Obama's gun measures face a tough road in Congress

 @Max Quinn  @Conspirator  @JTesla Agree. Trivia:  In the Marine Corps you get your ass chewed for calling it a "gun", so it's a "rifle" or a "weapon."   My NRA instructors were making cynical jokes about the NRA's new policy of referring to it as a "gun", and not a "weapon."  'Cause calling it a weapon or a firearm isn't PC among the liberal populace.

 @MarkKpic  @Conspirator  @JTesla No. The GOP leadership is not as conservative as the Tea Party republicans. The DNC is comprised of the most liberal democrats. Unions - mixed bag, some yes, some no.

 

I wasn't guessing. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/25/us-usa-shooting-denver-guns-idUSBRE86O02O20120725

 @Max Quinn  @Conspirator  @JTesla >'And there's part of the problem. THe NRA membership is much more rational than the NRA leadership'

 

I suspect that your summation could accurately be applied to most politically active groups. IE- GOP, DNC, Unions, etc... 

 @Conspirator  @JTesla And there's part of the problem. THe NRA membership is much more rational than the NRA leadership... And not as highly paid (for the most part).

 @Fed up Fed  @ChrisJ82  @Conspirator "Ignorance coupled with confidence is PRECISELY the trait that keeps biting us in the ass"

 

Now you're learnin', boyo!   -Glory

 @ChrisJ82   Thank you!  I have a policy NOT to address the idiot known as fed up fed, so i'm glad someone put those words into print here, I was beginning to think no one would!

 

It's beyond a travesty that the well intentioned yet poorly implemented Wide Receiver was *expanded* in a huge and unaccountable way with the direction of the Fed under Obama.  Later, as things started to get bad along the border we heard increasing talk from the Fed about 'how do we stop this?' yet no one even hinted at HOW those *fully automatic and current military issue weapons* came to be in the hands of Cartel hit squads.  Furthermore, there was no response from the Fed about defending our borders from bloody attacks...

 

Then the lid came off the story and everything went quiet like a church on Tuesday. 

@Fed up Fed OKAY. FINE, THEY WE INVOLVED TOO. NOW, LET's ARREST THEM FOR IT AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, AS THEY INTEND TO DO TO US.

 @Fed up Fed  @ChrisJ82  @Conspirator Oh and lets not forget that the whistleblowers have been cleared by the ATF, there's another hole in your Fortune article lie, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/fast-and-furious-whistleblower-cleared-by-atf/

 @Fed up Fed  @ChrisJ82  @Conspirator Far from it, the Fortune article stands out as being in complete contradiction to the facts.

 

As is the loony claim that WR and F&F were the same. You did get it right that it was the same agents, but that only raises serious questions about how they thought taking the component of legitimacy (working with the Mexican authorities) would make a failed operation magically work. The sort of questions their boss Eric Holder is intentionally blocking us from finding out.

 @Conspirator  @Fed up Fed I wouldn't waste your time with Fed about this one. He's insisted on his lies from the start, he refuses to go look at the OIG report, and I'm startled he hasn't brought up the provably false Fortune article.

 

In short Wide Receiver under Bush attempted to work with Mexican authorities and was a botched sting, Fast and Furious under Obama gave the guns to known straw buyers and just watched them walk away without any attempts to interdict.

 @Fed up Fed  @Conspirator First question is why hasn't Mr. Holder answered for this?  If it was nothing more than a simple "my bad," why must Obama insert "executive privilege"?

 

Second, suppose someone were to come to my house to buy a gun.  He's a stranger so I dutifully ask for a police background check and find the person is a convicted felon.  I ask what the police intend to do about a felon attempting to possess a firearm.  To my surprise, the police say, "we have a special program in place".  "We want you to look the other way and sell him the gun anyway."  Let's see, my livelihood depends on future cooperation of these very policemen and they assure me that I will not be held liable.

 

They lose track of the gun and it ends up being used to kill another policeman. 

 

Was the program REALLY about catching straw buyers or to further the agenda that guns in the U.S. are bad and are the reason for Mexico's violence?

 

 

@Fed up Fed that's exactly right. I'm a certificated flight instructor, commercial pilot, and licensed DPSST armed security contractor in the state of Oregon. Let me ask you this: how much does the government entrust YOU with?

@Conspirator @JTesla that's an infringement. They don't make 10-round magazines for the weapon that I'm licensed to carry as professional private armed security. Ergo, by banning the magazines that come with my weapon I'm forced to pay out of pocket for equipment that doesn't even exist, before I can go do the job that my fellow contractors are currently doing at the employment, social security, VA and immigration offices. Either the government issues everybody weapons, or the federal government is staffing its public offices with outlaws carrying outlaw weapons.

@Conspirator You made a post of 4 things he is doing and slipped in 1 that he has proposed. Get back to me when you want to discuss one or the other.

 @Fed up Fed  @Playanekes 

"I seriously hope if they ever do come for your guns, that you resist.  I'd love to see you on the TV, covered in your own urine and pewling like a baby as they cart you off to the pokey for egregious stupidity.  That would be really sweet."

 

I would like to see an end to random gun violence and gun crime, and I don't think the solutions will work.

 

YOU would like to see law-abiding gun-owners cowering from the police state during invasions into their homes, because think it would make entertaining television.

 

I think you've said all we need to hear, Fed. You're why we HAVE guns.

 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE  @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic Thank you for that. Interesting!

 @MarkKpic  @Fed up Fed 'Propoganda is a great way to influence public opinion. It is, however, a lousy way to enact legislation. ' 

Yes!!! Great point.

 @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE LOL, no worries man.

I think for myself, although my opinions sometimes fall in line with people on the right, and yes, some on the left too. -Registered Independent and vote that way (voted for Obama the first time around, but not the second).

 @Fed up Fed  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE  @MarkKpic >' I will say that my using Australia was really an attempt to tease out Mark's intentions.'

 

Here's an idea, how about asking direct questions and/or making points instead of 'attempting to tease out intentions'. 

 

A BIG part of the problem in this country is the obtuse attitude that people tend to take towards others opinons when they disagree. Civillity and mutual respect can go a long way towards creating cooperative efforts. As I've said before, there are parts of the proposals that President Obama made that I do agree with. There are also parts that I firmly believe are knee-jerk, opportunistic reactions that are persuing goals that existed before the sandy hook shootings. 

 

Propoganda is a great way to influence public opinion. It is, however, a lousy way to enact legislation. 

 @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic >' My point is this: Gun laws aren't followed by guns, they're followed by people.'

 

Or, they're not. (followed by people). THAT is the crux of my counter-point. There are (estimates range, so I'll go with the middle ground) 3/4 of a million guns that are not in the hands of people who are following the law in their possession of them. It would stand to reason that they are not likely to follow any new laws put on the books regarding bans or restrictions of guns. 

 

>'My claim was that we should be trying to understand what Canada is doing correctly because they have a gun culture that is nearly identical to what we had before the NRA went bugnuts.'

 

And my response is that your claim is problematic in two ways;

 

  1) There is no constitutional right to gun ownership in Canada. ALL handguns have been required (by law) to get approval (after submitting a form with a 'compelling reason' for purchase and right to carry) from, and register ownership of them.

 

 2) Strict ownership regulation of firearms and ammunition has been the law of the land beginning back in 1885. It peaked in 1995 when laws were passed that required ALL firearms purchases were regulated through the various provincial governments.

 

Similarly to Austrailia, the comparitive value ceases unless you are talking about enacting similar laws in the US. If that is what you are proposing, then we have to look at the 2nd amendment and expect that groups like the NRA are going to fight such laws on the grounds that they violate it.  

 

The single biggest problem has been, and continues to be, the people who use the guns. Not the guns themselves. The majority of people who have used guns in mass casualty assaults have been in possession of them illegally, but the laws did no good. Because criminals do not obey laws. They find ways to circumvent them. 

 

Again, there are some aspects of what President Obama is proposing that I can support. Manditory, across the board background checks for firearms purchases (although, if you look critically at it, such a law would not have prevented Columbine, Springfield or Sandy Hook). I also agree that there needs to be some official, national clearing house for mental health background checks.. the problem is going to be justifying such a program (legally) against HIPPA. 

 

What I cannot support is the knee-jerk proposals that are infringements on the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens. Bans of specific types of guns and weapon cartriges. I also get pretty riled up with the blatant cash grab of attempts to tax ammo, and then claiming it's being done 'fer the childruuuun'. 

@Fed up Fed@MarkKpic

 

>'You quoted the number of guns per capita, which is kind of not a helpful statistic.'

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/

 

From National Firearms Survey:

 

"Researchers have estimated about 25 guns per 100 people in countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Germany, France and Sweden.16 On the basis of current estimates from our survey, the US has 93 guns per 100 people."

 

The numbers provided on wiki are determined using the same metrics that the NFS used. That is, the total number of firearms sold and in use (eliminating those known to have been taken out of use by either law enforcement or buy-back destruction, and private source destruction) in the US vs. other countries (Canada). 

 

The reason that it is a relevent statistic is that it demonstrates the difficulty in creating effective gun control laws. It is what my referenced study refered to as "substitution", and it's not addressed in either the NFS, or the IPJ studies.

 

Even using your (NFS) statistics, that 35% that are not in the hands of the 20% are not exclusively owned by responsible (and documentable) citizens. There are estimates ranging from 250,000 up to 1 million 'undocumented' functioning guns currently in the US. Those guns are not going to end up being 'controlled' by any legislation or laws that may come into effect. 

 

 

In the end, I stand by my position that 'gun control' legislation is little more than a knee-jerk, circumstantial reaction by politicians who (may or may not) believe that it will have any dramatic in regards to 'protecting children'. 

 

There are some of President Obamas proposals that I can get behind, but the reality is that some legislative effort in the creating of new gun laws isn't one of them. 

 

BTW... A footnote from the NFS "The National Academy of Sciences recently issued a report on firearms and violence in which they called for improved data on firearm ownership and use to advance the empirical evaluations of programs and policies to reduce gun violence."

 

A report which I provided a link to, and referenced in my earlier post. 

 

 

 @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic BTW... In case you missed it down below, this is an excerpt from a paper written by the National Academies of Science in reference to 'gun control' laws and efforts. It's not conclusive, but my statements in response to your comments are (more or less) a paraphrase of what they've written on the subject.

 

"Because of the pervasiveness of guns and the variety of legal and illegal means of acquiring them, it is difficult to keep firearms from people barred by law from possessing them. The key question is substitution. In the absence of the pathways currently used for gun acquisition, could individuals have obtained alternative weapons with which they could have wrought equivalent harm? Substitution can occur in many dimensions: offenders can obtain different guns, they can get them from different places, and they can get them at different times. Arguments for and against a market-based approach are now largely based on speculation, not on evidence from research."

 @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic >'Australia and the UK are exemplars, if we consider pre- and post-ban data. '

 

Exemplar- Adjective

a) Serving as a desirable model; representing the best of its kind.

b) Characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

 

As per my point in the above post, I disagree that either are accurate comparitives. The largest reason being residual guns availible in society. In both of your comparatives (UK & Austrailia), even prior to current gun restrictions, gun availibility was nowhere near comparitive to the US. The sheer number of guns 'on the street' (not responsibly owned by private individuals) precludes the comparison. The reasoning being that once the gun control laws were enacted, the vast majority of guns were exclusively in the hands of private (responsible) citizens. 

 

>' Canada also works as a contrast, as their culture is more akin to ours and the rate of gun ownership is equivalent, but their violent crime rate is nowhere close to what we endure.'

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your data for that statement. 

 

Using 2007 figures,

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

Number of guns per capita - World ranking (# of guns per capita)

 

US:                  88.8 - 1

Canada:         30.8 - 13

Austrailia:       15   - 42

UK   (listed as England & Wales)- 6.2 - 88

 

 

Simply put, there is no accurate comparative. Specificially because of the fact that the US is the only example of a country where the right of its citizens to own firearms is protected by the Constitution. That creates a whole set of problems that are not factored into consideration in countries like the UK, Austrailia and Canada. The primary one being that the guns that are already in circulation, and not in the hands of responsible owners, are most likely the ones causing the majority of the problems (insofar as homicides). What that tells me is that these guns are not likely owned by individuals who are inclined to obey laws intended to restrict ownership. 

 

 

 

 

 

 @MarkKpic  @Fed up Fed It doesn't matter. America is not now and has never been Australia.  Americans aren't going to turn in their thousand-dollar investments to liberal government goons just because socialists in England's prison colony were forced to.  As likely to happen as Kamikazi fighter pilots or giving up our First Amendment. So, who would win in a race between a sasquatch and a unicorn?

 @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic Simply put, the comparitive value is a problem in the fact that firearms have traditionally been a registered property in Austrailia. Note that this is not an absolute, but it was generally accepted practice historically that ownership of firearms was a privledge and not a right in Austrailia. In the 90's when the licencing laws (Permit To Acquire) programs were put in place, it became a crime to own an unregistered firearm. 

 

Your thoughts?

 @Fed up Fed  @MarkKpic So, the answer is no. You either dont care to, or are unable to, have a substanitive discussion on the issue as a whole. 

 

Fair enough. 

 

Since we're (apparently) grading and correcting grammatical errors as part of this 'discussion';

 

>'Here's my argument: Gun control can and does work.'

 

 More accurately, here's your conclusion.

 

>" We have real world examples in Australia and Britain. "

 

Austrailia is a has some value as a comparison/contrast, but there's a few problems with the comparitive value. 

 

Let's be clear about what the laws are in Austrailia; (a cut n paste from wiki, but it's a relatively accurate summary)

 

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

 

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[

 

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

 

 

Now, the problems with the comparitive;

 

 First and foremost, serious gun control in Austrailia began around 1920. With each decade, the restrictions on ownership have gotten progressively more strict. Escalating to the point where, in the 90's, it became manditory for persons owning firearms to register them, and new purchasers to submit an application for a Permit To Acquire (PTA). 

 

 The US has, and has always had, (since it's creation) a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Enumerated within the US document is the right of the citizens to private ownership of guns. Australia does not have a “genuine” constitution with respect to guarantees of individual rights, instead having the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Under these documents, the right of the private citizen to own firearms has never been guaranteed. The point of difference is that it is a debateable point that because guns have always been the right of US citizens here, there are exponentially more in circulation. It is, therefore, much more difficult to effectively regulate the possession of them without encroachment of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. 

 

 Simply put, the comparitive value is a problem in the fact that firearms have traditionally been a registered property in Austrailia. Note that this is not an absolute, but it was generally accepted practice historically that ownership of firearms was a privledge and not a right in Austrailia. In the 90's when the licencing laws (Permit To Acquire) programs were put in place, it became a crime to own an unregistered firearm. 

 

I submit to you that this fact makes any comparitive conclusions inaccurate. 

 

...unless, of course, you are talking about eliminating the private citizens right to own firearms, or requiring registration of current firearms with criminal penalties for failure to do so.