it wasn't a six shot revolver, a double barrel shot gun, a single shot rifle, or a muzzle loader when the Second Amendment was conceived, I doubt our founding fathers wanted those who belonged to a FORMAL militia intended to protect against the English and such to have open access to weapons designed to kill as many humans as quickly as possible.
Why would someone who enjoys target shooting or hunting or collecting British double barrels for $25,000 a pop need something that can empty a 50 round clip in under a minute ?
1
Sorry, Joe, but "banning assault weapons" doesn't work for me--and it doesn't work for the many millions of us who own semi-automatic rifles but who have never shot anyone with them. We're not going to just sit back and take the blame for the actions of the crazy one-in-a-million who abuse guns.
And, anyway, "banning assault weapons" will work just about as well as "banning" drugs--i.e., basically not at all. All it will do is drive the gun trade underground just like it's done with the drug trade--and if we're going to have to do something illegal to get a semi-auto, we might as well go all the way and get a full-auto. Do you really want the nuts to be able to buy 800 round-per-minute M4s on the same street corner where they buy whatever they get high on?
3
Oh ok, so making semi-automatic weapons illegal will only put more automatic weapons out there?
You should stop watching whatever it is you watch because it's really messing with your ability to follow basic logic.
Following your logic, everyone should own a lot of meth so that it means there's no black market for heroin. But if meth is illegal, then there will be more of it than ever, plus heroin. Why? Because black market!
Yes, that makes total sense to people that listen to the NRA and the John Birch Society.
2
@Henry Miller, Libertarian
Biden's proposal is just another step in criminalizing ordinary law abiding citizens, pandering to a faction of hyprocritical zealots, many who are already criminals.
1
President Trump and former Justice Antonin Scalia grew up safely in Queens, New York under the Sullivan Gun laws as did my family. No one at that time viewed the Sullivan Laws as unconstitutional. Assault weapons of any kind were unheard of then and the NYPD vetted those who needed guns for protection.
Former VP Biden is right, we need to get military style weapons off our streets. If President Trump wants to make America great again he can start by supporting the kinds of gun laws that kept him, his parents, brothers and sisters safe back when he was young.
3
The last ban did nothing. The guns were changed so there was no bayonet lug or flame
Suppressor and sold just the same. Congress just loves to pass meaningless laws and the uncritical public believes they have done something.
3
How about a ban on Long Island Iced Teas to stop Drunk Driving? Why wouldn't a ban on a pure alcohol drink that would raise a 150 pound person's Blood Alcohol Count to 0.152 after 1 hour work? That's almost DOUBLE the legal limit! Why does anyone "need" a Long Island Iced Tea?
Well, for the obvious reason that absolutely everybody knows that the drunk will just drink something different. Ban one type of gun, the shooter will just use a different type, or more of them, or gasoline, etc.
The FBI already reported to Congress that the AWB had no effect. If Biden is going to re-litigate the passed, he should start with bussing.
5
Biden is right, however, the problem of existing gun ownership needs to be addressed by expanding backgtound checks to all ammunition purchaes as well.
1
Are Republicans really defending unregulated, unfettered, unlimited access to killing machines?....and to think I was worried that the Democrats might be moving a bit too far to the extreme for the upcoming election.
2
You've proven yourself over the years to be a man desiring of Government dominance over the people. I'm not surprised by your writing. We all seem to be reflexive in this climate of anger and hostility.
2
Put yourself in the shoes of the victim's families and the people impacted by gun violence for a second.
Where do you think their head is at?
Do you think they would rather protect a law that servers no purpose in modern day solely because it's on the books or prevent this from happening to another family/bring back their loved ones?
Repel the 2nd amendment
2
I detest this unsubtle campaign ploy. You use the term "weak-willed leaders," a sure case of the pot calling the kettle . . . well, you know.
Mr. Biden, with a little soul searching on your part and some advice from those who know you and your abilities, you would drop out of the race for president and leave it to those with greater fortitude and integrity.
3
Thanks, Joe--you're my guy. I don't care what anybody says--I like you, and I'm gonna vote for you.
1
I support the ban on assault weapons.....and I vote.
2
I don't understand any American who cares for his loved ones yet votes Republican. How would she/he vote for or support the NRA and its bought-and-paid-for Republican Party? Why would any decent American cast a ballot for the massacre-tolerant, massacre-facilitating Republican Party or any of its candidates?
3
You attacked me. I won't vote for you or ever again after what I learned about your Congress.
2
There is so much rambling rhetoric we don't know where to stop it.
Joe, there are so many thousands, dare I say millions, of such weapons out there, banning all firearms would do no good.
The bad guys buy them or already have them. Tell us all how you propose to get those guns back. If you can do that, we have a chance.
5
Banning assault weapons keeps the real solution from being arrived at...the supply!
Firearm ownership and automobile ownership should be EXACTLY the same; licensed, registered, and insured.
2
If you want to make them exactly the same, you would need to amend the Constitution to provide for the right to own and operate motor vehicles.
3
Or require registration and insurance for each gun one owns or buys. Don't lose your driver's license. And use the turn signal!
1
1994 - 2004
Do we remember this as the decade in which Americans lost their freedom? In which we fell sway to tyranny?
No? It was pretty much a normal decade?
OK, then, let's reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban.
5
No, Mr. Biden, I would trust neither Trump's, nor your "diagnosis of our gun problem".
2
Joe is on the verge of dementia and the Assault Weapons Ban DID NOT WORK. FBI spastics proved that the decrease in homicides started before the ban and carried through it. Riddle me this Joe, what if 10% say "I Will Not Comply"? Will you eradicate millions of Americans?
2
Taking away someone's military assault rifle is not "eradicating" millions of Americans any more than taking away an elderly person's drivers license is "eradicating" them.
Do you ever listen to yourself when you talk like this?
A lot of guys think they're sounding really tough and manly and patriotic by pretending that laws that don't allow them to own bazookas or their own Blackhawk helicopter are a government plot to wipe out everyone involved in their local county fair. But it's really just hysterical, like you need a time-out and a big hug from your grade school teacher to reassure you that it's actually ok to trust people sometimes even if you're not pointing a gun -- specifically a semi-automatic one -- at them.
5
Joe - you'll never make it. America has no need for, yet another, first-rate-second-rate man at the helm. This country needs serious answers, not sad-sack excuses.
2
With all due respect Joe, you're not your own man, never have & never will be.
4
What did Biden accomplish as VP, or Senator for that matter?
NOTHING!!!
3
Ha! Biden chooses truth over facts.
3
Let's change his nickname again to "mass murder Mitch."
Maybe that will get his attention.
7
Is it not amusing to hear voices from the lunatic left demand that only the police should have guns yet label those same police officers as "fascists!" If the police are truly some type of fascist organization, why would you ever want to disarm???
3
Do something.
3
The 2nd amendment has been hijacked and bastardized by the NRA. i can't think of any rational argument for why we shouldn't have universal background checks, mandatory registration, biometric sensors, and a ban on semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines — including a government buyback program of these banned weapons after which one would be subject to arrest for still holding one, and the FBI “purchasing” them from black market sellers and then arresting those sellers. Can you?
10
This dead horse has been beaten too much.
The FBI did a study on the previous ban and found "no discernible effect" on any crime.
After the ban was lifted, the murder rate in the US went down. It was going down before the ban, it was going down during the ban, and it continued to go down after the ban.
What was going up during that time until recently is the number of criminals behind bars. As the incarceration rate went UP, crime (including murder) went DOWN. When incarceration rate went down a few years ago, crime (including murder) went up in some places.
If you want murder rate to go down, then lock up criminals and keep them locked up.
7
@Son of the American Revolution
Not remotely true. Mass murders spiked after the ban lapsed. The number of events as well as the lethality of the events.
4
If you want your contractor to stop working, take away his tools. If you want to stop a mass murderer, take away the assault weapons.
2
Thank you VP Biden. This is but just one of the major reasons why you are the best candidate to beat Trump in 2020. Americans are tired of hearing “thoughts and prayers” from the Republican led Senate as they reach under the table to grab NRA cash while our friends and loved ones are being slaughtered by weapons of war. We are tired of the hate and chaos brought day in and day out by Trump.
Not only is this the policy position we need from our future President, you are also the best candidate with the experience necessary to bring integrity and decorum back to the Oval Office, the knowledge necessary to rebuild our agencies and the foreign affairs experience to restore our standing in the World. People don’t seem to recognize the severe damage Trump has caused not only domestically but worldwide. This is not a time for on the job training.
You have my family’s votes.
12
Biden says "the problem is with weak-willed leaders who care more about their campaign coffers than children in coffins."
A very nice phrase, typical of good old Joe.
How come so many leaders are so weak willed? How can money for their campaigns be a priority over children in coffins? What tricks of the mind do they play to rationalize this?
Biden might now write a NYT op ed on the obvious blockage---our entrenched campaign finance system--unique among democracies.
Or is it too 'radical' to push for this reform we badly need, and which most Americans want? One line in an op ed means Biden avoids the topic, while seeming to criticize it our system. Pretty nifty.
From FAIR--Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting: "Biden pledged he won't take direct donations from lobbyists. But to open his campaign, he attended a $2,800 per person fundraiser given by David L. Cohen, executive VP and chief of lobbying for Comcast.”
This has been the American Way. It has to change. Our lives are at stake now.
We need straight, realistic talk in our media on how to get our politics unstuck from the big money that 'calls the shots' and sets norms in lawmaking. And that comes up with whopper lies to propagandizes the public.
The public doesn't buy this B.S. and longer. The media must start covering this cause/effect.
3
@Meredith
The media is driving the corruption.
Stop printing this unfair advantage.
1
The NRA has advanced fear tactics to keep legislators from passing common sense gun reform. However, we have the benefit of hindsight.
During the 10 years that the Brady Bill was in effect, government did not break down the doors to confiscate all guns, the UN did not take over America, and the country did not fall. The only thing that fell were the number of people killed by those guns. The majority of voters support common sense legislation. Mitch McConnell, funded by the NRA, and his friends, do not. Vote them out.
15
as a lifetime hunter who never saw a military gun in the fields, or
woods, I strongly support limiting military weapons to the military.
Most of my hunting friends left the NRA years ago, because of
its support for military guns in civilian hands.
The NRA seems to be imploding. Good riddance.
Australia faced similar problems. They banned sale and import
of assault rifles to civilians and sought to recall them from civilians. Worked for them. Could for us, if we had the guts.
18
@Mickey Mouse
1. ...but gun ownership PER CAPITA has dropped by 23% over the same interval; and
2. ...your statement does not address how many (or what proportion) of these guns qualify as semiautomatic or automatic; and
2. ...there are also more guns in Australia now than in 1788. The question is not how many guns are on the street at this very moment, but how many fewer would be there in the absence of rational legislation.
3
@IndeyPea
Curious. Semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns have been available and used for sixty years at least. You would know that if you have studied enough about guns to know how the AR-15 differs from Remington semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns, and how both differ from the M-16.
2
@jer
What was the compliance rate?
And while you did make some points, none refute that there are more guns.
With every report of a random senseless American gun massacre, I’m less willing to live the rest of my life in this country, and quite hesitant to start a family.
6
I look at the guy checking out the wall of rifles and semi-automatics, and I have to say to myself- COOL! What a neat array of technology and firing power, the special alloys used to lighten the weapon, the quality of workmanship- I could go on and on. I had my Roy Rodgers cap gun and holster set when I was just FIVE running around the house fighting off imaginary robbers and savage Indians. I was fascinated by how the little bit of gunpowder (half the size of a fingernail) could explode when the trigger hit it, and the unique smell it gave off. Later, I had a toy "Berreta" which was my James Bond Gun, and I used to look out over the windowsill looking for Russian spies. Nowadays I don't own a real gun because I know they are lethal. And from a medical standpoint they cause too many complications in the ER if you survive. But I still lust after anything mechanical, as long as it's well made. The 2nd Amendment and THE HELLER DECISION-2008 has created an impossible situation in America. And the Police themselves often do NOT use firearms safely or with proper restraint. I often do NOT respect their Judge Dread form of justice. Kick the jerks off the force BEFORE they commit assault or murder. I had to show I was competent at my job, and renew my license yearly, but Cops? Guns ARE neat, but they are also EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. It's just too bad if all you're allowed to do is go hunting, or go to a firing range. Lock them up THERE. People die at home more than anywhere else!
1
@flyinointment
I'm sorry but having my firearms locked up at the shooting range does not support their primary use as a tool for self-defense.
Btw, police only carry a firearm for personal defense. They do not carry "assult weapons", just "defense weapons".
2
What gun fanatics call “self defense” is mass murder anywhere and everywhere possible.
Perhaps if the Preamble to the Constitution (the intent behind writing the US Constitution in the first place) was more clearly worded as a right to not be infringed, we would not be having people getting so bent out of shape at the thought of having some adjustments to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the people to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is getting trampled to dust by a fanatical allegiance to the most extreme interpretation of that supplemental 2nd amendment. Why can't everyone see this?
11
@Spruceaspen
Every con-law professor I have ever spoken with has said the same thing. The Preamble is little more than nicely worded fluff with no actual weight of law behind it.
Although I would ask those who believe the preamble should have weight of law, at some point we went from "promote the general welfare" to provide the general welfare.
2
Finally a candidate who minces no words about his intentions to do everything possible to keep military style weapons out of the hands of the general population! Nothing else is more important.
I'm so tired of the hemming and hawing about mental illness and background checks and waiting periods. 99% of the problem is people being allowed to buy and own military weapons.
16
@Richard W. King With respect sir, I truly believe that a program of mandatory/involuntary confiscation of over 15 million semi-automatic rifles currently legally owned by the public would result in mass, armed civil disobedience. In many rural areas, local law enforcement would all but ignore such a pogrom. Never going to happen.
2
Look it was the First Amendment that was responsible for the killing in El Paso. It was the Right of people to demean others through their speech to the point that someone took action and killed those that were being talked about. If we didn't have the First Amendment these killings would never have happened. Agreed.
1
Are you talking about Trump’s racist dog whistles?
1
How about a law limiting all rifle ammo muzzle speed to less than 40 miles an hour for ammo priced below $40 a round. For ammo with muzzle speed of 60 mph the price must be at least $60 per round. And so on. You can keep your fancy toy, but the price of your ammo must be no less than the muzzle speed dollar for dollar for each mph. And the bullet must be made of either rubber or butter.
1
More as a thought experiment and since politics is supposedly the art of compromise or at least some allege that, would those of you who are pro abortion give up that right to ban guns? Would those of you who are pro gun give up that right to ban abortion? Of course you are making this decision for everyone so it doesn’t matter if on a strictly personal level you’re pro or anti on both abortion and guns.
No one is “pro-abortion”.
Pro-choice, yes. Pro-abortion? No.
Why do “pro-life” people generally believe in capital punishment and the second amendment? Hypocrites.
1
Repeal the 2nd amendment. Yeah, I know. Don't mess with the "Bill of Rights". The founders weren't saints, members of the clergy, popes, etc. They were the farmers, tradesmen, builders of the 18th century. They got that one wrong. We don't need congress to repeal this monstrous law. Let the people decide. Public corruption is the step child of this congress. Get rid of the 2nd amendment. I envision a country where every U.S. state, city, or local government can either ban firearms or not. We don't need the NRA to tell congress what they should do. Repeal it people. Please.
5
@mikeyh: It would probably be easier to go back to the pre-2008 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it referred to the militia (because it says it's about the militia) and not to individual rights. Of course, guns were common, but just because they were considered normal, not because they were a constitutional right. Before the Heller decision in 2008, it was considered reasonable for people to own guns, but it wasn't a constitutionally protected right, for instance certain weapons (machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and so on) were very heavily regulated or prohibited in many situations. Since 2008, those regulations could be challenged, and we can expect to see some of them challenged on constitutional grounds. But that isn't because of the 2nd Amendment itself, it's because of the erroneous 2008 interpretation of it.
3
When will we get frank discussion of NRA money in politics? They pay for campaign expenses, for running media ads, while they assign grades candidates. Then we stand in long lines to vote.
See Richard Painter's hard hitting NYT past op ed---"The NRA Protection Racket". It raises this question to politicians. If you vote for strong gun control laws (that align with standards other democracies) are you afraid your reelection will be shot down by a primary opponent bankrolled by the NRA?
Will you keep letting the NRA and other corporate mega donors keep calling the shots on gun policy?
Our public safety is intertwined with our laws on campaign finance. Other democracies with strong gun laws don't let gun makers dominate public discussion, and don't turn their elections to big donor financing. Thus they keep their corruption illegal, not legal like here.
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, said on TV:
"The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
11
From the Watergate Committee hearings https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/26/archives/excerpts-from-ehrlichmans-testimony-before-senate-committee-on.html
Q. (Sen. Talmadge) ... Do you remember when we were in law school we studied a famous principle of law that came from England and also is well known in this country, that no matter how humble a man's cottage is that even the King of Eng land cannot enter without his consent.
A. (John Erlichman) I am afraid that has been considerably eroded over the years, has it not?
Q. (Sen. Talmadge) Down in my country we still think it is a pretty legitimate principle of law [see Fourth Amendment].
There are those today who would argue that the Second Amendment is "outdated" and would see it eroded or even repealed. Personally, as a liberal, I would not want to keep company with the likes of John Erlichman.
And for those of my fellow liberals who feel safe confining arms to the Armed Forces (including the National Guard), don't think government troops have never fired on unarmed U.S. citizens on U.S. soil; e.g. the massacres at Kent State and the Bonus Army).
1
@Diogenes: I disagree with your proposal that a gun battle at Kent state would have been a better outcome than the death of four unarmed students. I'm not even going to give any arguments there.
It's pretty clear that the writers of the Constitution considered what we now call the National Guard to be the "well regulated militia" necessary to preserve the security of a free state.
I frequently have doubts about people who announce themselves as liberals in order to promote conservative points of view. But it's a free country and people can call themselves whatever they want.
2
@John Bergstrom
I won't belabor the point, but It is *far* from "pretty clear that the writers of the Constitution considered what we now call the National Guard to bea the 'well regulated militia' necessary to preserve the security of a free state." There is plenty of legal authority which says otherwise.
As for anyone else's assessment of my bona fides, I never knew that advocating for *all* of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights somehow made one a "conservative." For the record, I am pro-choice, support the Warren Court's expansive reading of the Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments, have given money to numerous Democratic candidates, and have never voted for a Republican for any office in my life. But it's a free country; those who don't know me can judge me on the basis of whatever single issue they want.
1
What kind of idiot thinks he or she can stand up to the military?
1
Gun manufacturers always find a work-around.
1
Joe, you are absolutely right! These guns are only designed to kill and injure as many people possible in the shortest amount of time, period. No other country in the world allows these weapons of war and no surprise, they do not have mass shootings. You can treat mental illness, you cannot regulate anger, but you can regulate weapons of war. Think of all the lives that would be saved.
It could be your own.
6
@Patsy
So, the dead at the Navy Yard and Virginia Tech died from being hit by flowers?
Look at the death rates by weapon.... if you want facts.
Because a number of comment posters have raise the specter of the Second Amendment over gun control measure, the Supreme Court has not yet held that the right to gun ownership is absolute. Machine gun bans are on the books federally and in most states. The problem for gun rights proponents regarding assault weapons is that its hard to make a strong argument that a person needs a gun able to use a high-capacity magazine for person protection. If the Supreme Court wants to OK a ban, they would focus on that fact.
6
Thank you Vice President Biden! Thank you for this clear, sensible opinion, and for your focus on the most important (the only) thing: beating Trump. If the other candidates would remain similarly focused, instead of turning their frustrations on each other and on you, we would have a more productive primary season, and might retain hope that the Democratic Party can harness positive energy to move towards a better future.
7
A reasonable plan falling short of the ultimate goal. Instead of using federal funds to buy back assault weapons, tax each gunmaker all their costs and profits for making each publicly available weapon. Do the same thing for every seller. Be sure to include the required sales records. The NRA and Republicans will scream invasion of privacy. Owners of these weapons publically brandish them at ranges and events as symbols of their toughness thereby relinquishing all rights to privacy regarding those weapons. It's time to get rid of the NRA and Republican silk glove approaches and get tough for America.
3
Biden is right as far as he goes. Guns are not the only triggers for this behavior. We need "see something'say something training and practice in our schools. We need better communication between local, state, and federal agencies. The red flag laws need to be developed to include more due process safeguards.
Most gun deaths are suicides (over 60% every year). So better and more suicide prevention programs could save thousands of lives a year.
1
@bill
I'm all for a law that protects me from you (like keeping guns out of our hands) but you lose me when you bring up suicide.
I'm not against suicide prevention in general, we should help people in distress, but I am against laws forbidding it.
Fundamentally, laws should protect us from each other, not us from ourselves.
@J and @Bill Those suicide numbers also include the murders of family members and friends before the ensuing suicides. If you support such suicides, first think about the collateral unnecessary deaths.
1
@bill
Few folks will do it, but read the RAND, Secret Service, and FBI studies.
Suicide was illegal in the past, and (depending on the circumstances) can be illegal today.
The problem is you're being logical. Actually looking at the data, looking at past interventions, and making policy based on the largest threats. You'll never be a great politician. :)
I am in complete agreement with banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. It only took a little over 32 seconds for authorities to take out the shooter in Dayton, but in that time he managed to get off more than 40 rounds and to kill or mortally wound 10 people and wound at least 14 more. This, to me, is proof enough that the only answer to this lies in preventing the mass shooting scenario in the first place.
Besides banning assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines, and the tightened background checks and red-flag laws that have also been discussed, I would advocate dropping the restrictions on the CDC that prevent them from researching gun violence as they would any other epidemic. It is only through unfettered scientific evaluation of the data and honest discussion of the findings that we will be able to determine how best to address the behaviors that result in these tragedies and prevent them.
8
In the discussion concerning firearms, it would be refreshing to see views that are empirically grounded, likely to address specific problems, and that are politically doable. At a minimum, this would involve parsing the gun death statistics into segments related to proposed solutions. And it would require that commentators have a reasonable knowledge about guns. What's more, it would demand that all causes of mayhem with guns be addressed, including television incident coverage induced contagion. In my view, much of what has been proposed will have no effect at all. It is worth recalling that in 1927, nearly 40 school children were murdered in Bath, Michigan by the use of explosives; not to overlook Timothy McVeigh's approach to mass murder. Guns must be intelligently addressed. But the broader societal problem should not be overlooked.
4
@Puca
You think logically.
You'll never be an elected politician.
1
@Puca
Mass murderers are atypical and not easy to identify.
Most murders are for money, sex, or jealousy. Most gun deaths are suicides and most suicides are from long standing issues like depression or ill health. Accidents are frequently due to children playing with guns.
I would guess that only some mass murderers may be identified and stopped by anything but luck. Most suicides by guns should be preventable by removing the guns. Keeping guns locked up and secure from those likely to mishandle them probably could reduce the accidents. Some kinds of homicides could be prevented by removing guns from people who are far more likely to do harm but how many would not be predictable.
The 2nd amendment was a response to British monarchy and that ceased to exist as a problem in this country a couple centuries ago. Still, this persistent myth of armed citizenry making a difference is constantly perpetuated by the GOP, the gun lobby and people that are just flat ignorant about gun deaths and injuries in this country.
Yes, an assault weapon ban would reduce needless deaths in this country but the addled gun rights addicts simply are living in a deadly bubble of their own misinformation. They can't hear reason, understand statistics, suppress CDC reports and just make no sense.
I somehow doubt we will fix this.
5
@David The 2nd Amendment was written AFTER the revolution was over so the British monarchy was no longer a factor.
What was a factor, was the concern that an overbearing federal government would stifle individual and state rights. It wasn't a sure thing at the time that the US constitution would get the necessary 9 states for approval.
6
I never really believed that argument about protecting states and individuals from an authoritarian government until 2017. Now, it’s a little more credible
2
@David What evidence do you have they're "ignorant about gun death in this country," let alone "flat out ignorant"?
Much like election security, real healthcare reform (instead of for-profit Obama care) an actual solution to our immigration problem and Republican-driven Gerrymandering, Mr. Buden already had 8 years to do anything about guns, and chose not to. Why on earth would any adult offer him more time to squander on lite-Republican centrism?
Vote for Biden if you want someone to stall, delay, quit and compromise: I'll be voting for Democrats who fight for me and America more than lobbyist money (see also: Pelosi).
Some (controversial) perspective on the 2nd Amendment.
1. "Well regulated militia". Back in the 1700s, the militia was every able bodied male and not the National Guard as today.
2. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was most likely to protect the citizens FROM the government and NOT the other way around.
a. The United States was founded by an ARMED rebellion.
b. Reading the Federalist papers, makes it quite clear that the founding fathers were concerned about an oppressive government coming into play. The entire US constitution was based on checks and balances to keep the government in check.
c. Not explicitly stated but a pretty good case can be made that the "2nd Amendment" solution was in play being that a fundamental level, the citizens had the right to revolt against the government.
d. If you accept 2 above (and you might not) then a citizen would need the same access to the standard firearm currently in use by the US military being the M4 rifle.
3. The above is one of the reasons that I think a national discussion on the 2nd Amendment needs to take place. While I don't deny being a gun rights advocate, if you don't believe in private ownership of firearms then that is the route you should be taking. The Heller decision didn't really solve anything outside of establishing the individual's right to own a firearm. The federal courts are being cluttered with what kind of firearms that you can own. San Jose wants to require insurance by firearm owners.
4
The states regulated militias, trained members, and required all citizens required to serve to buy and keep military muskets. The militias were equivalent to National Guard forces, today.
There was a fear that a national standing army of paid soldiers could become a means for the national government to tyrannize the states and their citizens.
Self protection and common uses of guns were not mentioned in the second amendment. D.C. v Heller was a completely new interpretation of the second amendment.
3
@Casual Observer
The states didn't regulate militias but called them up. While that might not seem to be a significant difference, it actually is.
The people in this case able bodied men were called up by the states which is not the same as the state calling up men and training them with firearms.
3
@hoapres sssoooo you think that the US would simply degenerate into totalitarianism or communism or some other ism, much like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Japan, Australia, England, heck, name any first-world country with a functional democracy that's been around for hundreds of years, if we block private ownership of assault rifles equipped with 100 round clips?
That idea just does not make any sense. Sure, people can go on about Argentina or whatever, but I don't think I would have ever called Argentina a first-world democracy.
I don't buy it.
4
Two thirds of the people want assault weapons banned. Only a minority want all guns banned or the second amendment repealed. An honest discussion of the civilian versions of the assault rifles would turn into a long argument about semi-automatic firing systems and whether they pose the kind of threat that justifies banning them. By convincing the public that a popular semi-automatic rifle is made for killing people in war, end of discussion.
3
@Casual Observer. How can you take a survey if people don’t know what is going to be used as a definition? You, yourself are using two phrases to define something. An assault weapon is not an assault rifle. By confusing the use of these terms, you confuse people, like everyone else.
2
@Jay
Assault weapons were developed for the needs of shock troops entering into close combat inside enemy lines. The enemy was all around and the ability to spray bullets with fully automated firing systems enabled them to survive. As infantry they need rifles, too, which could be effective up to a thousand yards. Thus was created the assault rifle. No body may sell or own one of these weapons in the United States without a federal license.
The AR-15 and the rest of the semi-auto rifles which resemble assault rifles are not assault rifles by the requirements of any military on Earth. The term being used in this debate misrepresents the weapons and what purpose they serve. They are efficient and easy to shoot guns which are sold to enable people to kill other people. But they are the kinds of guns that people who would like to kill a lot of people would find useful.
1
@Casual Observer
Sorry, left out a word.
"...They are efficient and easy to shoot guns which are not sold to enable people to kill other people..."
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.
5
You trust people not to harm you with automobiles, kitchen knives, toxic chemicals like bleach, but not their guns.
440,000 people die every year from cigarette smoking and some great number of people who breathe the smoke laden air. 40,000 die from gunshots of with a quarter are homicides. Smoking is tolerated, guns terrify.
With a third to forty percent of adult owning guns amounting to may be 300,000,000, of which 15,000,000 would be classified as assault weapons, the likelihood of any of them being using to do harm is very tiny, practically unlikely.
So what is going on here? Why are not facts driving the boundaries of this discussion?
2
I am all for banning cigarettes also. Automobiles and kitchen knives have a alternate purpose. No one uses a gun to chop up an onion. Guns are a weapon, and advocates would prefer to keep them for sports/hunting but seem to have no issues with it being used to orphan a one year old.
@PD
Knives are used in as many homicides as are rifles and shotguns.
1
NYT.."on guns, public policy and public opinion often diverge." A solid majority of the public want stricter gun laws. Yet there's still a fight about it in our warped politics.
If these common sense laws are not the law of the land, it makes a mockery of our democracy.
That divergence should be the #1 plank in the Democratic platform for 2020.
"In general, Republicans, many in safe rural districts or states, are relatively insulated from national political opinion on gun control, and on other issues that tend to break along urban-rural lines."
Assault weapon should be defined as any gun that can kill more than 5 people per minute.
This would avoid using the ambiguous quality of "military style" as a limiter, would include all 10 bullet magazine carriers and also some automatic hand guns.
It would also make attackers of the assault weapon ban have to defend killing more than five people per minute, a ridiculous and untenable position.
3
@robert
Every gun in popular use would meet your criteria.
Revolvers carry six to five rounds. Lever action rifles 7 rounds. Most bolt action rifles use 6 to 7 round magazines. Most all shotguns whether pump action or two shot can be reloaded, aimed, and fire thrice in a minute, easy.
1
Five per minute? That would ban single shot rifles and shotguns, plus revolvers. I guess it would leave flintlock muzzle loaders, but maybe that's the point ...
Thank you Mr. Biden. Republicans keep pointing the finger at mental illness as a primary culprit, not the ease of access to these assault weapons. Mental health needs more attention in general and is a part of the issue. But I doubt a determined and focused terrorist is going to give therapy a try first. But nonetheless, they make that argument. Ok, so what has your party done to make mental health care more affordable and accessible?
2
''right to bear arms' for self defense and hunting obviously does not include offensive weapons, nukes, ICBMs, artillery, rocket grenades, cruise missiles, F16s, assault rifles, large magazines, etc
8
@jim auster
Oh wise one, please inform us in the differences of an "offensive" firearm and a defensive firearm?
And what exactly is an assault rifle? I can assault you with a knife, is it an assault knife? If I assault you with my pen is it an assault pen?
2
@Paco
If you don't know the difference, it's pretty clear you shouldn't own one.
Keep fighting, joe.
3
Bravo Joe!
3
The National Guard does not fill the function of the "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the second amendment, so long as Guard units can be deployed abroad as in Iraq and Afghanistan. This leaves citizens who want to bear an automatic weapon no where to go but their own back yards.
A clear distinction must be drawn between the Armed Forces Reserves and the National Guard, the latter being used only for national disasters and domestic disorder.
1
My son is a police officer and the father of a one year old son. With every report of an incident involving these high powered weapons I am reminded that he responds to every call of "shots fired" and is often first in the door, so I have skin in the game when I say, get those weapons off the street!
193
@David mcgrath
Why would you rather not have the criminals off the street and locked up?
How many of those shots fired are from people who are prohibited from having guns in the first place?
@David McGrath I can only imagine the stress the proliferation of assault weapons must cause your son and your entire family. What I do not understand is why so few law enforcement officials seem willing to advocate for banning the weapons. is it conceivable it would take more courage to advocate for a ban on assault weapons than to risk facing them on the streets? Perish the thought.
1
Don,t you all think that the militias in the heartland( that are mostly comprised of ex marines and other military veterans); have not been making their own guns. Sure they have; in anticipation of any and all laws that may hinder their access to GUNS. Sorry, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Factual sources, please.
1
Unmentioned in Mr. Biden's piece and by comments: several countries have issued travel advisories that cite gun violence as a reason to be cautious when visiting the US: Japan, UK, Ireland and New Zealand among others. If New Zealand and Australia were able to get assault rifles banned following mass shootings in their countries, the US can and should as well or we will lose however much respect the world has for us down the toilet.
3
@SAMRNinNYC
Ah yes and among the million confiscate-able fire arms in New Zealand about 800 have been turned in to date. Or less than 1/10 of 1 percent. How do you plan on getting rid of the 330 million fire arms in America without causing a civil war? Or do you plan on Nuking your non-compliant neighbors as Rep Swalwell suggests?
We should start by banning the NRA. Then make it illegal to own more than one non-hunting purposed long gun. Ban all handguns as they are only for killing people. I know, none of this will happen until the red party is reduced to a handful of toadies of hate and fossil fuel trolls and even then the presence of the second amendment and its misinterpretation by a conservative court will have to be eliminated. We don't need no militias so we don't need no 2nd Amendment. Only when we effectively ban all guns in private hands will be become a sane nation.
2
@hazel18
You can't just ban groups because you don't like them.
You can't tell people they can't peacefully assemble and petition their representatives for change.
If you don't like guns, don't own one.
3
Guns are unnecessary in a civilized country.
1
Now, I wonder what we'd see if this guy turned around...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/08/11/opinion/11biden/merlin_137713650_5b4b654a-da09-48e9-8b32-d47f17c7a150-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp
You got it - we'd see "the rest of the story."
And that, friends, is what we're REALLY up against, if we want to enact reasonable firearms legislation in the Red-White-and-Blue U.S.A.
Women already know this, or are belatedly starting to "get it."
Watch Lawrence Kasden's "Wyatt Earp" again, if you still aren't convinced. What is the first image that appears onscreen? How many times are we treated to gun imagery designed to fire us up, all throughout the movie? Dangerous images. Sexy images. That well-oiled click that reverberated around the theater when Wyatt cocked that double-barrelled shotgun.
The quintessentially American male romance with the gun is not new, but it has evolved into one of the key 21C challenges.
It is time that young men stopped getting off on owning and shooting AK-47s and the like.
It's high time we all recognized what these guns DO for young men . . . for many men, not all of whom can claim green youth as their excuse.
An assault-rifle ban has ALWAYS been a no-brainer.
Time to lock & load this ban down.
3
I think this essay by good ole Joe might be another example of him being out of touch with current events and circumstances in this nation. It's not 1994. People responded and reacted to the first ban and took note that it was ineffective and it was not renewed. Such guns that were the target of the ban are now legal so the American people, lawful, patriotic citizens made sure another ban would not work either. They have bought them by the millions and stockpiled ammo too. How is the government going to afford a buy back at a minimum price of $500 a rifle? That's about the cheapest price for a basic model. They still have to pay for Reparations too.
These discussions in the media have already boosted gun sales in the past few days. Didn't Obama teach the liberals anything? Apparently not. He was the best gun salesman ever. People, gun shop owners, made millions and retired because of his anti gun rhetoric.
2
buybacks work. see australia.
1
@robert
No they don't, see New Zealand. Less than 1/10 of 1 percent of gun owners have complied.
1
@robert
They aren't even working in New Zealand where only 10,000 weapons out of 1.2 to 1.5 million have been turned in. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/new-zealand-gun-buyback-10000-firearms-returned-after-christchurch-attack
And if you think the people who currently own these scary, "military style" weapons are going to willingly turn them over to the US government, I've got some beautiful, ocean front property for sale here in Kansas you can buy.
1
It will never happen. He will promise it and then do the usual corrupt Democrat walk back later. Even if the NRA does not own Biden, other corporations do and they have cast a spell over DC and main stream media that even though most of the nation knows out politicians work for the elite, this corruption is never, never ever mentioned or figured in to the campaign promises. Harris is twined with the insurance companies. Her Medicare for all is a scam to only enrich even more the insurance companies. Biden de regulated the banks and voted for the Bush wealthy tax cuts to be permanent. What makes you think he will not support his friends across the aisle who all take money from the NRA? They only have to ask and slap happy Joe does love working with the good ole boys of the GOP.
1
A quick fix to the gun problem could be as simple as posting signs that say “NO FIREARMS OR WEAPONS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY” But to work, it should be backed by federal, state and local laws specifying the penalties for violators, including fines and forfeiture. These signs could be placed on all kinds of buildings -- schools, churches, hotels, shops, etc. It could also be posted in open areas like parks, shopping malls, sports arenas, and parking lots.
If it works for smoking, it ought to work for guns.
Consider, for example, the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral. The city of Tombstone, Arizona Territory, had adopted an ordinance requiring all those entering the town to check their guns at the Marshall’s office and get them back when they left. When the 5 members of the so-called Clanton gang refused to comply, Marshal Virgil Earp, along with brothers Morgan and Wyatt, and Doc Holiday, tried to enforce the ordinance, which resulted in the gunfight. (The Earps and the Clantons had bad history between them anyway, so the ordinance violation was probably just an excuse for the gunfight.)
There were many other cities and towns in the Old West that had similar laws prohibiting visitors from having guns in their jurisdiction. None were ever found to be unconstitutional.
2
@Herb Van Fleet
" These signs could be placed on all kinds of buildings -- schools, churches, hotels, shops, etc. It could also be posted in open areas like parks, shopping malls, sports arenas, and parking lots."
What? We already have that. It's why 95% of mass shooters shoot up gun free zones. They know no one will be shooting back. It's like fish in a barrel. Where have you been?
And please, comparing 2019 USA to 19th century Tomstone, AZ? Huh?
Go Joe!
2
This year, peanuts have been banned at Philadelphia Phillies baseball games because 1.4% of those in attendance may be allergic to them. While I liked to eat peanuts and watch a game I can live without them knowing that I might inadvertently cause harm to someone else.
If we can ban peanuts from a baseball stadium we should certainly be able to ban automatic military style weapons from the everyday places where we work, play, study, shop, eat, and pray.
Clearly, we have the worst politicians money can buy!
359
@Ok Joe
It's an excellent contrast, and I couldn't agree more. But to your last sentence, I would say that, for the most part, we have the best politicians that NRA money can buy.
That's why I put most of my donations into Everytown for Gun Safety, Marching for Our Lives, and the like.
29
@Ok Joe -- automatic weapons have been banned since the Firearms Act of 1934.
9
@Lou S.
Excellent point!
2
There is no need to ban assault weapons when gun insurance would work better. All weapons and ammunition are reasonably safe in the hands of well trained and mature gun owners. An insurance company with access to a person's education, employment, family history, health, financial and social media profile would be in a very good position of assessing the risk. With artificial intelligence the person could be continually and efficiently monitored for red flags which each and every nut job shooter has had. Sometimes it is not a glaring manifesto or association with a group that advocates violence. It can be the lack of normal socialization with friends, community groups, family and coworkers that signals a mental health issue.
Gun owners expect society to trust them and trust, but verify, should be the norm. A adult with typical weapons and ammunition for hunting, self defense or sport poses little risk and this would be reflected in a very low rate for gun insurance.
A young man that wants to buy an assault weapon and ammunition designed to kill dozens of people would clearly send red flags. He would either be uninsurable or have to pay a price that would make the purchase unlikely.
The mandatory insurance approach is better than a ban because it would encourage the design of safer weapons and ammunition, better training, and provide for victim compensation.
Joe Biden seems to be thinking like it is still 1993. Technology has evolved, and can be accelerated with insurance.
1
Yes, but why does anyone in this country need an assault weapon in the first place?
5
@Anu Gradiner Because they're ergonomic, effective, customizable, and a great weapon for self defense?
1
Gun insurance sounds like a nice way for gun manufacturers to make even more money. No.
1
Biden is courting the gun control advocates in the Democratic Party who fear guns and anyone who would have any. These are people who genuinely feel insecure in public with so many guns in the hands of people. They genuinely cannot feel confidence that anyone can be trusted to keep their weapons from being used to do harm.
As a public service they seek to convince everyone to adopt their attitudes. Whether a gun is made for civilian use or for the military they see them as equally likely to kill people. The AR-15 resembles an M-16, a military weapon and so if it is claimed to be a military weapon, many who know little about guns will believe it.
But anyone who studies the details can understand that the weapons of war claim is misleading and meant to frighten for the wrong reasons. The right reason is to know that an efficient and easy to shoot rifle with semi-automatic action can shoot as quickly as the trigger may be squeezed and the magazine can hold bullets before reloading. It other words, it’s dangerous because it shoots well.
If that was openly discussed, the proposed ban would lose support, rapidly.
3
Gee, I AM sorry that we happened to notice the mass murders in stores, clubs, churches and just plain on the street. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
But I adore the way that you tried to flap a hand and make the facts that these are essentially military weapons and sold as such go away, and then cheerfully careened straight into arguing that they were essentially military weapons designed to make it easy to shoot a bunch of people.
5
@Casual Observer
you must have read a different letter than the one Joe wrote. many Americans , republicans and democrats, agree that it should be less easy to kill as many people as possible. we agree with Joe . stop selling and buy back weapons who's PRIMARY PURPOSE is mass killing of human beings. who's secondary purpose is pleasure.
when I go to the range with my son, the rules are no quick pulls of the trigger. carefully aim at the target ( no silhouettes) . carefully reload. safe sensible target shooting. its enjoyable. when he hunts deer he uses a bolt action rifle I bought him for his 16th b-day.
proficient, safe use of firearms is not being threatened.
there is no need for reckless shooting at the range or in the field. certainly not in a public place full of people. no need . none.
you put forth a false narrative
3
@fme
I agree that there is no reason for shooting rapidly nor recklessly, let alone murderously.
But the things which make these weapons efficient and easy to shoot do allow shooting rapidly, recklessly, and murderously. You don't, I wouldn't, and very few would, but some do. The problem is how to deal with those who are reckless or murderous.
Great but what do we do about the ten million assault weapons already in the hands of Americans.
2
@Steve
I think it's more than ten million.
2
billion dollar buyback every year till they are gone. use the defense budget and reverse the tax cut for the super rich to finance the buyback.
3
@robert
I'll say it again; do you really think the folks who currently own all of frightening, "military style" weapons are going willingly, or peacefully, turn over their weapons to the US government?
Also, why are my rights as a retired military member, former police officer and current federal officer being taken away when I can almost guarantee my background is cleaner than 99% of the folks commenting here?
1
I legally bought my AR-15 during the assault weapons ban. I legally purchased this rifle not at a gun show but at a sporting goods store in Connecticut. The ban did not outlaw assault weapons; it merely required a few cosmetic changes.
I also bought ten thirty-round magazines. They were grandfathered in the legislation.
6
Thank you, Joe, for your very thoughtful article. This is exactly the kind of legislation we need. It won’t solve all our problems but it will go along way towards making our country safe again. MASA!
3
As for "mental illness," have Republicans considered the damage to the mental health of Americans these random mass shootings are having? What does it do to a child to see a parent gunned down, anywhere? What does it do to all us who drop our children off at school, enter a Walmart to shop, go to a movie or a concert with even just the momentary memory of the last mass killing? Thanks to all the lethal weapons surrounding us and a government that won't do anything about them, we all live in a constant state of anxiety and feel powerless. No wonder so many self-medicate with alcohol and illegal drugs and fill prescriptions for anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills. Unchecked gun violence contributes to mental illness.
6
There is no need for anyone to own a gun. Period. But a full ban will never happen. Realistically, best case we can hope for in America is that firearms are viewed as a privilege and not as a right. Much like freedom - i.e. you commit a crime it gets taken away from you and you go to prison.
6
@Canada has faith - do the right thing
Except that it is a right. It is the specifically the second right our brilliant forefathers bestowed upon us, confirmed in Keller as an individual right. A right not without limits, but then again no right enshrined in our Constitution is.
Figure out a way to get 3/4 of the states to give up that right and we can make it a privilege.
1
@Paco
Just because it's the way it is now know doesn't mean it's right or impossible to change. Having said that, unfortunately do not think that any real or meaningful change will ever happen in America on this issue. Very unfortunate.
1
Children's lives are at stake. Don't buy the NRA's lying talking point that this is a "panic". It's time for the rest of us to fight back much more actively and forcefully. Those who would obstruct gun regulations at this point are promoting violence and deserve no regard. Let's move on this.
8
Sorry, handguns kill far more people. The assault weapon ban did not work so well, but it should become law or require special licensing. Not only are most mass shootings committed by concealable handguns, but most suicides, spousal murders, and child deaths are caused by handguns. We may want to consider regulating handguns properly as well.
3
1. Ban the sale or transfer of all assault style weapons and their ammunition.
2. Buyback programs for assault style weapons and ammunition.
3. Upon the death of the owner, assault style weapons and ammunition are to be surrendered to local law enforcement.
I also strongly agree with license requirements and safety measures for all firearms as outlined by commenter BB.
5
@Kathy F
Ok Kathy. How do you propose confiscating the instruments of our Second Amendment rights without violating our Fourth Amendment rights? Or does the end simply Justify the Means?
In New Zealand less than 1/10 of 1% of the public has been compliant with turning in their firearms. What length should we go to in order to collect the 330 million firearms in America?
1
@Kathy F, if you ban the transfer of existing weapons through the sale or inheritance of them you are imposing an unconstitutional taking. Instead, be upfront, make owners an offer of MSRP or better for the guns and greater than say 15 round magazines and prohibit new sales. Have the Government purchase them and store them in case they were ever truly needed to defend the country.
1
@Kathy F
Not much unconstitutional in your ideas, is there?
1
Of necessity, an assault weapons ban includes language describes their essential attributes, i.e a definition of an assault weapon. Gun manufacturers evade these bans by designing guns that don’t meet the definition, i.e. via loop holes.
The horror of these weapons is the damage they do to the human body. A possible metric for this damage is the energy delivered by their bullets. Simple physics tells us that this energy is proportional to the square of its velocity and its mass. Damage is further increased by the shock wave associated with supersonic velocities.
Effective regulation of these semi-automatic weapons should include limiting their rate of fire, volume of their magazines, and the energy delivered by their bullets.
Hunters and sportsmen seeking to use high energy bullets should be allowed to use them provided they are delivered by single shot guns....
While this is an imperfect solution, it would help limit the magnitude of the damage in shootings.
4
@Bongo
Jeez!
By definition "semi-automatic" means that there is one bullet produced by one trigger pull and that everything necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again is accomplished by that initial trigger pull.
So the rate of fire is up to the shooter. The gun will discharge as fast as the trigger is pulled. This technology is over 100 years old. It is how most weapons today operate.
Trying to ban semi-automatic weapons is a fool's errand. It can't be done. There is no feature on an AR-15 that makes it any more lethal than an M1.
ban any weapon that can kill more than 5 people per minute.
1
@robert
In a crowded area, one could kill more than 5 people per minute with a kitchen knife. Do we also ban kitchen knives?
Any politician that refrains from supporting a total ban on assault weapons should be disqualified by voters for holding office at any level of government. With police and military veterans overwhelmingly agreeing with the 70% of Americans who support a ban, how can we continue to elect people who still want weapons of war on our streets? Ask the parents from Newtown and Parkland where they stand on this issue. Better yet, ask the Columbine parents who lost children 20 years ago how they feel living in a country that has done nothing to stem this violence. I could use the line that we are better than this, but are we?
5
@Dennis W
Do you have any citation for that police and military support claim? I fill both of those, retired military and former police officer, I can unequivocally say most of those folks do not support disarming the populace. The elected Police Chiefs and Commissioners may, be the rank and file officers definitely do not.
@Lord of the Dance. So you think the average cop wants to face down an assault rifle with a handgun and maybe a shotgun. I think not. I’m also pretty sure that those who have served in a war zone don’t want to see those scenes repeated where the live. Do you only require facts from liberals?
We have to have a drivers license + insurance to drive a car - to avoid killing ourselves or someone else. And that does not qualify us to drive military gear, like a tank.
Same for guns.
8
Banning assault rifles works in reducing gun deaths. I don't want to reduce gun deaths. I want to reduce total homicides. And that is where gun control fails - terribly. But this historical lesson is lost on the democrats and (to a large extent) on the republicans too.
Most republicans only support gun rights as a matter of ideology and each news cycle is chipping away their resolve...
@jimmy
"Most republicans only support gun rights as a matter of ideology and each news cycle is chipping away their resolve..."
Let me assure you, as a gun owner who converses frequently with other gun owners, our resolve has never been stronger.
1
These nonsensical Second Amendment arguments that the court unleashed with Heller fly in the face of reason and common sense.
First, the Second Amendment was written to protect state governments against federal encroachment by denying the feds the right to disarm the population that constituted state militias. But the state militias were effectively federalized over 100 years ago with the creation of the National Guard. It is nonsensical to say that the federal government cannot disarm a militia that it now has command and control over. Second, the idea that a bunch of civilians with assault rifles could effectively resist the federal government's arsenal is ludicrous. Name one example from American history where small arms prevented the federal government from accomplishing its objective. David Koresh's people were are a recent example. They were heavily armed; the feds simply brought in armored vehicles, injected tear gas, and burned their house to the ground with them in it. So if your argument is that civilians should be able to band together to fight the government, they'd need machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, anti tank weapons, etc. to put up an effective resistance. Nobody reads the Second Amendment as contemplating that.
Third, even if you accept the need for a state militia, the Second Amendment says it must be well regulated. Who is gonna regulate it? Government. And how? With laws. An ungoverned, undisciplined militia is a mob.
7
@Chris
You haven't read a good history of the second amendment and its reasons for inclusion in the bill of rights.
First of all, it would be illegal for the military to be used against the civilian population. if that were to happen then there truly would be a need for a revolution. The writers of the Bill of Rights envisioned the entire population of the nation being armed so if a corrupt government turned against the citizenry the army still would not be powerful enough to fight a multi-million citizen militia that was armed. It's in the history. I didn't make that up. I'm just paraphrasing what they said during the constitutional convention.
2
First off, better tell Trump about posse comitatus. He doesn’t seem to care.
Second off, it’s simple mythology to argue that the Second Amendment got in there merely to allow citizens to revolt against a tyrannical government.
You guys know as much about the Constitution as you know about the Gadsden Flag.
bullets from handheld weapons dont work on tanks or airplanes.
2
Thanks, Joe. Exactly what WILL make a difference. Let's get them ALL off the streets.
3
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms - not weapons of mass destruction.
Assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction...
3
muskets..
2
@robert
"muskets", wrote the man over the internet. Not via quill and parchment delivered upon steed...
1
Two thoughts:
1) The 1994 Assault Weapons ban coincided with the passing of the Crime Bill. Violent crimes went down.
2) If banning assault weapons and imposing universal background checks are so important, why didn't they get passed when Democrats had super-majorities in the House and Senate, and Obama and Biden were in the White House?
3
When has prohibition worked?
2
cant buy hand grenades can you?
2
I believe and I support Joe. He may be imperfect. He has a heart for people. And he has the broad experience to lead us through this. What he exposes so well is the cynicism, self interest and greed that is the unholy alliance between gun manufacturers and right wing politicians. Enough is enough.
5
Devil is in the details are this is merely a pander piece to prop up his candidacy. The article subtitle explains it all "will push to ban them" and not "will ban them."
You have had your 3 plus decades of limelight and service to do something but yet the conditions have worsened. I would much prefer to see options for those candidates whom are looking to change the system and not merely continue to be a part of it.
1
@Nature Voter
"You have had your 3 plus decades of limelight and service to do something but yet the conditions have worsened."
What is worse? Murders are down. All Crime is down. Despite a media that desperately wants to present this as a getting worse issue firearm deaths are down. And yes, although it depends on how you define it of course, mass shootings are also DOWN.
I appreciate all the passionate calls for banning firearms, and making firearm ownership unlawful, but creating a massive class of felons out of the millions of responsible firearm owners in the U.S. is not the way to go. Where would the money come from to fund a buyback at fair market prices to avoid claims of unlawful taking? Would these laws also apply to the police, the sheriff, the ATF, the military, private investigators? What about the thousands who are this week participating in the National Matches, which along with the Olympics represents the height of shooting sports achievement?
https://thecmp.org/competitions/cmp-national-matches/
How about a compromise? U.S. Congress regulates trade. Let's have a complete ban on all gun sales in the United States for 2 years, and see if public safety numbers improve. Current owners can "keep" and "bear" their arms lawfully, they just can't buy any more for two years. During that time, we can work on reforming the broken NICS, create federal reciprocity laws for concealed carry, create safe storage laws, and close any other loopholes that allow off-the-record or black-market proliferation of guns. When the sales ban is lifted, sales can resume with a reasonable waiting period for purchase under the new more stringent background check laws.
2
@Robert
That would be illegal, unconstitutional, and difficult to enforce.
2
@Robert "...to avoid claims of unlawful taking?"
That is called the 4th Amendment, an amendment Americans, politicos and voters, are going to get real familiar with.
1
billion dollar buyback every year financed by the defense department.
The 1994 ban sought not to ban assault RIFLES, but assault WEAPONS, a device which has never been defined legally. The original legislation included semi-automatic pistols, and the final definitions extended to vague cosmetic characteristics.
One of the reasons they resort to a sophistry like "assault weapon" is that no assault rifles are sold. Assault rifles, by definition, are capable of automatic fire.
The ban itself was a complete failure. The Justice Department released reports in 1999 and 2004--which found it had not affected crime.
Since 2004, the semi-automatic AR-15 and AKM-47 have become extremely popular, with over a million sold PER YEAR. Almost none are used in crime. Military-styled weapons are truly the modern sporting rifle, and the fragility and low mass of the .223 calibre in particular makes it excellent for home defense.
And let's not let mere facts get in the way. Long guns (shotguns, rifles, etc) comprise 5% of all crimes, and military-styled weapons a fraction of that. Even as sales of AR-15s have boomed, overall gun homicide rates have continued to plummet.
So there's no need for extraordinary action. This language sells well to the Democratic base, but does a disservice to the country, especially inasmuch as it deflects attention away from the root causes of these shootings--extremism, mental health issues, the 24-hour news cycle, etc.
This country is sick, but an inanimate object has nothing to do with it. A ban won't fix that.
5
use the definition "any weapon that can kill more than 5 people per minute".
1
@robert Oh, so you mean like literally any gun? Cars? Or family annihilators using kitchen knives on their families?
Give it a try....oh yeah, those who favor government solutions suffer because government may or may not do it. Liberty works best. Be careful what powers you give a tyrant monopolist with life and death control over you. Your universal healthcare may come with existing federal laws banning federal funds for abortion, as an example. Your health will be up to politicians.
2
Gun nuts like to point out weak laws as proof that laws don't work, and to deflect attention when it suits them: Murder? Suicide. Long guns? Hand guns. Guns? Knives. They also like to point out weak laws as proof that laws don't work. But the public is no longer falling for their smoke and mirrors.
Ban the manufacture, importation, and transfer of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and detachable magazines. Require registration. We've done the experiment with fully-automatic weapons, and it it worked. Real bans are highly effective.
4
@childofsol
Thing is you can have all the laws you want but if they are not enforced then what do you have. The ATF simply does not enforce the laws on the books now so what ever you pass will just be a waste of time.
The inventor of the M16 had no trouble calling it an "assault rifle".
The idea that this category of weapon is impossible to define is absurd.
4
@Zorba There is a difference between a Chevy and a Caddy, mechanical and legally. There is a difference, mechanical and legally, in an AR-15 and an M-16.
You don't get to register your Chevy as a Cadillac Coupe de Ville.
@Zorba The M-16 is an assault rifle because it has a selector switch that allows it to fire as an automatic (a machine gun). The AR-15 does not.
1
@Liberty hound
^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!!!
If you're so great at reaching across the aisle to get compromise, then why isn't Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court????
You're remembering a long-distant day...things have changed...you're way past your prime and too old for this...there is no more compromise, only victory...pass the torch and allow someone more suited to today's realities get us over the goal line..'cause if you don't, Trump will turn you into a running gag... .
Pass the torch. Gracefully. Please.
Otherwise, we will need to take it from you, and that will do the country no good.
3
@Angry Liberal
Agree whole heartedly. Why doesn’t anyone question his past two failures at running a good presidential campaign. Why doesn’t anyone question the fact that he had more experience and history in the Senate than Obama but was unable to get Republicans to compromise on ANYTHING with Obama. These are important questions that no one seems to address.
2
I totally agree with you Joe.
Lead us out of this insanity.
Ban all assault weapons now .
3
These guns are not military weapons, they are not weapons of war. No military would want them as assault weapons. They are not weapons made for killing soldiers and thus to civilians for killing people. They are rifles with semi-automatic, automatic loading, systems. This enables people to keep aiming at a target while firing as quickly as they can pull a trigger. An expert can squeeze a trigger three times per second. That means up to 90 bullets discharged in a minute. That is why the ban is proposed but it’s promoted to be because these guns are made to kill people, as if others could not be so used to any significant effect.
To write a law banning these weapons requires providing restrictions that would be logically applied to all guns.
1
something Second Amendment zealots seem to forget is that it was written when the state of the art weapon was a single-shot flintlock. a rifleman might get off one shot per minute. Weapons capable of a hundred rounds per minute hadn't even made it into science fiction yet. It was a considerably different world.
Also the argument that 100 shot magazines are useful for hunting and target shooting is ludicrous. Most competitive target shooting is done with single shot weapons, firing .22 short rounds. An assault rifle is about the worst choice ergonomically for target work. As for hunting, I grew up among hunters and can't remember very many hunters getting off a second round before the deer ran off, let alone a third.
Finally, it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But a gun sure makes it easier.
5
@Marty
There were multi-fire, rapid fire weapons in existence then. The point of the second amendment was not about the technical aspects of guns but the balance of power between an armed authority like a standing army and the civilian population. Armies can be corrupted, corrupt leaders can turn the military against a civilian population. Without that balance of power you could be facing extermination by the army, which has happened many times in many countries since then.
2
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus
1. When the country was founded, there was not a standing army; hence, the importance of the militias to which the 2nd amendment refers;
2. By your logic, individuals should have the right to own bombers and tanks. Really?
3. I worry a lot more about the risk of being gunned down by a fanatic with a gun than by the U.S. military.
3
@Blackdog71
Read some history of the second amendment. Its origins go back 1000 years to Henry II and his Assize of Arms in 1181. It was meant to arm the civilians individually for more than one purpose, A citizen's militia is not the same as a military militia.
2
Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Your stance here is one of the many reasons you'll get my vote.
5
That horse left the barn years ago as far as regulating AR15 type rifle ownership. There are millions and millions spread out across the nation including in citizens cars. Additionally a great number of owners have amassed huge inventories of ammunition. It is a wedge issue, and wedge issues loose Democrats elections as do abortion, immigration, and a plethora of other cases mature sensible voters support.
Encourage campaign conversation in the direction of all our shared values, at least as much as possible. The Libertarians, mostly on the right and many posing as "Conservatives" are so brain skewed that they resent government altogether and want to kill pretty much anything compulsory seat belts, cigarettes, clean air, water, and gun control. You'v watched Trump gleefully trash any protections he can so do not loose sight of shared values and shared facts. So far our primary candidates have spoon fed the Right everything they need to keep the presidency and the senate.
1
Long Guns - 1791 - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution - Right to Bear Arms
"A properly trained group of regular infantry soldiers was able to load and fire four rounds per minute. A crack infantry company could load and fire five rounds in a minute."
Wikipedia
1
The NRA are Marketing Lobby genius - many former and current Republican congress people own an AR 15 - like a NRA door prize.
Many former and current Republican congress people have gun manufacturing and ammunition facilities in their states and districts at revenue for their area.
So - these former and current congressional people will not give up their NRA: AR 15 Door Prizes nor will they give up all the gun and ammunition plants revenue in their districts.
The NRA has totally embedded themselves in these former and current congress people lives - like a SYFY movie - except it is real life.
3
I'd like that. I'd like winning the lotto, too.
Win, Biden, win!
2
I own a fair number of shotguns and rifles because I was once a hunter, which I quit for personal reasons. Never once did I consider owning an assault rifle. Apart from military and law-enforcement personnel, I cannot think of any reason any civilian would need an assault rifle. My dog would warn me of an intruder and my semi-automatic shotgun would certainly protect me if the intruder arrived before the police.
4
@Robert Martin
Yep those 3 rounds in your shotgun must be magic.
As a Republican, this serious issue by itself would make me vote for Joe Biden. He could'nt be more right.
4
@NNI ~ Please consider voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. My bet (and my vote in the primary) is on Joe Biden, but at this point we all need to #showupandshutup2020.
Yes. Thank you. I wish more people would see the effects of assault weapons, as described in a recent Washington Post article, on people who are wounded by them. They described the gunshots as ripping holes the size of a man's fist, shredding internal organs. The people who weren't killed are still facing a lifetime of pain and suffering.
I don't agree with people who say, "Well, they're out there now, so it's already done." Make them illegal to possess and illegal to buy. Then at least some impulsive 21 year old has a little less chance of getting his (not her) hands on one.
3
@Michie
Careful what you wish for. Yea you can take away the buns but that leaves bombs, fire, chemical and other forms of destruction and all of which are harder to fix then a gunshot wound.
For some reason you anti gun people think that if you take away the gun the motivation to kill is gone. Not the case and you know that.
@Michie
There are 330 million of them out there right now. At current rates of confiscation it will take a thousand years to make a dent in the number of firearms out there. What might help? Stop putting up useless "gun free zone" signs that allow impulsive 21 year olds with no training to shoot people like fish in the proverbial barrel with no one shooting back at them.
I used to hunt quail with an automatic Browning shotgun. By law, the shotgun had to be plugged to allow only a three-shot capacity. It is somewhat obscene that an assault weapon designed to kill people can have an unlimited shot capacity.
3
@Clark Landrum
I think it's obscene to kill animals for fun but to each their own.
You will admit though that quail tend not to perform home invasions, or car jackings, or rapes, or any of the other activities that the human criminal class likes to do, often in numbers.
If a group of people break into my home I want a weapon with more than three rounds in it.
Who exactly, by name, are the elected officials who oppose a ban on assault weapons?
The opposition is never named, except the NRA.
Who are these people?
Why do they seem to have power over the majority wishes of the American public who want these weapons banned?
How do the American people put up with some unnamed opponents constantly overriding their wishes?
Maybe calling out actual individuals who by lack of their opposition are saying they want assault weapons on the streets and in the schools of children and want these massacres to keep happening.
Perhaps phrasing the question in those terms would publicly shame such individuals.
Are you, or are you not, okay with babies and children being torn in half by these weapons?
A simple question.
1
Owning a handgun for home protection: Fine. Owning a hunting firearm: Fine. Owning an assault weapon: Fine for police and military personnel. Not fine for all the rest of us. How on God's green earth should an assault rifle be in the hands of any citizen whether he or she be mentally stable or not?
4
It's mind-boggling and disheartening to see an argumentation on this overall topic not start at "We need to stop mass killings", but at "We need to ban a certain type of weapon because mass killings with this type of weapon involved take more lives than killings with other types of weapons".
I really needed a moment to realize that the U.S., and I love your country dearly, has reached a point where the pro-gun influence is so strong and there are so many events like these that mass shootings are an acknowledged, unavoidable part of everyday life, that you start at softening the blow instead of trying (hopelessly) to stop it altogether. Almost like environmental pollution.
@Stefan In this country, when we start at "let's stop mass killings," it goes to banning video games and mental health and other covers for the NRA. We have a problem with assault weapons in this country. We do need to address them and get them out of civilian's hands. And we have a problem with the anger and hate and disaffection that lead to mass killings, and we need to deal with that, too. Taking violent weapons away is an important piece of it.
2
I am not sure an assault weapons ban will really help. It is difficult to define exactly what an assault weapon is and there are already millions of them on the street. Consider a ban on certain types of ammunition, after all it is the bullet and not literally the gun that kills and getting rid of ammo is a lot easier than weapons. Besides without ammo, a gun is just a piece of metal. The .233 caliber is essentially a military round, not really useful for hunting or essential for personal protection yet it remains the favorite round of AR15 toting yahoos. Perhaps this is a place to start.
I was not too excited about Joe Biden before, but after reading this article I am all for him. I don’t want to see my or anyone’s kids grow up in a country where there are active shooter drills.
2
@Centrist guy
I applaud your naivety. None of the top 4 worse school shootings in the world took place in the US. They should have had active shooter drills even though some of those countries practiced "gun control". There are 330 million firearms in this country. When exactly do you believe we will no longer need active shooter drills?
It is not the leaders who are “weak-willed” per se (they are capably corrupt and manipulative), it is rather their conservative and “religious” voters who are placing other issues as higher priorities over domestic terror.
1
Beyond a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, we need to close the gun show loophole. During the assault weapon ban of 1994, I was able to legally buy a Romanian military AK-47 with several 30 round magazines, and hundreds of rounds of Soviet surplus ammunition, without any kind of background check beyond my gun club membership. All at a legal gun show.
Thank god I’m a pacifist.
2
A friend wrote years ago that "he who needs an assault weapon to hunt, must use dynamite to fish."
3
Dump Trump! Go get him, Joe! You've got my vote for sure. (And you can't be president if you don't win Ohio.)
3
Right on, Joe Biden!
3
You bet we are with you, Joe. Go get 'em!
2
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe the reduction in mass shootings during the assault weapons ban was much more than a statistical anomaly/pure coincidence. Plus, I would have to think there are many more assault weapons on the streets now than there were fifteen years ago.
I'm all for the ban and on even more gun-control legislation, but with more than 300 million weapons on the streets, but anyone who thinks these bans are going to put much of a dent in the number of gun violence incidents in this country, at least in the short-term, is living in a fantasy world..
We need some FRESH ideas. I'm voting for you either way, Joe, but please, try harder on this one.
NRA logic:
Hammers don't drive nails. People drive nails.
Knives don't chop food. People chop food.
Bats don't hit home runs. People hit home runs.
OK, NRA believers, let's see you do all of the above with your bare hands.
Tools allow people to do things they could not do without tools. They are used to build, improve, and to save lives. When it comes to doing bad things, tools make doing them vastly easier, whether robbing banks or shooting up Walmarts. "Assault" is a class of crimes, not just a class of rifles.
5
If us democrats are forced to back you for our presidential nominee, by god, Joe, you better get it together..!! Choose Warren as your running mate, and she will give you the right words, if you can just remember them..
I am really not excited by almost anything you have to say, banning assault weapons is just a start, I want to see you stand up to your corporate funders, not talk in racist terms and remember who in charge of various countries today, not forty years ago...And climate change is something I am not even sure you understand. Can you really stand up to big oil. big pharma, after all your years in the corridors of power? Oy veh, very very not happy with possibly having to vote for you in 2020...I will do it, but i hope god and common sense are on our side to get Biden through this challenge.
2
Yeah! GO JOE!
Maybe the Republican-majority Senate will address the 2 bills for safe and sane gun laws sitting on current Senate Majority Lead, Mitch McConnell's desk. ... Or not.
2
How many of our mass murderers have had a legal or criminal record of "mental illness" or violence? Very few!! One mass murderer was a psychiatrist on an army base! Most have been young men with no record of mental illness, or no record of anything!
There is a huge problem with this proposal and Joe Biden's bill...It so heavily stigmatizes the "mentally Ill" that it's outrageous. We do not have more mental illness in the U.S. than any other developed nations. That is a fact.
We in the U.S. have more guns though, and research shows that easy access to guns is the main problem.
The El Paso gunman's mother called the police when her son bought his weapon. She probably knew something about his mental state or ideology. He, at least, could have remained on law enforcement radar in some form. They could have asked a lot of questions of his mother if she had reason to believe he might be of harm to himself or others.
Why not keep an eye on the white supremacist, conspiracy theory and violent ideology websites where people actually announce they have violent plans or tendencies?
And replace the really crazy man who is President of the U.S.!
A stand for the right way to begin to staunch the obscene killings that occur in this country. Joe Biden has been down this road, as he points out. Let us not go for the perfect candidate in the upcoming elections, but rather go for the good ones. If it is Joe Biden, I'm supporting him. I'm supporting a Democrat. What Trump's exact words were regarding the Charleston Nazi and subsequent death, the Sandy Hook murders and the other tragic death from military weapons used by civilians drown out those pointless remarks. Mental health issues are a big part of those who commit these egregious murders, but the guns are available and bought. Why? That's the point. We all must stand on this : get rid of assault weapons. The 2nd Amendment not the point, either.
1
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -- B. Franklin.
3
”Essential Liberty”? Is that what you call assault rifles?
1
@Vincent Vincent
I have noticed quite a few comments suggesting repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety.
1
This time they need to be made PERMANENT, Joe.
3
Biden is looking more and more presidential!
4
YES! Correct! Every rational human, of every country, understands this. Only our domestic enemies - the NRA and the feckless Republicans - don't.
3
The NRA poses an existential threat to the United States and it should be outlawed.
3
@Carol I'm not sure it can be outlawed unless it is designated as an organized crime syndicate.
1
In 2017, Japan has three (3) gun-related deaths.
To Get a Gun in the United States, You Must:
1. Pass instant background check.
2. Buy a gun.
In Japan, You Must:
1. Join a shooting club.
2. Take a firearms class.
3. Prove mental fitness.
4. Apply for permit to take training.
5. Describe why you need a gun.
6. Pass review of criminal history.
7. Apply for gunpowder permit.
8. Pass firing test.
9. Describe the gun you want.
10. Buy a gun safe.
11. Let police inspect storage.
12. Pass another background check.
13. Buy gun.
Many Americans can buy a gun in less than an hour. In some countries,
the process takes months.
[NYTimes 3/2/18]
6
Recently a man used fire to murder a lot of people at an anime studio. Last year a man slashed twenty with a knife at a bus stop in Japan, all but one school children. A terrorist group used ricin gas in a subway years ago. The focus on domestic gun ownership needs to be considered not as a universal issue but as a domestic issue.
We have a lot of guns and we don’t know who has them. Nearly all are kept safely but we don’t know who are not safe with them.
1
@Casual Observer
We can't, of course, stop all violence, but couldn't we significantly reduce gun-deaths by doing something like what Japan and other nations do?
Or should we just throw up our hands and hope we're not next?
1
What does it cost to patch people up who survive an
assault weapon shooting? Shouldn't the NRA pay for
this?
3
@jahnay
Why? It's not NRA memebrs that commit these atrocities. Every time the ACLU gets gets some out out of jail they should be on the hook for whatever the cost of that criminals future crimes, right? Punish the organization not the criminal.
Oh please. I'm sure Joe can get something done, saving for the fact he's been there for 50 years, with no results.
3
Send for the wailing women and for the mourners. Let them wail and mourn in the halls of Congress until the tears of the lawmakers are more powerful than gun lobby money.
Play the lamentation of the El Paso principal on loudspeakers near the U.S. Capitol building until the tears of the lawmakers force them to change the laws.
1
"As president"... Why wasn't he saying anything about it before now?
2
NYT clearly doesn't understand that the only way to deal with a bad guy with a machine gun is a good guy with a machine guy.
Or many "good guys" with machine guns.
In aisles and parking lots of Wallmarts.
Why stop there?
The only way to counter a bad guy with a bazooka is a good guy with a bazooka.
And while we are at it, we should insist that all passengers who board planes should carry box cutters.
Right?
2
You can ban them, but I wont be giving mine up. Sorry, I'm just not. And I can make my own bullets at home.
5
It's high time to repeal 2nd amendment as suggested by many reputed legal experts including Supreme Court Judges. Some of such SC judges are known to be "very conservative" like Warren Burger- https://is.gd/8BazOy
Credible media, professionals, at least some politicians, and other sensible people need to gradually build public opinion on that.
In the mean time, there are ample scope to have much stricter gun control laws despite of 2nd amendment. But many American politicians, mainly from GOP, are so addicted to NRA money & political propaganda, highly inflating its ability to influence electoral outcome, are scared to act against gun manufacturing industry which is represented by NRA.
Decades of careful grooming of ignorance, subservience (culture of party loyalty) by destroying public education, infusion of religious fundamentalism & cleverly mixed it with racism helped GOP to promote just any rhetoric/cause using that ignorance & party loyalty. It does not matter if it's so devastating for the country, neighborhood, or even for the near & dear ones of the gun owners who are die hard supporters of NRA/GOP. Most gun deaths are that of near & dear ones of gun owners & don't happen in mass shootings, that get media & political attention.
3
I will never know how the gun companies spend the day making and marketing these war guns designed to kill people and then go home to have dinner with their kids.
4
@Jane
Two characteristics are required to be wildly successful in the wonderful world of "unfettered" capitalism - a low animal cunning and an almost total lack of empathy with the rest of humanity. The corporation like almost all institutions invented by us monkeys needs a counter balance. In the case of the corporation the only possible opposing force is government. The GOP has worked to castrated that opposing force ever since the rise of Reagan & the neo-cons. Were Jesus unfortunate enough to be born into our world and become the CEO of a major corporation and/or cartel, he'd be as corrupt as Trump/McConnell in a year - the first an exemplary member of the "unfettered" club, the second purchased and placed by it.
1
Thank you Joe. I am with you in 2020.
3
Will it work in Houston and Michigan?
3
Thanks, Joe .... just Thanks!
3
Somehow America put up with Columbine, and McConnell & the GOP did nothing.
• After Tucson, he did nothing.
• After Sandy Hook, he did nothing.
• After San Bernardino, he did nothing.
• After Colorado Springs, he did nothing.
• After Pulse Nightclub shooting, he did nothing.
• After Las Vegas, he did nothing.
• After Parkland, he did nothing.
• After Sutherland Springs, he did nothing.
• After Virginia Beach, he did nothing.
• After El Paso, he did nothing.
• After Dayton, he is doing nothing.
• NOTHING!!!!!
As long as Trump, McConnell and the GOP continue to be controlled by the NRA and the gun industry, we will do the same thing, and we'll get the same results.
When enough Americans decide they want to end this bloodshed, politicians will change the laws.
4
Can anyone recall an instance where a “good guy” (read law abiding civilian and not off-duty military or law enforcement) with an AK or an AR thwarted a “bad guy with a gun”?
Anyone?
1
@Chris
Yes.
Stephen Willeford, a plumber and former NRA firearms instructor, stopped the massacre at Sutherland Springs church. He shot the killer and chased him away.
https://www.ajc.com/blog/buzz/had-but-did-sutherland-springs-hero-hailed-nra/QAO2FwB8GcBBNdrax24lGO/
But why do I think that this bit of information won't change your worldview?
I would think every single candidate in the primairies for the Democrats is in favor of this, no?
1
The 549 comments have taken care of almost every question arising from this article - but one.
Has each of the other candidates to become the Democratic Party's standard bearer made an equally focused statement that I have not seen only because it has not been published in the New York Times?
Banning assault weapons should be first on every candidates list. Perhaps each of them should be writing a comment here.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
Our country must eventually repeal the 2nd amendment. Not now, but it will happen within 25 years. Crazy, you say? Well what do we do when the mass shootings in public places start taking 100's of lives each week? How long do you think it will be before citizens say "enough"? The problem is that the carnage hasn't been bad enough. Yet. But in Trump's Amerika, we ain't seem nothing yet. Those yahoos are just getting started. For those who think it will never change, remember cigarettes? Times change. Things just have to get really bad first. We ain't there yet.
1
Biden earned the nickname "shotgun joe" for his advice to simply shoot a shotgun out the back door if hearing noises that make you uncomfortable. As ten year old rural kids around the country know, you do not ever ever just shoot a gun randomly into the air. The comment was so unsafe and demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of gun safety.
This is a guy speaking on firearms? Has Joe suddenly become knowledgeable?
Joe made a good best bud to Obama. He's ok if there is someone around to reign in his sometimes kinda flakey thoughts. As president, no.
Taking a firearm off the streets that is used in less than 1% of murders will have no affect on mass killings, hateful people will simply use different methods, like the semi auto handguns that are the true murder weapon of choice and the number one seller year after year.
Time to retire shotgun joe.
3
This should be a blinding glimpse of the obvious and it’s a painful reminder that many in this country need to have it spelt out in such simple terms. Americans are 10 times more likely to die as a result of a firearm compared with residents of the 26 other countries classified as ‘high income’ by the World Bank. And when it comes to firearm deaths, researchers found not one of the other high income countries compares to the US. The author of the study, a professor at the University of San Francisco has said that the US is a complete outlier compared to their peer countries. Well if mental health is the problem behind all firearm deaths, then what an unfortunate country this is. For a country that repeatedly tries to impress upon the rest of the world that this is the best, the most powerful country in the world, the leader no less of the free world, I think there is a great deal of remedial work to be done if you think anyone else in the rest of the world believes the same. Any country that allows such carnage to be wrought on its own citizens needs to take a long hard look at itself and ask whether indeed there is any will to take steps to remedy the situation. It can be done. New Zealand banned assault weapons within weeks after the mass shooting in the synagogue there earlier this year. We have to assume there is just no political will to act. And you ask God to bless America.
3
Change the campaign finance laws and watch your Republican (and some Democratic) colleagues lose interest in what the NRA wants.
2
I look forward to reading this article as soon as you declare Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as your running mate. Until then, you are not sufficiently relevant.
Suppose possession of an assault weapon were a felony with a minimum sentence of 20 years to serve. Mere possession. By a private citizen, a vendor at a gun show, a manager at Walmart. Sure, offer to buy them back first, but after that grace period, into the slammer. That's what I want.
All this talk about background checks is great, but, as op-ed columnists in the NYT and Eli Sanders' book "While the City Slept" argue, we can't assume those who commit violence are mentally ill. Not clinically. They are often angry and hateful with ego issues, but functional. How do you predict which angry person is going to go out and start shooting?
Also, where is the funding for services and facilities for those who are mentally ill? (Again, c.f. the Sanders book.) Selectively taking guns away from them is a nice gesture, but hardly going to stop the slaughters.
1
@pat
I appreciate your passionate calls for banning firearms, but creating a massive class of felons out of the many responsible firearm owners in the U.S. is not the way to go. Where would the money come from to fund the buyback at fair market prices to avoid claims of unlawful taking? Would your laws also apply to the police, the sheriff, the ATF, the military, private investigators? How about the thousands who are this week participating in the National Matches, which along with the Olympics represents the height of shooting sports achievement?
https://thecmp.org/competitions/cmp-national-matches/
How about a compromise? Let's have a complete ban on all gun sales in the United States for 2 years, and see if public safety numbers improve? Current owners can "keep" and "bear" their arms lawfully, they just can't buy any more for 2 years. During that time, we can work on reforming the broken NICS, create federal reciprocity laws for concealed carry, create safe storage laws, and close any other loopholes that allow off-the-record or black-market proliferation of guns.
@Robert That's not a compromise. That's a dodge, and we know what the outcome will be. Hundreds of people will be murdered in mass shootings during your two-year postponement. Either one of us might be among them.
Read the linked study (https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01586154-201901000-00002) Biden cites in his essay about the decline during the 10-year ban from '94 to '04. We already know a ban makes a big difference.
I looked at your link, too. Where's the "sport" in blasting away with an assault weapon? Why not take up archery or shoot baskets? They may not give a person the same illusion of being impossibly powerful, but fewer people die. Die forever. Permanently dead.
@pat
There are more than 40 million gun owners. There are currently just under 300,000 people in federal prisons.
So if people who possess "assault weapons" simply ignore laws against possession, as they almost certainly will, they can sleep well knowing that the federal government simply doesn't have the resources to do much about it.
This is not even getting into how would you know at the federal level who has what?
1
For reasons set forth in the article below, I humbly and earnestly wish that my fellow liberals pause and seriously think again (think, not emotionalize) about the 2nd Amendment.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/21/496931/-
1
@Diogenes
I got "Link doesn't exist."
@Iris Flag. Strange.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/21/496931/-
If that still doesn't work, search for "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment" posted by Kaili Joy Gray on dailykos.com for April 21, 2008.
1
Banning assault weapons is a good start. Then, ban all semi-autos. Then, following the logic of the 2nd, if you want to own a gun, you must be a member of the National Guard.
3
I was happy to see Biden's finally take a stance on anything -- his campaign has been notable for lacking any agenda whatsoever, and for delicately not addressing the nation's hot topics: free healthcare, immigration, income disparity, a $20/hour living wage ($15/hour doesn't cut it in expensive real eastate markets) and criminal justice.
To read that he is taking an anti-assault rifle stance, and one in favor of full background checks, marks his first solid stance on anything, and it's a good and necessary objective.
Biden must stop dropping Obama's name and offer an agenda and a budget for his programs, should he be elected. He must not avoid the issues important to voters and hope to win by ignoring their concerns, and by repeating the mantra, "I'm not Trump".
An assault weapons ban is a good start.
2
I'm a clinical psychologist with 30 years in the field. Those who think we should limit access to guns for those with mental illness need to understand something: That's all of us. Now, I happen to very much agree that access to weapons should be limited for all of us, but the point is that most of us will pass through at least one episode of mental illness in our lifetime and, depending on how one defines "mental illness". Psychological constructs and the nature of human behavior are complex realms, indeed, and trying to regulate those realms is not likely to serve us well. Historically, parsing human beings on the basis of mental conditions has been very poorly handled, for example when a specific diagnosis alone could have one institutionalized for life, or sterilized. Now people are proposing a specific diagnosis resulting in some people not having access to a presumably invaluable 2nd Amendment. In all cases, there is an imaginary bright line drawn between "them", the mentally ill, and "us", when in fact no such bright line exists. The solution is to regulate and reduce the availability of the weapons. It's an obvious and concrete solution that will, over time, possibly a generation, result in a safer nation. We should all be prepared to make sacrifices to achieve that safer nation, even it it means drastic means initially. Gun buy-back programs, destruction of the careers of sell-out politicians, and heavy taxation of weapons will all be necessary.Time's up.
7
The point is that the fear of harm by guns used to be based upon determining whether individuals could be trusted.
While it’s clear that only some people commit mass murders, anticipating who might has become a problem seems to be impossible.
Plus a lot of people simply fear guns and fear that anyone who has them are likely to use them against others.
Restricted access to guns is perceived to be safety, and nothing else. It’s a common state of panic.
1
@Tintin: Gun regulation recognizes the universality of mental disturbances.
1
@Casual Observer
Is this the latest talking point recommended from the NRA? Projecting panic disorders on people who object to the manufacture and sale of assault weapons after a spate of mass killings with assault weapons? I’m seeing that tactic everywhere lately, so I’m assuming that’s the new defense, but it isn’t working. Most people are reasonably concerned about the possibility of being shot in public, because it keeps happening.
“While it’s clear that only some people commit mass murders, anticipating who might has become a problem seems to be impossible.” Thank you. That’s the exact reason that assault weapons must go.
2
Mr. Biden,
Will you “ban” them.. or just “push” to ban them?
You can push all you want ..
We want them banned
2
@wfkinnc I'm donating to Senate races so that he has the power to do just that.
1
This week I am choosing the article "Joe Biden: Banning Assault Weapons Works," written by Joe Biden himself, as the article that interested me the most. Today in the United States gun control is probably the hottest topic of discussion. After two mass shootings in a day people continue to discuss what we should do to fix this problem. Biden suggests that an outright ban on these weapons will help to stop this problem but I am unsure that that is the case. I think that the real focus should be on keeping these guns away of the mentally ill all together, and on trying to understand the change of culture that is causing the increase in these shootings. Something has changed in the last few decades that is causing an increase in these shootings by the mentally ill. Criminals will continue to carry out these shootings no matter if the guns are illegal or not, we should be trying to understand why these shootings occur and what we can do to help stop that. There are plenty of countries that are just as armed as the US but do not have the amount of shootings that we do here. Simply banning these guns will not put a stop to these shootings.
Nothing is going to happen on guns until Democrats win the Senate and they kill the filibuster. Nothing. Will. Happen.
And where does Biden stand on getting rid of the filibuster? Oh yeah, right. . . .
2
Let’s call the NRA what it is — a domestic terrorist organization — and treat it accordingly. Freeze its assets, indict its leaders, and remove it as an inhibitor to an assault weapon ban.
6
@Jeremy: Wayne LaPierre is a coward, liar, and fool. A poster child for gun fanatics.
2
@Jeremy
Great. I also have a list of organizations who have purposes I despise. Can I outlaw them for the crime of supporting policies with which I disagree?
@Lilo: Subversion for the benefit of a Russian dictator eager to see resumption of shooting civil war in the US is treason on steroids.
Now that’s what I’m talking about! I’m actually getting excited about Biden’s candidacy now
2
Biden, you look incapable of following a coherent train of thought during the debates. You cannot possibly fulfill the post of President with all of its stress and need for quick and clear decisions. Please drop out.
4
Want an assault rifle?...then join the American "well-regulated militia" known as the U.S. military. Then specifically ask to serve in the infantry. Go for it!
8
@Cowboy Marine
Wouldn't it just be easier to buy it in a gun show?
1
If we were allowed the sue gun manufacturers and the NRA, this would all end really fast. Just like MADD against Budweiser and drunk driving
3
Way to go, Joe!
2
Biden is my candidate.
2
Democracy works only because people trust one another. The policies and laws are decided by majority votes but the minority are in agreement about the overall purpose. The elections have consequences, the king on the mountain attitude of achieving power to act contrary to the will of the losers ends democracies. The people who feel imposed upon and unable to preserve their rights will just stop cooperating.
The number of gun owners and their record of gun safety is plainly evident. They have every reason to consider all of these proposals to insist that they give up any guns legally obtained and kept reasonably to be infringements upon them with no reasonable justifications.
To introduce likely good means to regulate guns for the purposes of safety means honoring their trust and assuring them that they are trusted and then convincing them of the need to regulate guns to remove them from those who are dangers.
1
I am glad to see Joe Biden, the leading candidate for POTUS of the Democratic Party, advocating a ban on the sale of assault style automatic and "semi-automatic" weapons with high capacity ammunition attachments. I am reconsidering my thought about his carrying too much baggage from the 20th Century. All the other inadequate recommendations so far will not do much to stop senseless domestic terrorism. Background checks probably would have done nothing to stop most of the mass gun murders in the past decade. Mental illness treatment is wonderful, but how many of the assaults we have seen thus far would mental health treatment have prevented? Only the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction will eliminate most mass murders. The elimination of assault weapons must be nationwide. What good is it to have strong local gun laws when anyone can with impunity carry an assault weapon from one state to another without consequence to the seller or the buyer?
2
Assault weapons were invented to assault fortifications by shock troops who needed a weapon that could shoot a lot of bullets at close quarters. Since the troops would be infantry who would have to also shoot with rifles, these weapons were more useful if they were rifles. They were developed from civilian guns. None are legal for anyone to buy or sell without federal licenses.
The guns sold like the AR-15 do not meet the requirements for assault rifles. They do share some features but the main concern is the semi-automatic operation with magazines that allow many bullets to be squeezed off while holding aim on a target. It’s a feature offered by many civilian fire arms. What makes these so called assault weapons of concern is the notion that they are produced to kill people so selling them to civilians means that they are sold to do murder. It’s illusion. The real danger is from the guns being efficient for shooting. The real justifications for banning them can apply to all guns.
2
"Nearly 70 percent of the American public support a ban on assault weapons — including 54 percent of Republicans."
When will what used to be Republicans realize that their present leaders don't care at all about what they want--only what gets their vote.
1
Yes, please. Just get it done.
1
Ok. You have my vote
3
Gun clubs can keep my guns? Where do you people live? Strange concept but I live on 60 acres, shoot for fun, off my back porch, have a college degree and the Dps officer lives a qurter mile away. Live 3.5 miles from town and gun shots are frequently heard. Grew up with them, hunt with them. Totally against most of what you liberals are saying. Red flag WITH due process maybe. How about we repeal the 1st amendment and control that. It causes way more harm the second of course withou the second you may not have the 1st or 4th....or you do what you want, the drug laws and immigration laws are working so good, seatbelt laws this should be about as effective. Except for those states that passed premptive laws.
4
@Cdm: My mother was almost hit by shooter like you in a place like you describe.
2
@Steve Bolger ...wow in New York, I doudt it happened, I've read your comments nothing you have said would eliminate your mother getting "almost hit". You live in a city where everyone thinks they know what's best for everyone else. What is normal and excepted here is abnormal to you and vice versa. We know how to handle weapons and other tools we use. We have more people injured by farm equipment than gunfire.
You have no idea what kind of shooter I am or if I live a place like mom. I get it, you live where ALL guns are bad, I live where all guns and gun owners are good. Having a CHL believe me, I've been vetted, fingerprinted, background checked and carry everday. P.S. we don't have a lot of gun clubs, we don't need them much with our laws and lifestyle.
3
@Steve Bolger ...wow in New York, I doudt it happened, I've read your comments nothing you have said would eliminate your mother getting "almost hit". You live in a city where everyone thinks they know what's best for everyone else. What is normal and excepted here is abnormal to you and vice versa. We know how to handle weapons and other tools we use. We have more people injured by farm equipment than gunfire.
You have no idea what kind of shooter I am or if I live a place like mom. I get it, you live where ALL guns are bad, I live where all guns and gun owners are good. Having a CHL believe me, I've been vetted, fingerprinted, background checked and carry everday. P.S. we don't have a lot of gun clubs, we don't need them much with our laws and lifestyle.
And if Joe Biden thinks that McConnell and the rest of the NRA owned Republican stooges are going to go along with any of this he obviously learned nothing as Obama’s Vice President, or he’s deluded or willfully disingenuous. Democrats have to stop finding so called common ground with Republican fascists who concede nothing. They need to be OPPOSED and DEFEATED, not coddled, or compromised with. Guns are a Republican problem - no more Republicans no more gun problem. Vote.
1
Gun ownership should be limited to those who can pass a rigorous series of tests. If we have to have a license to drive cars, people need to licensed to own guns. The current system makes no sense whatsoever, the Second Amendment or not.
3
Nibbling at the edges....
Is it not time to take a deep dive into repealing the Second Amendment?
The 2008 Heller SCOTUS decision will, when history has time to judge it, be seen as bad as Plessy or Citizens United.
The time to start the process is upon us as it will take decades to unfurl this insane amendment that has been with us for 200 plus years, written at a moment in history that has no connection to the 21st century.
Not everything the "founding fathers" did was correct.
5
Good intentions but no guts. This is a domestic terrorism problem and should be labeled as such. Imagine if our international anti terrorism plan was to simply go after the weapons? It’s the ideology and the people behind it that need to be dealt with. Banning assault guns won’t change that and if anything, it may exacerbate the problem.
Obviously, assault weapons should be banned from private ownership, but so should all guns. The second amendment merely protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and does not expressly state that they should keep them in their homes.
1
@John Q: When this amendment was enacted, militias stored their weapons in armories, such as the one the British sought to confiscate in the battle of Lexington and Concord.
3
Banning the sale of assault weapons doesn't go far enough. Those weapons now in private hands must be surrendered and destroyed. The federal government should pay owners $500 for each surrendered assault rifle, and after a set date anyone found still in possession should be fined $12,000 or sent to jail. .
1
Make guns has easy to get as an abortion . One gun shop per state .
The young guy who wants
It must obtain a note for his doctor at his own expense stating that he isn’t crazy as a bedbug . He must travel
to a strange city and stay overnight . He must be forced to watch videos of bloodied mass shooting victims and he must walk through an human hallway of shrieking people holding signs of dead shooting victims.
5
@April
Yay - I live in NY. Plenty of gun shops for me...And I don't even need to be informed or warned about my purchase. Same day service and no waiting period all the way up to day of bir....er....sale...
Since McConnell will win re-election in Kentucky unless the Democrats win the senate it does not matter if the Almighty himself is the president. The NRA will continue its reign of terror.
Banning assault weapons, and large capacity magazines, is a
no-brainer, that every candidate should embrace, without question However, this can't be the only reason to nominate Biden. I worry about Biden's brain, which is not very agile. There are old-old people, and there are young-old people. Biden is old-old. Time for him to go home to his rocking chair.
Amen, Joe Biden. I am with you 100%.
2
Imagine this Joe: If you had "pushed" for this type of legislation while you were VP, many of the most recent shootings would not have occurred. Do you think the irony is lost on anybody? Why should we believe you now?
3
Thanks for speaking the truth! I'm with you Joe!!!
2
Way to go Mr. Biden. Stand firm
1
For the US to have respect in the world, these gun laws need to be enacted. The current situation has eroded all authority you have in the world. We see the massacres. Of children. And the indifference. And we know we do not have the same values.
And while that may not matter to many of you....
...we only seek to have your children live.
1
This guy will get my vote on this alone. It needs to go further but one step at a time for America's sanity is the right way to combat the insanity of the NRA and its lackeys and slowly diminish its insane strategy of defending guns.
3
Why bother targeting the style of weapon used in only 17 percent of mass shooting incidents, when you can ban handguns and target the style of weapon used in 59 percent of mass shootings ?
Because it - looks - like a military weapon, despite the absolute fact that it does not have the capability of a military weapon ?
Are we allowed to stop and frisk young black men dressed in hoodies and plumbers-crack shorts just because they - look - like gang bangers ?
Handgun magazine capacity is typically as high as that of semiautomatic rifles, and the magazines are smaller and easier to carry. A 10 mm Glock will take a nineteen round magazine and can acomodate a thirty-three round extended magazine.
A shooter can carry more rounds of handgun ammunition than rifle ammunition.
The only real difference is accuracy at a long distance, and of all the mass shootings that have occured only four or five of them involved distances such that a rifle had any advantage over a handgun.
The fact is that, like most tragedies, cynical politicians seek to turn the tragedy to their own advantage and that's what is going on here.
Vote for me and I will poush to force this on the nation whether people want it or not.
Wait a minute. When Trump says that kind of stuff, he is a fascist.
But Biden isn't because his tyranny matches the progressive left agenda ?
Sorry. An "assault riffe" ban is just a cheap stunt that isn't going to solve anything.
4
@Objectivist Will it make anything worse? If not, then I vote for trying it. In addition, let's also ban the video games (no one cries foul for first amendment surprisingly), and enact the red flag legislation. If we see harm coming to our society, we will repeal. Deal?
1
Couldn't agree more, but with the Supreme Court the way it is, they would overturn the law as "unconstitutional" since SCOTUS, in addition to the federal courts, has many judges that subscribe to a right-wing mythology about the Second Amendment that forgets it is irrevocably tied to service in a militia, an English tradition that does back to the Roman withdrawal in the early fifth century, as I note here: https://realcontextnews.com/the-irrelevant-second-amendment/
1
@Brian Frydenborg The amendments can be amended if there is enough majority in the senate.
@SupermanCannotFly
Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 majority in the House and Senate and 3/4 majority of the states.
Put another way, just 13 states can veto any amendment. I can think of at least 20 in just the South and Midwest that wouldn't support any change to 2nd Amendment.
1
the horse has left the barn...how many millions of these killing machines are already in the hands of people living in this country? how do we remove them ALL after a ban??? i am in favor of it, just wonder how...if it means confiscating guns, that is going to be a mess.
1
Biden is still living in times long past. A far more sensible approach today would require licensing of all handguns and semi-automatic center shot rifles (excluding shotguns).
In reality, civilian versions of assault rifles are nothing more than concealable .223 rifles with large clips. Rounds sold are similar to the hunting version of the .223 so ultimately it is a far cry from what the military uses. A bolt action .223 as also far more accurate at hunting ranges but few hunters use this otherwise small caliber.
Licensing would prevent impulse buying of most any concealable gun of mass destruction and would do far more good than a proven ineffective assault weapon ban. Data from Massachusetts is quite compelling in this regard.
As the Times noted recently in an editorial, assault rifles are here to stay. It is time to require the equivalent of a concealed handgun license for all semi-automatic weapons, which includes background checks, references and safety course requirements. In addition, we need proficiency testing much like we require for a drivers license.
I hate to see assault weapons being sold in the US, but saying "the ban worked" without providing details is a shaky argument. In fact, most robust analysis show the impact fairly muted: https://www.propublica.org/article/fact-checking-feinstein-on-the-assault-weapons-ban
1
Please take the required steps fast if you simply can’t ban guns.
For the benefit of all the commenters who claim you can’t ban assault weapons because you can’t tell what an assault rifle is, let me be clear: an assault weapon is an assault weapon because its primary use is to assault and kill people. Period. Assault weapons are not useful for hunting because they are not particularly accurate and would render your prey inedible, blowing it apart and riddling it with ammo. That is why they are not called hunting rifles. Assault weapons are not viable for self-defense because they create too much risk to the other occupants of you home. That is why they are not called self-defense rifles.
Assault weapons are the weapons of choice for mass shooters and criminals where the objective is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. They have no place in civilized society.
1
@Kristi
"Assault weapons are not viable for self-defense because they create too much risk to the other occupants of you home. That is why they are not called self-defense rifles."
And somehow people have used AR-15s to defend their homes. Your statements are factually incorrect.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/
@Lilo. Honestly. How many times has someone successfully defended their home while other occupants were present with an AR-15? And how many times has an AR-15 been used in a mass shooting or in the commission of a crime? Not even close.
In the case of a mass shooting, an AR-15 is way too dangerous. Have you ever actually been in such a situation? When innocent civilians are screaming and running for safety and/or cover, a “good guy with an AR-15” is far more likely to hit an innocent civilian than the shooter.
2
@Kristi
You wrote they weren't viable for home self-defense. People have used them for home self-defense.
Did you read the link? In the Sutherland Springs massacre the killer was driven away from the church by an NRA instructor armed with an AR-15. Had that man not been there the body count would certainly have been worse.
Dylan Roof did not use an AR-15 in his murderous Charleston rampage. Would that the church had had guards armed with AR-15s. Nine people would still be alive.
I am unwilling to surrender my right to self-defense because of what others might do.
I am a retired career prosecutor who has seen gun violence firsthand, and who firmly believes in gun control that is far, far more restrictive than even that proposed by ardent leftists. But this assault gun ban is an asinine, feel-good response to highly publicized but rare incidents like those that happened recently.
US gun deaths are predominantly committed by handguns. In 2017, 7032 homicides were committed by handguns, and 403 by rifles, and "assault rifles" (however you define that term) make up only a small percentage of those 403.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Reducing gun deaths in America via gun control will require the control of handguns, not "assault" rifles. But that is hard, hard political work, needing cogent arguments to sway a skeptical public; it may require a constitutional amendment and then will require a huge investment in prisons and more "mass incarceration" to sanction those who refuse to turn in their guns. Tired old windbags like Joe Biden seeking to score quick but meaningless political points aren't up that that task.
2
@Chuck French I think that those in favor of banning assault rifles are trying to accomplish something that is maybe politically possible today. Licensing or banning all guns is certainly not politically possible. People have been working on gun control since 1963 (John Kennedy's assassination) and have not accomplished much. Perhaps an assault rifle ban could get passed today. Mr. Biden is trying to do something. Not aim for measures that are not politically possible today.
When ever a candidate says or writes 'when I am president I will...' I want to know how they plan to do it. A president needs congress to vote to enact many of these measures. Senator Biden could not get the assault weapon ban extended so how does he think as president, if the senate is still in Republican hands, he will get these measures into law? This legislation desperately needs to become the law of the land but I have little hope it will be. Please vote my fellow citizens so we have at least a 'fighting' chance.
1
Finally, a Democrat called a spade a spade:
"Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly — are a threat to our national security, and we should treat them as such..."
Thank you Biden for making a commitment to do what Obama and you failed to do over 8 years.
2
The threat is domestic terrorism as an ideology , not their weapons.
1
@liz Feel free to thank Mitch McConnell for the inability "to do what Obama and you failed to do over 8 years."
2
The idea that we even have to discuss whether assault weapons should remain legal is so demoralizing. No civilized society in the 21st century should want these weapons on their streets. Unfortunately, it says a lot about who we are. We must do better.
5
With republicans clearly blocking gun control legislation, one can only conclude that the next victim's blood will be on the Republican's hands.
3
It's the people, not the guns, but somewhere a line needs to be drawn. I dated a guy who literally owned an arsenal of firearms including a nice supply of armor piercing bullets. And explosives. All legally obtained and/or produced (he had a license to build guns). He was slightly off kilter, but a kind person, with a big love for guns and explosions. Even he was really concerned about the lack of gun control, particularly around concealed carry permits and how easy those are to get for an inexperienced shooter.
The problem is that we really have very little keeping us safe from the incompetent or the crazy and firearms. Incompetent are parents that leave loaded guns lying around for kids to use. The scared women at my gun skills class who already carried, despite not having the confidence to shoot a target in controlled conditions. And the crazy who haven't yet committed crimes with access to whatever they can dream of.
I honestly don't see ban working with so many guns out there already. Probably we need to just be prepared for a new norm of regular mass shootings. Sad, but at this point the cats out of the bag and not getting back in without a rather violent fight.
With you a 100% Mr. Biden, but (if you win) you will most likely still have a majority of Republicans in the Senate that will not submit to banning assault weapons. Alas, the only way to succeed, at this time, is for Democrats to win back the Senate.
2
Well done, but now the GOP has a reason to oppose this sensible approach other than the NRA: Joe Biden can defeat Trump and the GOP can’t give Joe a victory before the election.
Meanwhile, it has occurred to most Americans that the NRA has an undue influence on our government. Some have even concluded that the NRA is demonstrably more dangerous to every American than Al Qaeda and ISIS. As citizens we can compel the NRA to be dissolved and it’s assets seized as it is a public menace.
2
How about requiring all guns be modified to hold no more than three shells/bullets. We do it for migratory game birds.
2
@libdemtex
And if you are attacked in your home by more than three people?
Joe Biden is on the right track when he suggests that we need to implement sensible restrictions on assault weapons, but that in itself is not enough.
The problem, and it's as clear as a sunny day, is the amount of guns floating around period. Logically the more guns and more opportunities that deranged people have to get a hold of them, the more chances you have of someone committing an atrocity like the ones in Gilroy, Dayton, and El Paso.
We need to prevent anyone with the will to obtain an deadly weapon, from just obtaining that weapon willy-nilly. The only way I see this as happening in this gun-infused culture, is licensing.
If you really need a gun (and virtually no one really does...) then you need to prove it by doing the math. Take a class, spend time earning this right to bear arms. Prove to society you're a responsible individual who is purchasing a gun for protection or sport.
In the end if we did something like this, the evil minded maniacs would be disqualified and not have access to a means of killing. Would it prevent all such futures massacres, of course not. Would it be better than it is now, that's unequivocally true.
4
@Marcus Vitone
That is EXACTLY the wrong approach when talking about constitutional rights. It is why Michigan successfully changed the CCW to "Shall issue" as opposed to may issue.
I don't have to prove to the state or anyone else that I deserve a right or must earn a right. That's my right at birth!
The state must prove (involuntary commitment, felony record) why they can prevent me from exercising a right.
Handguns are the murderers firearm of choice.
In 2015 handguns were involved in 6,447 murders that compared with 252 by rifles and 269 by shotguns.
3
Please,
Allow me a little digression to help you better understand our government and Mr. Biden as one of the most prominent politician over the last few decades.
In late 2001, almost 18 years ago, I offered to the US government a strategy how to defeat the Al Qaeda a thousand times cheaper and ten times faster.
Nobody has ever called back...
Be assured the strategy didn’t involve a single gun or military boot on the ground.
One cannot change the human minds by force but only with the better ideas.
This hypothesis has been proven as accurate in the meantime.
Did the 2nd Amendment give everyone in the 1790s the right to own and use their own cannons? If not, what law gives us the right to own and use automatic guns and other modern weapons of war?
The Bill of Rights was for human rights not, as Biden says, for the right of gun makers to fill their coffers without care or compassion for the dead in the coffins
3
@anntares
Many cannons during that period were privately owned, including some that were on privately owned warships.
It’s not just odd but bizarre for Joe Biden to want only to ban assault weapons when the shooters in the latest massacres clearly were intent on killing innocent people by any means. And given their intelligence, like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, they would have found other means than a firearm. All that the cruel ideas in domestic white terrorist and combat web sites needed was the conditioning of the shooters to kill other human beings, thus overriding the human instinct not to do so. Ample research show how conditioning to kill people in programmed indirect learning experience can produce mass killers. Milgram experiments at Stanford University demonstrated how easy it is to teach cruelty to ordinary people. And Dave Grossman’s “Killollogy” study, “On Killing: the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” shows how conditioning to violence in training videos and remote killing by drones, missiles, artillery and from remote locations (bombing, submarine and tanks) work. Repetitive exposure to graphic violent images can desensitize the human conscience of youth especially to kill innocent human beings without any remorse. Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are only one of the means to make combat soldiers and terrorists to slaughter people. First you have to desensitize youth to do so.
"We need rapid-fire semi-automatic rifles for our hobby, target practice. We are busy professionals and don't want to waste time to with reloading after every 6 rounds."
>> You don't have time for a hobby. Just think of the time wasted driving to the range, walking across the parking lot, etc. Better stick to your time-consuming career.
"We need rapid-fire semi-automatic rifles to kill the feral hogs that are tearing up our pastures and farmland."
>> The feral hog population has grown exponentially over the last 20 years. Your rifles aren't making a dent in this
pattern.
"We just like the feel of rapid-fire semi-automatic rifles jolting our skeletons with two or three shots per second."
>> Trade your AR for a jackhammer. That will give you hours of jolts without the cost of expensive ammunition.
4
A well-argued op-ed supported by data and evidence - a welcome read after a weekend in which our "president" was busy re-tweeting fringe conspiracy theories.
Also worth noting, New Zealand this weekend reported that more than 10,000 firearms have been bought in less than a month as part of its gun buyback program. That's how a civilized country operates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/new-zealand-gun-buyback-10000-firearms-returned-after-christchurch-attack
4
Right on target Joe. Background checks are only putting a Band-Aid on a hemorrhage .Well past due for someone to call for an assault weapons ban .
3
"This is an appeal to every liberal who says, 'I just don't like guns.'
"... to every liberal who says, 'No one needs that much ammunition.'
"... to every liberal who says, 'That's not what the Founding Fathers meant.'
"... to every liberal who says, '[Mass shootings] prove we need more laws.'
"... to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
"... to every liberal who has complained about the ... trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
"... to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
"... to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.
"... to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will take their guns away.
"This is an appeal to you, my fellow liberals. Not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
"Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/4/21/496931/-
3
Please, for once, put politics aside. There is no rational or moral reason not to ban assault and automatic weapons in our country, and use everything in our power to make this change a reality.
Now. Just close your eyes for a moment. Picture a loved one killed in a random act of murder. How would you feel?
2
With 300 million guns owned by 100 million American adults does former VB Biden see any connection with those numbers and 12,000 gun homicides yearly in America. Does he really believe banning some weapons will sharply reduce the 12,000 yearly total ?
Does Mr. Biden think the problem is just “type of weapon” ? And not 300 million weapons outstanding ? No other nation has anywhere that number. Nor anywhere near the 12,000 yearly gun homicides.
Does Mr. Biden have any problem with 30,000 annual fatalities from nearly 300 million automobiles. Or just gun deaths.
Lets encourage Mr. Biden to be better informed about the gun violence situation in the U.S.
Joe, you have my vote, and whatever money I can contribute. I gave Kamala Harris's more money, but only after she sliced and diced Barr. I abhored her attack on you at the debates, and she lost my support. You as President, Warren as VP, and Harris as AG. Make Buttiedge Secretary of State. That's my winning ticket. Also, I think your age is an asset. You have the experience and decency we need.
1
Thanks Joe. Common sense and basic decency have been your hallmarks. You will make a fine president if elected. Sooner or later this nation must revisit the Second Amendment. We amended the constitution once to take away a person's right to drink an alcoholic beverage. We amended it again to give back that right. If we can do THAT, surely we can repeal or revise the language in the Second Amendment. The part that reads "well regulated militia" should be addressed to make it less ambiguous. Weapons of war must be restricted to that "militia," or what any reasonable interpretation of that word would lead us to conclude, the armed forces. Gun nuts whose happiness is a warm gun must be told once and for all, "well regulated" means exactly that: WELL REGULATED.
3
@East End
It takes 2/3 of both the Senate and the House as well as 3/4 of all the states to amend the constitution.
Requiring that super majority means that you are going to need the votes of many of the people you just derided as "gun nuts" . You can't just dictate terms, which is what most of the comments here seem to want to do.
Joe, Joe, Joe.....Anyone familiar with Joe Biden's career knows that he consistently vacillates, waffles, and often turns 90 to 180 degrees out from any promise he makes, depending of course on which way the political winds are blowing that day. There's no reason whatever to believe in anything he says (or to think that he believes in it either). We're in deep trouble, but a proven puppet such as Mr. Biden is not our answer.
Please, Mr. Biden, consider focusing on handgun control. These are the weapons that kill most Americans that die from gun violence. Assault weapons create carnage but handguns take the vast majority of lives. Please make your agenda the one that will save the most lives.
Banning assault rifles is step one. It must be accompanied by a mandatory govt. buyback program of the estimated 20 million semi-automatic guns followed by the authority to arrest anyone still owning one after a year; and having undercover FBI agents arresting sellers of these weapons in the black market.
Also key is stopping potential killers by arresting them while they are still spewing their hatred on websites. It’s time to treat threatening/hateful language as an exception to the first amendment, similar to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
3
@Pragmatist In CT
This is really dangerous.
You expect that a government that can't find or deport 11 million illegal aliens in this country is going to seize semi-automatic guns from MILLIONS law abiding citizens (it's a LOT more than 20 million semi-automatic weapons out there)
The prisons aren't large enough. Also you can't just break into people's homes to seize guns. In your own states thousands of people simply ignored the law to register their weapons with the state.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/06/24/nearly-one-million-new-yorkers-didnt-register-their-assault-weapons/#1f344f99702f
If those people in Connecticut and New York did that, we in Michigan could certainly do no less.
And there is no "hate speech" exemption to the first amendment. We can not and do not arrest people for their speech or their thoughts. That is indeed an odious idea.
It is revealing how much of the impulse to ban guns also is consonant with desires to wipe out other constitutional rights of free speech, protections against improper searches and so on.
@Lilo hate speech is one thing; inciting violence and advocating heinous things to harm others is something else. harsh times call for harsh measures. perhaps labeling this type of speech ‘domestic terrorism’ would provide a way around the 1st Amendment.
As for banning/eliminating assault weapons — explain what purpose they serve.
1
@Lilo as for the Forbes article about people not registering when mandated to do so after fact points to the importance of requiring registration (along with background checks and safety mechanisms) prior to purchase.
2
In 2017 the FBI reported that 403 people were killed with rifles of all kinds while 467 were killed with hammers and clubs and 1,591 with knives and other kinds of cutting instruments.
As for Biden’s inaccurate article, only AR-15 style weapons with flash hiders or collapsible stocks or AK-47s with thumbhole stocks were banned.
University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper authored a report for NJI stating that the AWB of 1994 did not reduce gun violence.
Once again Biden is inaccurate in what he says.
2
Congress could pass 10 laws on registration, background checks, waiting periods, and red flags. Then, after the next deranged persons shoots some people, then what? Ban all sales. Then another couple shootings take place, then what, confiscation? Then millions of people don’t turn their guns in, then what? Go to that extreme, and then more shootings take place, what then?
Assault weapons don't do near the harm to our society that our asymmetric relationship with China does. And Biden scoffed when asked whether he thought China was a threat.
.
For that alone, he's not fit for office. He was VP in an administration that watched and did nothing while Beijing militarized the South China Sea and conducted vast amounts of cyber theft.
.
There's no way he should be near the White House again.
2
I'm 100% with Joe Biden, yet I would make a provision that people who want to shoot assault weapons should be allowed to go to a licensed shooting range (where they could store their own, or rent one and buy the ammunition), but the gun must be secured. The guns would have to be stored in a vault, and the owners have special licensing training to ensure they will keep them secure.
I am also for banning handguns if the owner is not licensed to own one. To sell one without requiring a background check is a felony criminal action, with a steep penalty. It is the gun that does the killing! Expecting the public to turn in their rage prone dad, uncle, brother, or friend ... that's just ludicrous. Not reliable to prevent violence. Go Joe!!!
2
I'm all in, Joe. I hope all the other kids in the debate club realize you're the one guy that is electable for Prez. We need all of them to run for Senate.
3
My modest proposal . . .
Ban all semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns; only revolvers, bolt-action rifles and double-barrel shotguns would be legal.
Offer twice the MSRP of any newly banned weapon ($2K for an AR or AK; same for a high-end semi-auto pistol or rifle). If there are 15-million AR/AK platforms, that would work out to $30-billion (how much did we spend on the Iraq war)?
The folks who own these things -- in the bubba-belt, the bible-belt, the bullet-belt, the rust-belt and the fenatnyl belt -- they could probably use the cash to buy/replace all of their banned weapons with some really nice, top of the line hunting rifles, revolvers and shotguns -- and still come away with extra cash in their pockets.
Bolt-action rifles, revolvers and double-barrel shotguns don't take high-capacity magazines; after two, four or six shots, you need to reload. No bolt-action rifle, revolver or double-barrel shotguns are capable of producing the kind of carnage we've seen in Columbine, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, El Paso or Dayton.
And here's the beauty of it: nobody's right to keep and bear arms would be infringed. People would be prevented from buying and/or owning semiautomatic firearms the same way they are prevented from buying or owning hand grenades, mortars and Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
There would be a one-year grace period to sell the newly banned guns back. After that time, you face time.
Common sense gun control -- what's wrong with that?
1
Can someone please accurately define "assault weapon". Biden used this definition in this article: "Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly". Well, military weapons fire automatically, that's how they fire rapidly. Pull the trigger, hold it and it continues to fire "automatically" until there are no bullets left. A fully automatic weapon fits the definition of "assault weapon". The weapons being targeted here are not automatic weapons. They are "semiautomatic", you must pull the trigger to fire each and every round. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet. The same as almost every handgun manufactured. Pull the trigger, fire 1 round. Pull it again, fire a 2nd round. This does not fit the definition of "rapidly firing". Does a pistol grip on a rifle help you fire faster? No. Does an adjustable stock to fit better into your shoulder help you fire faster? No. These are comfort features only. Do these features make the rifle a "military weapon that fires rapidly"? Again, no.
Perhaps we should look at capacity. Maybe we dont need 30 round magazines for rifles. Perhaps 15 is a better answer. Most pistols have a capacity of 10. Some can hold 18. According to FBI stats, in 2016 there were 11,000 gun homicides in US. Over 7,000 were by handguns. Could handguns be a bigger problem?
We are focused on the wrong issue. The problems are magazine capacity and handguns. Not the AR style rifles which are so much more dramatic to ban AR's.
1
Nice try! Biden's seemingly reasonable approach is just the next step in the nefarious Obama-Clinton gun-grab that will take all guns away from everyone in the country.
I am actually very surprised that the NRA isn't secretly backing strict gun laws. As a trade organization with the single goal of enabling it's constituent gun manufacturer members to sell more guns, promoting the fear of gun control has always resulted in faster gun sales. If they make it look like some kind of gun control is imminent, then people will rush out to buy the soon-to-be banned guns. Get it right NRA will ya!
The products are expensive and technically cool. Once we sell the weapons, then we have customers to buy the ammo. It’s a great business plan. And then there’s the free advertising. I mean, we are not allowed to advertise our products, but we could never buy more effective ads than the political news cycle. We sell products, an unfortunate event occurs, the pols get all anti-gun, and sales go through the roof. Repeat! All for free! We love America!
Oh, and we send our thoughts and prayers to the poor unfortunate victims of those bad guys with guns. They are just crazy people. Oops. Sorry.
Thank you America.
1
Yes, we definitely need a ban on assault weapons. But if we are going to have new laws on gun control let's get it right from the start. We need to license gun owners, and to receive a license that person should pass a psychological test. All gun sales should take place in a registered gun shop, and every sale should include a background check. Every sale should also have a 30 days waiting period so some enraged boy friend, husband, employee, racist etc. can not run out & purchase a gun and kill the object of their rage.
Let's not do this piece meal. Let's do it right from the beginning and work toward solving this horrendous problem where people cannot feel safe in this country.
3
@uras
There is no psychological test that will show if someone will commit future violence.
People purchasing weapons from federally licensed dealers already go thru background checks.
Trying to make background checks mandatory for transactions between private citizens in the same state would require a gun registry and probably be unconstitutional.
@Lilo You are right it would not be foolproof as far as someone committing future violence, but it would give a window into that person's mind. Why do you think people are given psychiatric evaluations when it is deemed necessary?
There is a lot of talk of mental illness involved in gun tragedies. Racists and angry people don't necessarily and probably do not have a history of being treated for mental illness.
We have a registry of vehicles that are bought & sold whether purchased from a dealer or private party. Obviously that has not been found to be unconstitutional and vehicles are not usually used to murder other people.
Lets try treating this as the national crisis it is and try to think out of the box.
1
One problem, and I’ll vote for anyone not named donald trump, you have to win the election first. How many owners will vote for you? I hope you are right on this one.
3
Along with a ban on the personal ownership of what are literal weapons of war — which only the demented could possibly believe the Founders had intended (even with the broadest interpretation of the Second Amendment) — there must also be a buy-back program as well. That is precisely what both Australia and New Zealand did.
Finally, as far as whether one is a "supporter of the Second Amendment" is the wrong question; it is whether one supports the Constitution.
What IS at issue is its interpretation, which Jeffrey Toobin addressed rather eloquently:
"Politics Changed the Reading of the Second Amendment—and Can Change It Again "
By Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker, 5 August 2019
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/politics-changed-the-reading-of-the-second-amendmentand-can-change-it-again
4
The most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 2017—the year of the Las Vegas mass shooting—there were 7,688 firearms murders. Rifles were used in 403 of these murders. Most of these rifles weren’t assault rifles, but let us assume 200 were assault rifles. Joe Biden is campaigning on a promise to reduce the number of firearm murders by about 2.6 percent.
But banning assault rifles would not reduce firearm murders by 2.6 percent. Killers denied assault rifles would use other semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns. At best, banning assault rifles might reduce firearms deaths by about 1 percent.
Banning assault rifles would have a much smaller impact on the overall number of murders. In 2017, 1,591 people were stabbed to death; 696 were beaten, stomped or kicked to death; and 467 people were bludgeoned to death with blunt instruments.
3
@William Case
Your intent is clear from this repeat comment: do nothing. Not, do all of the above, or some of the above, but do nothing. We're not buying that narrative any more.
Banning detachable magazines and limiting magazine sizes will save lives. These steps will also reduce horrific injuries; a young person who needs to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of their life because their intestines were destroyed is not included in your pat answer, but is a casualty nonetheless. As are the thousands of Americans who live in fear that they will be gunned down in a public place by a stranger.
Banning assault weapons and/or limiting magazines will not solve all of our gun violence problems. That's a reason to do more, not less. If you're not going to help, get out of the way.
1
@childofsol
I am not saying do nothing. I am saying that banning the type of firearm that inflict the smallest number of fatalities isn't enough.The thing that makes assault rifles or any other rifles devastating is high-velocity ammunition. Semiautomatic rifles that are not classified as assault rifles can also fore high velocity ammunition. It would make more sense to ban the high velocity ammunition,
@William Case But the issue/question is...what are the military assault type weapons of choice most commonly used by mass murderers for indiscriminate mass shootings? Find out and ban those.
1
Thanks, Joe!
For a while, I was afraid you were going to bet Trump. Your column gives me and other conservatives great comfort.
1
In any discussion of gun control it is vital to distinguish between the mass shootings perpetrated by angry "law-abiding" gun owners and shootings related to drug activity and organized crime. These are vastly different problems with completely different solutions, and a ban on high-capacity, rapid fire assault weapons will solve the first but not the second.
For now, I will settle for solving the first. The second is far more systemic.
1
Standard proposals to solve a problem that wouldn't exist if our politicians stopped worshipping the NRA and the Second Amendment. That amendment does not advocate unlimited access to firearms. This is what is says: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This was written when it wasn't certain if the country was safe, would survive, or when it would be invaded. The country has survived and is safe. We aren't fighting WWIII yet.
I have no objections to people owning guns to hunt or to practice at a shooting range. Nor do most responsible gun owners. But no one needs a gun that can rip human flesh and organs into shreds in seconds, shoot down 5-6 people at once, etc. That's not a right listed anywhere in the Constitution. If people want to play war games with water guns or paintballs that's fine. But what we're seeing now is not and no one should have to be afraid to go about in public doing their daily business worrying about being shot for no reason.
Ignore the NRA and focus on the country and the people you are supposed to serve. Please note: Remington and other firearms manufacturers are not people.
6
"I know, because with Senator Dianne Feinstein I led the effort to enact the 1994 law that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years. Those gun safety reforms made our nation demonstrably more secure."
All I have to say is, "Prove it."
There were fewer mass shootings before the ban as there were during the ban. There are more mass shootings now than there were either before or after the ban.
Those statistics are actually "demonstrable."
The Columbine Massacre occurred during the 1994 ban. How many of those lives were saved by the ban?
Or, is this a case of choosing "truth over facts," as Mr. Biden said in a speech recently?
4
There are 350 million people in the US, and 350 million gun control experts. Every one of them knows the exact answer to stopping gun violence, and no 2 answers are the same. What this tells me is that we are woefully uninformed, and that includes every one of the 350 million experts who claim that they alone have full knowledge and understanding of the problem.
Where is the unbiased research on gun violence in the US? It does not exist because we don't fund any such efforts. Instead we rely on industry-funded research, anecdotal reporting, completely irrelevant comparisons to gun violence in other countries and vague references to "many police departments have reported..." and "overwhelming data". No sources are ever cited, because they don't exist. It's as if we refused to allow the study of aerodynamics, and then tried to explain and solve the problem of planes falling out of the sky.
Yes, it feels imperative that we do something NOW, instead of waiting around for research to confirm what we already know. But, what is it that we really know? That people are committing violence: We don't know why, and we don't know what kind of gun control, if any, will stop the carnage.
Fund the CDC, allow them to fully research gun violence in the US, and do this as a national priority. Only from this will we be able to make intelligent, informed decisions about solving gun violence. There is a reason the gun industry, the NRA and the Republican Senate oppose this: Knowledge is power.
4
It is fundamental. Assault weapons are necessary for assaults and civilians should not be making assaults. For 2nd Amendment advocates, an AK-47 is not an effective personal defense weapon and it is not needed to defend ones home from an intruder.
3
@W. Ogilvie
Hmm. Can you explain how these people used AR-15s to defend their homes?
Because according to you "an AK-47 is not an effective personal defense weapon and it is not needed to defend ones home from an intruder."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/
Generally when the evidence contradicts the theory logical people admit that their theory is wrong.
1) Semi-automatic is semi-automatic. The phrase "assault weapon" annoys gun users. However, in deference to reality, you could call them "high capacity, largely inaccurate, semi-automatic weapons."
2) The 2nd Amendment guys believe in weapons that kill people, as they are quite attached to the founding story of America that citizens with guns are a defense against tyranny.
If you do not acknowledge (2), above, as a starting place for discussing gun control, the current divisions will not budge.
The trouble with all these discussions on guns is that the fundamentals are never looked at.
The more than 300 million hand guns in circulation have the one main purpose which is that of killing human beings. It is obvious that military assault weapons have the exact same purpose.
The second amendment which was enacted at a times when firearms could do limited damage and was meant for military (militia) protection has been interpreted by a thin majority of 5/4 by the Supreme Court and now, this interpretation has taken the value of a religious dogma and immutable.
Does anybody asks why people have guns? We frequently see people saying : "I am the proud owner of a gun". What is there to be proud about? We have also heard innumerable times "A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun". Does anybody know such good guy? The ones I know of are first responders, not the little old lady with a gun under her pillow confronting an intruder, or, for that matter, the 200 pound macho in the same circumstance.
We do know that in many parts of the country (cities) people live in constant fear for their children and for themselves. Do we ask ourselves whether in those other civilized countries with very strict gun restrictions, people live in anxiety because they "cannot defend themselves"?
As long as we accept the dogmatic right to own guns it will be near impossible to prevent them from falling into the hands of some angry character or other.
5
The 1994 Crime Bill wasn't effective, and it failed for the same reason a future focus on "military-style" firearms would fail: the "military-style" portion of these weapons has absolutely nothing to do with the functional aspects of them. The 1994 Bill focused on aesthetic features such as bayonet lugs, pistol grips, flash suppressors, folding stocks, thumb hole stocks, hand guards, and other purely cosmetic details. A Mini-14 isn't a "military-style" rifle as it lacks those features, but it fires the exact same round as an AR-15 and has no functional difference. Ban "military-style" firearms and mass shooters will buy a semi-automatic rifle with a wooden stock, which is every bit as lethal and not functionally different in any way.
The answer is to stop focusing on things that people who know very little about firearms care about, such as bayonet lugs and pistol grips, and to instead simply add all semi-automatic rifles to the National Firearms Act. Semi-automatic rifles have no hunting purpose and are hardly necessary for target shooting or other sporting purposes. Adding semi-automatic rifles to the NFA registry when subject them to the same stringent registration requirements that fully automatic weapons are held to, requirements that have been highly effective in taking those weapons out of the the hands of those who would do harm.
1
Bans on weapons have only led to an increase in sales prior to the ban taking affect. Right now there are so many weapons in the US that they will be around for decades even if they are outlawed. A few on this thread want to know why anyone would need one of these weapons. Having first hand knowledge of this weapon (shot 120 rounds through it yesterday) I can tell you the main reason is that it makes an excellent home protection device for people living in remote rural areas with long police response times. The weapon is lightweight and ammo is reasonably cheap. From a previous post last week about the ability to hunt with one of these is also very feasible. I was hitting a 3" square from 100 yards with a red dot sight and was able to do so at around 1 round per second with only missing two rounds out of a 30 round magazine. There are many dangerous things in this world but you can't ban everything. Does anyone really think if you ban a certain rifle that domestic terrorist wont just load up 2 hand guns and carry some extra clips. 2 pistols with 15 round clips and 4 extra clips that fit into your pocket would total 90 rounds and could be hidden easier than a long gun. Maybe we should try to ban hand guns instead.
5
Thank Joe Biden for this letter and thank you NY Times for publishing.
Assault weapons are used by the military as weapons of war.
An assault weapon is used by a private citizen to arbitrary kill innocent people.
The second amendment is nil and void when speaking to legislation ending the sales and ownership of such a deadly devices.
9
@mary, They have no connection to the military being unfit for use as automatic weapons. Thanks.
With out a doubt the ban will work.Background check is not a deterrence to possible mass shooting:Say some one who is deemed stable and an upright citizen amasses a pile of weapons,the person's mental stability may at best guarantee that he or she won't use them other than for hunting or to bragg to those who visit their house by showing their "prized" possessions,but the problem is there could be a quite disturbed student who has been boiling with some paranoia driven anger and one day he may explode reach for those highly deadly Weaps.Also,individuals like these shooter my look calm and Law abiding citizens types successfully hiding their seeming bias fueled extreme anger.The only means to almost eliminate future such tragedies is that to make sure that Auto Weaps are not out there,period.How many time does it have to be said that A country like the US which is a mature Law & Order society with enough Law Info pros +An Army that can more than defend the Nation doesn't need any civilian armed like Rambo in the fictional Vietnam jungle in the 70s.Citizens with no crime record they need probably Colt 45 or 38 to keep burglars at bay until the neighborhood Cops are alerted.Junkies,Mentally disturbed individuals,etc. they shouldn't even be allowed to access sharp knives.TMD.
1
Assault weapons were banned for a decade from 1994 to 2004 without a great deal of controversy. In fact, many people forgot it ever happened. Thanks to Biden for reminding us about this important history. The right to bear arms does not mean the public needs to own military weapons. What is next? Do we all have the right to own an F-22 or a personal nuclear weapon?
6
Aren't people more or less supposed to take up arms when their president and his supporters tells them to? Suppose the president and his supporters told the armed forces that they people who criticized him were traitors? As long as people are patriotic and the president is in office, do people have the right to not bear arms when the president and his supporters tell us we are being invaded? Most sickos don't want guns. But, under Trump, even those who most oppose him wonder if they may need assault weapons to defend the nation against him just as he has made people feel they must defend the country against us.
2
So reasonable, so coherent, so refreshing. Thank you.
4
Well said, but handguns cause 80% of gun deaths and massacres, as horrible as they are, contribute only 0.1% of total gun killings per year. Yes, only 1 person per 1000 killed happened in a massacre killing.
2
100%. Banning assault rifles needs to be part of any effective change that will decrease the number of fatalities and injuries associated with mass shootings. They make it easy to kill and injure lots of people very quickly. I imagine all of the other Democratic candidates for president agree. Good! Now let's figure out which one can beat Trump. My primary criteria for that choice is who has the best chance to beat the racist, misogynist occupying the white house. Period. I don't begrudge you, NYT for giving your platform to the current frontrunner. He's earned a column on banning assault rifles. Whether he earns the nomination remains to be seen.
3
Since the soul of some political leaders is purchased by the NRA and those with billions of dollars, it is also equally important that we have strict legislation about campaign funding. If we had a law that stated that "no candidate can run for public office if his or her campaign is funded by NRA that worries more about selling guns and making money than the untimely death of the larger populace, political leaders wouldn't sell their soul to them. By nature, men (in particular) are power-hungry and they can sell their soul for power so they remain in power until they are in the late 90s.
Power is new opium to some politicians!!!
The highest bidder like the NRA will be always there to purchase the soul of these power monger males and use their political power to their own benefit (regardless their hunger for money may cause carnage for many humble masses).
3
The correct tile should be “Banning Assault Weapons Worked”. Not renewing the ban opened Pandora’s Box. There are so many of these weapons in private hands. The best thing you can do to increase sales is try to ban them. So what should you do? Background checks and requiring assault weapons registration like an automobile would help. Requiring private transfer of guns to go to a gun notary who will only release the weapon after a background check.
I do believe you should do something, but the most important thing that should be done is get rid of the law banning gun databases, and requiring records be paper records.
The NRA does not represent the gun owners, it represents the gun makers. They are against anything that can reduce gun sales. The Charleston church shooter was able to legally get a gun is because it took longer than 4 days to get a background check rejection. The reason It took longer was was the jurisdiction of decision that made him ineligible to own a gun was free form and in error. If the Charleston form for reporting people who should not get guns had simple check box saying this person is not allowed to purchase a gun and could be submitted as soon as possible the shooter could not get a gun. Without a nationwide computer system allows accurate and immediate transmission of information is needed. Otherwise Backround checks & red flag laws are useless
2
Just take a look at the extended magazine the Dayton killer used. Looks like a Tommy gun. He must be able to get off 70 rounds without reloading. Abhorrent lack of regulation. How something like that is reasonably constitutional is absurd. Has nothing to do with home defense or pleasure use- simply a weapon of war.
2
Wouldn't a ban on the manufacture and sale of the types of bullets these assault weapons use be a logical first step?
2
Everyone should give up their weapons and get a better firewall. The only danger the average American faces is from a cyberattack.
1
Anyone against a military-grade "assault weapon" (high-capacity, high-velocity, semi-automatic) ban, but is not rioting in the streets every single day to restore their "god-given right" to get a hold of fully-automatic weapons, tanks, explosives, etc. is a phony. Why put up with restrictions on other tools of efficient mass-murder, then throw such a big fit over banning semi-automatic "assault" weapons?
You don't care about the constitution; you're just a non-thinking pawn in someone else's money-grab (NRA/gun industry). I'd like to see a peer-reviewed academic study reporting the average level of educational attainment of those vehemently opposed to a badly needed weapons regulation. I suspect the covers would be pulled back on an underclass of poorly educated easily manipulated people whose real concern is their irrelevance and obsolescence in a modern functioning society.
2
Banning these guns make no sense. I own 4 and not one has ever killed anyone. There are more issues like drugs which kill thousand per day than guns which as a American I have the right to own. If you don't like guns don't buy them and for God sake if you have never shot one or owned one don't tell gun owners they can't have one it's like me telling you you can't have a car because statistics show many more deaths are caused by vehicle accidents then gun deaths. And the thing is Assault rifles do not exist for sale to any American anyway these are all semi auto guns no different than. Hand gun, shot gun or hunting rifles and stop being such winny Americans because it looks military, Just because it looks military doesn't mean it is and the rifles you can purchase are not military full auto. Use common sense and pass drug laws and Illigal imigration laws to clean up this country
3
Federal Gun Control could stop this wanton carnage. All 1st world countries have good gun control, that keeps their firearm death rate at just 8% of that of the USA Banana Republic.
Here in the U.S., where we have 330 million souls but the NRA owns the GOP, we have 9,500 firearm murders per year, with another 30K+ firearm suicides. In the European Union, where the population is 300 million but gun control is tight, there arjust 550 firearm murders per year. That rate is 17 times less than the NRA owned U.S.A..
Europe lets their hunters have their rifles and shotguns. But they ban handguns and automatic weapons, since they are designed to kill people. People who wish to hunt are required to do it though licensed gun clubs, where they can be properly trained. Gangsters can't buy their guns at gun shows, like here in the US of A.
To beat this NRA terrorism, we must vote to get rid of their bought politicians in 2020. We must do this at both the state and federal level. We must get rid of politicians who allow the NRA to legitimize their murderous mayhem for the oligarchs of the gun industry.
We can be civilized like the Europeans, the Canadians, the Japanese and the Australians. Or we can stay mired in gun fear and violence, like Honduras, El Salvador, Nigeria and the rest of the 3rd world quagmires.
Vote for Democrats in 2020. Vote as if your lives depend on it. They do.
1
Yes. I agree. As a former NRA member and current gun owner, there is no sane reason any citizen should possess an assault style weapon. Please do not fold on this issue. Face down the NRA and sycophant Republican legislators that fear loosing reelection. It’s time for this to stop.
2
The assault weapons ban did not work. It had no significant effect on homicides committed by long guns generally, or the misnamed "assault weapons, specifically. Look at the data!!!!! It did result in a small decline in sales of these firearms only because it drove their prices up. They were readily available, as were high-capacity magazines, during the entire length of the ban. If you look at the homicide rate with firearms before and during the ban there is no change in the decline in firearm related homicides that started in 1990. No change in the slope, no break-point that would indicate an effect! Look at the data!!!!! Make the argument, don't make-up the argument!
2
Why did the 1994 law ban assault weapons for only 10 years and not permanently?
Right on Mr. Biden!
Well analysed and well put.
I’m still Rindi’n with Biden.
1
Sorry, Joe.
You don't dare go far enough. Banning assault weapons will never prevent a child from being hit by a stray bullet while child is his/her bedroom.
In my fantasy world, NOBODY owns a gun, other than police officers or members of the military. And they must leave their weapons at work. Nobody takes home a gun.
Fantasy, I know.
The next least objectionable scenario, is allowing hunters 1 killing machine. (I will never understand the need or joy in hunting = killing animals for the "fun" of it).
And the most I would allow for, given the sacred amendment everyone quotes, but forgets to mention a well armed militia in the 21st century has been replaced by Armed Forces), ONE killing machine per household. No exemptions.
Mental illness? The "right" to have one killing machine in the household is forfeited.
Domestic abuse? The "right" to have one killing machine in the household is forfeited.
Previous weapon charge? The "right" to have one killing machine in the household is forfeited.
Joe, your time came and went.
Give it a rest, go enjoy your grandchildren, travel, grow a garden, read books, pick up a hobby. Just ... give it up.
Joe Biden just threw the election to Trump.
Instead of looking at ideas like banning the sale or possession of such weapons to people under 30 as an incremental step he is going for an outright ban period.
Given that a full ban will most likely not stand up in court and there is not enough consensus to amend the constitution, it is a fools errand.
A please save me from surveys. Majoritarian rule is not a Constitutional Democracy.
When I was young these weapons existed and yet there was not these mass killings. Why? When I was a kid high school kids had rifles on their truck gun racks at school and nothing was thought or came of it. Why?
Something about people has changed. Just banning one type of gun will not stop the killing. The killers will find some other way to kill and then we will be banning that.
I suspect that cars running down people in crowds will be the next weapon of choice when you ban these rifles. Are we prepared to ban cars next?
We need a more comprehensive way to deal with this issue. Bans just move the problem to another place and the banning then never stops.
4
Some may say that the NYT is just giving Mr. Biden an opportunity to post a campaign message. That's fine with me. The NYT should give every candidate a chance to do the same -- once. This would be more valuable than the debates.
3
The only thing more horrifying than the El Paso photo of Trump perversely grinning and giving the thumbs-up while Melania holds the orphaned child is the distinct prospect that we in the United States have come to accept children being gunned down in their schools as part of the contemporary American way of life.
Please enact a long-term assault-weapons ban, Joe Biden. We could really use some hope right now.
2
There's no 2nd Amendment right to individual ownership of a gun.
What part of "A well regulated Militia" did right-wing, gun-worshipping Scalia not understand?!
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
For over 200 years the federal courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment correctly, and there was never an individual right to own a gun until the Heller decision written by Scalia in 2008.
Scalia, legislating from the bench, created a brand new right under the US Constitution, using the 2nd Amendment as an EXCUSE!
Now look at what Scalia has caused! Just imagine the death, violence and destruction Scalia's unconstitutional, unlawful decision has caused all across America. And it's far from over. Thousands more innocent Americans will die because of Scalia's decision and his right-wing, gun-worshipping philosophy.
Scalia was in favor of the death penalty for those who committed murder. As far as I'm concerned, Scalia has murdered thousands of innocent people, men, women and children. Scalia's death has allowed him to get away with contributing to mass murder. Remember the 20 tiny tots and 6 adults shot to death in Sandy Hook, CT! That was just 4 yeas after Scalia's Heller decision.
Australia has taken the right approach to mass murder. They've change their gun laws and confiscated most guns. Australia is now free from mass murder by gun.
2
First came Scalia, then came Thomas. Who would have believed Republicans could foul our system of justice in such short order? Republicans have not been the great contending party to provide balance that they once were in decades (before Nixon, that is!).
2
I totally agree with Biden on this issue , and it seems like he has good steps to take. But, this feels more like a campaign add than an opinion piece and I’m not sure why The NY Times would print it.
The lead gases dispersed at the moment of firing a gun and the ingestion and aspiration by all our patriotic American shooters and hunters over and over again while they practice their god given and so sacred right to fire these very expensive weapons at targets living and paper ones is probably the true and toxic reason behind all their refusals to see the illogic to accept sane gun control legislation.
To these true American patriot gun shooters why else would they accept the killing and maiming of other human beings ?
Or maybe the hate of the other as espoused by trump or just the fun of the kill justifies their actions. The trump boys are patriotic shooters too. And they shoot big game. Golly.
And by the way I do not want to give away any of my tax dollars to these people in a buy back scheem. Let’s just incinerate the guns.
I will re-elect you as my president for second term if you do this!
P.s. I become a citizen in 2 years
1
All it takes is courage and will. "New Zealand gun buyback: 10,000 firearms returned after Christchurch attack."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/new-zealand-gun-buyback-10000-firearms-returned-after-christchurch-attack
1
Since the soul of some political leaders is purchased by the NRA and those with billions of dollars, it is also equally important that we have strict legislation about campaign funding. If we had a law that stated that "no candidate can run for public office if his or her campaign is funded by NRA (that worries more about selling guns and making money than the untimely death of the larger populace), political leaders wouldn't sell their soul to them and such other kinds. Otherwise, by nature, men (in particular) are power-hungry and they can sell their soul for power and to remain in power until they are in the late 90s.
Power is a new opium to some politicians!!!
The highest bidder like the NRA will be always there to purchase the soul of these old power mongerers and use their political power to their own benefit (regardless their hunger for money may cause carnage for many humble masses).
1
I've never seen "NRA" on any ballot. I've never voted for the NRA.
So why in God's name is the NRA allowed to override the will of the American people? How can Republicans claim to be patriots when they ignore the wishes of their constituents? We are all at risk because of the GOP. Vote Blue in 2020. Send THEM back.
5
Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun to kill 168 people. Nunez used a bottle of lighter fluid to kill 32 people in New Orleans. Gonzalez used a dollar’s worth of gas to kill 87 people in the Bronx. A dozen terrorists used two aircraft to kill 2,977 people. Disturbed, murderous, violent people will kill, with or without guns. As recently as July thirty-three people were killed in an arson attack with a bottle of gasoline in Japan. As long as deranged, angry people are motivated to kill their fellow humans this will happen. Humans are very creative – especially when it comes to killing their fellow human beings.
Banning Assault Weapons will save many lives as was shown during the last assault weapons ban.
The republican senate can do this tomorrow
Otherwise there will be more deaths before the democrats ban these weapons in 2020
Our country needs the ban today
1
Thank you, Mr. Biden.
We've simply got to win this argument, and for a while, we did. Assault weapons were banned upon the recommendation of local law enforcement as well as victims' rights groups. The way to do this is to keep marginalizing the NRA, and Mr. Biden's always done a good job at this.
I remember Mr. Biden on the debate stage in
2008 (CNN Debate, with YouTube Questions!). A voter in a video showed off his assault weapon and said, "This is my baby. Is my baby safe?" Mr. Biden said. "If that's your baby, man, I feel sorry for you."
A President Biden will get this done.
2
Hey Joe, know what will really work putting a federal tax stamp on semi auto's that accept high capacity magazines. Let me help out here. Both hand guns and rifles that accept high capacity magazines are used in these killings. So both should get a stamp.
Automatic rifles and pistols already require a federal tax stamp when being purchased. The same with short barrel rifles SBR's. The tax stamp is basically registration and the government can keep track of them. The point is you don't see many automatic weapons and SBR's being sold. I predict the same with semi auto's when this is done. People will lose interest in them.
I'm not a one issue person but a lot of people are. Banning would be bad idea.
In the very least this will force all candidates and political parties to make a commitment. Enough of the mealy-mouth pandering.
2
Why did Biden fail to ban assault weapons when he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Vice President ?
2
I remember in the early 70s, the mantra was to ban so-called Saturday Night Specials - cheaply made, easily concealed handguns- the Birch Bayh bill, as I recall. So, heck, let’s just ban ‘em all. Look how it’s worked for the war on drugs! ;-)
The problem is there are millions of assault weapons already out there. So Joe, you should take it one step further and confiscate all assault weapons via a buy back: $xxx per assault weapon. Need to rid of all of them otherwise we will tragically experience more mass deaths.
1
"Weapons of war" is the best shot at effective political language we Democrats have hatched in years. It's absolutely accurate and it inherently defines the problem. (I already hear my gun worshiping pals quibbling over tiny details.) A high capacity magazine (100+ rounds!) is a weapon of war. High velocity ammo that punches a fist-sized hole in your body is a weapon of war. The demonizing propaganda that smears all things liberal, inciting rage, is a weapon of war. It's time to get all that out of America.
1
So Joe's running the platform to push the banning of assault weapons. Joe's been in Washington for years, VP for eight and hasn't gotten anything done in that area, so now just because he said he'd try again we're to think he's just the guy to get it done. Please, spare us all.
Democrats and so-called ‘progressives’ reap hundreds of millions of dollars from the Hollywood and popular culture purveyors of violent content in TV, movies, music, and video games.
Can we ban them too?
Exactly what here distinguishes Biden from the other Democratic candidates? And why would he have any better luck passing gun control legislation in a Republican-controlled Senate? This op ed is gratuitous.
Why did the 1994, law banning magazine's availability, been enacted for only 10 years?
I own both platforms (AR and AK). I shoot them at a range and put them in the safe after cleaning them. The guns were purchased legally through a dealer and I passed the NICS check. The weapons are legal and expensive. The standard magazines are 20-30 rounds based upon type. I am not a terrorist nor do I have any plan to become one. I am as appalled as any of you posting by what has happened since 1999 forward.
A ban of future sale of weapons or magazines won't impact me. A bar on legal transfer or familial inheritance will as that would be a taking which is prohibited in the Bill of Rights.
A buyback should pay full value for the guns and magazines over 10 or 15 rounds that are forbidden to be sold, not the $100 Target gift card used in urban buybacks.
A better way is to allow the continued sale and transfer of these weapons but bring them under the NFA of 1934 which was used to regulate (not ban) machine guns and other weapons. Bringing them under the NFA would require registration and payment of a tax, the current maximum is $200. NFA registered weapons, including true machine guns, have been used in very few crimes since 1934 and has allowed continued ownership by responsible gun owners (this is not an oxymoron).
1
Biden, Warren, Sanders et al, all have solutions which they feel are so important that they must be made real, by their firm determination and by executive order if necessary. It's the method of government by beneficent authority rather that the consensus of a free people. The cost is greater than they think.
5
@Casual Observer Last time I checked, the majority of citizens of both parties want to ban assault weapons. The problem is that a very small minority of people with military style weapons are capable of bullying the majority. I believe you have it all backward, as if a minority of people are forcing the majority to give up these weapons. Not true.
12
@Casual Observer I think the 'free people' are tired of death without reason or consequences. I think the consensus is with the majority of 'free people.'
5
Thank you for this article Mr. Joe Biden. I was ambivalent about the 2020 field, but your extreme gun-control proposal convinced me to vote for Trump.
I'm sure a great many real patriotic Americans agree with me. Please keep politicizing isolated tragedies. See what happens in 2020.
Yours truly.
4
Since when does very modest gun reform get labelled as extreme.
To a person who maintains the absolute right to own any type of gun and unlimited ammunition, any gun reform would be opposed.
If the slaughter of infants at school, was not enough to allow moderate gun reform, it seems many in the US see the tens of thousands killed by guns every year, as just collateral damage in their worship of guns.
Having more good guys with guns, ignores the problem of too many guys with too many guns, that the US continues to ignore.
19
“Isolated”... I’m sorry, but your claim is far from the truth at this point.
The problem for Mr. Biden is he is going to lose to President Trump--so he can pledge to do whatever he thinks sounds good but it will all be moot.
3
The putative candidate skips from one topic to another under the safety of mass pretextual thematics that he uncritically absorbs. Which means, independence of thought is fugitive. Otherwise it doesn't matter what his appeal to mass anxiety may be: he will never be elected president; moreover he will not be nominated. He is merely a current DNC straw man.
3
@Matt Andersson, he's the current choice of Democratic voters, in whose hands lies the nomination. Regardless of whether Biden is the eventual nominee, he's bringing up an important topic that can't be dismissed as a pretext for discussion. I think an assault weapons ban is a serious answer to a serious problem.
11
Now that Joe Biden has pledged to ban assault style weapons, two things are certain.
1. Demand will skyrocket and another 3-4 million will be sold in the next 15 months – even more if he wins. This will be accompanied by an extra 10-15 million magazines and a couple billion bullets.
2. None of these weapons and at most 10% of similar weapons already in private hands will ever be turned in, regardless of the penalties and buyback programs. They will simply go underground – in some cases literally.
That doesn’t mean a ban is wrong or unwise. For example, it would prevent newly-purchased guns from being used in mass shootings.
Just don’t expect it to lead to a reduction of such weapons. On the contrary, it will lead to even more of them in private hands, at least in the short term.
14
@John, I don't have any problem with gun owners collecting even more weapons, as long as they don't sell them. The point of an assault weapons ban is to take guns off the market.
Once the ban is in place, there should be strict penalties for illegal sales. An estate should be able to sell the guns to the police at a fair price, but all other sales would be banned.
6
@John
This is probably true, but the same dynamic happens with every mass shooting - the NRA will claim gun confiscation is on the way, and sales go up. This is definitely a long-term problem and solution as you say, but we've got to start somewhere, and these weapons have no place in civil society.
3
@John
I expect the sales to also increase but Biden is counting his chickens before they hatch. Biden will be losing.
Short-barrel "sawed off" shotguns have been illegal since the 30's. Whenever police come across one it is confiscated as contraband regardless of whether any charges can be filed. Military style weapons should be, and can be, no different.
3
Similar rhetoric year after year re the NRA and their right to guns and the opposition with restriction. I am still baffled that more laws have not been enacted making it difficult to acquire these weapons, eg, face to face mental health exams required on a routine basis, fewer facilities allowed to sell these weapons forcing a better track record of accountability, etc.
1
I was drafted into the Army in 1967 and went to Vietnam the following year. I carried an M-14 and trained on the M-16, the military counterpart of the AR-15. The Army was transitioning to the M-16 at that time, and anyone going to 'Nam had to be qualified on both weapons.
Both are devastating rifles. The Vietcong called the M-16 "the black rifle" and knew firsthand how deadly the rifle was. The round is basically a .22 caliber round with a large gun powder charge, so the bullet leaves the barrel at a high rate of speed.
It also tumbles, which makes it incredibly damaging to the human body. It goes in small, but it comes out large, doing damage to internal organs. It can cook through a cinderblock with ease. It is meant to be a crippling and killing round. It is meant for war. It has no place in civilian hands and on our streets.
It is insanity that we do nothing while these rifles fall into the hands of fanatics or mentally ill individuals. Hoping an active shooter doesn't come into your life is hardly a strategy.
It can happen anywhere and at any time. The Dayton shooter killed nine victims in less than 30 seconds. Less than 30 seconds! Time for this insanity to stop.
729
@Len
Thank you for your service and your insights on this issue. I couldn't find any evidence online on any other country allowing military-style weapons to be in the hands of civilians. Are we the only country that allows this insanity? We don't allow civilians to drive tanks or or own grenades, so why allow military-style weapons outside the military?
76
@Len Thank you for writing this. I doubt that our politicians understand what you have written here but thank you anyway. I do and most reasonable people do. And we shouldn't have to feel like we're supposed to go out and buy firearms to protect ourselves, our children, and anyone else just because the 2nd amendment is interpreted to mean that gun ownership is a sacred right.
17
@Len
The only thing that makes the M-16 and it civilian counterpoints exceptionally lethal is the high-velocity rounds it fires. Rifles not classified as assault rifles can fire the same rounds. It makes more sense to ban the high-velocity ammunition instead of assault rifles.
I carried an M-16 in Vietnam in 1969-1970 What made it a good combat infantry weapon was that it was light, metallic, and easy to carry. The handle made it easy to carry with one hand. It was easy to maintain in combat conditions.
3
Thanks. I’m glad you were not afraid to say that.
I have always hated the lie the firearms business used when it told us these are “modern sporting arms.”
What does that mean?
In 2009, the term "modern sporting rifle" was coined by the National Shooting Sports Foundation for its survey that year as a marketing term used by the firearms industry to describe modular semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s. The term made them acceptable and expanded sales.
Everybody knows these are assault weapons meant to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
I don’t like guns but I don’t have an issue with hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols in some cases for personal protection. Skeet, trap, and sporting clays use shotguns. Not assault rifles.
Assault rifles are a cancer on civilized society. Whatever payment required to remove them from public hands will be worth it compared to the loss of priceless life.
There used to be a statement that said if assault rifles are outlawed, only outlaws will have assault rifles. I know here are responsible assault rifle owners out there, but the cost measured in the deaths of children and innocents is too high to allow them to be available to the general public. Ban them now. Vote against anybody who doesn’t have the common sense to agree.
392
@Steve Ell
That saying about outlaws owning guns was just self-serving. These mass-murderers have no criminal record before their killing spree. In other words, they were not "outlaws" before they engaged in their killing.
24
@Steve Ell
"Everybody knows these are assault weapons meant to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time."
That's not true. The military will tell you that most of the bullets fired in combat are intended to suppress the enemy, to force them to seek cover and remain immobile. They only are able to "kill as many people as possible" when the soldier is shooting unarmed civilians like at My Lai. In combat the enemy shoots back and they have similar weapons with large capacity magazines.
1
@Steve Eli: Who, exactly, is a “responsible assault rifle owner” and how does he use his assault rifle responsibly?
The 1995 law banned scary-looking weapons. A deer rifle with a brown wood stock fires just as rapidly, but it was not banned because it looks like a hunting weapon and not a machine gun.
@Jonathan, with all due respect, a bolt action "deer hunting" rifle does not fire anywhere nearly as fast as a true semiautomatic rifle. Pull the trigger, cycle the bolt, re-acquire the target, pull the trigger, repeat. With a semi auto, as fast as you can pull the trigger, it goes bang until the clip is empty.
Also, the ability to reload a semi-automatic rifle vs a bolt action rifle is night and day. True hunting rifles rarely hold more than five rounds vs 20, 30, 100 on semi autos, which use magazines. Assault weapons are a very different thing compared to true hunting rifles.
2
With plentiful thanks to Mr. Biden for the straightforward and comprehensive intentions stated here, I am going to stand clear of critiquing the timing and the carefully calibrated language, which appears to serve his candidacy as much--or more--than the urgent need for unequivocal addressing of this fierce problem. Beyond eliminating civilian ownership of weapons of war, universal background checks and smart-gun technologies, I am in favor of requiring EVERY gun owner, with respect to EVERY gun, to abide by the same set of regulations for which I am responsible as a driver of a motor vehicle in the United States. A valid operator's license, subject to periodic renewal and revocation. No exceptions. A system of (usually) annual vehicle registration, with renewal fees. No exceptions. Significant liability and medical insurance. Strictly enforced, and immediately brought into play to the fullest extent of the law in cases of negligence, misuse, harm or one of the 40,000 deaths caused by guns in the country every year. I'd also throw in amplified consumer and criminal statutes which make possible legal claims, including class actions, against manufacturers for patterns of marketing and sales which mislead or endanger persons and communities.
470
@BB - Your sensible suggestion, sorry to say, is unconstitutional. We cannot legislate licensing a constitutional right to bear arms, and the supreme court (wrongly) has upheld that principle. So, you can thank the conservative judges on the court for the inability to regulate the 250 (or so) million guns in the United States. But that constitutional right does not mean automatic weapons cannot be regulated. They can be and should be.
12
@umbler
Since it sounds like you are an ally for change, let me say that I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek (to some extent) in making the case for treating gun ownership and use like automobile ownership and use. Others have done so, of course, and much more strenuously. I might say to your point that there are a number of other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that are circumscribed by significant legal and statutory limits. And thanks: you are spot on to lean into the essential constitutional issues underlying conversation about serious reform. So, without my tongue in cheek, let me say flat out: I am in favor of repeal of the Second Amendment.
59
@BB Everything you want to do is excellent. You will, however, need to amend the constitution if you want most of what you suggest, implemented.
5
Joe Biden is the only candidate with experience getting gun control legislation passed. Others may talk about it but Joe has the experience of accomplishment on this issue.
I would like to see the same sorts of tactics used towards weapons that the GOP has utilized in their war on abortion.
Why can't we take the same approach towards guns?
- Tax the bejeezus out of bullets, magazines etc.
- Require liability insurance coverage per weapon for anyone who owns a gun.
- Make it illegal to sell guns much as we have made it illegal for doctors to perform abortions in souther states.
- Create abitrary rules such as "no gun sales within 30 miles of a school"
- Do a buy-back program.
- Require annual re-registration for gun owners. If our schools can make us re-register every single year in order to prove residency, I think we can hassle gun owners the same way.
- Make all gun owners go through mandatory training every 3-5 years.
- Require an eye exam, a background check and a medical pass.
- Require a mental health screening every 5 years.
I just think about the hoops I have to jump through to vote, drive, own a car, fly, work in a school, buy a medicine, GO FISHING. Yet, no one every complains about those restrictions to our freedoms. Well, for Pete's sake, NO ONE NEEDS A GUN OF ANY KIND. Guns are there to kill humans. If we ban cyanide, pesticides, nuclear weapons and missiles, I see no reason why we can't do the same for guns.
Freedom? How about the fact I can't send my kids to school, or a mall without playing a macabre game of Russian roulette. What kind of freedom is that?
The NRA is holding us hostage. I had enough 100 shootings ago.
1000
@Gwe And cover the costs of all the cross-checking, medical exams and sending investigators to talk to neighbors, co-workers and family in the application fee that has to be paid to apply to buy a gun.
40
@Gwe The problem with your plan is the nonsensical Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment. If we could get a corrected ruling, correctly stating that the right to bear arms applies only in connection to a well regulated militia. Much of what you want would suddenly become constitutional.
62
@Gwe
Maybe the NRA could fund all the lockdown drills at schools and pay for the police details.
25
Mr. Biden has boasted on the campaign trail of being "the only man to beat the NRA." He is surely referring to his role in getting the assault weapons ban enacted as part of the 1994 crime bill. 25 years later, it seems incomprehensive that this ban actually got enacted. The NRA had to have considered it completely unacceptable and must have fought it tooth-and-nail.
I'd be interested to know the politics, and perhaps politicking, that got this ban enacted. I know the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority back then; a number of so-called "RINOs" in the Senate must have crossed the aisle, and the red state Democrats must have stayed in the fold. But what got them to do that? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. The problem, of course, is that there doesn't seem to be any realistic scenario, not just now but for the foreseeable future, for getting 60 votes in the Senate to advance an assault weapons ban these days.
@Rick
Sorry, I meant to say "incomprehensible" in the first paragraph. Apologies for any confusion.
An assault rifle is the tactical equivalent of a hand grenade. Future sales should be banned, current owners subjected to close scrutiny, and all associated parts (including magazines, working weapons and mechanisms) gathered up in an aggressive buyback program overseen by the Pentagon.
For the price of one or two F35 fighters, we could make small dent in the massive number of weapons that are circulating in private hands, and provide an economic boost in certain parts of our population that may be hotbeds for the sentiments that lead to these weapons being used by disturbed people.
Articles like this inevitably draw the gun lovers defending the status quo. But I have yet to hear anyone adequately explain WHY they need to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. What use can anyone possibly have for these in their daily life?
2
Having carried an AR-15 in Vietnam, it has only one legitimate purpose, to be able to kill an adversary. Thank you Joe for this timely opinion piece and thanks for the work you did in 1994.
913
@JGresham You do realize the murder rate was higher during the ban then the ten years after the ban lifted? Check out the FBI's website for the info.
6
If you were in the military in Vietnam, that rifle would have been an M16, not an AR15, which is a civilian legal semi - automatic version of the automatic firing M16.
8
@Eric: Not according to the US Department of Justice: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
39
I love this letter, so full of reasonable and hopeful content. Gun legislation reform is coming...let's just be ready for the backlash as the federal government pulls us towards a more civilized society.
The violent response to civil rights that we witnessed in the 60's puts us on notice to be well prepared for gun rights reform. Nonetheless, our nation will stumble forward to an improved though imperfect future.
Thank you Joe, I'm rooting for you.
SA
777
@SaraJ
"I know, because with Senator Dianne Feinstein I led the effort to enact the 1994 law that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years. Those gun safety reforms made our nation demonstrably more secure" But Joe that is not what the data shows. Facts matter. Back in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years. Experts who have studied the law tend to agree that it was rife with loopholes and generally ineffective at curbing gun violence. What did the 1994 ban actually do? For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets. There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands. Did the 1994 law have loopholes? Yes, lots. Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. Joe you need a better policy that might work this time!
7
@Just 4 Play
Here are the actual numbers of shootings where 6 or more people were killed during a mass murder. Note that this is a tougher metric than the FBI uses, which is 3 or more. Using the FBI's definition the number of incidents would surely be higher.
1984 to 1994: 19 incidents
1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents
2004 to 2014: 34 incidents
That shows a 183 percent increase of incidents in the decade after the ban, compared to the years during the ban. While other factors definitely influence the number of incidents, it is clear to me that the ban had a positive impact.
Mass public shootings have also become deadlier, as the number of victims shot and killed has increased since the expiration of the assault weapons ban.
31
@Just 4 Play
Agreed. Of course any policy proposal will never be legislated as is without changes as it goes through the wash and rinse cycle of Congress. As long as the issue remains on the front burner I remain hopeful.
As a gun owner and former NRA member, Joe's got my vote for this policy platform alone. Or just ban detachable magazines. No one needs these weapons of war. Mass ownership of assault type weapons is just too great a responsibility for our society, which has proven it is incapable of safely handling them. You want to play with an assault gun?-join the military and do something positive.
1484
@ASB These articles always have suspicious "As a gun owner" comments saying things that an actual gun owner would never say like "Or just ban detachable magazines."
24
@ASB
Because, getting killed with a handgun or a shotgun is so much better? It's utterly ridiculous.
I'm waiting for the NYT to actually write intelligently on this issue. Why don't we ask the perpetrators why they decided to kill people in the first place? What motivates these people?
Do you really think getting stabbed to death is better than getting shot? Because, if somebody really wants to kill people, they will do it anyway they can. Banning assault weapons won't stop them. Just look at the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/07/fatal-stabbings-in-england-and-wales-at-highest-recorded-level
16
@Arctic Vista
Not sure what your issue is with the use of the phrase “band detachable magazines”.
Here is the link from tacticallife.com
The article starts by saying,
“The people who fear and want to ban detachable box magazines (DBMs) literally don’t understand why we need them.”
Then it goes on to describe and show pictures of what our clearly, and I mean clearly weapons of war!
43
Yes! Any plan to keep our children safe makes sense to me. As a teacher, I'm tired of active shooter drills, which I do at least four times a year. I'm also tried of having to lock my classroom door when classes are in session, and check who's there anytime someone knocks. I've experience these procedures since I myself was a high school student in the late 90s in the wake of Columbine. I have spent my entire adult life worried about gun violence in schools, and elsewhere. It's not like I'm against the second amendment, but I am for control and regulation. Australia and New Zealand are making it work. Why can't we?
I was appalled (but not surprised) that Pres Trump openly talked about multiple conversations with the NRA leadership in the wake of the latest two mass murders. Who elected them? Why do they have such access? Who is presenting a contrary view?
1
The arguments to not bother banning assault weapons (lots of them already out there, more murders with pistols, mental health and a troubled culture are the real issues etc, etc,) are simply excuses to do nothing. Take a stand and make a step: Banning such weapons is needed, as are other gun control measures. Why say otherwise?
1
I was happy to see Biden's finally take a stance on anything -- his campaign has been notable for lacking any agenda whatsoever, and for delicately not addressing the nation's hot topics: free healthcare, immigration, income disparity, a $20/hour living wage ($15/hour doesn't cut it in expensive real eastate markets) and criminal justice.
To read that he is taking an anti-assault rifle stance, and one in favor of full background checks, marks his first solid stance on anything, and it's a good and necessary objective.
Given that this piece was written by Biden, it doesn't address his votes against criminal justice, for war and his antagonistic approach toward Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings.
He"s got to come up with a good defense for his voting record, and his political donors, which will be attacked. He's an older man, raised when values were different, and he has to show he's changed.
But principally, he has to stop dropping Obama's name and offer an agenda and a budget for it -- not avoid the issues and hope to be elected by not addressing Americans' needs.
An assault weapons ban is a good start.
All arguments lead to the NRA, the leader and lynchpin of the advocacy of unrestricted weapons ownership, display, and use. The solution, then, is not to appeal to political centrists and elected GOP officials, most of whom (especially on the right) enjoy the NRA's financial support and B or A ratings, but to target the NRA membership (not necessarily by name) and widely publicize the corrupt self-dealing of the NRA's leadership.
Not unlike the GOP, the NRA boasts that it represents its members. NRA members have the power to cancel their memberships and to withdraw financial and other forms of support. Importantly, they have the power to press for new NRA leadership and to force the redirection of the organization's purpose and advocacy.
The NRA was once known for promoting gun safety, providing certified training, advocating for responsible hunting, and providing relevant gear-related information. It changed. The GOP changed. Both have been taken over by the rabid right-wing interests that have built an effective, broad and interconnected structure to promote their narrow interests to the exclusion of all others.
It's beyond time to target NRA members, to tell them that the NRA's current leaders are distinguishable from the NRA's historic, respected, and more moderate purposes, and to make them aware of the effects of their reflexive tacit or active support of the current corrupt self-serving leadership.
2
Maybe we should require assualt rifle buyers to fill out a questionaire providing answers to questions that ask why they want to buy one. Answers like, "the Constitution says I can have one" would not qualify as valid.
2
@Robert McKee
So, according to you what answer would qualify as valid?
What it will take is not just Joe Biden. It will also take 60 votes in the Senate.
Hope is all we have at present. Too many have died already.
3
@The Poet McTeagle 60 votes in the Senate is simply not going to happen. For either party on any issue. And in fact, due to the undemocratic nature of the Senate, Democrats have a steeper hill to climb than the GOP to even reach a majority of Senate seats.
What would work is winning a majority and eliminating the filibuster. Many Democratic presidential candidates know this, and have come out in favor of getting rid of it. Over the past decade it's become clear that the Senate is the great roadblock to getting anything passed because of the 60 vote threshold. A single cynical voice like McConnell can grind all business to a halt via the filibuster.
You know who has come out against getting rid of the filibuster? Joe Biden.
In his yearning for a long lost era of DC comity, Biden apparently doesn't see that whatever he proposes to do if elected president is DOA as soon as it arrives to the Senate. He's essentially throwing in the towel on any policies he champions - even before taking office. One of the many reasons I don't support Joe Biden's backward-looking campaign.
(It's dismaying that, should Biden get the Dem nod, we're going to have two septuagenarians facing off against each other, both yearning for a time gone by. What happened to forward-thinking America? Also, Biden doesn't look too sharp these days...it's noticeable even to his supporters)
If New Zealand can ban such weapons so can the US. If only our elected officials would listen to the majority who said no long ago. Thanks Joe!
3
I support all of Biden’s proposals. The only thing unanswered is how he will get these things done if Mitch McConnell still leads the Senate.
7
Sandy Hook did it for me.
They say that a picture says a thousand words. I believe that had pictures been released of the crime scene, an assault weapon ban would have been would have been enacted within months. I don't believe anyone who could have witnessed our babies lying dead or dying in a pool of their own blood, would not support a end to the sale of weapons of death.
I don't like to look at horror and I don't need to see such pictures to voice my demand that the assault weapon ban (ideally with less loopholes) be re-established. But apparently without such optics, McConnell and others are able to brush the mere thoughts of those scenes aside.
Look, anyone of the Democratic candidates could have penned this piece. This is not a Joe Biden issue, it is an American tragedy with room for everyone.
But I like that Joe Biden penned it because I still currently believe that he is the best chance to unseat Trump. But that alone won't deliver Joe's hope. We need to overturn the Senate majority and I hope that some of the very talented group of Democratic Presidential hopefuls decide to drop out and run for the Senate.
Only with a concerted effort to take the wind out of the NRA's sails (the White House and the Senate), can any hope of logical gun legislation take hold.
20
@It Is Time! Indeed with not only images but any number of other proven strategies in everything from smoking to drunk driving. Eg we can be explicit with anti smoking packaging, advertising, education ,.., finding that it's effective on any number of levels but somehow we have not used this when it comes to gun violence. In fact we do the opposite, where we continue to glorify it, use it for entertainment and worse with a full pornography of gun violence. Jeez, and it's not like you would need to do well in advertising and marketing at UofChicago or NorthWestern to figure this difficult one out. Oh, but characters like 'John Wick' are harmless and don't influence anyone in the real world....
@It Is Time!: Small bodies are torn apart by these projectiles.
@Steve Bolger
I am not disagreeing with you. From my research, so are larger bodies. The issue with these weapons in addition to fire-rate and clip capacity, is muzzle velocity and the movement of the the bullet once it is airborne.
They do not create clean wounds but rather mutilate the tissue through which they travel through. I have read statements from attending ER/OR doctors that simply had nothing left to work with.
My point is that while these are gruesome pictures for sure, they might be gruesome enough to get McConnell and his cronies to take action. Essentially shaming them into action as I see this as the only way.
To all the parents and siblings of the slaughter at Sandy Hook, I fully understand why you wouldn't want the pictures of your massacred children exposed. Had any of them been one of my three, I wouldn't know how I would welcome that intrusion either. But as a bystander who only hopes that common sense might prevail, I believe in my heart that America would not and could not stomach to see what the bravest had to that day.
Words cannot do what a picture might do. And that is saddest of truths.
1
To those who say they want to have a AK-47, I say I want a shoulder mounted missile launcher. I can’t have one why, because they are illegal due to the fact they can kill massive amounts of people! They were designed for war, for our military to use only. I totally accept that, it’s just that simple to understand. Well guess what the assault weapons were designed for? Grow up and accept the fact that in the wrong hands, which happens far to easily, these guns kill massive amounts of people in our own country.
9
@Dan--"Hunters" want us to believe that they need assault weapons to obliterate the deer that are so necessary to their "basic food needs." Or, maybe it's really just some kind of blood lust? They just like to kill things; occasionally that may include humans.
2
@Dan guns, in general, regardless of if it meets the left's defined requirements of an "assault weapon," are already illegal for criminals. Maybe the people that need to grow up are the ones who think passing more laws will actually change how criminals operate.
@Jared I'm with you on keeping laws to a minimum, however we need to eliminate assault weapons period.Due to the fact that they are still getting into not only the criminals who are not allowed to have them, but also to non-criminals who are ready to step over the line and become one.
1
Ban all assault weapons, semi-automatic, and fully automatic weapons. Ban all devices that alter weapons into fully automatic weapons. Ban all large capacity mags and devices. No exceptions for 'hunters' or domestic terrorists.
12
@Markymark automatic weapons are already banned, period. Nine states already have a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds--Colorado and California are among those--care to tell me how many mass murders happened in those states WITH a ban? More asinine laws will not change how criminals operate.
1
@Markymark
If Jerry Miculek ever went bad he could cause immense carnage just with 6 or 8 shot revolvers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM
It's not the gun. It's the person.
Here's a red flag; any civilian who goes out and buys a military-style assault weapon.
12
@Al that's stereotyping. The general public is not allowed to own military-style weapons. They're capable of shooting a lot quicker than once per pull.
2
I have no problem with an assault weapons ban, although an opinion piece two days ago in the NYT, written by a gun control proponent, argued that it wouldn't work. But I'm willing to try.
At the same time, facts matter, and Biden is once again playing loose with the facts:
1. Did spree shootings drop after passage of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? Show me the data please. Anyone who read Freakonomics or who can process a chart knows that violent crime began a precipitous drop in the very early 1990s. Biden can not produce a scintilla of evidence that the 1994 legislation did anything besides elect Republicans to Congress in historic fashion.
2. Biden continues to repeat the falsehood about Trump calling neo-Nazis "fine people" after Charlottesville, when he did precisely the opposite. Go check up Trump's full quote on Politifact - or anywhere online. Trump criticized neo-Nazis and Antifa, and a minute later said that there were also "fine people on both sides" - which, in context, clearly meant centrists for and against the removal of the Lee statue.
Can Biden please stick to the truth?
3
@VCuttolo The way Trump does?
@John
Is that the yardstick?
There are many good arguments for more restrictions on guns and gun ownership.
Here is a simple one.
Because it's good public policy.
There are any things we are not allowed to buy or own because they are just too dangerous. They pose too great a threat to the general population. There are too many ignorant, stupid, violent, intoxicated and mentally impaired people in the population to allow these things in public hands. Such is the case with fireworks and heat seeking missiles. Firearms with military type capabilities as described in 617to416's post below are clearly such items.
Sound public policy prevents civilian ownership of such things even if these measures do not stop the same egregious behavior from occurring.
The time has come to implement a sound and common sense public policy regarding these WMD type firearms.
2
Mexican drug cartels will simply fire up the ghost gun factories if a ban ever comes to pass.
The border security discussions then will be a bit ironic.
2
In 2012, after the massacre of children and teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, I was so heart-broken that I began a search to better understand why assault weapons were in the hands of anyone, let alone such a troubled soul.
I found a detailed report from the Congressional Research Services (CRS) titled “Gun Control Legislation”. As Vice President Biden has also noted here, this factual, extensive report showed a clear correlation between the institution of The “Violent Crime and Control Act” in 1994 (that included the Assault Weapons Ban/banning of high capacity magazines) and a precipitous drop in homicides of all causes the year following and for the 10 years it was in effect. An uptick in gun related homicides of all causes can be seen in the year following this law’s expiration. It is also clear that by far, the use of guns is the prevalent method for homicide in this country.
With these cold hard facts, it takes only the strong will of voters and a leader who is not in the pocket of the gun lobby, to demand the reinstatement of this law combined with other common sense gun laws currently under discussion. There are too many loopholes in the patchwork of state laws governing gun ownership. The rights of all citizens should not be second to the current interpretation of second amendment rights which were never meant to put guns and especially assault weapons into the hands of those among us who would do us harm.
4
@ksullivan "a precipitous drop" with the ban didn't eliminate it. Again, if you want true results, pass laws that will actually work.
@Jared: as stated above, "...demand reinstatement of this law combined with other common sense gun laws currently under discussion."
I agree with VP Biden.
4
No point in reading these responses. It seems that the NRA/Gun Manufacturer Bots have taken control of the responses and conversation. There is blood on their hands.
4
Keep up the assault on assault! The current status quo (not doing anything) cannot be allowed to continue. Mitch and Donald have to go if any reform and bans can occur. Republicans should be ashamed of their cowardice in the face of mass shootings!
3
“And if I am elected president, we’re going to pass them again — and this time, we’ll make them even stronger. We’re going to stop gun manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor modifications to their products — modifications that leave them just as deadly. And this time, we’re going to pair it with a buyback program to get as many assault weapons off our streets as possible as quickly as possible.
I won’t stop there. I’ll get universal background checks passed, building on the Brady Bill, which establishing the background check system and which I helped push through Congress in 1993.”
Dear Mr. Vice-President, I hate to be a party pooper, but must remind you that in January 2009 you were sworn in the Oval Office and that the Democratic Party was in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
What did prevent you from enacting those measures a decade ago?
Let me paraphrase your very words from this op-ed:
Maybe the N.R.A. and the gun manufacturers put the Obama-Biden Administration in a headlock…
3
@Kenan Porobic Well-said. War abroad, violence at home; fear and greed at home and abroad. These are the engines that have always driven the American economy. Republicans or Democrats in power, the right wing power structure and all its right wing institutions set policies and pass laws for maximum corporate profits. The NRA is only one part of that right wing power structure.
After Sandy Hook in 2012 President Obama solemnly placed V P Biden in charge of making gun control legislation. That was the last we heard of any initiative in that direction.
2
Maybe healthcare was an issue needing to be addressed? Besides, sane gun control isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an NRA control issue, and the NRA, like it or not, controls McConnell and the GOP in the Congress, the Senate, and the White House. The American people, including a majority of republicans, support gun legislation.
@Alice
Can't they walk and chew a gum?
By the way, I don't think Obama and Biden were too busy with the ACA because it was written and completed by the lobysts from the insurance industry and Big Pharma. That's why their profits skyrocketed. Unfortunately, our out of pockets costs and the national debt too...
Want to stop gun violence?
Get rid of them.
2
Does anyone here actually believe we’re going to be able to repeal the Second Amendment. Because that is the only way you are going to have gun control or an AR style weapon ban. The 2008 heller case changed everything. So for everyone saying that we need to do XY&Z none of it is going to happen unless you amend the constitution. Sorry it’s just the way it is.
1
@Season smith Sometimes SCOTUS makes a mistake in its interpretation in the law. That was the case with the Heller decision. The 2nd amendment begins with the clause " “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The Heller decision dismissed the importance and meaning of that clause. The originalists on the bench uncharacteristically did not adhere to the words of the Founding Fathers. In addition, Scalia left open the possibility of some limits (not specified) on the right to own guns. We need another review of the interpretation and the decision.
@Season smith
You do not have to repeal it - you just have to read it! It states arms for militia. Back then that may have meant the common man but today it does not. The republicans have twisted the Constitution into a pretzel when they find it convenient for their crooked agendas, they can untwist the pretzel for the health of the country. For those who need an extra challenge at the shooting range, I would suggest a good crossbow. It's what real men use!
A good idea, but the vast majority of gun deaths in the US involve handguns. A special medal for political courage to whoever tackles that one.
4
@Pref1 .... one step at time... I agree with you, but we have to take baby steps in this gun-obsessed culture!
Considering that Joe apparently thinks he was the VP when the Parkland shooting took place in 2018, one must question how much Joe understands about the subject he has allegedly written about.
3
Biden -- distinguishing himself from absolutely no other Democrat. As usual, he leads by following.
2
What to do with those who already have assault weapons? Ask them gently to bring them back to the store they bought it, or to the police headquarters?
2
@Roland Berger That's the problem ... by doing nothing for so long, those people are now holding us hostage to their supposed right to own these weapons. That doesn't mean that the majority have to put up with their mistake. They need to be banned, and those who violate the ban pay the consequences. If they plopped down hundreds of dollars on these guns, tough luck for them!
2
@dave I agree! By a few bad seeds doing horrific things, the majority of gun owners should not have to be punished for their mistakes.
OF COURSE banning assault weapons works. That has been proven over and over again in nations around the world. From Australia, to Japan, to England, to Canada, and so on. Sadly the American public are denied the statistics on this by the N.R.A. who want nothing more than to completely deny this reality and fill the airwaves with lies and paranoid rants about assaults on your Second Amendment. Anyone with half a brain knows the 1776 bunch never dreamed of what an AK-47 or the like could do in the hands of one lone wolf bent on killing dozens in seconds. Total Insanity!
7
Way to go Joe! Is it 2020 yet?
2
Why did The Times give Joe Biden the platform of this op-ed piece?
At least several Democratic candidates have called for an assault weapon’s ban, as well as other gun control measures. What Biden said is not unique or original. The paper is certainly well aware of this.
In the context of a major political primary, I think it is improper for the newspaper to provide one candidate with this exposure. Perhaps he was the only one to submit an op-ed piece? No matter.
Yes, Biden is an important personage. And he may be the front-runner, but we are early in the process. The first primary is 5 months away and there are several strong contenders.
The Times should be scrupulously neutral and not give any one candidate favorable exposure.
4
@RLH That's right. Furthermore only Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent, Elizabeth Warren, have consistently called on the American people to support an American president who will take on the billionaire corporations profiting hugely from war and violence.
Bloomberg has the best idea: with billions, I could literally acquire all three gun manufacturing giants and then control them and the NRA.
2
@Mixilplix Then why doesn't he?
Politicians are looking for political points like vultures. As a child you have a greater chance of being murdered by your parents than an assault looking weapon.
"FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States."
3
To say that Obama and Biden “didn’t even try” to enact gun control laws is false. The biggest sea change opportunity was after the Sandy Hook massacre of 26 people including 20 six and seven year olds.
In response, Obama signed 23 executive orders and proposed 12 congressional actions regarding gun control including universal background checks on firearms purchases, an assault weapons ban, and a high-capacity magazine ban limiting capacity to 10 cartridges.”
But they were DOA in the Republican held congress. Blame Obama and Biden all you want. While your at it, put the blame also on the American citizenry, who won’t even let the murder of school children get in the way of their psychotic gun love.
4
@KJ McConnell is, was, and will always be the roadblock.
Mr. Biden's contribution here is that he operationally defined assault weapon: rapid fire - high capacity. Whether the gun looks like a military gun or not is to cater to the childhood mentality of some gun owners.
Give these immature, insecure male individuals single shot 22 rifles with all the camo-color, pistol-grip, vented barrel features, and let them shoot tin cans in the back yard.
I have been shot with a 22, accidentally. It's not nice, but highly survivable.
2
@slowaneasy wrote: "I have been shot with a 22, accidentally. It's not nice, but highly survivable."
That is possibly the worst advice I have ever read concerning firearms safety. John Hinkley fired six shots from a .22 revolver; four of those shots hit someone: James Brady (permanent brain injury), Officer Delahanty (spinal cord injury), Agent McCarthy (right lung, diaphragm, liver damage), and President Reagan (lung injury next to his heart).
.22 bullets have been used to kill deer and moose. They will absolutely kill a human.
Abolish 2nd Amendment... make bearing arm not a right for every one but a privilege for those who treasure the joy of owning a gun...
2nd Amendment makes us born to shoot...
2
I'm with you, Joe!
2
I have no doubt Joe Biden is committed to more aggressive gun control, including a ban on assault weapons. But let’s be honest: It happened in 1994 only because the Democrats then controlled both houses of Congress. And no matter how sincere Biden is, he will be powerless as president to make it happen again unless Democrats again achieve a majority in the Senate and preserve their current House majority.
Obama failed to get meaningful gun reform measures passed after the Sandy Hook and subsequent tragedies because of Republican control of Congress. If voters want real change on this issue — and others like universal health care and reducing the burden of student loans — they should focus a bit less on the presidential candidates and more on securing Democratic control of Congress, where such policies are enacted.
1
Why can’t we rate guns the way we rate movies, and require manufacturers to submit products to a weapons rating agency as a requirement to bring them to market (consumer or military).
2
To please the textists and originalists on the SCOTUS why not ban all guns except muskets? That's what they used in 1776. Once the ban takes place all the gun lovers can join their imaginary well regulated militias and show up for drill practice on the town green with their muskets. It takes about one minute to reload that one shot, and you need a powder horn as well. PS: don't get into tech debates with gun lovers. They know more than you and it's pointless.
3
@SF
If that's the case there is no constitutional basis for social media,no internet, movies, newspapers other then a sheet tacked to a tree or side of a building, magazines, podcasts among other things. Now is this the path you wish to travel.
1
Biden could have pushed to ban them. Did he?
Promise me, Joe. I’m a one issue Voter this time. I’m dead tired of this slaughter. Please help STOP it.
2
To quote Nike, 'Just Do It!'
1
If progressives want to turn in their firearms to their local sheriff, let them. They aren't capable, or willing, of defending themselves or their family in a crisis anyway. They are counting on the sheriff to answer a 911 call just like they are counting on the fire chief to keep their house from burning down rather than having their own fire extinguiser.
3
I could never vote for you Mr Biden, your 1994 Crime Bill has literally damaged generations of ADOS/Black Americans, their children and a generation after them. You are a reckless man who create policy without knowing the outcome or harm it will do down the road. I hope you are not the nominee, out of good conscience and being an ADOS man I will not vote for you, no matter what policies you present.
1
@hojo58 ... then get used to another four (eight, twelve?) years of trump! As for me, I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, even if he's the local dogcatcher!
I hope you can get this done. These days I'm much more frightened of self-appointed "good guys with guns" than I am of Hispanics, "Libs", and Sharia Law taking over this country.
2
We need to lengthen the verification period on gun purchases. In Georgia it is currently 3 days. Ask any Probate Judge what than means and they will tell you it means the real problems come up long after that 3 day waiting period is over and a gun permit has been issued. If the person requesting the permit has no red flags, waiting to be checked properly and waiting for 3 months or even longer should not be a problem. Anyone who is demanding immediate approval should have a red flag.
Banning assault rifles and the variety of munitions that accompany them is essential for the safety of our citizens. The people who were killed in Las Vegas, El Paso, Dayton and all the other victims of mass murder would still be alive is we had reasonable guns laws. We are not the Wild West any longer and no one should be compelled to own a gun that has only one purpose: killing people.
I have heard many people say they carry a gun for personal protection. I wonder how many of the people at the Walmart in El Paso were carrying. If they were, how effective was that weapon during that shooting? Ditto Dayton and everywhere else.
Guns in the hands of irresponsible, angry people do kill people, just as drunk drivers kill people. This carnage must stop. It's time for very strict gun laws now.
3
I'm really surprised to see the Times give a platform like an Op-Ed to an election primary candidate. As important as Biden's message is, and understanding that he is also a former Vice-President, publishing his op-ed reeks of favoritism. Will the other candidates get opportunities to publish op-eds on their positions as well? I miss the Public Editor.
5
Russia funds the NRA - which funds the Republican Party. Putin wins again.
5
I like Joe, and I like the gun regulation suggested here. But I really don't want Joe to be President.
I don't see a candidate I do want, because I don't get the sense that any of them grasp the challenges we face at this moment in history. So for me, they're all just marking time.
But since we're talking guns, requiring gun owners to carry insurance based on the dangerousness of their weapon would help too.
Same goes for dog owners. Those square jawed Pit Bulls should be more expensive to insure that a tiny, fluffy Schnauzer. (the cost of 'dog insurance' could be tied to their 'bite radius', nod to 'Jaws').
There you go, that simple Mr.Biden, ban them again, like we did over 20 years ago. Nobody needs to shoot 100 rounds per minute to defends him or herself. You gonna need the help of Congress, has Mr. McConnell summoned his fellow Senators to debate measures that will prevent the next massacre or is he still sitting in his porch sipping lemonade?
4
It was December 1965 when I entered USAF basic training. Our class was the first in the Air Force to train with the M-16. Range officers gave us a mind-numbing demonstration of its power, especially in fully-automatic mode. This, we learned quickly, is a highly portable, and very efficient killing machine.
He also explained one of the reasons why this weapon was so lethal. It was designed for close-encounter firefights in terrain that made previous infantry rifles with more long-range accuracy (the M-1 and M-14) seem obsolete. With a smaller .223 caliber round leaving a short barreled M-16, the extremely high-velocity round would begin to "tumble" causing massive damage to the target's internal organs and bone tissue. The only differenxe between that M-16 and the current variations on the M-15 is, the former can be fired like a macine gun. The latter is strictly "semi-automatic" as each round is fired one at a time. That distinction matters not to the victims taken by that M-15 used by the mass murderers since the end of the assault weapon ban.
It's a long way to the DNC convention in 2020 and, while there are no guarantees for any candidate as the nominee, I hope former VP Biden's urgings for renewing the assault weapons ban becomes a signature part of the party's plank.
The fact that our K-12 schools must include "active shooter" drills makes a convincing argument for the ban. Whatever the buyback cost of a few billion dollars, it will be worth it.
7
@David Ohman You don't know what you think you know. AR-15's (as they are marketed) come in all shapes, sizes, and calibers. They are not the same field grade as the M-16 used in the military, just like the AK-47 used in El Paso was not the same field grade weapon as what the Russians issued to their soldiers.
Vice President Joe Biden, excellent and reasonable column.
If you become the Democratic nominee...best of luck in the debate with the lying con man trump.
He does not read, yet expert in being very loud, will troll you the whole time.
I am sure you will be able to handle the creep of a President.
6
If President Obama couldn't make it happen after the massacre of children in Newtown I doubt you'll be able to do any better. Please don't think the Republicans will be helpful to you on this or any other subject should you become President. It's a fantasy.
3
NYT needs to be careful to not unfairly put the thumb on the scales of this primary. They should give other leading candidates the same prominent forum to expound on gun policy.
3
@AJBF
Including Trump.
@SSS Yes, particularly Trump.
Sorry Joe, big whoop. Just more blather without recognition of the real problem. Thirty-three (33) Senate seats are up for election in 2020. If we don’t vote out the gun loving nuts, it won’t matter how many children are killed or our level of righteousness. So, since you don’t mention a plan to defeat Republican Senators as part of running for President your op-Ed is just hot air. I even suspect some staffer wrote this piece.
Quite simply we must take hammer and tongs to the Republicans. Throw human blood on them, every day.
2
@Malcolm
We can concentrate on both things at the same time. It’s not Biden’s job to get Dem senators elected. That’s the job of the DSCC.
I’m certain staffers helped with the column. That’s what they do with everyone.
"A well regulated dementia, being necessary to the paranoia of a murderous state, the right of innocent citizens to be randomly slaughtered by the NRA and angry males with no coping skills, shall not be infringed."
GOP 2019
Guns Over People must be stopped.
November 3 2020.
7
Banning assault weapons makes sense; ignoring and downplaying white supremacy is unacceptable.
4
@Barooby. No one cares about your technical definition of an assault weapon. Americans are talking about weapons that kill tens of people in under a minute. And we will get those weapons banned.
10
A well written, reasonable piece. I wonder who did this for him.
4
I'm afraid the Democrats are wrong about guns. We minorities will need guns to defend ourselves against a totalitarian racist government--with Trump it's almost here, almost here--and racist bandit white supremacists who have gotten away with mass murders for centuries. Am I crazy? Perhaps. Would Trump rule as a supreme dictator if given the chance? Perhaps. Have whites massacred minorities in America for centuries? YES. Do you think they will stop or get worse?
3
Don't push to ban them, Joe; just get 'er done
5
The majority of Americans want bkgd cks & AW bans. This is a democracy. We fix this by voting. Everybody votes, everybody. Like never before. There hasn't been thiis much at stake since 1860.
7
@zephen
Background checks exist now. Its called form 4473. Its a form that must be filled out when purchasing a gun from an FFL dealer. Lie on the form and its a Federal Felony. The question you and every single anti gun person should be asking just like gun owners is WHY does the ATF not prosecute folks who lie on these forms. Why?
Now the next thing you are going to say is what about private sales. Guess what the Law is the Law. Private sellers must follow the law both State and Federal. You simply cannot sell to a Prohibited Person. Doing so can and does land you in Jail. There are no loopholes contrary to what you here from the politicians.
1
@JustaVET
ATF has prosecuted people who lie on the 4473. How does an illegal buyer get around it? By working through a straw purchaser. You're also ignoring what really happens at flea market gun shows. A guy can get out of jail one day and buy an AW the next. Don't kid yourself, it happens. We need much stronger laws than what is currently on the books.
Mr. Biden,
You had your chance with President Obama in December 2012 after the Sandy Hook shooting. Why should I believe you now?
3
@math365
Because the reason nothing happened is laid at the feet of Mitch McConnell. Remember the guy who's goal regarding the people's business was to make Obama a one term president. He literally stole a Supreme Court Justice appointment and to this day will not bring House legislation for consideration by the Senate.
4
@math365
The GOP controlled the house at the time. The GOP is responsible for this, not Obama or Biden.
1
Some people wrongly blame NYT that it is giving space to Biden to air his views but not others. There is no evidence to show that the paper turned down an Op-Ed written by any other contestant. I think if others write (including the President) their views on gun control they too will get published.
8
Rather than passing an "assault rifle" ban, I'd like to see Congress pass a ban on any gun deemed too "dangerous" for ordinary civilian use.
The law would define a series of characteristics that individually or in combination might make a gun too dangerous. The ATF would then evaluate every model of gun (and every firearm accessory) to determine if it indeed it should be banned.
At least three categories of characteristics should be considered:
Capacity, ease of reloading, and ability to sustain rapid fire—the basic question is whether the gun (as a result of its magazine design, action, and cooling features) can be used to fire a lot of rounds quickly.
Handling characteristics—a number of features should be looked at, including how easily transportable the gun is, how easy it is to conceal, and whether it is easy to handle effectively in a rapid-fire situation. Design features (often dismissed by gun fanatics as "cosmetic") may make a gun easier to bring to the scene of a crime or may allow the gun to be more effectively handled when firing multiple rounds. These features should be considered along with the more basic features of capacity, action, and cooling ability.
Load characteristics—finally, we should look at the load itself. While load alone might not disqualify a gun, in combination with other features it could. For instance a shotgun shell loaded with buckshot might be fine in a breaking gun, but not in combination with a pump action and 7 round magazine.
7
@617to416 More than that, I want to see *every* gun registered, just like what is done with cars and similar vehicles.
12
@617to416
There are only 3 issues to consider when evaluating a guns killing potential: (1) Is it semi automatic (full autos are illegal) (2) magazine capacity and (3) cartridge design.
If you limit the magazine to 5 rounds and reduce the powder charge in the cartridge, the AR-15 loses its combat appeal.
1
@Bobr
Yes. Here in Canada, you can purchase an AR-15, but the gun must be registered with the Mounties and the magazine is limited to a 5 round one. Because of that, few of them are sold. They are really not good for anything but shooting a lot of rounds. With a 5 round magazine their appeal goes away.
Handguns also must be registered, and their use and carrying are highly regulated. You can't carry them around willy-nilly like you can in the US.
1
Go Joe go!!!!
9
Stuck in terminology, as liberals eternally are. Process is more important than outcome, that's the liberal's mantra. Meanwhile, we elected a do-er. We revel in his doings that bring dyspepsia to the enclaves of the hypocrites, like this space. And we fully intend to extend the program. It's a great time to be comfortably secure in the twilight of the American saga.
2
@Tabitha
Yes, he's a do-er:
1) Sabotaging and taking away health care and coverage for pre-existing condition - where's the most beautiful and cheapest health care?
2) environmental deregulation that allows factories and plants to pollute drinking water
3) allowing pesticides that cause developmental disabilities in children
4) tax cuts for the wealthiest who don't need them - where is the closing of the carried interest loophole that he railed about during the campaign?
6) causing farmers to go lose money and possibly face bankruptcy due to tariffs
7) creating a "crisis" at the border that did not exist before due to his policies of intentionally creating a backlog of processing
8) refusing a deal with democrats for $25 billion for his silly wall in exchange for DACA protections
9) he was going to be the best president for LGBT's but forced the military to discharge transgenders when the military was fine with them - ironic considering he was a coward when it was his time to serve
10) undermining the democratic institutions of this once great county
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So yes, he's achieved quite a lot.
2
@Tabitha And the people who were killed in El Paso and Dayton? How secure were they? How secure were the children at Sandy Hook and Parkland?
Would you still feel the same way if someone you loved had been murdered by one of these gunmen?
1
Assault weapons have one use: to kill other people. Why would Trump and Republicans want to make them svailablw?
12
@M, Target shooting, hunting hogs, and self defense.
3
@M Ar-style weapons are not "Assualt Weapons" the are semi-automatic firearms just like modern handguns.
@M: These weapons are designed to maim and cripple those they don’t kill in wars of attrition, to burden the enemy with disabled soldiers.
1
Joe
We need you now more than ever.
Erin
8
Mr. Biden; if you are to win the election, you must reconcile your arming the authorities with machine guns, armored vehicles, and intelligence gathering capabilities that may destroy America when, not if, found out. If you confront reality honestly and seek forgiveness from a nation precariously ready for it's demise, you might save it, but not with this token band aid on the gaping wound.
3
Joe,
Unless you can reliably quash Nazism and Fascism in America,
I am in no hurry to disarm.
Sorry.
3
Amen
2
Five common sense gun controls identified from (too many) numerous previous mass shootings:
• Mandatory wait period,
• Universal background checks on all gun sales (including private shows and second-hand exchanges),
• Minimum 21 years old to purchase all firearms (like alcohol),
• Ban sales of semi-automatic military style weapons (long hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols are unaffected)
• Ban gun accessories that mimic automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks, high-capacity magazines)
The 2nd Amendment has been regulated for improved public safety since the 1930's when automatic or machine guns were banned after organized crime began using the World War I weapons for armed violence and murder.
Shotguns are best for home defense. Long rifles and shotguns are safely used by hunters. Sometimes concealed carry permits for pistols are warranted if citizens prove to police that their life is threatened. Military style weapons are for the war/combat, not for Main Street USA.
10
@Question Everything, No, shot guns aren't the best for home defense in situations when you have multiple criminals and in the house where their long barrels are a problem.
President Biden, while I wholeheartedly agree that assault-style weapons need to be banned, 64% of murders in the US are committed with handguns (FBI 2017). We hear more about mass shootings, and the guns that were used, than the one or two or ten individuals shot in every city every day. If you are elected next year, what will you do to take all guns out of hands? This is a great start. But our next President needs to do more to ensure the safety of their constituents. They will have to fight with Congress and the NRA and big donors. Are you up for that? Or is tackling assault-style weapons enough for you?
5
I hope Joe reads this, as I can speak with no little knowledge of the subject, having first fired a gun some 57 years ago.
The essay quite correctly notes that with the last assault weapon ban, the manufacturers quickly got around it by doing things like putting wierd looking stocks on their product and selling them with 5-round magazines, but having separate 30+ round magazines available. It also, had some silly, irrelevant items in the definition... Really, when was the last time someone was bayonnetted to death?
The definition for this one can be quite simply defined, in a manner that cannot be easily circumvented: Any semi or full-auto firearm, other than .22 rimfire, with a capacity over (pick a number) of rounds or CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING a detachable box magazine, or belt feed over that number shall be illegal. Any person found in possession of such a weapon, other than law enforcement or miltary personnel, shall be guilty of a federal felony with a substantial mandatory prison term.
Simple, to the point, and not subject to end-runs.
8
He is correct. A assault weapons ban should be in affect and it did make a difference. True , the republicans failed the American people when they simply turned their back and stuck out their hand for blood money. And that’s exactly what they got. How do they sleep at night? So here we are mass shooting becomes the norm and a brief moment in time where republicans share their sorry thoughts and prayers which of course does absolutely nothing and is worthless. Unfortunately this is just one issues. The dems got this right but just about everything else they have screwed up. The people need to convince the republicans to end the cycle of mass shooting by adopting exactly what Biden here is saying. The nra is on its long over due way out.
5
You want these guns banned? Get all the people who own them to start going hunting with them. Imagine how hunters would feel if, when they went out to bag their deer every year, they faced the prospect that someone else would be out in the woods firing off rounds wildly in rapid succession. Or if hunters started getting killed by the stray gunfire from an AK-47. Imagine how they would react if they were silently sitting in their blind waiting for their prey to walk by when all of a sudden the peaceful quiet of the pre dawn hours were interrupted by really loud gunfire. And they had to put on body armour to go into the woods. If that was happening all the time in the prime hunting areas across America, you can bet damned sure the hunters would be up in arms. And want something done. "We simply can't have these type of weapons ruining the hunting season". Imagine the outrage if a manufacture marketed them for hunting. "Your a busy person. No time to sit for hours waiting for the deer to go by? Why kill one deer, when you can bag the whole family of deer in just a few seconds ?" "The AK-47. It's not just for mass murder anymore!" "And if you act today....."
6
@Walking Man
You've obviously never been hunting. That's not how hunters behave.
@Walking Man, Are you serious? They are used now for hunting with no consequences. The hunters are not criminals, they're honest, hard-working Americans.
@Walking Man
Most gun owners are not hunters.
Every component of an M16 ( Military version ) / AR15 ( civilian version ) is designed with one purpose, to kill people.
The weapon is designed for high reliability, maximum firepower, even the 223 bullet is designed to destabilize when it hits its target and will turn end over end, to inflict maximum damage to the human recipient.
I am a former police officer, target shooter, hunter and these are combat weapons with no place in civilian life.
Ban them.
13
@Phil All bans should be effective as to police forces as well.
1
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I don't understand why any reasonable private citizen would have a problem with a ban on military-style assault weapons. Save those for the military where they belong. Want to use military-style assault weapons? Join the military. Shouldn't rifles and handguns be sufficient for any civilian needs?
952
@Lisa
Because banning "assault weapons" is a political ploy that didn't make any difference before and won't if imposed again. What we need is laws that actually work to make us safer and effective law enforcement of the laws we have. If you know about the technology of violence you will understand why this is true. I won't discuss the technology of violence on Facebook.
Ask why Congress has not yet banned bump stocks when even the NRA doesn't oppose outlawing them? Where is the public outcry demanding it? Most people are completely ignorant of the facts, don't want to learn, and are simply reacting emotionally to the issue based on whether or not they want to own a gun or not. Generally speaking if someone doesn't want to own a gun, they don't want anyone else to either.
I am all for reasonable laws and paying the taxes necessary to enforce them. I don't need a political placebo to give me a false sense of security.
Laws don't prevent crimes, and police are not bodyguards. That is my professional opinion, as a retired federal attorney and former prosecutor.
17
@Lisa You're OK with handguns, which cause thousand more deaths than "assault weapons"? Why? Does one death at a time repeated a thousand times seem worse to you than a dozen incidents with multiple casualties? There is daily gun-related carnage, but we only get excited when a massacre occurs, so we gear solutions to try to prevent massacres. This thought process leads us to gasp in horror when a plane crashes and kills a couple hundred, but shrug our shoulders at thousands of traffic deaths.
19
@Lisa
I don't any guns, and I am not against any kind of assault weapon ban. But, I'm also intelligent enough to know that psychopaths will kill people anyway that they can.
Let's talk intelligently about why people are motivated to do these insane acts. What brings them to the brink? Is it Trump's rhetoric? Is it social media? Is it violence in movies and video games? I hope that NYT has the common sense to talk to the perpetrators (they don't have to use their real name.)
Because, the UK is also seeing a huge surge in fatal stabbings, and, personally, I don't think it's better to get stabbed to death, than shot to death.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/07/fatal-stabbings-in-england-and-wales-at-highest-recorded-level
7
Given that so many of these war weapons are in the hands of private citizens at this time, the first step should be an immediate band on the ammunition. Without ammunition the gun is a relic. I have no objection to shooting ranges where people can play with their gun toys and then go out into a safe world. Allow ammunition on-site only.
17
@Granny
Ammunition would be part of the Second Amendment. It's included in "keep and bear arms."
I fully agree with VP Biden that assault weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians. I totally disagree though with some readers that suggested that those who wants to “play with military style weapons, join the military “. I will argue that there is no place in the US military for anyone who join in order to have access to assault weapons. The military mission of preserving peace requires patriots who believe in the mission, not fans of assault weapons. Those who join for access to assault weapons can easily become murderers of civilians elsewhere as we have all witnessed in recent wars.
18
The gun manufacturers and the gun industry aftermarket have so perfected the semi-automatic weapon that it can now fire a fusillade of bullets on a par with a machine gun. Regulating just so-called "militiary-style" "assault" weapons is not enough. We need to regulate all semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines as if they were machine guns.
In 1934, the National Firearms Act imposed strict regulations on the sale and ownership of automatic weapons - so-called machine guns. In the 75 years since the adoption of the National Firearms Act, crimes involving the use of machine guns have become rare.
Using semi-automatic weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines, two shooters were able to kill and wound more than twenty-five people in less than one minute.
Semi-automatic weapons have become the functional equivalent of machine guns. Like machine guns, semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines should be regulated under the National Firearms Act - a law that has successfully regulated machine gun violence for 75 years.
13
@Richard Brudzynski
Good grief.
It doesn't matter if it is an AR-15, Glock 19 or M1.
All "semi-automatic" means is that there will be one discharge per trigger pull.
This is not the functional equivalent of a machine gun which will theoretically continuing firing as long as the trigger is depressed.
According to the study Mr. Biden quotes, the Assault Weapons Ban resulted in 70% fewer mass shootings, but this resulted in only .1% fewer gun homicides. So yes, we should ban assault weapons, but no, we should not be spending our time talking about it.
4
It isn't about whether an assault weapons ban would've prevented "theses deaths" or "those deaths." Traffic laws don't prevent all accidents, but fewer people die because of them. The same goes for an assault weapons ban. Some people still will find a way to murder, but does anyone doubt fewer will die?
11
@Scott -- True. However, extreme focus on one tiny part of the total problem can be used politically to defeat efforts to deal with the overall problem.
We see that here, where the fixation on "assault weapons" distracts from the vast bulk of the issues of murder, and of twice as much gun-linked suicide as murder, and of three times more suicide than that including all means.
Even murder is twice as large as gun-linked murder, and it too is at world-record levels in the US.
We have big problems. One specific statistically minor aspect of it has taken over the politics of it all.
@Mark Thomason
You are correct, it is a small part of the problem. It has taken over the conversation, as have background checks, not because they represent the major solutions, but because they are so self-evidently prudent things to do, have wide support, and yet resisted. I would lo e to get on to broader solutions.
1
@Scott -- Charles Blow wrote in these pages that he and his gun-loving brother could probably hammer out a good workable compromise in one session over the dinner table.
I'd bet you and I could too.
However, that's because Blow trusts his brother. I'm presume I'd trust you on such hypothetical compromise.
We've lost the trust on the gun issue. Gun control advocates are feared as gun grabbers, meaning to revoke the 2nd Amendment. Meanwhile, gun rights are feared as murderous agents of greedy gun manufacturers, racists, or worse.
Our politics won't function in the face of such extreme distrust. We all lose out when we can't function to find a solution.
First, I am shocked that Joe would put the final nail in the coffin of his campaign so soon. Talking about weapons ban just isolated the people that may have given you some small glimmer of hope. You may get the nomination, but come on. Ban? Weapons? Second, the use of "we" in the beginning of the article is so inappropriate, as if he is not responsible in any way for anything and is just one of us good ol' boys. He understands how we gather our families and cower in fear each time there is a shooting....Give me a break...Joe has been in government during the time that legislation could have been implemented as if legislating the issue could possibly make a difference. There are so many of these already in circulation that stopping the sale of new ones will change nothing. The existing ones will just double in cost, just like last time.
4
If they can't get ammunition, existing guns could only be used in shooting ranges not in our communities. I am fully in support of the Democratic position and I'm glad that Joe Biden speaking up!
Politicians and the NRA can twist themselves in knots making us believe that we have the absolute right to own weapons of mass destruction when it is ABSOLUTELY not the case. If it was, the 1994 law banning assault weapons would have wound up in the Supreme Court and declared unconstitutional. WAS IT?
The NRA had ten years and the money to take their case to SCOTUS; Did you ever ask why they didn’t?
No, instead they took money for a legal fight and used it to BUY congress and a presidency.
7
There's a standard polling question: "Who do you trust on (fill in the issue) Democrats or Republicans?"
My question is: "Who do you trust to protect us from mass shootings, Republicans or Democrats?".
4
Fully automatic rifles are legal but are not used i9n criome because of highly successful federal law put in place in the 1930s requiring full (not instant) investigation and licensing of the owner and registration of each firearm. As a result a legal owner cannot sell to a criminal without breaking the law. This is what we need for all guns. Assault style weapons are popular with mass shooters because they appeal to young men with sexual insecurity. Most killers use ordinary semiautomatic pistols which are perfectly adequate for killing people. We need federal registration for all guns.
4
@Dan Woodard MD, Ah Dan, that was signed into law in 1986 by President Reagan,
Thank you Mr. Biden for a sensible approach to dealing with mass shootings.
9
Thank you Captain Obvious.
We have some 24 Democrats vying for the nomination, and they would all take this action.
So why showcase Biden with a singular column in the country's major newspaper?
The media bias for the status quo Establishment does mischief to all the hope and energy surging for Progressive change.
Insistence on promoting Biden and rewashing his shifting positions to get him the nomination will guarantee Trump's re-election.
4
The other candidates are free to submit an opinion piece to the New York Times as well. And they'll probably publish it too.
1
@Louis James As they did for Bernie on June 2nd.
I echo what another NYTIMES columnist has written, that after Sandyhook when nothing happened to stop shootings, the GOP party leaders basically said we will do nothing to stop children from being killed -- and if that's the case there is NO hope for gun control to happen. The GOP has sanctified the killing of children in our country. But here's the dilemma: over 99% of the people who own guns would NEVER think of shooting another human being. The problem requires solutions neither side has.
5
I wish we could drop the drama and simply focus on the data. Sensible gun controls will save a lot of lives.
This is consistent with our constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions on personal freedoms for public safety. Allowing the public to arm themselves with assault rifles is not a constitutional right any more than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
5
I was driving behind someone the other day who had a Bumper sticker which read "Shall not be infringed". I remember thinking to myself that the NRA seems to always remember "Shall not be infringed" and seems to all too easily forget the "Well regulated" part.
7
“Banning Assault Weapons Works! That’s why, as president, I will push to ban them again.”
This op-ed is indeed priceless! It tells you everything what’s wrong with our politicians.
The problem is that they are terribly incompetent, even if they are among the best among their colleagues.
This article should have been called “Mea Culpa”.
Mr. Biden should have specified how he repeatedly failed us.
If he did it, we could think that he is mature enough to be the president!
Mr. Vice-president, you should have BANNED the assault weapons ONCE FOREVER, not for just ten years. If you did it, we wouldn’t have this problem today. You could have done it in 2009 when the Democrats were in control of the White House and the Congress.
You could have prosecuted in front of the military courts those who willfully pushed us into the wrongful Iraq War and the Great Recession.
You could have stopped and reversed the export of the US industrial base overseas. If you did it, Donald Trump wouldn’t be the president and China wouldn’t be as strong as it is. For God’s sake, our government has piled us the colossal national debt to finance the exodus of our jobs to China and economic revival of the most populous nation on this planet.
3
This opinion piece is a public service. Trust we will get more from all the candidates. Bypass the PAC money!!
3
All well and good but basically a sensational response to a series of horrific attacks. Yet, what does this do for those shot/killed by handguns in Chicago, Brooklyn and elsewhere? Does it matter to victims if they’re shot in a mass incident at one location or one of scores of incidents across a city over a weekend?
2
What Mr. Biden proposes for guns is a tall order. Both the Senate and the House will have to be in Democratic hands if he is to accomplish such a highly desirable outcome. Let's fervently hope that happens in 2020.
6
Mind boggling that banning assault weapons legislation in 1994 was left to die under George W. I can only assume that he has remorse about that decision. But we need Republicans like Bush to speak out about current Republican legislators refusing to take up any attempts to staunch the bleeding of gun violence. We are permitting a lobby group (guns) to prevent legislation that will save lives. In what other country does this happen?
3
The current hysteria over "Gun Control" is, in fact, about Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety using the moment, Dayton-El Paso, as a means to an end--take the rights of citizens away incrementally.
There is no weapon used today in either of the attacks that was not available to the citizens in the 1950s-1960s. The M-1, M-1 Carbine, and the M-14, latter two with 20-30 round magazines. In fact, an enterprising person could turn the latter two in automatic weapons.
Although I think it all began with the Texas Tower shooter, a bolt-action event, the problem has been with us a long time. Nightly gun violence in the inner-city doesn't cause the hysteria a mass-killing does because its insidious and stays local and out of the media, i.e., not enough drama, nothing new, no news--just more violence in places like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore.
The real issue and the one the politicians can't answer is why has the American ethos broken down. What is the real cause?
It certainly isn't assault rifles, which have been around since the end of the Second World War, and more germane, an individual with a couple of Colt 1911s, a bag of magazines, and a crowded place could do equal damage to El Paso.
So the solution is to ban assault weapons? How long will that last with 340 million plus guns on the streets with 20 million plus "assault" rifles? It will happen again and it will be as deadly until the real issue is faced--Whatever happened to the America we once knew?
5
Thank you, Joe Biden. You're the adult in the room. And along with banning assault weapons, establish National Service. I am eager to have you at the helm.
5
“I know, because with Senator Dianne Feinstein I led the effort to enact the 1994 law that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years. Those gun safety reforms made our nation demonstrably more secure.
They were also, sadly, the last meaningful gun legislation we were able get signed into law before the N.R.A. and the gun manufacturers put the Republican Party in a headlock.”
Actually, Mr. Biden, we should never blame the others for our own mistakes.
The NRA and the gun manufacturers didn’t put the GOP in a headlock but you personally and the Democratic Party.
If the latter weren’t subdued by them, you and senator Feinstein should have enacted the ban on assault weapons without the time expiration cause and it would still be the law of the land today.
If the aforementioned statement were the wrong premise, then you must have completely different plan of action.
What was it?
Maybe you envisioned that by 2004 the humans would become immune to the bullets or that maybe a vaccine would be developed to make our skin bulletproof?!
What were you thinking, Vice-president Biden?
Can we afford the same kind of catastrophic mistakes, this time in the Oval Office?
1
Mr. Biden is right. We were safer when we banned Human Assault Weapons and high capacity magazines. We will be safer when we ban them again, as the vast majority of Americans want.
I'm sick of hearing the "what about handguns" argument. We won't fix every mass shooting by banning assault weapons. But we will be closer to a safer society.
Let's stop searching for the perfect gun violence solution. Let's try everything that might work: restrict sales to mentally ill and terror-watch-list people. Ban assault weapons. Ban large magazines. Other than certain paid-for legislators, we have largely agreed on these.
7
well, this just cost him thousands of swing votes that will stick to Trump now.
2
There is no argument for the private ownership of these killing machines that makes sense. My family has always enjoyed the tradition of generational bonding through the sport of hunting; but the reality of these weapons being used by self styled hunters has horrified and frightened them.
If anyone needs this type of gun to kill an animal they're no sportsman, much less a marksman.
No one has a right to own a weapon used for mass destruction period.
3
@Rosiepi
Any data that hunters with semiautos take more shots (per animal)? I like to have some info before having an opinion.
In the Southern US where wild pigs are overrunning local natural environments, people use semiautos to reduce the (rapidy expanding) herds. Is that an illegitimate use of arms?
I think the analysis of the effectiveness of the ban on assault weapons is wrong. From 1966 through 1994 , per Wapo, we averaged 1.85 mass shootings per year. From 1994 to 2003 (the ban) we had roughly 3.1 per year. From 2005 to 2014 we had 4.2 per year. 20015 to present, 6.2 per year. Based on that quick and dirty analysis, we simply have had an acceleration in the number of mass killings per year. The assault ban appears to have had no impact.
If you ban assault rifles, there are still a lot of semi-automatic rifles and pistols for sale, and there is a black market and there are millions of assault style weapons out there. If by some miracle we were able to remove all assault rifles from society, those who want to commit mass murder will simply bring more semi automatic pistols etc. They'll change tactics.
As for universal background checks, what you need to do is back test and see how many mass murders that have been committed would have been stopped. Mass killings are rare events and few if any mass killers would have been stopped by back ground checks.
The thing that needs to be focused on is the day to day carnage. Mass killings only account for a fraction of all gun related homicides, most of which are committed using pistols, not assault weapons.
Mass killings have gotten so much press coverage and that may likely incite future killers. If you want to express hate or your insane fantasies, what better way than to kill as many as you can?
A lot of praise for Biden in many comments here for pointing out the obvious and leading on an issue that 70% of the people agree with.
We have to be done with all the hypocrisy and hand wringing and admit that as long as there is a 2nd Amendment we will be mourning innocent dead. The same way that we tolerate ugly speech because of the 1st Amendment.
The rest is window dressing until the next tragedy.
1
Banning assault weapons would be nice for TV news and photo ops, but the vast majority of crimes with weapons take place with handguns. There are millions of them out there and most homicides are committed with them. What will the earnest candidates do to control the actual means that people use to kill people in this country?
1
It's unbelievable that assault rifles are sold over the counter to the general public. Why not also sell hand grenades, bazookas, missile launchers and tanks ? A "well regulated militia" should be well armed. The Second Amendment is crazy.
Joe, you cannot speak of change persuasively anymore because you were part of the status quo for nearly five decades.
Does Prevagen help? Probably not.
You are a nice man for the most part, someone with whom most voters can break bread or share a beer--or soda. But perhaps it is time to step aside.
Yes, we all know what the polls say, but we have more than a year to go.
Think Party and nation first.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
@Word
Why single out Mr. Biden when you can point to a plethora of poor quality candidates. May the best showboater win!
1
@SR
I am not singling out Joe Biden. I focus on him because he has been in national politics for almost five decades. He is part of the establishment, for good and bad. I have no animus toward Biden, but he is sometimes forgetful.
The media, including the NYT, has already singled him out by giving him this opportunity to air his views and cultivate voters, an opportunity they should accord at least the other leading candidates.
Biden is the favorite of the conservative NYT Op-Ed columnists as well as Frank Bruni.
Experience does not wash with me. It has become a euphemism for the status quo and a way for septuagenarians to keep out younger talent. How much political experience did Obama and Trump have?
I would be very happy with some combination of Yang, Buttigieg, Gabbard, Warren, and Sanders. I would even vote for Klobuchar, Harris, Gillibrand, and Ryan, although they are not my favorites.
None of these candidates are "poor quality." I respect them all for throwing their hats into the political arena and taking the heat.
My dream ticket would be Yang with either Buttigieg and Gabbard.
Your flip tone is inappropriate, and choosing a candidate has nothing to do with their alleged "showboating." This is your misunderstanding of political strategizing.
There is too much at stake in this election, both domestically and internationally. It appears the Russians are gearing up for a full-scale arms race and Trump wants to greenlight oil exploration in the Arctic reserve.
Background check on assault weapons? what about background check on our "runaway" president who keeps assaulting political adversaries, media and courts which disagree with him? Nobody even knows what is there in his tax return. Note that as president he has DOJ, and as a billionaire, he has lawyers whom he can afford, can still keep all his past secret affairs and hide his tax return!
The old adage that people kill people, not guns, is false.
Deranged people, having easy access to weapons of war, kill a lot of people.
Assault weapons are made for soldiers to kill as many people, efficiently, effectively and quickly as they can.
They have no place in civilian life and must be ban.
Kudos to, VP Biden for openly making such a stand.
1
Thumbs up, Uncle Joe. Best wishes on your campaign.
1
To my fellow Christians:
What do you think Jesus would have to say about this issue?
He said turn the other cheek.
He said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
He healed the ear of a servant whose ear was sliced off when Jesus was arrested.
He gave his life so that we could be saved.
I don't think he would support ownership of assault weapons or any weapons for that matter.
It's so depressing that so many who claim to be Christians support the Republican party that doesn't follow New Testament values.
Read the Bible! Vote for the party that comes closer to supporting what Jesus teaches about helping the poor, the sick, the widow.
1
It’s more than just guns. And they are not exactly “weak willed.” They seem to be strong-willed enough to resist challenging the NRA or Donald Trump. Apparently the Republican party members are every bit as much white Supremacist and anti-immigrant as their leadership. It’s going to take an outpouring of rage on the part of all voters to get these people out of office and some sensible people elected. It is my hope that some sensible Republicans will be found as well as some sensible Democrats, without extremism on either side. That’s the most important thing.
Like abortion, gun ownership should be difficult, costly, and time consuming. Further the weapons and ammunition should be both taxed and insured. Oh, and everyone should be able to own one after all that is done - I do believe in the second amendment too after all.
You can make guns illegal but you can't stop people from getting them. Efforts to criminalize the ownership of guns simply make otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals. I guess people haven't learned their lessons from the criminalization of drugs. We don't stop drugs but drive them underground. It is not that hard to make a gun, even a semi-automatic.
I would be interested to hear what anti gun activists believe the USA would look like without legal guns. Criminals and criminal gangs would still have them. The police would still have them. The rich and powerful would still have them. When the criminal gang drug dealers in your neighborhood threaten your son and daughter, will the police show up? Will rich politicians living in their gated and protected communities send the police to protect you? Will the police respect poor White, Black and Hispanic communities? Is South or West Chicago with no legal gun ownership safer than any other part of America?
2
The rest of the developed world controls guns in a sane manner and America isn’t close to dealing with such an obvious problem.
1
Please define “assault weapon,” and explain how one is more dangerous than a good handgun in the hands of a moderately skilled shooter.
3
I think, rather than confiscation, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles made before a certain year, like they did with machineguns and automatic rifles manufactured after May, 1986.
1
Biden's ideas may help but to really make significant progress we have to get Donald Trump out of office. His verbal attacks on immigrants and non-whites are driving hate to a fever pitch and pushing people into believing there is some sense of urgency to protect the white race. The more Trump talks about an invasion of Hispanics the more likely it is the people will decide to take matters into their own hands feeling if they wait to take action it will be too late. This is not just an American problem. Even today it was reported there was a foiled attack on a mosque in Norway. But American white nationalists do have much easier access to these weapons.
I long for the days when my biggest fear walking to junior high school was getting stopped for my lunch money, and maybe getting punched out. Now the kids just want to come home alive.
Go Joe Go!!!!
1
If anyone reading this actually has hands on experience with guns you'll know what I'm talking about. It enormously complicated to ban only "assault" weapons since every gun that uses a magazine can be interpreted as an assault weapon. Then there's the semi auto action itself that can't be banned. Please do not get me wrong I agree that something must be done immediately that's why I'm so concerned when I read comments by people who remain willfully ignorant about guns themselves. If you have never used or been taught to use one then you are coming from a base of ignorance or worse you are basing many of your "facts" on tv shows. I'm not here to argue or start a fight I just want something real to be done and point out the essential flaws in just going after a name. Be smart stay focused and stay off social media.
1
Foolish and self deceived.
The first two thoughts that come to mind.
The highly unconstitutional (non) assault weapons ban achieved two things.
(1) for the first time it required the FBI to track data by weapon type.
(2) it ripped the mask off the long time weapons fascists.
Without diving deep into the data, which is a matter of public record and was read into the congressional investigation during the final debate on this subject, the Brady ban proved Joe Biden lied then and is lying now.
Prior to the ban of (non) assault weapons the number of persons killed by (non) assault weapons was effectively zero (that being below 0.01%) and during the period of the ban of (non) assault weapons the rate of deaths caused by (non) assault weapons actually increased but still remained effectively zero.
In the decade and a half since the ban on (non) assault weapons expired the number of deaths caused by (non) assault weapons has dropped back down to the pre ban rate of effectively zero.
In the states where they have banned (non) assault weapons the number of overall homicides have increased BUT the number of firearms deaths have remained extremely low AND the number of deaths caused by (non) assault weapons have remained effectively zero.
Time to start prosecuting and imprisoning political figures who advocate for the PAINFULLY OBVIOUS VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
1
Biden says, "We have a huge problem with guns. Assault weapons — military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly". It's tiresome to hear Dem politicians pandering to their base in order to get elected by proposing magic solutions to our problems. Guess what, Uncle Joe? ALL semi-automatic weapons, both pistols and rifles, the most commonly owned weapons today, can ALL fire rapidly. A so-called "assault" rifle is just a standard, everyday semi-automatic rifle with a fearsome looking handle. Limiting magazine sizes may help, but it will not help much I don't think because criminals and crazy people don't obey laws. Besides, as so-called assault rifles are probably the most commonly owned and used rifle today in the US, if you try to ban them you may well run into an obstacle when your ban runs headlong into the 2nd Amendment when SCOTUS debates the ban's constitutionality. So, although I know you badly want to get elected, your magic solution may not be as feasible as you think but is a nice try in terms of fooling gullible voters who think there are magic solutions to every problem. Your challenge is not the NRA as much as the 2nd Amendment, although admittedly we don't know the exact scope and breadth of the 2nd Amendment as SCOTUS has never done its job and deigned to tell us.
Dear Mr. Biden,
You aren’t ready to lead! Here is just a part of your strategic failures.
If you believed in democracy, you would think it’s for everybody. In that case it would be good for the Arabs too.
Our government wouldn’t have been supporting the worst dictators in the Middle East oppressing their subjects and depriving them of basic human rights.
Those conditions created the Al Qaeda and ISIS, not the Islam or our freedom and liberty...
The Arabs weren’t prone to the terrorism and dictatorship. A mere 7 decades ago, our government was very concerned that the Middle-eastern region could embrace the socialist worldviews, so our government conspired with the Saudi king to spread the extremely conservative version of Wahhabism on the local population, financed by our petrodollars. The socialism and the fundamentalist Wahhabism are ideologically at the opposite ends of spectrum!
Similarly, to stop the spread of the communism we waged the protracted wars in Korea and Indochina and spent the colossal amount of the human lives, time, money and energy. Isn’t it shocking that a mere quarter of century later we piled up the colossal national debt to finance the export of the US manufacturing industries into communist China by recklessly slashing the corporate taxes?
It means our government has been directly responsible for the worst problems we are facing today – the violent terrorism and the rise of China as economic powerhouse.
I am a Democrat ,but keep asking me whyowhy is my party pushing Joe Biden for President over all the other candidates ?
We did not learn anything from 2016 .
1
Joe,you were elected to the Senate in 1972. And in the subsequent years that approach half a century, you climbed over the backs of the middle class seeking the pinnacle of American political power.
While you have personally prospered the ranks of the middle class have been thoroughly decimated.
I think we have had enough of you. Time for you to move on.
1
As long as Republicans allow assault weapons to be sold in the US - there will be more mass shootings.
This is on them.
Background checks, and red flag laws will do little.
If they want to make that bet - okay.
But in the end, they will have to accept an assault weapons ban. It will be a shame watching other people's children die in order to be able to prove it.
2
Thank you for having the guts to say it. I'll vote for you.
1
Assault-type weapons should be in the hands of our armed forces and police task forces. Period.
The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, with his deep pockets and threats of primarying candidates who oppose him even slightly, is a bad guy. The only one who can stop A BAD GUY WITH A GUN is A GOOD PUBLIC OFFICIAL who can legislate LaPierre right out of significance. Gun ownership? Yes. Ownership of millions of assault weapons? NO.
I sent the above message to various government officials right after the Parkland shooting. But not again. I plan to focus instead on achieving a Democratic victory. Once we take back both the Senate and the Presidency (possibly Joe?), the year 2021 will mark a steep drop in relevance for the NRA — plus a welcome decline in mass shootings for this nation.
1
First - dismiss "all of the studies show". They are heavily funded and organized by billionaires.
Money buys lots of junk information. The NRA (despite internal issues) is a club. Members pay dues to have them lobby for what gun owners want. NRA represents actual real, non-mass murders. Some very small number are likely to be crazy people who kill. Compared to the US population, this is noise.
Our government is regularly killing thousands of our military and many innocent civilians and combatants, for little rational gain (think, Korea, Vietnam, all of the Middle East, immigrants, etc.). But we go crazy when a person with a gun kills people on US soil.
The writers of the Constitution did not suggest a particular technology alters the right to bear arms. They could not extrapolate the future. The purpose was to insure the citizen's can protect themselves if the government goes rogue. This is how dictators start.
The previous ban on "assault" rifles (they aren't; they are not full auto) had no results.
There are millions of firearms, including AR's, owned by perfectly rational owners. And then there are cars, trucks, bombs, poisons, fire.
There are literally millions of guns in law abiding civilian hands.
Contrary to what seems to circulate, is that possessing a firearm can actually prevent or stop an assault, home invasion, rape, or death on a citizen. The exposure of a firearm stops many serious problems without harming anyone. These tend to be under-reported.
2
Sadly there are typically more firearms deaths as suicides in the USA than murders. CDC data for 2017, 23,854 suicides, 14,542 murders. And whilst the issue of racists and people with mental problems (short term or long term) being armed with semi-automatic rifles with magazine capacities of greater than single digits is most certainly a very serious issue, that will not go away any time soon because the US Constitution allows for citizens to bear arms. There are endless discussions about how the Second amendment should be interpreted. The fundamental problem is why do people feel the need kill themselves or others ??? I have no answers and the current crop of politicians most certainly don't, but the constant talk of bans of any kind will just get people off side. Some form of control is probably the best that can be expected.
1
All firearms can be considered "military", all of them. You think soldiers aren't issued pistols? People often equate military " style" rifles with machine guns, but many don't understand the real role of " full auto" fire, it is to suppress enemy movement. The real killing is mostly on semi automatic WHICH is why military rifles let soldiers select it on their rifles.
So, you can't legislate "safety" since killing and murder are illegal to begin with. Criminal minds don't obey the law. And what of those crininal minds? No discussion of what is motivating them, psychological issues etc. Are these deaths sensational?, Yes. And the media fuels these narritives of gun viokence being a plague, yet hatdly any coverage of South side of Chicago, Baltimore, etc. Where are the cries of ending tobacco, alcohol? Deaths upon deaths, but boring Thanksgiving table topics to fight with our relatives over.
Banning military firearms will cause more deaths than many can imagine. Who will enforce that law, who will comply willingly, what are the consequences for non compliance? There will be bloodshed on both sides for a piece of legislation meant to prevent bloodshed. How dumb is that?
Politicians can label some as " military" style all they want, they are ALL military OR Militia weapons. Being disingenuous about banning only " these" kind is really insulting.
Alcohol and tobacco aren't constitutionally protected rights, let's ban them first if "we" are all so concerned about deaths.
Since the NRA and GOP talk up all this nonsense about "mental illness", how about requiring all owners to be examined by a certified psychologist before they can own, repeated every ten years? Manditory gun safes for any and all owners would also help keep guns out of the hands of kids too.
Though one can not account for the negative, selfish indulgence of those who would impose their gun fetish upon society, Americans could certainly make them responsible for the evils that they foist upon the public.
1
Democracy is extremely fragile and we learn from history that it can be gone in a generation. The 2nd amendment assure the right of ordinary citizens to be able to fight back in case of a totalitarian regime. I'm very surprised that so many commenters here in the NY Times for the last two years who've been calling Trump a fascist and totalitarian want to disarm their citizens. Have a look at Venezuela where recently they banned sales of all guns except for the military and now the opposition cannot rise and defend themselves against the evil Maduro and his corrupt regime who are starving them to death. Man's nature is not necessarily good and there will always be evil people who want to be in total power that will have guns that will be used to control and subjugate those who don't. In a doomsday scenario I actually think I fear the democratic left who are becoming the more radical left and socialist in their policies than the Republicans and radical right. The Republicans support the 2nd amendment & want ordinary citizens to ensure the right to have & keep guns. The Democrats want to take them away, ban by ban. Yes assault rifles are horrific killing machines but do you want the evil people to have them and the good people not to? As a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors I know how that turned out.
1
This comment deserves to be pinned to the top of the list and kept there. "A Daniel come to judgment! Yea, a Daniel!"
Biden is the only Dem I will vote for. As bad as Trump is, socialist policies of Warren and Sanders would be worse for this country in the long term than any Trump policy.
1
I believe then President Obama tried just about everything, except maybe for banning assault weapons, that Mr. Biden writes he will do as president. As long as we have the same or similar players in congress none of these suggestions will come to fruition. Banning those assault weapons is the best step. They serve no genuine purpose in a civilized society. Also the two last shooters or maybe the three last shooters including the one at the Garlic Festival in California all passed background checks. So background checks won't stop them. Banning the types of weapons they use, and buying them back like they did in Australia will make a difference.
3
Biden is delusional. Our gun laws are an incomprehensible mosaic of laws which utterly fail in their mission to deter gun violence.
We need FEDERAL GUN CONTROL which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars, that they be Federally registered, and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns. Limit the number of guns that people may own to some reasonable number.
Like with cars, require prospective gun owners to demonstrate proficiency and mental competence plus impose strict, vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct in connection with their guns. Leave a gun lying around unsecured and someone gets access to it, you're in trouble.
As far as bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets so we know who is buying them and in what quantity.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some compensation for victims. As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment which would, of course, stay in full force and effect.
Presently we have a patchwork of gun legislation in 50 states which is ineffectual. You can still get a gun in a state with lax firearms laws and take it anywhere you want. If states, to meet their own needs, want to impose laws that are more stringent than the Feds, like with booze and drugs, fine.
9
@MIKEinNYC
No, he is not delusional because he can issue a executive order and ban assault weapons just as Obama could have easily renewed the ban but refused to do so because he didn't want to take on the NRA, according to Obama's statement to the press.
2
@MIKEinNYC: US states defy equal protection of the law.
I changed my patterns of behavior after the movie theatre shooting and stay vigilant when out in public. When someone’s right to openly carry a weapon of mass destruction outweighs my right to feel safe in public, something is very wrong. Good luck Joe!! I am 100% behind you.
8
Weapons of war should be inside only two types of secure storage centers: Military armories (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps) and the secure ready rooms of local police departments and state police units. Period.
9
Thank you very much Mr. Biden for this article and making clear your position in this debate. I have read that there are currently over 10 million of these types of weapons in hands of civilians. A buy back would cost several billions of dollars. Here is an idea that might help so we do not have to discuss raising taxes to do this is take it from the defense budget. These weapons cause domestic terror and should be seen as a national defense issue. We spend countless billions to secure our nation and its interests around the world. One of the first obligations of our National government is to protect the people of this nation. Such an expenditure would meet that requirement and would not add new taxes.
13
As a white male gun owner, and an Independent Voter who is 61 years old, I support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
No Republican who does not support a strong and effective, non-loophole assault weapon ban will get my vote in any election.
The Second Amendment to our Constitution has been turned against the majority of American citizens by the Gun Lobby.
I challenge other like-minded gun owners to speak out as well.
MB
21
It is easy to prevent the problems before those ever happen.
The prerequisite is the long-term thinking and strategic vision.
Mr. Biden, I don’t know any other politician in America who has been longer in the politics than you.
Would it be fair to assign a part of the strategic failures to you?
Just asking...
3
This article is a step in the right direction: This country indeed was much safer from 1994-2004 (and maybe even before 1994)! But it still misses crucial key ingredients. The grief and suffering is not only or maybe even primarily about the deceased, since any senseless death causes grief and suffering, whether from gun violence, terrorism, or other such causes, but about what has been happening to this country more generally: how, for example, the NRA and associates were able to completely destroy the 2nd Amendment, which historically gave gun rights only to militias, and the severe mental health crisis, as medical professionals are clueless how to address this form of mental illness while they have been more than able to kill about anyone with opioids. How and why corporate interests have had the freedom to operate in such deviant manners, in other words. So another step in the right direction would be the living wage and universal employment, to ensure that the money at least begins to flow in the right direction.
3
The last time "assault weapons" were banned, that particular law did little or nothing to prevent or reduce the number of gun crime. That is why the law was allowed to lapse.
How about enforcing the already existing laws?
4
@boroka: The law was based on cosmetics rather than capability to sustain fire.
Typical diversion by this writer. The issue is not total crime because mass shootings are only a small part of overall crime. The issue would a ban lower deaths from mass shooting attempts and the data says yes!
Mr. Biden contradicts himself when he says the assault weapons ban of 1994 worked and then says we need to prevent cosmetic changes that can circumvent the law. That was the problem with the 1994 law - it focused on cosmetic features such as flash suppressors and telescoping stocks while ignoring the truly deadly features. But the truly deadly features - high muzzle velocity, semi-automatic, with a detachable magazine - are features of most rifles sold today. Thus banning these features will be seen as a total weapons ban and has no chance of enactment.
But if makes people feel better, focus on the cosmetics even if they don't change anything.
2
@J. Waddell: Assault weapons provide the shooter with the sustained firepower to force people to hunker down until the attacker can shoot them point blank.
As a compromise, the government could create federal shooting ranges where military weapons could be used for target shooting. A 'buy-back' program could include one year free at the federal range if an assault weapon is turned in.
2
@rab
Great idea!
If we are ubering our rides, we could be renting the automatic assault weapons at the federal shooting ranges to fulfill our wishes too.
We don't have to own those deadly weapons personally...
Read the article about the trauma MDs and the time after the last shooting. A description of what assault ammunition does to the body will convince you that this weapon has no place in our communities. Who will be there to comfort these victims years from now. Unsealed wounds and shredded bodies.
22
"the problem is with weak-willed leaders who care more about their campaign coffers than children in coffins." Loved this sentence. Keep it up, Mr. Biden!
27