New gun control thread!

[IDBillzFan]

Take an isolated loner, give them something to focus on that gives them a sense of belonging, throw some violence (real or virtual) into their cognitive environment, simmer for five or so years, and you have yourself a mass murderer.

 

Replace "isolated loner" with "kid with absent parents" and "mass murderer" with "baby-killing Chicago gang-member" and it still works.

[Gene Frenkle]

Replace "isolated loner" with "kid with absent parents" and "mass murderer" with "baby-killing Chicago gang-member" and it still works.

No, not really. But it's obviously fun for you to say Chicago.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Newtown's tough, admittedly. It seems the parent was particularly irresponsible there. If the kid didn't have access to the types of weapons and high capacity magazines he came in with, perhaps some lives could have been saved. Maybe.

 

Jared Loughner (eventually) bought everything he needed in a Walmart with no background check/waiting period. Seems to me like that could have been prevented.

 

The movie theater shooting in Colorado may have been prevented or at least mitigated through tighter restrictions: mentally ill man buys weapons, ballistic armor and ammo online...

 

 

Where am I not willing to address all the issues? You're the one jumping to "common-sense" conclusions about complex psychological conditions. Would these people have engaged in these acts without viewing these movies or playing these video games? How are so many people able watch these movies and play these games without committing mass murder? You are talking about facts as if invoking that word makes these conclusions correct.

 

What does "taking on his hollywood base" mean?

No wonder you feel so strongly about this. You have zero accurate information on the subject at hand. You cannot buy a gun at Walmart without a BGC. That's a fact. Buying online? You make it sound like the gun shows up at your door. Wrong. It is shipped to a FFL dealer. who you get it from after you go to his store and pass a BGC. Try to get at lest some fundamental knowledge on a issue before you debate it.

[B-Man]

Reid sets Gun Control Bill vote for Thursday.

 

Whatever comes out of the Senate will surely upset the Left of the Democratic Party. While most Americans agree that expanding background checks needs to be looked into, the assault weapons component is out, and liberals ticked off.

 

Although the first votes on gun -control legislation have yet to be cast, by some measures the National Rifle Association has already won.

 

Obama’s ambitious plans to ban assault weapons and limit magazine capacities are off the table, while the NRA suggested it could support the most likely outcome — expanded background checks — as recently as 1999.

 

 

Needless to say, these lefties are not happy with Reid or any of the other Democratic Senators who did not support an assault weapons ban.

 

.

Edited April 9, 2013 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

No, we are not all what God made you.

 

I'm sure you were smart and funny in a previous life...

[IDBillzFan]

Reid sets Gun Control Bill vote for Thursday.

 

Whatever comes out of the Senate will surely upset the Left of the Democratic Party. While most Americans agree that expanding background checks needs to be looked into, the assault weapons component is out, and liberals ticked off.

 

Although the first votes on gun -control legislation have yet to be cast, by some measures the National Rifle Association has already won.

 

Obama’s ambitious plans to ban assault weapons and limit magazine capacities are off the table, while the NRA suggested it could support the most likely outcome — expanded background checks — as recently as 1999.

 

 

Needless to say, these lefties are not happy with Reid or any of the other Democratic Senators who did not support an assault weapons ban.

 

.

 

Will be interesting to see if this gets through the Senate. I have to believe Reid wouldn't simply do this simply to appease Obama unless he had the votes. Which would send it to the Congress, where it will get voted down, and Barack can then run around with more Cindy Sheehan-like props, telling everyone why the GOP is bad.

 

It's up to the Republicans to just hold the house in 2014 and let Obama golf out his last two years. I really don't think the country wants his last two years to be run like his first two.

[Joe Miner]

Newtown's tough, admittedly. It seems the parent was particularly irresponsible there. If the kid didn't have access to the types of weapons and high capacity magazines he came in with, perhaps some lives could have been saved. Maybe.

 

Jared Loughner (eventually) bought everything he needed in a Walmart with no background check/waiting period. Seems to me like that could have been prevented.

 

The movie theater shooting in Colorado may have been prevented or at least mitigated through tighter restrictions: mentally ill man buys weapons, ballistic armor and ammo online...

 

So you have a case in Newtown where the douche killed his mother and stole her guns in order to bypass the waiting period. Good thing those laws were in effect.

 

You can't buy a gun from a retail store without a background check, so I have no idea what you think happened with Loughner, but that's obviously another successful law.

 

And you're just pulling maybes out of your ass on the third one. Seeing that the laws were so successful in preventing the first two cases listed I can understand why you think more laws would have helped in this case.

 

I also love your line in a previous post about refining restrictions as new gun technology comes about. Exactly what new gun technology are you referring to? Bayonet lugs?

 

You're such a dipshit.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Joe Miner

[B-Man]

The gun control vote and Harry Reid’s problem.

 

“Without cover of a GOP filibuster, which now seems unlikely, a whole bunch of vulnerable Senate Democrats will in fact have to take the votes that they dread and are certain to be used against them in 2014.”

[Magox]

This op-ed from Campbell Brown partially echos my sentiment.

 

 

There was something missing from President Obama's Wednesday speech in Denver about gun violence. He focused almost exclusively on passing gun-control laws, and not at all on one of the nation's biggest promoters of violence: the entertainment industry.

 

The president's campaign against gun violence has produced a stale debate marked by lots of speeches with little achieved. A more creative chief executive would have used this moment to widen the discussion by drawing attention to the increasingly graphic violence so pervasive in television shows, movies and videogames. Mr. Obama is particularly well positioned to challenge Hollywood because of his special relationship with the media world's elites. They might be more likely to heed criticism coming from Mr. Obama than from any other president or member of Congress.

 

 

in January, when announcing his gun-violence task force, headed by Vice President Biden, Mr. Obama paid lip service to the subject of media violence. The president's gun-control plan, based on Mr. Biden's recommendations, addressed the matter only by asking the Centers for Disease Control to "conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between videogames, media images, and violence." He asked Congress to allocate $10 million for the research. In Washington terms, that's a pittance.

 

Dr. Victor Strasberger, the leading researcher on media violence for the American Academy of Pediatrics, could tell the CDC and the president what to expect: "All our studies show portraying violence is extremely dangerous," Dr. Strasberger recently told me. "Kids become desensitized, numb to suffering around them and aggressive." He also says that when you add in other factors like poverty, abuse or mental illness, "you have a perfect storm. This can and does lead to violence."

 

Dr. Strasberger says he was stunned that the White House seems to have little interest in the available evidence. On the subject of media violence, Mr. Biden met only with representatives of the entertainment and videogame industry and researchers who support the industry. Not a single doctor or researcher critical of media violence met with the vice president.

That's a shame, since there is a consensus among doctors and mental-health professionals about the danger to children from exposure to the violence depicted by movies, television and videogames.

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics' 2009 policy statement said: "The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is one of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. Therefore, pediatricians and parents need to take action." The American Medical Association's guide for physicians says studies show "a clear link between brief exposure to violence on TV or movies and increases in aggressive and even physically violent behavior in young persons."

 

In 2011, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry concluded that "hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may become 'immune' or numb to the horror of violence, gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems" and "imitate the violence they observe on television."

 

Several policy changes could make significant strides toward reducing young people's exposure to violence. One obvious action would be to restrict violence on television that can be seen by young people. Right now the Federal Communications Commission has no rules regulating TV violence—the agency's content regulations apply only to language and sexual content. The FCC itself has recognized that its inability to oversee violent content is a problem and in a 2007 report to Congress called for changing the rules.

 

That same report, issued when the agency was headed by Kevin Martin, also called for an end to channel "bundling" by cable and satellite companies, the practice of forcing subscribers to pay for channels they don't watch. Parents should be allowed to choose which cable or satellite channels—sources of the most extreme content—come into their homes. Parents shouldn't be obliged to act as the sole filters for the torrent of material, as they are today, blocking channels and password-protecting against the ever-shifting programming.

 

 

The president has plenty of other influential friends in Hollywood. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign raised millions of dollar in direct donations from the entertainment industry, and millions more for his Super PAC, Priorities USA Action. Almost a third of the $1 million-plus donors to the president's Super PAC were entertainment and media heavyweights including producers Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg. In one Obama fundraiser alone, held at the home of George Clooney, the campaign brought in an estimated $15 million.

 

The president has been more than willing to challenge the National Rifle Association, but that is like a Republican president standing up to labor unions—not a move that risks anything with his core supporters. Mr. Obama could show some real bravery by taking on Hollywood.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578398713144082092.html

[IDBillzFan]

This op-ed from Campbell Brown partially echos my sentiment.

 

You're both raising valid points, but pissing in the wind. There is not a single person following politics today who doesn't clearly understand that Obama would never, ever, ever do anything to interrupt his cash flow and status from and with Hollywood.

 

If he were truly concerned with the issue, he'd address it wholly.

 

He won't, and he can't.

[B-Man]

THE HILL: Reid plows ahead on gun control legislation.

 

“Democrats are confident they have the votes to bring gun control legislation to the Senate floor this week. But getting the votes to pass the bill later this month will be much harder. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not yet conducted a formal whip count, but at least eight Republican senators have said they will not attempt to block an effort to bring up the measure, a senior Democratic aide said.”

 

Of course, there haven’t been committee hearings, and we haven’t seen the bill yet. But apparently we don’t do things the old-fashioned way anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

In a poll conducted by PoliceOne, a majority of law enforcement personnel said universal background checks, "assault weapons" bans, and "high capacity" magazine bans do not make police safer and will not lower violent crime. Armed citizens, on the other hand, do make a positive difference.

 

In the poll of 15,000 law enforcement professionals, 71% of respondents said an "assault weapons" ban would have zero impact on violent crime. Of those surveyed, 95.7% said the same of a "high capacity" magazine ban, and 79.7% said the same in response to a question on universal background checks.

 

Over 90% of these law enforcement professionals said "mandatory sentences with no plea bargains" for those who use a gun in perpetrating a crime would reduce violent crime.

 

When asked if they supported concealed carry laws for citizens without a felony in their past, 91.3% of respondents answered "yes" on "without question and without further restrictions."

 

Additionally, 80% of these law enforcement professionals also agreed that casualties at Sandy Hook Elementary would "have likely been reduced" if "legally-armed citizens" had been in the school.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/09/Law-Enforcement-Poll-Obama-s-Gun-Control-Won-t-Lower-Violent-Crime-Armed-Citizens-Will#1

[DC Tom]

Of those surveyed, 95.7% said the same of a "high capacity" magazine ban,

 

The remaining 4.3% should probably be fired, on the principle that they're too stupid to be police officers.

[Gene Frenkle]

THE HILL: Reid plows ahead on gun control legislation.

 

“Democrats are confident they have the votes to bring gun control legislation to the Senate floor this week. But getting the votes to pass the bill later this month will be much harder. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not yet conducted a formal whip count, but at least eight Republican senators have said they will not attempt to block an effort to bring up the measure, a senior Democratic aide said.”

 

Of course, there haven’t been committee hearings, and we haven’t seen the bill yet. But apparently we don’t do things the old-fashioned way anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

In a poll conducted by PoliceOne, a majority of law enforcement personnel said universal background checks, "assault weapons" bans, and "high capacity" magazine bans do not make police safer and will not lower violent crime. Armed citizens, on the other hand, do make a positive difference.

 

In the poll of 15,000 law enforcement professionals, 71% of respondents said an "assault weapons" ban would have zero impact on violent crime. Of those surveyed, 95.7% said the same of a "high capacity" magazine ban, and 79.7% said the same in response to a question on universal background checks.

 

Over 90% of these law enforcement professionals said "mandatory sentences with no plea bargains" for those who use a gun in perpetrating a crime would reduce violent crime.

 

When asked if they supported concealed carry laws for citizens without a felony in their past, 91.3% of respondents answered "yes" on "without question and without further restrictions."

 

Additionally, 80% of these law enforcement professionals also agreed that casualties at Sandy Hook Elementary would "have likely been reduced" if "legally-armed citizens" had been in the school.

 

http://www.breitbart...Citizens-Will#1

Wow, conservative pro-gun cops referenced on Breitbart? Weird!

 

What's next, liberal pro-marijuana hippies referenced on High Times?

[Chef Jim]

Wow, conservative pro-gun cops referenced on Breitbart? Weird!

 

What's next, liberal pro-marijuana hippies referenced on High Times?

 

You love to bash this stuff but I like to hear your opinion as to how banning these weapons and providing universal background checks is going to reduce violent crime in places like Oakland?

Edited April 10, 2013 by Chef Jim

[B-Man]

Wow, conservative pro-gun cops referenced on Breitbart? Weird!

 

What's next, liberal pro-marijuana hippies referenced on High Times?

 

Wow, no reference to the article from the Hill, and misinterpreting the Breitbart article that simply references a poll by a police site....

 

www.policeone.com/.

 

PoliceOne is the most popular destination for Police Officers, Cops & Law Enforcement.

 

 

No problem.

 

No one expects coherence from a buffoon such as Gene Frenkle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 10, 2013 by B-Man

[Gene Frenkle]

You love to bash this stuff but I like to hear your opinion as to how banning these weapons and providing universal background checks is going to reduce violent crime in places like Oakland?

I believe the euphemism you're looking for is 'Chicago', thought that's not usually your schtick.

 

Wow, no reference to the article from the Hill, and misinterpreting the Breitbart article that simply references a poll by a police site....

 

www.policeone.com/.

 

PoliceOne is the most popular destination for Police Officers, Cops & Law Enforcement.

 

 

No problem.

 

No one expects coherence from a buffoon as Gene Frenkle.

.

I wonder what college professors might think?

[Chef Jim]

I believe the euphemism you're looking for is 'Chicago', thought that's not usually your schtick.

 

 

So you don't have an answer to that. I didn't think you did.

[Gene Frenkle]

So you don't have an answer to that. I didn't think you did.

To what? How to reduce gun violence in Oakland? Easy, kill all the gang-bangers.

[Chef Jim]

To what? How to reduce gun violence in Oakland? Easy, kill all the gang-bangers.

 

So why the push to eliminate guns? How do we kill them without guns?

[Magox]

To what? How to reduce gun violence in Oakland? Easy, kill all the gang-bangers.

 

They're attempting to engage in a substantive conversation, and you're responding with flippant non sequiturs. That's cool, but it certainly doesn't help whatever argument you are trying to make.