Mock

The background check should be done every 4 yrs like an auto license. People go nuts sometimes in between things.

In Iowa and some other states a permit to carry firearms IS a background check. If a person [like me] holds a state issued permit to carry firearms [in some states its known as a ccw permit] no background check is needed when buying a firearm.
Lets say I want to buy a firearm, pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, it don't matter. All I do is walk in, pick out the firearm, lay down the cash, show my drivers license and permit to carry and walk out the door with the firearm.
So in some states the background check card idea is being used.

Edited to add. Each state is different but Iowas permit to carry weapons is good for 5 years.

(01-15-2013, 10:08 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What laws are you talking about? The New York state laws? The proposed federal laws?

Do you object to the universal background checks, the stricter enforcement of laws against straw purchases, and better coordination between federal, local, and state authorities? I can support those areas of the proposed new laws.

I don't understand why facilitation of greater public awareness, education and prevention don't seem to be addressed by anyone, but could be that it's in the proposals and just hasn't been emphasized in the media (I'm wishful thinking here because I gotta believe that if I'm thinking how much can be done through common sense without legislation, others must be too). This would be something that could not only minimize gun violence, but any type of planned violent attack.

Anyway, I get the sense that you're vehement objection is limited to the banning certain gun types, and possibly the magazine caps and universal registration requirements?

One thing to keep in mind, even using executive order/action to push through some of the proposed new control measures (mostly on the administrative side), there will be a lot that must go through Congress. It's gonna be a tougher fight for Obama to get all of his proposals approved by the federal congress than it was for Cuomo to do so on a state level; Obama will likely have to compromise and negotiate down. Its not an all or nothing package.

This is political theater and opportunism at its worst. It's plain to see and blatantly obvious.

I'm vehemently opposed to the fallacy of this entire exercise. Banning semi-automatic weapons that look scary isn't the answer. Banning high capacity magazines isn't the answer. Better background checks? You mean the ATF is doing a sucky job now, and we think they'll do better under a new law? Background checks to buy bullets, seriously?

A close look at the data will show that legally owned weapons aren't the problem, and 'assault weapons' are rarely used in firearm fatalities. Yet who do these laws and restrictions affect? Legal gun owners and 'assault weapons'. No criminal is going to think twice because of a new law, and someone intent on mayhem will only plan around it.

These mass killers were almost all universally on someones radar... for fucks sake some of them were under psychiatric care! If a Dr. can't see the threat, what makes anyone think a public awareness campaign is going to help? They aren't seat belts, they are crazy people!

If anyone was truly serious about lowering firearm fatalities, they would pass a law banning gangs. Gangs would become public enemy number one, and every resource available would be used to hunt every gang member down and incarcerate them for life. Watch your 12K gun deaths likely drop in half.

Instead, law abiding citizens will be more restricted... the death toll will stay high... and eventually another asshole will kill a lot of people at one time.

What then?

Wait, I know. More laws restricting our freedoms.

This is retarded, and it's an attempt to assuage guilt over the loss of those poor little babies who were killed by a mental patient.

I guess this only bothers me... probably Maggot and FU... so I will just shut the fuck up and enjoy the new protection my government is providing me. Baaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaa!

One thing I mentioned before is that state hunting licenses and the ATF need to be linked also. I know fellons that hunt deer every year with a shotgun. They should never be able to hold a firearm, let alone own one.

(01-15-2013, 11:05 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2013, 10:08 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What laws are you talking about? The New York state laws? The proposed federal laws?

Do you object to the universal background checks, the stricter enforcement of laws against straw purchases, and better coordination between federal, local, and state authorities? I can support those areas of the proposed new laws.

I don't understand why facilitation of greater public awareness, education and prevention don't seem to be addressed by anyone, but could be that it's in the proposals and just hasn't been emphasized in the media (I'm wishful thinking here because I gotta believe that if I'm thinking how much can be done through common sense without legislation, others must be too). This would be something that could not only minimize gun violence, but any type of planned violent attack.

Anyway, I get the sense that you're vehement objection is limited to the banning certain gun types, and possibly the magazine caps and universal registration requirements?

One thing to keep in mind, even using executive order/action to push through some of the proposed new control measures (mostly on the administrative side), there will be a lot that must go through Congress. It's gonna be a tougher fight for Obama to get all of his proposals approved by the federal congress than it was for Cuomo to do so on a state level; Obama will likely have to compromise and negotiate down. Its not an all or nothing package.

This is political theater and opportunism at its worst. It's plain to see and blatantly obvious.

I'm vehemently opposed to the fallacy of this entire exercise. Banning semi-automatic weapons that look scary isn't the answer. Banning high capacity magazines isn't the answer. Better background checks? You mean the ATF is doing a sucky job now, and we think they'll do better under a new law? Background checks to buy bullets, seriously?

A close look at the data will show that legally owned weapons aren't the problem, and 'assault weapons' are rarely used in firearm fatalities. Yet who do these laws and restrictions affect? Legal gun owners and 'assault weapons'. No criminal is going to think twice because of a new law, and someone intent on mayhem will only plan around it.

These mass killers were almost all universally on someones radar... for fucks sake some of them were under psychiatric care! If a Dr. can't see the threat, what makes anyone think a public awareness campaign is going to help? They aren't seat belts, they are crazy people!

If anyone was truly serious about lowering firearm fatalities, they would pass a law banning gangs. Gangs would become public enemy number one, and every resource available would be used to hunt every gang member down and incarcerate them for life. Watch your 12K gun deaths likely drop in half.

Instead, law abiding citizens will be more restricted... the death toll will stay high... and eventually another asshole will kill a lot of people at one time.

What then?

Wait, I know. More laws restricting our freedoms.

This is retarded, and its an attempt to assuage guilt over the loss of those poor little babies who were killed by a mental patient.

I guess this only bothers me... probably Maggot and FU... so I will just shut the fuck up and enjoy the new protection my government is providing me. Baaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaa!

Wheres the damn like button when you need it!

This was in regards to Maggots comment about background check renewals:
Makes sense. If the Fed can get NICS reasonably well populated and have the right flags/protocols in place with state and local authorities, people who qualified for the card and then committed a felony or were reported as unstable could be dealt with between renewals as well. I'm all for getting the guns out of the hands of wrong people, just hesitant to see new restrictions imposed on some many that are qualified and responsible in the process.

I know that nothing's gonna solve the problem completely. There will be those who work around the system, along with psychos and criminals-in-process who aren't documented and won't be flagged even when they do attempt to acquire guns legally. But I do think that more consistent flagging/reporting by NICS, the public and law enforcement will help keep guns out of some of the wrong hands. That's the best that can be realistically hoped for, in my view.

ADD: Jim, just saw your response. I wasn't clear about what you laws you were referring to because none on the federal level have been passed yet. I don't oppose measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands and there's nothing that's been presented that makes me think new bans are gonna be any more effective than the last ones. But, I don't what the new bans entail yet. I'm trying to stay optimistic that there will be more focus on the roots of the problems rather than the guns and ammo themselves. That may be unrealistic, but I don't think it's gonna be a slam dunk for Obama. We'll see. Regarding public awareness campaigns, I disagree with you. I think we can learn from all of the ones that came before and we don't need the federal or state government to pass a law in order for people to keep their eyes and ears open and know what to do.

Here is NY's new law:

From http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/15/n...-for-vote/

Provisions in the sweeping gun control bill include:

Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.

Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.

Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.

Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.

Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient’s gun could be taken from him or her.

Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.

Require stores that sell ammunition to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.

Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.

Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property.

Increase penalties for shooting first responders, called the “Webster provision.” Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.

Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.

Require pistol permit holders or those who will be registered as owners of assault rifles to be recertified at least every five years to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns.

I disagree with you about the general public's ability to help minimize mass killings, Jim.

If people understand warning signs and know what to do when someone hints or brags to them about wanting to take out other people, it could help. Investigations and studies show that almost all of these guys hint or brag to others in advance. We as citizens don't need government intervention or a psychiatrist to pick up the phone and alert LE; people aren't mindless drones. Plus, keeping our eyes and ears open and responding responsibility just as citizens doesn't involve infringement of any privacy issues or laws.

(01-15-2013, 11:44 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with you about the general public's ability to help minimize mass killings, Jim.

If people understand warning signs and know what to do when someone hints or brags to them about wanting to take out other people, it could help. Investigations and studies show that almost all of these guys hint or brag to others in advance. We as citizens don't need government intervention or a psychiatrist to pick up the phone and alert LE; people aren't mindless drones. Plus, keeping our eyes and ears open and responding responsibility just as citizens doesn't involve infringement of any privacy issues or laws.

There's been nothing to stop anyone from getting involved in the past when these nutjobs make threats. In fact, someone did ring the alarm bell on Klebold and Harris... but the authorities did not follow through. Same with the VA Tech shooter, same for the guy in Aurora. There were clear signs, but nothing was done.

If commercials and PSA's are suddenly going to change human behavior than I am for it.

But don't count on it.

(01-15-2013, 11:50 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]There's been nothing to stop anyone from getting involved in the past when these nutjobs make threats. In fact, someone did ring the alarm bell on Klebold and Harris... but the authorities did not follow through. Same with the VA Tech shooter, same for the guy in Aurora. There were clear signs, but nothing was done.

If commercials and PSA's are suddenly going to change human behavior than I am for it.

But don't count on it.

I'm not a hopeless person that thinks that nothing can ever be changed or improved. I re-read all of your posts tonight; some feel very heated. I'll just clarify the points addressed.

I think it's a wrong assumption that those of us who don't own guns are any less patriotic or supportive of the Constitution than those who do (yourself and the names you tossed out). Personally, I don't support the gun and ammo bans, but that doesn't mean that nothing else can or should be considered in order to minimize gun violence and mass murder. You seem to be saying that anything that's suggested is a farce and a crock of shit - doing nothing is the only way to go. I instead believe that other things can indeed be done to minimize the risks and have considered and learned a lot about gun control lately and developed some opinions.

Regarding Bkgd Checks:
I didn't suggest that the ATF was failing on background checks, I don't know where you got that. It was made clear that the NICS database has only a small portion of documented mentally ill persons in its files. Many mentally ill are flagged/caught during the application process each year; more will be caught if the database is more up to date. That's just a fact and I support keeping guns outs of the hands of the mentally ill to the extent possible. I also support making the NICS tool as effectives as it can be to help accomplish that goal (which will require better local/state/fed coordination).

Regarding Public and LE Engagement:
Citizens should always be concerned with their own public safety and that of those around them. If the warning signs in some of the recent mass murders had been reported or followed-up on according to guidelines based on what we've learned from past failures (and successes), it's possible that some of the massacres could have been prevented. Developing consistent reporting and follow-up guidelines for the public and local law enforcement to implement isn't an infringement on anybody's Constitutional rights, doesn't involve regulation or government intervention (beyond it being the natural point for centralizing the creation of guidelines/processes based on experiences with massacres across the country) and gets people engaged in the effort to minimize violence in their communities. I don't understand why anyone would object to that, but I respect that you do for some reason and that's fine.

Have a good night.

P.s. The Constitution promotes states' sovereignty. Since New York law doesn't dictate federal law or any other state's laws, I was originally unclear about what laws you were objecting to earlier; I understand now. Thanks.

(01-15-2013, 11:04 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]In Iowa and some other states a permit to carry firearms IS a background check. If a person [like me] holds a state issued permit to carry firearms [in some states its known as a ccw permit] no background check is needed when buying a firearm.
Lets say I want to buy a firearm, pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, it don't matter. All I do is walk in, pick out the firearm, lay down the cash, show my drivers license and permit to carry and walk out the door with the firearm.
So in some states the background check card idea is being used.

Edited to add. Each state is different but Iowas permit to carry weapons is good for 5 years.

F.U.,

The Iowa system is a lot like what Maggot suggested; it makes sense to me.

Question: If you were holding a 5 year arms permit and got a felony during that period (or had to be treated for mental illness), do you know if your permit would be rendered invalid (or taken away) immediately? If not, would you somehow be flagged as a criminal or mentally ill if you presented your permit and tried to purchase another gun?

If either of those things happen, seems like an ideal procedure, to me - accomplishes the goals but minimizes the overhead costs associated with running a separate background check for each arm sold to the same person.

(01-16-2013, 02:51 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2013, 11:04 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]In Iowa and some other states a permit to carry firearms IS a background check. If a person [like me] holds a state issued permit to carry firearms [in some states its known as a ccw permit] no background check is needed when buying a firearm.
Lets say I want to buy a firearm, pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, it don't matter. All I do is walk in, pick out the firearm, lay down the cash, show my drivers license and permit to carry and walk out the door with the firearm.
So in some states the background check card idea is being used.

Edited to add. Each state is different but Iowas permit to carry weapons is good for 5 years.

F.U.,

The Iowa system is a lot like what Maggot suggested; it makes sense to me.

Question: If you were holding a 5 year arms permit and got a felony during that period (or had to be treated for mental illness), do you know if your permit would be rendered invalid (or taken away) immediately? If not, would you somehow be flagged as a criminal or mentally ill if you presented your permit and tried to purchase another gun?

If either of those things happen, seems like an ideal procedure, to me - accomplishes the goals but minimizes the overhead costs associated with running a separate background check for each arm sold to the same person.

Good morning HOTD.


That is the one point that this system fails. The permit is good for 5 years and if during that time a person is convicted of a felony his permit would be canceled. BUT, they do not come out and get that permit so it is still in your possession. A dealer would have no reason to do a background check during those 5 years if there is a permit being used so there would be no way for the dealer to know if the permit is still valid.



Now here is a scenario for you.

I obtain a permit to carry. A year later I get a felony and serve 3 years in prison. At that point I am released and return to my life and find my permit to carry in my wallet. At that point the dates on the permit would say it is good for 1 more year so I hit the gun shop and buy as many firearms as I can afford [one at a time]. No background check is done because of that permit. The forum 4473 I fill out is not sent in to the ATF because it is required to be kept in the dealers store for as long as the business is in operation[or 20 years and then destroyed]. If I was smart enough to only buy 1 firearm every week from any given shop [but could buy from different shops and no one would be the wiser] there would be no multiple purchase forums filed with the ATF [yes that is another forum we must file if you buy more than 1 firearm in 5 working days] so they would never know I bought any. At the end of that year I could own 52 [or more if shoping at several different shops]firearms and no one would ever know. At that time I burn down the gun shop so all records are lost. I now have 52 or more, black market firearms for sale.


So long story short, as long as you hold onto that permit for the 5 years you could buy firearms, felon or not.


While the permit/back ground system is great if you are a law abiding citizen it has a few flaws just like EVERY system that the ATF has in place today

(01-16-2013, 01:44 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding Bkgd Checks:
I didn't suggest that the ATF was failing on background checks, I don't know where you got that. It was made clear that the NICS database has only a small portion of documented mentally ill persons in its files. Many mentally ill are flagged/caught during the application process each year; more will be caught if the database is more up to date. That's just a fact and I support keeping guns outs of the hands of the mentally ill to the extent possible. I also support making the NICS tool as effectives as it can be to help accomplish that goal (which will require better local/state/fed coordination).

Actually HOTD, IMO the ATF has failed on the background checks. I say that because there are very few people even charged when caught lying on a 4473/BG check. Here is the stats from 2010.

Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/pol...d=all&_r=0


I think with those kind of #'s we can say that the system in place has once againg failed and needs reworked before we add new laws/rules.


On another note I just wanted to say thank you for keeping a open mind and being willing to learn about this topic. You seam to have really educated yourself about firearms and the laws since the time this thread was started. I wish everyone that did not know about firearms would do the same!!

(01-16-2013, 01:44 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a hopeless person that thinks that nothing can ever be changed or improved. I re-read all of your posts tonight; some feel very heated. I'll just clarify the points addressed.

*snip*

P.s. The Constitution promotes states' sovereignty. Since New York law doesn't dictate federal law or any other state's laws, I was originally unclear about what laws you were objecting to earlier; I understand now. Thanks.

Well I am obviously coming off as a nutter, so I'll try to clarify my positions as you did above. I am not a hopeless person either, I just believe infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't improve anything.

Do you know how many gun deaths (including suicides, which were over 60% of gun deaths) there were in 2010?

31,672

Do you know how many homicide gun deaths were caused by long guns (of which 'assault weapons' fall into)?

576 or 1.8% of all gun deaths.

I don't know about you, but the way things are being reported and talked about I sure as hell thought all these scary looking rifles were more than 1.8% of the problem.

I believe the reaction to these events has focused almost solely on guns, because they are the easy target. But dealing with spree killers is really a mental health issue. ALL of the focus should be on that part of the problem, because that is where the real solution is. There are millions of guns in the hands of everyday people, and there aren't shoot outs in the streets or roving bands of law abiding citizens terrorizing anyone.

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths come from ILLEGAL firearms, and ILLEGAL drug and gang activity (not with 'assault weapons' either. It's mostly handguns). Spree killers are extremely rare statistically... but make a huge splash across the news when they strike. And invariably, they are almost ALL mentally ill people who were being treated for their mental illness.

So now to go about keeping guns away from mentally ill people to stop spree killings, new laws are being passed to restrict firearms and firearm supply from people who ARE NOT mentally ill. The logic is apparently that fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means less access for mentally ill people.

But does that really make sense? Restricting the freedom of the majority because of the inability to deal with the problem a minority is causing?

Where is the full frontal assault on the mentally ill? Are they not the overwhelming majority who perpetrate spree killings? My gut tells me that naming them the problem would be construed as cruel, and not it's compassionate or PC to 'go after' the mentally ill like that. I'd honestly have more respect for a politician who came out and said we should build more insane asylums. That would at least indicate to me they understood the problem, even if they had a draconian method of trying to deal with it.

But no one is really addressing mental health, so instead, it's guns.

On a public health scale, you or I are 10 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gun. Where is the outcry to ban bad doctors? There isn't any. No one cares because they don't kill 26 people at one time, and guns are a sexier cause celeb for politicians.

To that end, where was the President after Aurora? Maybe if he put forward his 19 EO's the Newtown tragedy could have been avoided? Maybe there would have been more awareness, and Lanza would have been on the radar?

Oh, that's right. He was trying to get elected and didn't want to alienate the majority of citizens who are in favor of a strong 2^nd amendment. This is political expediency in practice.

Looking more broadly at the overall gun violence problem, where is the evidence that strict gun laws stop gun violence? If that is what would solve the problem, Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore, and Washington DC would be glorious cities serving as shining examples. But they're not. They are shitholes of gun violence. And these kids aren't mentally ill, they are just violent and angry. They won't give a crap about any new law or EO, and they sure as hell won't be being treated for mental illness.

I'm all for coordinated data and more robust background checks. They are a great idea, and quite frankly should already be in place. I'm all for requiring private purchases go through the same process as a retail purchase, that is entirely reasonable. But after all of this settles... look at everything that is proposed and ask the honest question: would these things have stopped Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown?

If I seem heated, so be it. I get irritated when common sense is ignored trying to solve most problems - let alone one as serious as this. If you want to stop gun violence, destroy the gangs and their drug trade. If you want to stop spree killers, get serious about treating and dealing with the mentally ill.

Maybe we could do that instead of restricting those not a threat, who ultimately end up as the targets.

None of these Executive Actions listed below mention anything about banning semi-automatic rifles or hi capacity magazines. Do you know why??? Because it would be unconsittutional for him to act unilaterally in an effort to ban them. He knows that Congress is the only one that can act and legislate on such a ban. Your Executive Actions will not be enough to ban semi-automatic rifles and hi-capacity magazines away as you had bluffed in your last press conference Mr President. Americans will not fall for your brainwashing.

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health

Yes we need better gun laws. However, I don't think for one minute that these crazy fuckers that shoot up schools or malls or the movies won't find some other way to kill people if they really have a mind to do so. Everyone is jumping on their train - yes guns or mo guns - no one is addressing the real issue in that our country is filled with some seriously insane people and something needs to be done about THAT.

They should be lined up and shot.

F.U.
Thanks for the info on the Iowa permit loopholes and ATF stats in prosecuting those who falsify info on background forms. I agree that those kinds of loopholes (along with the felony hunting privilege) should be addressed as a priority; fixing and enforcing the laws that are in place makes more sense than throwing out new ones. I think that some of the laws that Obama is instituting by executive order focus on better administration and enforcement of existing federal laws, along with improvements to help keep the guns from the mentally ill. Those are steps in the right direction, imo.


From today's press conference:

Obama's plan calls on Congress for a renewed prohibition on assault weapons sales that expired in 2004, a requirement for criminal background checks on all gun purchases, including closing a loophole for gun show sales, and a new federal gun trafficking law - long sought by big-city mayors to keep out-of-state guns off their streets.

He also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improvements in the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence, putting more counselors and "resource officers" in schools and improved access to mental health services.

The most politically contentious piece of the package is Obama's call for a renewed ban on military-style assault weapons, a move that Republicans who control the House of Representatives are expected to oppose.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/1...NU20130116

Jim:
I don't think you're coming across as a nutter, just that you sometimes come across, to me, as thinking everyone that considers different viewpoints and angles is somehow less concerned than you, naïve, blind or disappointing. Maybe the heat isn't directed at me or others who question a strong view that you hold; maybe it's just general heat. Doesn't matter either way - it was just an observation, different attitudes is all...

I think that Obama is going to have a major fight on his hands with Republicans when it comes to new/renewed bans on some guns and ammo. It kinda rubbed me the wrong way that he had children surrounding him as he announced these new proposals, but I understand his strategy there. As far as the improvements in existing gun control administration and enforcement that are being passed by executive order, I don't even think that the NRA is objecting to most of those?

I'm disappointed that nothing was mentioned regarding public awareness efforts and reporting/follow-up guidelines for citizens and LE. Ah well, it was just an idea and there's noting to stop a centralized effort from being undertaken without the federal government serving as the central knowledge point (just more difficult to organize). Even without any kind of formal effort in that regard, it appears that the terrible reality of the Newton shootings has prompted more people to report suspicions and law enforcement to act quickly and seriously to such reports. I've seen several stories of thwarted attacks in the news since December. It would be most effective if there were guidelines to ensure that proactive reports continue to be followed-up on in a speedy and effective manner, even after Newton isn't on the forefront, to avoid things falling through the cracks like in Columbine. But, one step at a time...

(01-16-2013, 02:28 PM)ramseycat Wrote: [ -> ]Yes we need better gun laws. However, I don't think for one minute that these crazy fuckers that shoot up schools or malls or the movies won't find some other way to kill people if they really have a mind to do so. Everyone is jumping on their train - yes guns or mo guns - no one is addressing the real issue in that our country is filled with some seriously insane people and something needs to be done about THAT.

I think that was true in the past. I do see better screening and reporting of the mentally ill being addressed by the executive orders that F.U. posted. Let's hope that they facilitate some improvements in at least reducing the number of crazy fuckers that get ahold of guns. I don't think they'll do much, honestly, to stop the criminally minded. But, they could help stop the one-off mass murderers in some cases.

I'm sure part of the gun violence research by the CDC would include public information and dissemination... as would the national dialogue order.

Having children there was just more political theater from the grand political thespian.