I'm out of the loop on the gun control debate.

[fuzzybabybunny]

So I'm out of the loop on the whole gun control debate. I know someone who frequently posts sayings on Facebook like "the Second Amendment is my license to carry a gun" or some such. I don't believe people are trying to repeal the second amendment, right? Last I heard there was some bill that failed to pass that would have expanded background checks. What exactly is the issue? I'd imagine that lawful gun owners and people like me want to be able to buy and keep guns for defense, sport, and hunting, but they don't want people to have guns that intend to use them for offense and criminal activities. What is being done to move towards this?

I don't think you can really outlaw guns and expect it to be effective. The thing with America is that they're already out there floating around in the wild due to our long history of private gun ownership, meaning bad people can still get them more or less easily after the law abiding citizens have turned in their guns. It'd be harder, sure, but not impossible or extremely difficult as with other countries that have not had a history of private gun ownership.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know what kind of feedback you were looking for here? Was there a question you wanted addressed?

 

[irishScott]

In a nutshell:

What's happening is what usually happens. Gun control advocates are proposing every feel-good non-solution under the sun from registration, to ammo taxes, to banning internet ammunition sales, to banning .50 BMG, to banning assault weapons, to banning any semi-automatic rifle that accepts magazines, to only allowing 7 rounds loaded in a 10 round magazine (literally, Governor Cuomo is crazy). But they haven't made much real progress outside of gun control strongholds (New York, California, Massachusetts, etc).

In the face of this, the pro-gun lobby and voters have gone to the opposite extreme. A lot of people don't support universal background checks because they think it's an incrementalist move towards registration. Largely under this rational, the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies blocked the latest bill in the Senate.

As for what's actually being productively done, every now and then I've heard of some non-specific "mental health improvements" being legislated around, so that's fine. Schools in many states have started allowing teachers with permits/training to carry.

 

[Craig234]

What's basically happening is:

Thousands of people are killed every year in gun violence. Having a gun is more dangerous statistically than not having one, but using it or needing it are both rare.

There are cases where having one can save your life. But the gun control measures aren't about your 'right to have a gun'.

You're right, the second amendment is not anywhere close to being repealed - some would say it shouold be updated, but there's basically no chance of that.

Gun manufacturers fund the NRA, which acts as a lobbyist for their interests. They take pretty radical positions against basically any measure.

What we have now is pretty broken. It's very easy to do straw purchases for criminals, a large percent (40%?) of gun sales have no background checks.

I remember seeing a statistic I think was about 50,000 background checks that WERE done being denied, so it's easy to imagine how many sales without them happened to people who couldn't pass them, if that many people who couldn't pass it bothered to try to buy with one.

The NRA has also become a basically far right political organization, very critical of Obama; their convention last week was filled with Obama-bashing right-wing politicians.

Recent mass killings - movie theatre, Sandy Hook - have inspired new efforts to pass some measures. Joe Biden at Obama's request led a task force to recommend measures. Then a Democrat and Republican join to make a 'compromise bill'. They invited the NRA to join in forming it, and the NRA did, watering it down - and then the NRA strongly opposed that bill.

A vote was held on the watered down bill, and it got enough votes to pass a normal vote - 54 - but the Republicans basically filibuster everything to need 60, so i didn't pass.

(Really 55 - Harry Reid votes no if it's not passing for preocedural reasons).

Several Senators who voted against the bill saw their ratings drop; the Republican from New Hampshire dropped 15 points, enough to threated her re-election. Some Senators who voted for the bill saw their ratings improve. It's going to be re-introduced, advocates plan to keep fighting for it.

Most Congressional Republicans are in 'safe' Republican districts from gerrymandering, and feel vulnerable only to being 'primaried' from the right, not defeated by a Democrat.

This encourages them to vote 'to the right' to protect themselves from a primary challenger calling them 'anti gun'.

Federal Gun Control measures have rarely been passed - 1934, 1968, and 1994 (expired in 2004).

Politically, the people against the measures use a lot of straw men - claims that proponents are 'anti-gun', that they want to come and take everyone's gun, that they are violating the second amendment, and other such 'scare arguments'. Rand Paul attacked Obama for 'using the families of Sandy Hook children murdered as props'. Joe Biden described the NRA campaign as lying about the bill.

There are big regional differences on guns - people in urban areas are more pro-gun control while people in more rural areas are more anti-gun control.

The Second Amendment is very vague; it doesn't define what it means by 'arms', and for over 200 years the Supreme Court refused to say whether it included an individual right to own a gun at all. In recent years, they finally did rule on that - I think it was a 5-4 decision - where they said it is a right, but allowed regulations including background checks and bans on guns for groups where there's a reason, including released criminals.

One other topic under 'gun control' is that the Center for Disease Control has been asked in the past to do studies on what policies are effective in reducing gun violence; Republicans passed a ban on their doing any research that advocates any type of gun control; Obama has said he'd going to order more research anyway.

Another topic is that in 2006, Republicans put in a law that the Bureau of Alchol, Firearms and Explosives has to have their agency head approved by the Senate - and since then they have refused to approve anyone for the position, under Bush or Obama, trying to prevent it from functioning as much as they can.

 

[irishScott]

I'm going to give you a very biased wall of double-spaced text to attempt to bring you around to my point of view instead of answering your question.

Fixed.

I suggest you re-read the DC guidelines with special attention to productive discussion point #3. --ck

 

[ivwshane]

Basically the gun nuts don't want any legislation period and support their thinking with irrational claims. Mean while normal gun owners have been, for the most part, silent although they seem to support simple things like universal background checks.

Even when a bill that only dealt with background checks was proposed and specifically had wording prohibiting any sort of registry they voted it against it. All despite saying that they were for it in the past, all despite the fact that we already have background checks and this bill was to close loopholes.

Those states with a saner legislative body have already bassed basic measures for gun control.

 

[irishScott]

Basically the gun nuts don't want any legislation period and support their thinking with irrational claims. Mean while normal gun owners have been, for the most part, silent although they seem to support simple things like universal background checks.

Even when a bill that only dealt with background checks was proposed and specifically had wording prohibiting any sort of registry they voted it against it. All despite saying that they were for it in the past, all despite the fact that we already have background checks and this bill was to close loopholes.

Those states with a saner legislative body have already bassed basic measures for gun control.

^^^ Craig, take notes. This is how you represent an opposing argument without spouting walls of bullshit.

And, once again, you're not even making an effort here. --ck

 

[Craig234]

Fixed.

I may not agree, but have to give you credit for a quality, well-supported argument.

 

[Craig234]

^^^ Craig, take notes. This is how you represent an opposing argument without spouting walls of bullshit.

Wow, you had already exceeded any standards of what to expect for a quality argument - and then you add even better arguments. Can we give you a medal or something?

 

[irishScott]

Wow, you had already exceeded any standards of what to expect for a quality argument - and then you add even better arguments. Can we give you a medal or something?

Some of the points you made have full threads devoted to debating them, and raging debates elsewhere, yet you state them as facts. Other points you made are demonstrably false. Most of the rest that were actually factual are completely without proper context, and due to the structure of your post are positioned to imply a replacement context of your choosing.

You post is barely a notch above an anti-vaccination rally.

 

[Lalakai]

the recent legislative attempt has some validity and merit. If the existing laws and regs were applied, it would go a long ways to correcting many of the issues.

From my point of view, any time the gov't wants to track what individuals do, it's a bad thing. Bottom line is that I do not trust the gov't or agencies to keep their word regarding the usage, monitoring or security of any data they compile. Add in that the data pertains to firearm ownership, then I am against it whole heartedly and will support that with my wallet and time.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...mages-tsa-claim-images-saved-article-1.200279

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

https://www.ice.gov/le-information-sharing/

http://offgridsurvival.com/missouridepartmentofrevenue-dhs-gunowners/

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/gover...info-passports/story?id=12449956#.UYVtCEq65GE

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/02/u-s-census-bureau-fails-to-protect-your-data/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...ous-just-might-be-president-obamas-watergate/

Something that I've found slightly nauseating is how the children that were killed in the schools, at the theaters, are used to justify the need for additional restriction. The death of any child is an ugly thing, but selectively choosing specific children that have been killed, to further a political agenda is the ultimate dishonor. Where are tears for these children?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

.............and these are only the stories we know about............

 

[Fern]

So I'm out of the loop on the whole gun control debate. I know someone who frequently posts sayings on Facebook like "the Second Amendment is my license to carry a gun" or some such. I don't believe people are trying to repeal the second amendment, right? Last I heard there was some bill that failed to pass that would have expanded background checks. What exactly is the issue? I'd imagine that lawful gun owners and people like me want to be able to buy and keep guns for defense, sport, and hunting, but they don't want people to have guns that intend to use them for offense and criminal activities. What is being done to move towards this?
-snip-

Here is a post I made in P&N:

First, you need to fix the background check system. As it now stands states aren't required to forward their info, like those that have mental health issues, to the fed govt for background checks.

However, the background check system can only work when the database is well-supplied with information, and at present, states are not obligated to submit all of the mental health records that they possess. The lack of a mandate to disclose these records mean that they have only trickled in. The database currently has about 300,000 records when some simple demographic modeling by the Government Accounatbility Office (GAO) shows it should contain about 2.7 million records.

Loughner and Cho (the VT shooter) would have both been prevented from purchasing their weapons if reporting practices had been better:

"The alleged shooter in the Virginia Tech case was found by a special judge to be '“an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.'” The mayors’ group says that ruling should have prevented him from owning a gun, but because his mental health records weren’t sent to NCIS, he was able to purchase the gun that was used in the college killings.

"The group notes that Jared Loughner, the gunman who allegedly killed six and wounded 20 in Tucson, also should have been barred from purchasing the shotgun used in the killings after he was rejected from enlisting in the U.S. Army due to drug abuse. The mayors’ group says his record was not forwarded to the NCIS."

A more recent report by the GAO goes into this problem in exacting detail (government reports are so good on this stuff). Part of the problem is technical issues relating to the transfer of data, other problems involve lack of funding for the incentives to turn over records. The study showed that three months ago, thirty 30 states were not making any non-criminal mental health records available to the federal database.

As I said before, it is not yet known whether Holmes (the BatmanDK shooter) had a mental health history that would have precluded him from purchasing the weapons he used in his attack (or whether he purchased them at all), but Colorado is not one of the 10 states that has so far mandated the submission of their state records to the federal government.

We now know that Holmes did have mental health issues and they were reported to the state, but the state failed to report them to feds.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...re-should-never-have-happened-and-here-is-why

Why don't liberals screaming for more gun control just start here? Just a simple bill to require states to forward their criminal and mental health records.

Liberals efforts at gun control are aptly described in my sig.

Fern

Instead of fixing what is broken liberals have tried any and all types of restrictions to essentially ban guns, but without actually banning them as that would be unconstitutional.

IMO, the primary reason the recent 'background check' bill wasn't passed was because it made a felony out of an otherwise totally law abiding citizen for privately selling a gun w/o a background check.

The WoD is bad enough, we don't need another stupid reason to make people out as felons and put them in prison.

Fern

 

[John Liberty]

Well FBB, following some high-profile shootings, the democrats and statists decided to try to pass some laws to ban some semi automatic rifles, limit the size of magazines, and what they call universal background checks. After vociferous debate, all of the proposed laws were defeated in the Senate.

Of course, during the debate about the proposed laws, the democrats and statists cited polls showing a large majority of the public supporting universal background checks, but not the other proposals. The poll most cited was conducted in three of the most politically liberal states in the country, and only a sample size of 1700. Naturally this poll supported the background checks. If the same poll was conducted in Wyoming, Texas and Arizona, the results would have been significantly different.

IMHO, it all comes down to this: the Second Amendment is clear about the people having an innate right to bear arms for the purpose of protection. A careful reading of the Federalist Papers will show the writers were most concerned about an out of control government, and that the people have the right to be able to defend themselves against said government.

Arms have been defined as the same equipment carried by a standing army. One can go look for such a definition, google is your friend.

Now I realize that some in this forum will disagree with me fervently. We can attempt to disagree politely. Hope my opinion is helpful FBB.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What we have now is pretty broken. It's very easy to do straw purchases for criminals, a large percent (40%?) of gun sales have no background checks.

Starw sales are already illegal, and have been for a long time. IIRC, the max penalty is 10 yrs in federal prison (probably along with a fine too).

The 40% number has been discredited, yet you and Obama keep citing it.

Moreover, you're saying 40% of all gun sales. That's incorrect. The 40% number pertains only to those purchased on the secondary market.

And that number is considered incorrect for a number of reasons. For one thing, it included gun purchases made BEFORE the background check system existed. (For more reasons why the study is unreliable for the purpose used by Craig and Obama see the linked article below.)

It came from an old study/poll by Ludwig and cook.

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote “we don’t know the current percentage — nor does anyone else.” But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...02e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

I remember seeing a statistic I think was about 50,000 background checks that WERE done being denied, so it's easy to imagine how many sales without them happened to people who couldn't pass them, if that many people who couldn't pass it bothered to try to buy with one.

Wow, where to start?

Yet, an initial denial does not mean that an individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2009, the latest year with data available. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation.

As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”

(Note: At this point we're looking at an erroneous rejection rate of 93%.)

To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed.

Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases.

That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2 percent. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?

Up until this point, no discretion about the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that some individuals are prohibited individuals, they are included. But of these 4,154 cases, only 140 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to prosecutors, just 60 of which involved providing false information when buying a firearm.

Of those 140 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 77 times.

(To 'cut to the chase', so to speak.)

So we have two estimates of the false positive rate: 94.2 percent or 99.98 percent. The first estimate is obviously too low, it assumes that all the cases identified up to that point are accurate.

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

So, Craig's assertion that "so it's easy to imagine how many sales without them happened to people who couldn't pass them" is utter BS. (Assuming anyone could understand it given the horrid grammar.) We have a sum total of 140 cases where people proven to be correctly banned applied for a background check. This, of course, is significantly different than Craig's claimed 50,000 number.

Fern

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

So provided all this information, how do you go about keeping dangerous Americans from buying guns?

I want to own a gun for protection, but I do not EVER want to have to use it against some bad person who wants to use that tool for offense. Guns are for sport, sustenance, and defense. That's it. How do we go about ensuring this?

We already know that in our current situation with guns floating around everywhere, simply outlawing guns, even if it was due to repealing the second amendment, will simply disarm law abiding citizens. I'd like to hear any counter arguments.

Right now things like limiting magazine sizes only helps to curb the effectiveness of guns.

There needs to be a compromise somewhere. Clearly, with the recent massacres, something needs to be done. Or should we just accept these massacres as an inevitable sacrifice for our right to own guns? Our total freedom to get guns without a background check and without having to get recorded in some database?

 

[Craig234]

Well FBB, following some high-profile shootings, the democrats and statists decided to try to pass some laws to ban some semi automatic rifles, limit the size of magazines, and what they call universal background checks. After vociferous debate, all of the proposed laws were defeated in the Senate.

Of course, during the debate about the proposed laws, the democrats and statists cited polls showing a large majority of the public supporting universal background checks, but not the other proposals. The poll most cited was conducted in three of the most politically liberal states in the country, and only a sample size of 1700. Naturally this poll supported the background checks. If the same poll was conducted in Wyoming, Texas and Arizona, the results would have been significantly different.

IMHO, it all comes down to this: the Second Amendment is clear about the people having an innate right to bear arms for the purpose of protection. A careful reading of the Federalist Papers will show the writers were most concerned about an out of control government, and that the people have the right to be able to defend themselves against said government.

Arms have been defined as the same equipment carried by a standing army. One can go look for such a definition, google is your friend.

Now I realize that some in this forum will disagree with me fervently. We can attempt to disagree politely. Hope my opinion is helpful FBB.

1. Can you identify who the 'statists' are different from the Democrats? Or do you view them as the same people and just feel the need to use two labels?

2. As my post more accurately noted, they were not exactly 'defeated in the Senate'. Republicans abused the filibuster as usual to demand 60 votes; they had 55.

3. You don't undestand statistics and polling. 'How can only 1700 people represent 300 million', people who don't know those thing ask.

Fact is, the sample sized determines the accuracy *unrelated to the population size*.

In other words, you get the same accuracy from 1700 whether the US had 3 million, 300 million, or 300 trillion people. And 1700 is a very accurate sample size.

4. You need to get better info on the polling. It *was* done for individual states; and it was broken down by things like 'Republicans' and 'NRA members'.

EVERY SINGLE state, and Republicans, and NRA members, ALL had a large majority supporting universal background checks.

I didn't see numbers for all 50 states, but the reporting suggested it was all of them and did cite specific very red states to support that.

5. Your 'definition' of arms does nothing to answer the question. The military has a lot of things available to its soldiers. What about armies that have carried poisonous gas?

 

[Craig234]

We already know that in our current situation with guns floating around everywhere, simply outlawing guns, even if it was due to repealing the second amendment, will simply disarm law abiding citizens. I'd like to hear any counter arguments.

OK, that's wrong. Not that anyone is suggesting it, but gun control DOES reduce the availability of guns for criminals.

Practically all guns start as 'legal'. Criminals get their guns from the pool of 'legal'. The more legal guns there are the easier and cheaper it is for criminals to get one.

Reduce the availability of legal guns, and you reduced the availability to criminals. They're harder to get and more expensive - supply and demand.

And that means that more and more criminals won't get them.

Right now things like limiting magazine sizes only helps to curb the effectiveness of guns.

Effectiveness of guns at what? Mass killings comes to mind. Is that a bad thing?

There needs to be a compromise somewhere. Clearly, with the recent massacres, something needs to be done. Or should we just accept these massacres as an inevitable sacrifice for our right to own guns? Our total freedom to get guns without a background check and without having to get recorded in some database?

Clear to you, not to the NRA or the politicians who vote as told to by the NRA.

 

[irishScott]

Right now things like limiting magazine sizes only helps to curb the effectiveness of guns.

Actually, it doesn't by any significant amount.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-joxi63xs

 

[irishScott]

OK, that's wrong. Not that anyone is suggesting it, but gun control DOES reduce the availability of guns for criminals.

Practically all guns start as 'legal'. Criminals get their guns from the pool of 'legal'. The more legal guns there are the easier and cheaper it is for criminals to get one.

Reduce the availability of legal guns, and you reduced the availability to criminals. They're harder to get and more expensive - supply and demand.

And that means that more and more criminals won't get them.

Tell us Craig, how would you purge most or all 300,000,000 guns from US society?

 

[Moonbeam]

So provided all this information, how do you go about keeping dangerous Americans from buying guns?

I want to own a gun for protection, but I do not EVER want to have to use it against some bad person who wants to use that tool for offense. Guns are for sport, sustenance, and defense. That's it. How do we go about ensuring this?

We already know that in our current situation with guns floating around everywhere, simply outlawing guns, even if it was due to repealing the second amendment, will simply disarm law abiding citizens. I'd like to hear any counter arguments.

Right now things like limiting magazine sizes only helps to curb the effectiveness of guns.

There needs to be a compromise somewhere. Clearly, with the recent massacres, something needs to be done. Or should we just accept these massacres as an inevitable sacrifice for our right to own guns? Our total freedom to get guns without a background check and without having to get recorded in some database?

As far as I can see the intransigence of the NRA will create a blow back that will lead to the repeal of the second amendment. This is just how the karma of stupidity works. The irrationally insane will eventually be overwhelmed by a greater level of insanity they create as a backlash. And one by one NRA politicians will be destroyed at the polls. One day the NRA will role over dead like a lamb with a bullet in it's head. You don't ever what to f with Mothers.

 

[irishScott]

As far as I can see the intransigence of the NRA will create a blow back that will lead to the repeal of the second amendment. This is just how the karma of stupidity works. The irrationally insane will eventually be overwhelmed by a greater level of insanity they create as a backlash. And one by one NRA politicians will be destroyed at the polls. One day the NRA will role over dead like a lamb with a bullet in it's head. You don't ever what to f with Mothers.

The karma of stupidity is why the NRA is as powerful as it is. The background check legislation would have passed without question back in the 90s. The backlash over the last 15 years from the AWB and repeated gun control attempts = even the watered down version was shot down in a Democrat-majority Senate.

As for mothers, MADD wants mandatory breathalyzers in all cars. Hasn't happened yet.

 

[Craig234]

Tell us Craig, how would you purge most or all 300,000,000 guns from US society?

What part of "Not that anyone is suggesting it" do you not understand?

No one is saying to get rid of all guns. Though the NRA lies that people are.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, it doesn't by any significant amount.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-joxi63xs

While the Arizona shooter was changing magazines is the delay when he was attacked and stopped. If he had to change sooner he could have killed fewer people.

While the Newtown shooter changed magazines, 11 children were able to escape from the classroom he was in. If he had to change more, more might have escaped.

You call the lives 'not significant'. I'll admit it's a pretty small percent of people's lives saved, but one is significant.

 

[irishScott]

What part of "Not that anyone is suggesting it" do you not understand?

No one is saying to get rid of all guns. Though the NRA lies that people are.

You think that attacking legal supply will lead to a decrease in criminal supply. Given the sheer amount of firearms floating around, you'd need to make a pretty huge impact for such a strategy to be effective. I'm asking how you would accomplish said impact.

A lot of gun crime is committed with revolvers. How are you going to attack that legal supply such that it effectively limits criminal supply?

 

[Moonbeam]

The karma of stupidity is why the NRA is as powerful as it is. The background check legislation would have passed without question back in the 90s. The backlash over the last 15 years from the AWB and repeated gun control attempts = even the watered down version was shot down in a Democrat-majority Senate.

As for mothers, MADD wants mandatory breathalyzers in all cars. Hasn't happened yet.

I only said what I see coming. It is just an opinion. I believe that the real stupidity is found in conservative thinking that has gone round the bend in the last 15 years. I think it's a reaction to the fact that modern American conservatives are backward, primitive, and dangerous in their thinking and have no appeal to the average person and represents a mental state that is on the way to extinction. There is a lot of sound and fury but it doesn't signify a thing, fish flopping around in the bottom of the boat. The notion that liberals had any way to take away guns before the NRA became an enemy to the American people was always nothing more than insanity, but not any more. you f'ed with Mothers and now you're going to pay, I think. We always create what we fear. If you fear somebody will take your guns you will find a way to make them do just that.