Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

Unfortunately, that link you provided is behind a paywall, so neither of us know their methodology. But I find it funny that you respond to 3 studies which indicate a 22-31% ownership, with one study citing 43% of households (which is a different statistics) and no easy way to look into that. Not to mention it's a German statistical company, so I'm unsure if they did in-person interviews, or how they compiled them.

The CDC report you reference simply recounts self-reported "defensive uses of a gun," without any adjudication of that in police reports or court. What we do know is that the "importance of guns for self-defence" is a myth, at least in regards to home invasions, where it often invoked. Like I said earlier, 100 burglary-related homicides happen a year. Not all of those are in a home, not all of those involve guns, not all of them are by the invader. Even the full 100 would be less than 1% of all gun homicides in a given year.

And like I said, the people obfuscating and suppressing and not funding gun studies are clear and obvious: the NRA, and the GOP.

I was able to read it without the paywall. Not sure why you couldn't. There are other links however, let me see more I can find......

It is not a myth. I know from personal experience and local knowledge it is not a myth. My wife's cousin was killed by a man who shot him after he broke into the guy's apartment and attacked him with a knife. There are numerous cases happening all the time in the US where guns are used to successfully defend a intended victim with. One can cite biased leaning studies by those who are of a political stance all they want. I know it is not a myth.

[eschatological]

That is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. IE, useless.

When I said "myth," I meant it's a myth that it's a statistically relevant reason to own a gun, not that it has never happened ever. But I have a feeling you knew that, and chose to parse it however you damn well pleased.

[Stormdash]

That is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. IE, useless.

When I said "myth," I meant it's a myth that it's a statistically relevant reason to own a gun, not that it has never happened ever. But I have a feeling you knew that, and chose to parse it however you damn well pleased.

It happens enough that what you're basically doing is picking which people you'd prefer dead under what circumstances. At best.

[Ghostpanther]

That is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. IE, useless.

When I said "myth," I meant it's a myth that it's a statistically relevant reason to own a gun, not that it has never happened ever. But I have a feeling you knew that, and chose to parse it however you damn well pleased.

I noticed how you used 100 burglary related homicides each year, but failed to mention this government report https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf, in which there are far more victims who experienced some form of violence in home invasions. And I am still checking your data on the number of homicides committed in burglaries. Which I agree most burglaries do not involve homicides....but lets see....

From the link I posted..Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007

So how much is 9% ( serous injuries ) of 36% of those injured cases in those years out of 3.7 million? You realize that is a hell of lot more than 100 homicides?

And you are free to feel all you want, I am trying to see if you can back up your claims not based on some biased report or dubious ones like a phone call survey done by a liberal college.

I have not been able to find a single source for the 100 homicides average each year involving a burglary. If you could, please provide a well documented link to back that up. Even if it is true, the link I provided shows there are far more than 100 serous injuries occurring during burglaries each year. A lot more.

[eschatological]

The burglary-related murder statistics are just from the FBI website. For example, here is 2015:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...nship_2015.xls

This shows it is 102 in 2015. The 2017 table shows 90.


The FBI does distinguish between robbery and burglary, with the former being a violent crime aimed at a person, and burglary aimed at a structure for purposes of theft. About 16.5% of robberies occur in a residence, and, if the murder rates for robberies hold true, between burglaries and robberies there's about 200 homicides a year (though, again, the burglary numbers aren't necessarily all in residences, they include commercial burglaries).

Looking at your study, it shows about 266k victims of violent crime. Of the overall numbers (3. whatever million), that's 7% of burglaries that involve violence. Of those, MAX 200 (if you include robberies which take place in a residence and assume all burglaries are residential), end in homicides (and we don't know how many are gun homicides, remember), for a paltry 0.07% of all burglaries ending in homicides.

The math just doesn't support the idea that the threat of violent home invasions is a good reason to own a gun.


- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Nevermind that the same study you linked showed that 65% of burglaries are perpetrated by people KNOWN to the victims, which should dispel the idea of strangers invading your house is a serious problem.

[Svifnymr]

That is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. IE, useless.

When I said "myth," I meant it's a myth that it's a statistically relevant reason to own a gun, not that it has never happened ever. But I have a feeling you knew that, and chose to parse it however you damn well pleased.

I'd think preventing "violence" in the home probably has a higher rate than simply murder via home invasion, obviously. Likewise though, basing banning guns due to the statistically tiny % of deaths from rifles overall, let alone semi-auto rifles is just as pointless. One is someone wasting money on a purchase they don't need, the other is restricting people in their ability to do something based on others.

- - - Updated - - -

But why in the fuck do people need assault rifles? A handgun isn't enough to defend yourself?

It is not a matter of "need", it is a matter of justifying why the ability to own must be removed. What justification is there to ban semi-automatic rifles when rifles overall are such a small usage in any crime? Why do you believe a mass shooting couldn't be done with a shotgun or pistol if you banned semi-automatic rifles?

[eschatological]

I'd think preventing "violence" in the home probably has a higher rate than simply murder via home invasion, obviously. Likewise though, basing banning guns due to the statistically tiny % of deaths from rifles overall, let alone semi-auto rifles is just as pointless. One is someone wasting money on a purchase they don't need, the other is restricting people in their ability to do something based on others.

Again, even Ghostpanther's source says that 26% of 27.6% - AKA 7.2% of all burglaries - even have any violence involved. And in 65% that 7.2% of all burglaries with someone at home, the offender is known to the victim, dispelling the myth of the stranger invasion being a prevalent problem. Edit: Meaning that in 2.5% of all burglaries, the crime is committed 1) with someone home, 2) violently, 3) by a stranger.


Edit: Further edit. The statistical analysis is important because all of constitutional law (and laws that supposedly abut against them by restricting rights) weigh the state's aim in promoting a public good, versus the harm or inconvenience on the person whose rights are curtailed. This is called "judicial scrutiny." And most gun control cases are reviewed under the doctrine of "intermediate scrutiny," which states a law must further a state's important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Heller in 2008 deemed, under intermediate scrutiny, that the 2nd Amendment is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner," even though it struck down D.C.'s handgun ban (because it effectively banned all guns, through high restrictions on when you could carry and possess).

[Maneo]

I was able to read it without the paywall. Not sure why you couldn't. There are other links however, let me see more I can find......

It is not a myth. I know from personal experience and local knowledge it is not a myth. My wife's cousin was killed by a man who shot him after he broke into the guy's apartment and attacked him with a knife. There are numerous cases happening all the time in the US where guns are used to successfully defend a intended victim with. One can cite biased leaning studies by those who are of a political stance all they want. I know it is not a myth.

Firearms have personally saved me twice, in my 44 years on this earth.

Me and my son home alone, I was on my computer. I hear something coming from my front door I look outside to see two individuals attempting to gain entry to my home. I call the police and grab my Smith and Wesson M&P15 (basicly a AR-15), and sit at the top of my steps waiting for them to gain entry, setting the phone down.

Two individuals opened my door and upon, seeing the laser site, in the firsts center mass one of them yelled either "Fuckers got a gun" or "Crackers got a gun" and took off running. I lived in a upper middle class area in Nebraska so the cops arrived about 10 minutes later (I think it has been awhile).

Later one of my cop friends informed me they caught the two guys, they had fucking machetes. I can only imagine how that would have ended for me and my son if I hadn't been armed.

Then while living in GA, I had my conceal carry permit. I was walking down town, and a pleasant man stepped out of a alley w/a large blade telling me to give him my wallet. I put my hands up saying "OK, OK" taking a few steps back, reaching into my jacket for what he thought was my wallet, however I use a shoulder holster. Unsnapped it and gripped my 9mm lifting the jacket so he could see that it wasn't my wallet I was grabbing, .. he took off running.

Now I live in Maine, and I am thankful for their very liberal gun laws. Even though violent crime here is almost zero. When I first moved up here someone was stabbed in the Mall and it was news for over a month. When I got stabbed at the largest night club in Omaha, it didn't even make the papers.

Now that being said, I do have my own ideas on reform.

I know when I purchased my first hand gun, I had to go to the police and have a background check done to prove that I was eligible to purchase said firearm. After this was done, I had a little card stating such. I think something like this should be required, for all firearms. Doesn't say that you have one, what it is or anything just that if you chose to you could purchase one. Going a step further I think that ID should be required even w/ammo purchases.

[Stormdash]

Edit: Nevermind that the same study you linked showed that 65% of burglaries are perpetrated by people KNOWN to the victims, which should dispel the idea of strangers invading your house is a serious problem.

I'm sure that whether the person against whom you may need to use deadly force being a stranger matters... somehow... I mean, no it doesn't, but I want to be polite and accommodating.

[Zaydin]

Well, some mildly good news: Cloudflare is kicking 8chan out of their DdoS protection network.

Doesn't stop that cesspit from finding a new service, of course, but you have to wonder who would be insane enough to do business with a hive of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, etc.

[Masark]

Well, some mildly good news: Cloudflare is kicking 8chan out of their DdoS protection network.

Doesn't stop that cesspit from finding a new service, of course, but you have to wonder who would be insane enough to do business with a hive of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, etc.

Maybe that will convince them to clean house.

In other news, A Canadian opinion on the recent events :

[Ghostpanther]

The burglary-related murder statistics are just from the FBI website. For example, here is 2015:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...nship_2015.xls

This shows it is 102 in 2015. The 2017 table shows 90.


The FBI does distinguish between robbery and burglary, with the former being a violent crime aimed at a person, and burglary aimed at a structure for purposes of theft. About 16.5% of robberies occur in a residence, and, if the murder rates for robberies hold true, between burglaries and robberies there's about 200 homicides a year (though, again, the burglary numbers aren't necessarily all in residences, they include commercial burglaries).

Looking at your study, it shows about 266k victims of violent crime. Of the overall numbers (3. whatever million), that's 7% of burglaries that involve violence. Of those, MAX 200 (if you include robberies which take place in a residence and assume all burglaries are residential), end in homicides (and we don't know how many are gun homicides, remember), for a paltry 0.07% of all burglaries ending in homicides.

The math just doesn't support the idea that the threat of violent home invasions is a good reason to own a gun.


- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Nevermind that the same study you linked showed that 65% of burglaries are perpetrated by people KNOWN to the victims, which should dispel the idea of strangers invading your house is a serious problem.

From the link I provided ( 2003 - 2007 report.) It says 3,713,000 burglaries occurred on average during those years.

26% of those the homeowner was present. Which equates to 1,024,788 times.

9% of the 1,024,788 times, involved serous injuries. Which equates to 266,404 times the burglary resulted in serous injuries. It does not matter if it is only 100 - 200 end in death. Serous injuries are also something I would think anyone wants to avoid.

I understand the odds of myself ever having to use a firearm in a self defense scenario are very, very low. Which I hope stays that way. In the 30+ years I have lived in our home, we have never had a fire, but I still keep my smoke alarms active. Same with driving with a spare. Been decades since I have needed to use one. I also have a first aid kit in our SUV.

And the choice each of us make in regards to the extent we want to be cautious, is a individual one and there is no need to justify it as long as the decision is a legal one.
And remember, a victim of a serous assault or rape, does not give 2 shits about statistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, even Ghostpanther's source says that 26% of 27.6% - AKA 7.2% of all burglaries - even have any violence involved. And in 65% that 7.2% of all burglaries with someone at home, the offender is known to the victim, dispelling the myth of the stranger invasion being a prevalent problem. Edit: Meaning that in 2.5% of all burglaries, the crime is committed 1) with someone home, 2) violently, 3) by a stranger.


Edit: Further edit. The statistical analysis is important because all of constitutional law (and laws that supposedly abut against them by restricting rights) weigh the state's aim in promoting a public good, versus the harm or inconvenience on the person whose rights are curtailed. This is called "judicial scrutiny." And most gun control cases are reviewed under the doctrine of "intermediate scrutiny," which states a law must further a state's important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Heller in 2008 deemed, under intermediate scrutiny, that the 2nd Amendment is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner," even though it struck down D.C.'s handgun ban (because it effectively banned all guns, through high restrictions on when you could carry and possess).

Does not matter to myself, If i know the intruder or not. If they break into our home, they will meet deadly resistance to that invasion. Our children or friends would not try to break into our home anyway.

The Heller case involved the banning of handguns. Not all guns by the city. And true, we do not have the right to keep and bear any type of weapons.

A recent ruling by a federal judge in a case involving D.C., ruled their restrictions on only allowing a carry conceal permit under special conditions, was unconstitutional. They are now issuing them to any lawful resident of the city. At least until they decide if they want to appeal the ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Firearms have personally saved me twice, in my 44 years on this earth.

Me and my son home alone, I was on my computer. I hear something coming from my front door I look outside to see two individuals attempting to gain entry to my home. I call the police and grab my Smith and Wesson M&P15 (basicly a AR-15), and sit at the top of my steps waiting for them to gain entry, setting the phone down.

Two individuals opened my door and upon, seeing the laser site, in the firsts center mass one of them yelled either "Fuckers got a gun" or "Crackers got a gun" and took off running. I lived in a upper middle class area in Nebraska so the cops arrived about 10 minutes later (I think it has been awhile).

Later one of my cop friends informed me they caught the two guys, they had fucking machetes. I can only imagine how that would have ended for me and my son if I hadn't been armed.

Then while living in GA, I had my conceal carry permit. I was walking down town, and a pleasant man stepped out of a alley w/a large blade telling me to give him my wallet. I put my hands up saying "OK, OK" taking a few steps back, reaching into my jacket for what he thought was my wallet, however I use a shoulder holster. Unsnapped it and gripped my 9mm lifting the jacket so he could see that it wasn't my wallet I was grabbing, .. he took off running.

Now I live in Maine, and I am thankful for their very liberal gun laws. Even though violent crime here is almost zero. When I first moved up here someone was stabbed in the Mall and it was news for over a month. When I got stabbed at the largest night club in Omaha, it didn't even make the papers.

Now that being said, I do have my own ideas on reform.

I know when I purchased my first hand gun, I had to go to the police and have a background check done to prove that I was eligible to purchase said firearm. After this was done, I had a little card stating such. I think something like this should be required, for all firearms. Doesn't say that you have one, what it is or anything just that if you chose to you could purchase one. Going a step further I think that ID should be required even w/ammo purchases.

Good to hear you ended ok by using your firearm for self defense. Those are excellent examples and are way more common than some want to believe. Using a firearm in self defense, does not mean you always have to fire it for the effect of it defending yourself. The guy facing you with a knife, if you had backed up and he had charged you with it, you could have legally shot him. Here in Ohio at least. Same for the two breaking into your home, once they crossed that door entry, you could have used deadly force.

And i have no issues with your reforms. To some extent, they already exist here in Ohio.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe that will convince them to clean house.

In other news, A Canadian opinion on the recent events :

So who is this guy? He speaks for all Canadians?

[zenkai]

Maybe that will convince them to clean house.

In other news, A Canadian opinion on the recent events :

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/eN8KvxE.png[/]

Wow what a an ignorant sob, NRA a terrorist org lol. Someone should give him a dictionary for Christmas.

- - - Updated - - -

I understand the odds of myself ever having to use a firearm in a self defense scenario are very, very low. Which I hope stays that way. In the 30+ years I have lived in our home, we have never had a fire, but I still keep my smoke alarms active. Same with driving with a spare. Been decades since I have needed to use one. I also have a first aid kit in our SUV.

Like the old saying goes, rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



Like the old saying goes, rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it.

That is how I look at a lot of things. I have a lot of tools around here, I have only used very few times over the years. One which I bought to use to jack up one side of my leaning tool shed, a High Lift jack. Only have used it once. May never use it again, but I am going to keep it just in case.

[Svifnymr]

Again, even Ghostpanther's source says that 26% of 27.6% - AKA 7.2% of all burglaries - even have any violence involved. And in 65% that 7.2% of all burglaries with someone at home, the offender is known to the victim, dispelling the myth of the stranger invasion being a prevalent problem. Edit: Meaning that in 2.5% of all burglaries, the crime is committed 1) with someone home, 2) violently, 3) by a stranger.

I only glanced through the report in between other things, but did not see their definition of "known" or "not stranger". I know in other reports (the "43 times more likely" one and some others) the definition included anyone that you had reasonable cause to believe the victim had met. Not that it really matters if you knew the person overall.

So the story a week or so ago with the home invasion where the victim had an AR15, he had dealt with the assailants in a transaction via craigs list, so they were technically "known to him". Obviously an estranged husband is known to his victim. They also included neighbors that the victim may have never met.

Edit: Further edit. The statistical analysis is important because all of constitutional law (and laws that supposedly abut against them by restricting rights) weigh the state's aim in promoting a public good, versus the harm or inconvenience on the person whose rights are curtailed. This is called "judicial scrutiny." And most gun control cases are reviewed under the doctrine of "intermediate scrutiny," which states a law must further a state's important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Heller in 2008 deemed, under intermediate scrutiny, that the 2nd Amendment is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner," even though it struck down D.C.'s handgun ban (because it effectively banned all guns, through high restrictions on when you could carry and possess).

Laws should also be designed to have some actual impact on the crimes they're attempting to reduce. UBC won't help stop a mass shooting that was with a gun bought legally, and banning rifles won't stop handguns from doing the same damage, let alone a shotgun. Removing the rights of others because someone else did something that the law would not prevent is just odd to me.

I know it sounds dumb, but we've gone over many options in this thread and it's not like any of us are in a position to implement policy regardless. Likewise the political parties are not interested in understanding the situation or finding solutions, just blaming and inciting. When the talking points come back to "mental health" vs "gun control", why don't democrats turn around and submit a comprehensive federal/ state asylum system that would house folks that are a danger? Instead it's always large packages of crap. Certainly the republicans aren't submitting the stuff themselves, but less grandstanding would be nice. It presents the situation to me that (like immigration) neither side wants to fix the problem since they need the problem to campaign on.

And to be clear, the AR15 is the single most popular competition firearm. Glocks and 1911's split the handgun world with some other designs, but AR15's rule the roost in rifle and 3 gun. Shotguns are more of a mixed bag. The last time I added up the numbers, over 900,000 AR15's had been made in a single year. They are as common as any other gun design and more common than most.

[petej0]

I only glanced through the report in between other things, but did not see their definition of "known" or "not stranger". I know in other reports (the "43 times more likely" one and some others) the definition included anyone that you had reasonable cause to believe the victim had met. Not that it really matters if you knew the person overall.

So the story a week or so ago with the home invasion where the victim had an AR15, he had dealt with the assailants in a transaction via craigs list, so they were technically "known to him". Obviously an estranged husband is known to his victim. They also included neighbors that the victim may have never met.




Laws should also be designed to have some actual impact on the crimes they're attempting to reduce. UBC won't help stop a mass shooting that was with a gun bought legally, and banning rifles won't stop handguns from doing the same damage, let alone a shotgun. Removing the rights of others because someone else did something that the law would not prevent is just odd to me.

I know it sounds dumb, but we've gone over many options in this thread and it's not like any of us are in a position to implement policy regardless. Likewise the political parties are not interested in understanding the situation or finding solutions, just blaming and inciting. When the talking points come back to "mental health" vs "gun control", why don't democrats turn around and submit a comprehensive federal/ state asylum system that would house folks that are a danger? Instead it's always large packages of crap. Certainly the republicans aren't submitting the stuff themselves, but less grandstanding would be nice. It presents the situation to me that (like immigration) neither side wants to fix the problem since they need the problem to campaign on.

And to be clear, the AR15 is the single most popular competition firearm. Glocks and 1911's split the handgun world with some other designs, but AR15's rule the roost in rifle and 3 gun. Shotguns are more of a mixed bag. The last time I added up the numbers, over 900,000 AR15's had been made in a single year. They are as common as any other gun design and more common than most.

The answer is simple. It is politically easier and less public backlash to violate the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment than it would be to involuntarily commit someone because they made a few incendiary posts on social media.

[eschatological]

From the link I provided ( 2003 - 2007 report.) It says 3,713,000 burglaries occurred on average during those years.

26% of those the homeowner was present. Which equates to 1,024,788 times.

9% of the 1,024,788 times, involved serous injuries. Which equates to 266,404 times the burglary resulted in serous injuries. It does not matter if it is only 100 - 200 end in death. Serous injuries are also something I would think anyone wants to avoid.

I understand the odds of myself ever having to use a firearm in a self defense scenario are very, very low. Which I hope stays that way. In the 30+ years I have lived in our home, we have never had a fire, but I still keep my smoke alarms active. Same with driving with a spare. Been decades since I have needed to use one. I also have a first aid kit in our SUV.

You're confusing legal definitions. 7.2% (the 266k number) were victims of "violent crime." That is a crime in which any physical force is used. Your own report breaks this down further:

"Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred."

Keep in mind, these are 7% and 3% of the 266k number.

Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.

Again, percentages of the 266k number.

"Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a completed burglary."

Here's where you wanted to contend - 9% of 266k is less than 26k. Out of THREE MILLION. That is a hugely insignificant statistical reality. And you can pine all you want about "how it matters to the person who is in that percentage," but, as the precious, sacrosanct Founders said, "This is a nation of laws, not men." In other words, reason rules our jurisprudence, not personal envy, fear, animosity, etc.

Again: there is no justifiable, statistical reason to need a gun for self-defense in the home. It is a myth. It is a boogeyman story told by conservatives to drive gun sales and paranoia about the left. Your chances of suffering serious injury in a home invasion is, BY YOUR OWN STUDY, has a 0.0065 chance of happening, or 0.65%. That is 1.3 chances out of 200. You have a higher chance of giving birth to twins. You have triple the chance to live to 100. You have a higher chance of being audited by the IRS. YOU HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE (1 in 119) OF FALLING TO YOUR DEATH. You have a higher chance of dying from obesity. You have double the chance of getting skin cancer. It's an irrational fear.

[Draco-Onis]

The answer is simple. It is politically easier and less public backlash to violate the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment than it would be to involuntarily commit someone because they made a few incendiary posts on social media.

One giant sized hole in your argument the democrats have given several bills that address immigration including a bipartisan one that had full funding for the wall guess who turned those down?

- - - Updated - - -

I know it sounds dumb, but we've gone over many options in this thread and it's not like any of us are in a position to implement policy regardless. Likewise the political parties are not interested in understanding the situation or finding solutions, just blaming and inciting. When the talking points come back to "mental health" vs "gun control", why don't democrats turn around and submit a comprehensive federal/ state asylum system that would house folks that are a danger? Instead it's always large packages of crap. Certainly the republicans aren't submitting the stuff themselves, but less grandstanding would be nice. It presents the situation to me that (like immigration) neither side wants to fix the problem since they need the problem to campaign on.

Why don't you ask Moscow Mitch and Donald Trump, they have killed several such bills including bipartisan ones, Trump doesn't want to compromise at all because Rush Limbaugh types will be mad. Even when democrats offered him full funding for the wall as an offering so they can come to an agreement he turned it down.

[Stormdash]

One giant sized hole in your argument the democrats have given several bills that address immigration including a bipartisan one that had full funding for the wall guess who turned those down?

- - - Updated - - -



Why don't you ask Moscow Mitch and Donald Trump, they have killed several such bills including bipartisan ones, Trump doesn't want to compromise at all because Rush Limbaugh will be mad at him for compromising. Even when democrats offered him full funding for the wall as an offering so they can come to an agreement he turned it down.

The GOP didn't jump all over the poison pill offerings? I'm... I'm shocked.

[Draco-Onis]

The GOP didn't jump all over the poison pill offerings? I'm... I'm shocked.

The GOP did Trump didn't because part of what democrats wanted was taking care of the DACA kids as soon as Limbaugh and others started attacking he ran with his tail between his legs.