The Big Gun Control Thread

Examination (universal background checks) leads to registration (local, state and federal databases), which leads to investigation (bureaucratic decisions regarding fitness or need to bear arms), and that leads to confiscation, which leads to tyrannization (the oppression and genocide against a subgroup, whether by its ethnicity, religion, political views or status or against the entirety of a state citizen).

People who operate a childcare business need to have a universal background check and have to be registered with government. They can be audited and investigated for continuing fitness to provide childcare. If they are found wanting, their license to provide childcare services is confiscated.

I have yet to notice the pogrom in which nannies are killed by the thousand. Anyone else?

"Fears leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"...

OG_slinger wrote:

And, no, it wasn't clear from Edwin's letter that you guys want anything to change outside of expanding concealed carry. He cited Chapter 790 of Florida state law which is pretty representative for state laws covering the purchase of firearms. There's nothing in those statutes that have even a whiff of reform. There's no requirement for mental screenings before you can purchase a weapon. There's no requirement to register the firearm. There's no requirement for background checks on person-to-person firearm transfers. There's no requirement for serious firearm training or certification.

Like virtually all state laws, Chapter 790 bends over backwards to put guns in people's hands as quickly as possible. Fees are legislatively capped at ridiculously low levels. Firearms have to be sold to people, even if their background check isn't complete, if it takes more than a few days. And, of course, any background check information has to be destroyed almost instantly lest the big, bad government somehow use that information to take their guns.

Edwin's Letter wrote:

I implore you to extend the current shall-issue concealed weapons licensing system that Florida has pioneered to cover ownership and purchasing of firearms and ammunition nationally.

Yeah, not clear at all...

Jonman wrote:
Examination (universal background checks) leads to registration (local, state and federal databases), which leads to investigation (bureaucratic decisions regarding fitness or need to bear arms), and that leads to confiscation, which leads to tyrannization (the oppression and genocide against a subgroup, whether by its ethnicity, religion, political views or status or against the entirety of a state citizen).

People who operate a childcare business need to have a universal background check and have to be registered with government. They can be audited and investigated for continuing fitness to provide childcare. If they are found wanting, their license to provide childcare services is confiscated.

I have yet to notice the pogrom in which nannies are killed by the thousand. Anyone else?

Or cars, or real estate-the latter has been recognized as a fundamental human right for longer than arms by the by.

The Chardon school shooter got sentenced today. As far as lessons go, it shows both the need for, and limits to, gun control. Wiki says the kid used a .22 handgun that he stole from a relative. The gun was purchased legally, but I wonder if the law abiding gun owner took any steps to secure his weapon.

I know a bunch of gun owners here have safes and are not negligent about storing their weapons, but it seems like there are a lot of gun owners out there whose only thoughts about owning a gun is whether it will protect them or not. Worries over what happens if the gun gets stolen from them just gets shrugged off as, "I dunno. Criminals will always get anyway, so it's not my fault."

Funkenpants wrote:

I know a bunch of gun owners here have safes and are not negligent about storing their weapons, but it seems like there are a lot of gun owners out there whose only thoughts about owning a gun is whether it will protect them or not. Worries over what happens if the gun gets stolen from them just gets shrugged off as, "I dunno. Criminals will always get anyway, so it's not my fault."

According to the NIJ, 34% of handgun owners keep their weapons loaded and simply lying around their house or car. Only a quarter of handguns are properly secured in a gun closet. Barely half of long gun owners keep their weapons locked up.

The result of which is that approximately 500,000 firearms are stolen each and every year.

TPM reports that an assault weapons ban is DOA in the Senate (which everyone expected anyway), but it notes that mandatory background checks are also in danger:

While the looming failure of an assault weapons ban has been obvious for some time, there’s been no apparent progress on mandatory background checks since it lost steam earlier this month, when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) quit bipartisan talks with Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Democratic leaders are wary of bringing such a proposal up for a vote unless more Republicans sign on.

Mandatory background checks are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. But this is our modern politics in action.

Well, duh. Mandatory background checks means making it harder for criminals and lunatics to buy guns which means less profit for gun industry. What are you, some kind of profit-hating communist?

It is more than keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Guns are inherently dangerous to the people who own them and the people they know and love. I do not need to trot out the stats, we all know you are more likely to suffer a gun casualty if you own guns. But, from a personal perspective, I had five different encounters with guns before I was 21 and they were all dangerous situations where someone nearly got killed. I am not being hyperbolic either. All of the guns belonged to "responsible" middle-class parents; mine, my friends', and others'. All were legal, locked up, and there for home protection and/or hunting.

I wonder...if our parents knew how close their children came taking a bullet in the head from the guns they bought and inherited, if they would have felt "safer" with guns in their homes. By the way...those guns never saved us or them from anything.

PS: My wife's grandfather died of a gunshot wound pulling a gun out of his truck. Rural Arkansas. Everyone had guns, even kids.

Oh I'm well aware that guns are an accelerant for violence, but I don't see how background checks helps with accidents/suicides. Domestic violence escalating to murder, yes, albeit only partially, but reducing gun proliferation is the only solution to the former, and that would take a pretty large cultural shift.

Speaking of culture, how would people feel about restrictions on gun advertising, similar to tobacco? The industry creating a culture that equates guns and violence with masculinity in order to sell more guns does not seem like a good thing:

IMAGE(http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/17/bushmaster-ad1-600x450.jpg)

I'd be fine with restricting gun advertising. Everything about that ad is bad. It all but tells you to flash your gun at anyone who gives you lip, and it revoked Adam Lanza's "man card" for being a vegan, instead of deciding to use his mother's "man card" to shoot up a school (which apparently Bushmaster considers a "manly" thing to do).

It definitely is playing to their audience though. "Last of a dying breed," invoking a fear of being made unmanly and equating guns as their defense against it.

This is how Ford Sells the Raptor too. I call it the Ford Compensator.

Rights and privileges but zero responsibility.

Stengah wrote:

I'd be fine with restricting gun advertising. Everything about that ad is bad. It all but tells you to flash your gun at anyone who gives you lip, and it revoked Adam Lanza's "man card" for being a vegan, instead of deciding to use his mother's "man card" to shoot up a school (which apparently Bushmaster considers a "manly" thing to do).

It definitely is playing to their audience though. "Last of a dying breed," invoking a fear of being made unmanly and equating guns as their defense against it.

I'm curious how the hell that ad was ever approved by PR.

obirano wrote:
Stengah wrote:

I'd be fine with restricting gun advertising. Everything about that ad is bad. It all but tells you to flash your gun at anyone who gives you lip, and it revoked Adam Lanza's "man card" for being a vegan, instead of deciding to use his mother's "man card" to shoot up a school (which apparently Bushmaster considers a "manly" thing to do).

It definitely is playing to their audience though. "Last of a dying breed," invoking a fear of being made unmanly and equating guns as their defense against it.

I'm curious how the hell that ad was ever approved by PR.

Because predicted money gained by ad > predicted money lost by bad PR. Most of the people that would complain about that ad weren't going to buy the gun anyway.

Practically the same equation that auto manufacturers use when deciding whether to recall poorly made vehicles or not.

If you don't like that ad, you are probably just a scared white woman, and your opinions are pretty much irrelevant.

The comprehensive gun package introduced in the Senate Thursday faces an uncertain future, with many Republicans and moderate Democrats quibbling over the universal background check requirement in the bill, but Congress has certainly already acted in some ways on guns, even passing a government spending bill that includes four gun provisions which actually loosen gun regulations.

The CR, Washington speak for continuing resolution, approved Thursday that will keep the government funded for the next six months included four gun measures that have long been in the CR's base bill but were made permanent by the CR passed this week.

One measure prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from requiring firearms dealers to maintain inventories to ensure weapons haven't been stolen, while another provision prevents the ATF from denying licenses to firearms dealers who report no business activity.

A third provision prevents the government from changing the definition of antique guns, and a fourth measure requires the ATF to include disclaimer language in its research data saying the information can't be used to make conclusions about gun crimes.

Link. I don't think people understand just how right-wing our government behaves. Even when Democrats control the White House and the Senate, we still end up passing right-wing policies. Michelle Bachman is the new middle.

Utah Gun Lobbyist Has AR-15 Stolen From His Car

Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said his car was locked and parked outside his home on Wednesday, with his weapon secured in a case in the backseat. By Thursday morning, the AR-15 was nowhere to be found. Investigators still have no leads on the missing weapon.
Tanglebones wrote:

Utah Gun Lobbyist Has AR-15 Stolen From His Car

Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said his car was locked and parked outside his home on Wednesday, with his weapon secured in a case in the backseat. By Thursday morning, the AR-15 was nowhere to be found. Investigators still have no leads on the missing weapon.

I think we found out why it went missing...

If it had been in the trunk, or *GASP* inside his home, it probably wouldn't be missing now, would it?

Sigh. A car is not a safe. A car is not a safe. A car is not...

Here's what gets me. This guy is a lobbyist for the industry/hobby. If the people in the highest positions of power can't keep their deadly implements safely stored, how can they reasonably expect those of us who aren't gun carriers to feel the slightest bit of safety around gun carriers?

You guys are making wrong conclusions out of this. A deadly weapon now is out in the wrong hands? It means that us, "law abiding citizens", now need to buy MORE guns to protect ourselves!

You'd figure everyone would get smug if you were winning the debate, but apparently not.

MaverickDago wrote:

You'd figure everyone would get smug if you were winning the debate, but apparently not.

Huh?

Maybe if the car had had a gun, this wouldn't have happened.

See? Criminals are going to get guns no matter what we do so there's no point in regulating anything ever again.

It feels great that freedom is winning out yet again. RIP assault weapon ban, you wont be missed. Onto the next one.

Connecticut set to pass new gun control laws. It's a compromise, and it doesn't give gun control advocates everything they wanted. It closes some loophole on background checks, and applies new rules to the sale of long guns that makes firearms laws more consistent. I don't think it will have a major impact on crime because guns will still flow into CT from other states, but it might reduce the number of guns in private circulation when people don't want to deal with the paperwork.

We already have a law in place which allows the cops to take guns from a citizen if the person is deemed a risk to other people or himself, which I think is a pretty reasonable rule.

Oy.

The National Rifle Association has unveiled its recommendations for placing at least one armed guard inside every school campus in the country in proposals that were immediately denounced by gun control advocates as radical and dangerous.

America's most activist gun rights lobby group presented in Washington what it claimed was an "independent" review of school safety standards headed by a former Republican congressman from Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson. The core recommendation of the 225-page report is that school personnel carrying firearms should be placed not only within every school but within every campus in every school.

It has been tried a few times before, generally by having a police officer on every school's campus. There is no budget for that. The State of Michigan, a Medium-large state, has over 800 public schools, over 2,000 if you count charter schools, private schools, colleges and universities. The installation of thousands of guards or police into each school is a huge expense that no state can afford right now.