Not the first time he’s touted the benefits of shotgun ownership lately either. As goofy as it is, I think this is actually kinda sorta effective at blunting the “gun-grabbing” critique liberals naturally face whenever they get itchy about “assault weapons.” Here’s the vice president of the United States encouraging you to go on out and get yourself a 12-gauge, just like the one he’s got. Why? Because it’s easier to aim and use than an AR-15, which … I’m pretty sure isn’t true, but whatever. Just buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun. That way, if ever you snap and head off on a killing spree, the death toll will be limited. Unless you bring a bag of shells with you and reload quickly, I guess. In which case, who knows?
That’s the first clip. The second clip, also from today’s Q&A with Parents magazine, is of someone asking why we’d expect an assault-weapons ban to work any better than the ban on illegal drugs does. Biden’s reply: Do you mean we should legalize all drugs? Which, of course, is a non sequitur. Few people (at least outside hardcore libertarian precincts) support legalizing all drugs or all weapons. There’s a national push to legalize weed but not so much to legalize heroin and meth; most are content to leave those restricted on grounds that they’re too dangerous, just like most gun owners are content to leave machine guns and bazookas in the hands of the feds. The better questions are (1) why is Biden trying to expand prohibition even though the data doesn’t support the need for it? And (2) how does he decide when it’s worth limiting the rights of the law-abiding majority in order to make things marginally more difficult for criminals? If banning assault weapons is justifiable, why shouldn’t we ban booze that’s over, say, five percent ABV in order to reduce drunk-driving accidents? The White House refrain throughout this miserable process has been that it’s worth doing if it’ll save even one life. Well, I’ll bet a ban on liquor that’s higher than 10 proof would save at least one. How about it?