As was previewed yesterday, President Obama this morning launched a new task force, tasked with developing comprehensive proposals to address gun violence. The panel will be led by Vice President Biden, and will report next month on an administration agenda.
"This is not some Washington commission. This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read, and then pushed aside," the president said. "This is a team that has a very specific task: to pull together real reforms, right now."
With Biden at his side, Obama added, "I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. It won't be easy, but that can't be an excuse not to try."
Update: Here's the transcript for today's event, including the Q&A with reporters.
Leave a Comment:
Shall we call this "Task Force Alpha"? Because if it works, it will be the first time a political task force ever solved anything. Why don't they all just get behind one of the numerous bills that have been presented in Congress over the years to ban automatics, semi-automatics and "high capacity" clips?
"Task Forces" just mean more blah, blah, blah and then they fade away.....
California already has a ban on high capacity clips. Texas does not. Both states are large states with large populations. The result? They both have nearly the same number of firearm homicides.
Oh great just the thing a "Gun Czar"...that will get things moving...
We know what we need to do and it needs to be done NOW!
Alva Goldbook,
Know the difference between gun homicides and gun massacres? Gun homicides is a convenient obfuscation of the NRA's.
Alva, you really have got to be kidding me! You really need to sit yourself down and THINK for a minute!
Like the people in California don't shop online????? Doesn't matter if they have a ban on selling high capacity clips at the local gun shop - just get online and get as many as you want!!! And BTW, they are CHEAP!
The problem with the Gun Laws that we have. Is that they are inherently flawed, because they are inconsistent throughout the states. Like I've said in a previous post. Banning any weapon or magazine size is an act in futility. Because in the end, it doesn't matter if 6 States have a ban, and the other States do not. Because people who want them, criminal or otherwise, will find a way to get them from another State.
When the Right starts citing Chicago and Detroit as "Gun Free Zones" and still have a gun violence problem. They are only looking at it through a narrow window and never see the larger picture. California can ban an AK-47 all they want, but if Az says you can but it there. Nothing is stopping anyone from just driving to Az buying it and taking it back to Cali.
Ok easy fix
The problem is the "State by State" system...Nationalize gun sales.
You can still have them buy them sell them all of that stuff but only through a Federal Gun store. Makes background checks registration and licensing easy and uniform.
If we consider the implications of the wrong people having easy access to overpowered weapons as a "Clear and Present Danger" to our national security the the President doesn't even need to go through congress to do it. Thanks to the Patriot act and historical precedent he can just issue an executive order and Do it.
Do I think that is over the top...probably but it makes one hell of a scary "...or else"
oncearepublican . . . That's exactly what I thought when I saw the headline. We'll appoint a task force, followed by a study committee (with several subcommittees, of course), and a blue-ribbon panel to evaluate the results.
We'll have Congress send their proposal to a subcommittee, then to the main committee for more discussion, followed by more blah, blah, blah . . . .
yup. That's how we grab the bull by the horns and make things happen. Zzzzzzzz . . . . .
I don't think nationalizing gun sales will do anything. Yes, criminals can get their hands on a lot of different kinds of guns, but typically they get it from someone who bought the gun legally. Therefore, it helps to have some personal experience buying and selling guns. While criminals may get guns by cross state lines (particularly true in regards to criminals in Washington DC getting guns in my home state of Virginia), I'd wager that more often than not, a criminal is getting a gun from someone in the same state they reside in who bought the gun legally.
Gun sales are already nationalized in a sense. I can buy a gun sold in Nevada on the web. Gunbroker.com is sort of the ebay of guns. However, to get that gun to me, I have to buy the gun, pay for it to be shipped to my state, and then transferred from a FFL. So in other words it's Buyer---> FFL in buyer's state ----> FFL in my state -----> criminal background check ----> gun in my hands.
Yes, there is a difference between gun homicides and gun massacres, but like any weapon, a weapon that can be used to kill people can (usually) be used to defense yourself.
We could limit gun capacity down to 6 bullets so we're all back to using revolvers. Of course, if you happen to get jumped by 5 people, you better not miss more than once.
There's up sides and down sides to everything, folks.
Would you want a limited capacity if you were the victim of a home invasion from multiple gun men? You know what I would want if this happened to me? An AR-15 or an AK-47.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4
"Would you want a limited capacity if you were the victim of a home invasion from multiple gun men? You know what I would want if this happened to me? An AR-15 or an AK-47."
And this demonstrates the irrational fears that most gun 'enthusiasts' have. Do you honestly think that a roving band of armed gunmen are going to invade your home at any minute? Do you live every day of your life in the clutches of fear and paranoia? What do you think the odds of that happening are? And if this hypothetical situation ever did arise (highly doubtful), do you think you could successfully fend off the attack and save yourself and your family?
This is a fantasy. It's a red herring, and should not be given any credence in this discussion.
Like I said it's an "Over the top" solution but my point is that the people who are "responsible" need to step up and accept that responsibility.I myself have owned guns in the past even though I don't currently so I know from whence I speak.
If to get people over their resistance to what seems to be any form of accountability at all you have to threaten them with something like that then perhaps it is justifiable and necessary. The wonderful thing about American law and our constitutional rights under it is that they are alive and grow and change as necessary as the country grows and changes. Even the things we carve in stone aren't eternally immutable.
I was on another forum where a poster has this assertion. Please helpme with unerstanding/rebuting his post.
Right now, American's don't need high capacity weapons. Let me ask you this..... should that change and they DO have a need for them, would they be available at that time? If the answer is no, then I have no problem with having them now. They're registered.
If you want to have a bazooka, I don't care. If you want to have an armed battleship, I don't care. Until you use it for harm, you're motive really isn't in question. That seems extreme, but principle is principle. People with a history of violence are exempt from this freedom.
Should there be riots in the streets, I might want automatic weapons. Should the police or government agents turn on civilians in a time of crisis, I would want them then too.
@ dueenberg
The problem with that posters rationale is. People with a history of violence are exempt, is flawed. Because no one has a history of violence until they commit a violent act of some sort. So giving access to a bazooka or Battleship, in his/her mind might be meaningless. But if that person then tries to commit or succeeds in committing a violent act. What's that person explanation for allowing them to have all those weapons in the first place?
You know, paranoia is best treated with medication, not automatic weapons.
We've had riots in the streets, we didn't need automatic weapons to stop them. If you don't want the government turning on you in a time of crisis, then inform yourself and choose better politicians to represent you.
It is way past time to stop all the fearmongering. 911 changed our national psyche in a way that we NEED to get over. Pearl Harbor was bombed - but we got over it and it didn't take over ten years. Sure what happened on 911 was bad, but do you know who armed Al Queda? We did! Remember Charlie Wilson? Because of really BAD decisions on our part, we created a monster that came back and bit us. Al Queda can't reach us in the United States any more - yet we still have the fear and it seems we can't get over it. It is time to let it go!
Because of really BAD overreactions by politicians, the Patriot Act made the American People the enemy of the American Government. That's why we have TSA and a whole batch of idiotic "security" in this country that makes everyone think every other person may be a terrorist. Isn't it time to let that go too?
There will always be an "enemy" somewhere, but that doesn't mean we have to live our lives in fear. Most of us will die of diseases caused by our polluting the air, or by what we eat - NOT by violence. Shouldn't that be where we put our "concern"?
We've had riots in the streets, we didn't need automatic weapons to stop them. If you don't want the government turning on you in a time of crisis, then inform yourself and choose better politicians to represent you.
I made that point to him. he went on to post
I don't think the populace should be that too far behind the best technology. If the military has pea shooters, so should we. If they have muskets, so should we.
If they have laser guided death rays, why shouldn't we? The question there is "why would anyone need that" but it would apply to government too.
The masses must protect themselves from each other and from their authorities should oppression incur. Nothing less than that is acceptable. If you would rather civilians didn't have automatic weapons, then the real emphasis here should be to remove them from police and military as well. That would be a more reasonable solution I think. Once the authorities can't have them, THEN make them illegal. And you know what happens? The criminals still have them and the police are out gunned.
I don't want that to happen to me or you. The NDAA. That new legislation gives the government the right to round up citizens without charge at their whim and hold them indefinitely. That is what has many alarmed and suspicious. Why would we need that piece of garbage unless someday they planned on using it?
I asked him to link that exact language of the law he hasn't got back to me.
you have to ask which you would rather have Rule of Law or Anarchy. I
t really is that simple, because if you do not trust the Government you put in place to take reasonable and prudent measures (which may include not being able to have all the toys you want) to ensure your safety then what you are in fact arguing for is anarchy.
Sensible people do not let a 10 year old play with matches and gasoline. A sensible society doesn't give it's members the capacity to destroy others in it. otherwise there is no sense in having the society.
Dragoon21b. Mexico has done what you have proposed. You can only buy a gun from their government. They have a far worse problem then we do. You can also argue that many of those guns used by the drug lords are obtained illegally. This is also true. Do you think that a criminal in the US is less crafty than one in Mexico. If you take guns out of the hands of the law abiding people then only criminals will have them.
Last point: I don't know anybody that 100% trusts in the government to do the best thing all the time. So why would you want them to have absolute power over you. Look what is happening in Egypt.
I never said anything about taking guns out of the hands of people. I never said I wanted to TAKE AWAY anything (I will grant that I personally don't think large capacity magazines are necessary but that is my opinion)
what I did say was that people who say they are responsible and law abiding should be willing to support a system that maintains sufficient controls on legal gun sales so that they at least do not contribute to the problem.
I am not suggesting that this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals but it will at least not make it easier for them to get them and may even help catch a few.
So my question to you is: Just because criminals are smart and break a law or go around it do we abandon it and become them?
If you only fight fire with fire the whole world burns down
There are some people hitting the roof right now howling "see?! Obama really is gonna' take away your guns!"
And they don't care if the world burns down, as long as they are the last, live man/woman standing.
Dear Mr. President,
In case you haven't noticed nothing in the last 4 years has been easy for you! Now please, stiffen your spine, WE the PEOPLE have your back!
Note to GOTP: Remember 2014, WE will!
just like you said " We the PEOPLE " not we the government. 51% might be a majority but it doesn't constitute a dictator. That was the wonderful thing about the way our government was set up. It protects the rights of the minority too. That is why the Senate is supposed to originate any spending bills. Obama didn't get the check book. He is not Obama almighty even though he think he is.
"That is why the Senate is supposed to originate any spending bills."
I knew there was a reason to ignore your posts...
Yeah...and the President had to stand there 20 minutes until a freakin' question came from the 'press' on this task force. And WTF was Tapper's question on 'Where have you been Mr. President?' Where have YOU been MEDIA? And where are you NOW???
"Where have YOU been MEDIA? . . . ."
Chasing after Lindsay Lohan, Honey BooBoo, or whatever bright, shiny object distracts them at any given moment. Heaven knows they can't focus their attention on serious investigations of more important issues or conduct in-depth studies of policies our leaders propose to deal with them.
Chasing after Lindsay Lohan, Honey BooBoo, or whatever bright, shiny object distracts them at any given moment.
That is what the average American wants though. The media brings what the public wants. Shows like American Idol and Survivor have HUGE audiences compared to new channels and political talking heads shows. Not that I like that obvious fact...
A question like "where have you been Mr. President" is pretty silly, but Obama has had only a few real press conferences in his first term. Coming out and making a statement on a topic is one thing, but to actually stand up at the podium at take questions on all topics is another and he really has not had that many of the latter.
What a ballsy claim. And when provided a list you can deem any of them that you choose as not real, therefore you can always be right.
A press conference is a press conference.
Did you keep track of any other President's real press conferences?
One serious fix we need is to prevent the mentally ill from being able to buy guns.
But overall, there's nothing wrong with our gun laws. Our problem is that the United States has horrific levels of poverty and inequality. And a society with those levels of inequality are societies that have far higher levels of mental illness (3 fold higher than Japan), and far higher levels of violence.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-violence
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-mental-health
You know what the March of Dimes did when Polio was eradicated? They decided to back birth defects because they KNEW that problem could never be solved and they would never have to worry about losing their donations or their reason for existing.
Is that YOUR thinking? Isn't that exactly what the NRA's mantra is? Throw up all sorts of "unsolvable" problems as excuses while meanwhile keeping their reason for existing?
An oh, about all those people who will be dying because we aren't doing the one practical thing we can do now? Well, of course, you ARE working on it, aren't you? Now that should make everyone, especially the families of the dead, very happy!!
There's a lot wrong with our gun laws when 40% of the gun purchases occur without a background check. Also, when you mention "our gun laws," which state are you referring to? When folks in NY can pop down to VA to purchase their guns, NY laws are never going to be "our" laws.
This is the "mental health" canard I have been warning about. This is exactly what the NRA will say on Friday, and it will be the exact thing the House Republicans will say. A giant strawman...
It's not just the buying, but the keeping of the guns and getting access to them when they have subsequently become unhinged. It's perfectly legal to lend a gun to a family member or friend. If the gunpowder is in a fireworks rocket, the public recognizes the importance of the operator not allowing any unauthorized individuals access to those devices. But if the gunpowder is in a gun? What is wrong with this picture?
There is plenty wrong with our gun laws, and we can start with a national registry that Lyndon Johnson tried to get passed 50 years ago.
The gun lobby requires the government to destroy its records of who bought weapons. There is no registry of who is the rightful owner of the weapons so that the government is aware of large numbers of weapons in the hands of someone who has been determined as no longer mentally fit by the VA or Social Security administration.
There is no recording of who is authorized to possess a particular weapon.
Unlike renewing a car registration, there is no ongoing monitoring of the dangerous device. There is no requirement to update gun registration- at which time a licensed professional could do at least do a brief assessment of the individual's mental stability.
Alva,
When it is perfectly legal for me to buy a veritable arsenal in an Arizona gun shop and then walk out the door and sell the pieces individually and without background check to anyone happening to be in the parking lot, there is a lot wrong with our gun laws.
Btw, Japan has very strict gun laws. As does Canada, Australia, the UK, and just about any other developed nation one would compare to the US.
John, Canada has fairly lax gun laws, at least compared to other countries. Not to the US maybe, but they are pretty lax. Canada also has about as many guns per household as the US does. This is fairly typical in rural regions of both countries, and Canada has a LOT of rural areas. Europe, on the other hand, it's almost impossible to get a gun legally. The result? Both Canada and Europe have very low rates of firearm homicides.
This isn't a gun issue folks. Something else is causing this.
What does Canada and Europe have in common? They don't have a ton of poverty and inequality.
The #1 state in firearm homicides is Louisiana, a pro gun state. The #2 is Maryland, a gun control state.
What do these two states have in common? High levels of poverty and inequality.
This isn't a gun issue folks.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-violence
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-mental-health
Baloney! Canada has had national registration of hand guns since the 30s, and unregistered guns can be seized by police.
Alva, you are not being honest. This is very much a gun control issue.
How can we reasonably expect our government to have a shred of a chance to keeping guns out of the hands of the deranged if We don't know where the guns are, and we don't know where the mentally deranged are ?
We like to think to think that America is special. Typically, we view our freedoms, and even ourselves, as truly exceptional. The right to own a gun is one of America’s most exceptional freedoms. And yet, there is something seriously wrong in America’s relationship with guns.
Put simply, we have focused far too much on our right to bear arms. Yes, we do have that right. The Supreme Court has strongly affirmed that right. But our freedom to own guns must be accompanied by a responsibility that is fully commensurate with the magnitude of that right. This is where we have failed.
Our Constitution explicitly grants us the right to own purpose-designed instruments of killing. No other household possession has such lethality. This right to own a gun is a staggering right. It is a freedom like few others. No other country’s constitution gives its citizens the right to own guns as does America.
Americans have truly been given a great deal. But what have we done with what we have been given? Luke 12:48 says, “For unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” This is the missing part of America’s freedom to own guns. We have failed to require of ourselves the responsibilities that should -- that must -- accompany our right to own instruments of killing.
We have failed this responsibility abysmally. As citizens, as state legislators and governors, as US senators and congressmen, as the President of the United States, we have failed -- singly and collectively -- to meet our responsibilities for gun ownership.
If America allows every citizen in good standing to purchase guns, then America has a matching obligation to its citizens to keep them safe from these instruments of killing. This is a simple matter of public safety. America has both the right and the obligation to pass and enforce all such laws regulating guns as are necessary to protect its citizens from guns.
When we fail to support, implement, and enforce the regulations and laws that can protect us from America’s hundreds of millions of guns, we must assume full responsibility for thousands of gun deaths every year. We are all responsible for those deaths.
After 9/11, we implemented and accepted an extensive network of restricting laws and regulations to protect us from the enemy. When it comes to gun ownership, we are the enemy. Pogo was right (we have met the enemy and he is us).
Paul, I couldn't agree with you more and you have articulated this issue extremely well! Thank you, Kris
Well, if they're going to do this, I hope they ask Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia to be on the panel. Yes, that guy, the #3 far right dickwad in the House. He was on the Ed Show last night and talked about being open to the banning of the receiver mechanisms. That is crucial! You ban the receiver mechanism by describing its mechanical functions (which all these weapons have) and it won't matter what cosmetic changes they make to the rest of the thing - it won't be like their b.s. was under the last alleged "ban" that wasn't an actual ban.
A guy like Kingston saying this is a Big Deal. Put him on the panel and work for that goal - the only way to get rid of these things - and it's going to bring along a lot of the idiots in the House, who finally - after seeing 20 kids slaughtered who look like their relatives (upper class white kids) - are "getting it."
I disagree with Kingston on everything else he has ever thought or said, but this one is important.
Kingston said the AR15 is not an assault rifle! Me thinks you give Kingston waaaay too much credit. The fella is wingnut through and through...
Lebowsky, it really depends on how you define "assault rifle". An AR-15 and a Glock isn't all that different, one just has a longer barrel and takes rifle rounds. One of the classic ways to defining it is whether a weapon is fully automatic or not.
quite frankly, I think fully automatic weapons are nothing more than a waste of ammo. They're useless.
An Ar-15 and a Glock are entirely different.
One is a handgun, one is a rifle. One shoots a pistil caliber, one a rifle caliber.
If I had a choice, I'd rather get shot by the Glock than the AR-15. A .40 or .45 can surely kill you yes, but a .223, or a 7.62? Forget about it, that's apples and oranges.
The only similarity is they are semi-automatic.
Yup, the AR15 is an assault weapon, and comparing it to a Glock handgun is dishonest. When you have to lie Alva, your case is weak.
Here is a humble proposal. Perhaps
a logical strategy to curtail gun violence would be to make it a financial
liability. The best way to modify cultural practice is to make it costly. Instead of legislating new laws that would
only be followed by law abiding citizens, and instead of modifying the 2nd
amendment from its sacred hallowed place of reverence, let’s hold the
manufacturers and salespersons/organizations completely responsible for what
their product does. Their product is
designed to kill. Their targeted purchaser should be military and police personnel
and trained individuals who are prepared to use these weapons as intended for
protection or for hunting. For any person’s
death that is caused by this product, that is not sanctioned by military/police
or is determined to not have officially authorized justification, the
manufacturing company and point of sale organization should be held directly
liable in criminal and civil court. I would envision charges up to and
including accessory to murder, and civil cases for wrongful death. If society
sanctions lawsuits for things like automobile malfunctions, and medication
side-effects, then surely liability for a manufacturer that does not take basic
precautions against foreseeable and predictable occurrences for which their
product is designed for, should be allowable. If they cannot guarantee that
their product is not going to be used only by the authorized purchaser, then
they need to find a way to secure this process, or pay for the results. If they
continue to make and sell large capacity magazines, and weapons that are able
to “efficiently” kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time, then
they need to be responsible for the sale and use of their product.
Gosh, is the business lobby in America very strong...
How about we require gun owners to carry insurance that covers any damage done with their weapons, regardless of who is doing the actual shooting. We do it with cars. If you allow someone to use your car and they hit someone your insurance still covers it. I think people would think twice about allowing others access to their weapons. Also, if they had to insure them all they might cut down on the size of their arsenals. Of course the insurance on an assault rifle would be more expensive than that on a hunting rifle because it is capable of more damage.
This sounds like something even the republicans could get behind. Everyone gets to keep their guns and their buddies in the insurance industries get to make a bundle of money to donate to their campaigns.
What if someone shoots you 3 times in the face, then takes your gun and shoots up a school? Would your insurance cover that? Cuz thats what we are talking about. I don't think this douche bag shooters mom "allowed" him accsess to her guns.
Maybe if she just would have been a responsible gun owner and locked up her guns, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Connecticut likes to say they have some of the toughest gun laws in the country while having one of the largest gun distributors in the United States in Newington.
The mentally ill argument doesn't fly with me.
In 2010 there was a snow storm that dropped 22 inches of snow over 2 days and one of the stories from that time was a guy that shot a person because of a disputed parking space.
The shooter had NO mental issues and NO criminal background of any kind and he still shot somebody.
Of course this wasn't a rampage and not a military weapon but a shooting is still a shooting no matter what is used and how many are shot.
The only way to make that shooting not happen would be to totally get rid of guns. All guns and all types. Let somebody break into school with a bat or knife...hardly a problem.
If you got rid of all guns, then people wouldn't be able to use guns to defend themselves with them.
There really are two sides of this coin, folks. Any gun can be used offensively or defensively. If that wasn't the case then somebody would be saying we should disarm the police.
If you got rid of all guns, then what would have happened here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4
or here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY
or here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQcoNr6ZIEc
or here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfz7ENFUB0
or here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPYu4Mu2dto
Watch this video very closely. Do you think this woman would have lived if she didn't have a gun in her hands?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zZGe3f0mc
Really??? Is that ALL you could find since 2007? Any of those guns automatic weapons? Or with high capacity clips?? Because THAT is what this conversation is all about, NOT just pistols or hunting rifles. So please QUIT trying to obsfucate the issue!!
Now, to paint a really accurate picture, why don't you research how many children killed themselves or their playmates with guns in that same time period, and then look up how many family members killed each other with guns in that same time period.
Alva: You don't speak for gun owners with your distortions, the majority of us are honest people willing to have a fact-based discussion. You tube videos don't mean anything, known facts do.
Jim Boeheim (Syracuse Basketball Coach) spoke these words last night at a post-game press conference. I totally agree. What kind of country do we have? When it comes to our insane gun culture, we are about to find out.
The National Instant Background Check System could be evolved into a national registry. So what can the president do to strengthen it without legislation?
One prblem is under reporting of disqualifyng documents. The Gao estimates there should be 2.7 million records disqualifying individuals due to mental incapacity. As of 2007, there were only 400,000. (source) Most institutions have no incentive to provide thus information.
Through executive discretion, the executive could prioritize processing of federal payments to health providers if the institution puts in place a system of electronic notification to the NCIS of disqualifying documents.
PLEASE READ! I believe
I have a very reasonable idea that will help lower gun violence in this
country, close the gun show loophole, close the private sale loophole and
reduce weapons being illegally transferred to Mexico. I understand this will
not be popular with gun rights activists, but I believe this is the only way.
The problem is this:
I know there is a huge push for an assault weapons ban right now, and I believe
that needs to be examined as well. I believe that a system needs to be in place that will stop the illegal transfer of handguns (which are FAR more commonly used in gun crimes) to criminals, and I believe the illegal transfer of guns to Mexico must also stop. Of course the case in CT is tragic, but far more people die in crimes yearly that do not involve so called “assault weapons”.
My proposal is this:
Make gun transactions mirror car sales. When you purchase a gun, there will be a title associated with it, just like a car. When that gun is stolen, it must be reported, and the offender will not be able to get the title for it. When you sell a gun in a private
sale, or at a gun show, the title will be transferred just like a car and you
will complete a bill of sale. When the person purchasing the weapon attempts to get the title changed over, they will be subject to a background check. If the
weapon is used in a crime it would be easy to check and see who it was titled
to last (just like you would if a car was used in a hit and run). I believe this idea will allow the government to track and put a stop to the real root of gun violence in this country, which is the illegal transfer of legally purchased weapons to criminals. It would also close the existing gun show loophole, and the private sale loophole.
If a gun that was titled in the US, showed up at a crime scene or was
discovered in the hands of a drug cartel member in Mexico, then you could go
right back to the source and hold the title holder responsible. This proposal ensures that lawful gun owners can still own guns (just like they can still own cars) and would prevent people from purchasing weapons with the intent to transfer them to criminals. Please consider this proposal, I really think this could be one of many answers to lowering violence in this country without completely removing the ability of lawful gun owners to have a gun. I also think that any responsible gun owner
would be happy to know that legally purchased guns would not end up in the
hands of felons due to the current loopholes. Thank you for your time and consideration.
LetsFix, I understand your intentions are good here, but I believe you're mistaken.
Remember, Columbine happened 5 years AFTER the assault weapons ban was enacted. What did that accomplish?
The "gun show loophole" is really not that big of a loophole. I have been to MANY MANY a gun show, and let me tell ya, I have never witnessed a single sale happen without a criminal background check.
On the other hand, the first gun I ever owned was a little 32 revolver given to me by my father in law. I never considered buying a gun before I had my car broken into while it was in my driveway. A vacant house across the street from me had already been broken into 3 times, and so I wanted to get a gun quickly. My father in law was an avid gun collector and he gave that revolver to me until I could buy a better gun for home protection. Should he have been legally prohibited from doing so? I'm glad he wasn't.
Guns already have titles of sorts. They're called serial numbers. I think it would be a good idea to have a national gun registry, at least for guns that aren't antiques. I also think that we should include mental health background checks to criminal background checks.
But we have to recognize that the ROOT CAUSE of all this isn't the guns. After all there are 10s of millions of gun owners in this country and they don't harm anyone. Just think of the numbers. We have 300 million guns, and only 11,000 firearm homicides. While I will be the first to agree that this is far too many, it also means (if I'm not screwing up my math) that only 0.032% of guns are handled irresponsibly.
The root cause of this is that in the United States, we have mental illness rates THREE TIMES higher than other industrialized nations. Why is that? We have violence rates far above the average of other first world nations. Why? We have far less trust amongst our neighbors. We have more people in prison than any other nation on earth, but per capita and in terms of pure numbers.
And sadly, the USA has the kind of income inequality that you'd have to go to Zimbabwe to find.
A whole host of societal problems develop when you have these kind of levels of income inequality and poverty. Gun violence is just one of those problems.
A few links to check out.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-mental-health
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-violence
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-imprisonment
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/evidence-social-mobility
And this, I believe, may be the 16 most important minutes you can ever spend in front of your computer.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Alva, this is more NRA nonsense and you should know better than repeat it. What you are doing is stating that since a safety measure does not prevent all disasters, it is useless.
It is completely inane but it is so old its common name is in a dead language: Reductio ad absurdum.
NRA loves this pattern:
The absurd extreme is in the proposition that any mechanism must function perfectly for it to be desirable.
Alva, it is OBVIOUS you are an NRA shill.
You are either lying or stupid. I used to go to a lot of gunshows and i saw LOTS of weapons being sold without background checks. I obtained two weapons myself, a 9mm S&W and a Remington 870 shotgun without a background check. No one there even looked at my ID.
Alva only speaks for people who do not value truth.
Does anyone think that a ban on assault weapons would have stopped the Sandy Hook killings given that the young man was a recluse and spent hours playing video games (unknown now but probably violent ones)?
Or, would it have only possible resulted in fewer dead? Why set the goal at fewer dead and spend more energy on examining the human behavior side to attempt to eliminate the deaths in the furture all together?
If the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire, the Lanza woman would not have been able to buy the Bushmaster in the first place.
So yes, banning assault weapons absolutely could have prevented this.
The larger point about her I want to make is this:
She bought into the home defense/survivalist mentality that the armaments industry has been cultivating for quite some time, so they can sell lots of weapons and make lots of money.
She was told that she needed these weapons to protect her and her family, and she believed that.
She was murdered by the weapons she thought would protect her.
Citizen, she was murdered by her carelessness. Owning a gun means keeping your gun secure. Since I live with just my wife and 2 cats, I don't have to keep my gun secure. I keep it hidden, mind you, but I have quick access to it. But if I lived with a child, that would not be the case. If I lived with a child who was mentally ill and I knew was mentally ill, that would not be the case.
They make gun safes now that will only open with a secret combination or with using your fingerprint to open the safe!
http://www.gunvault.com/
If I had been this woman, I would have considered taking all the guns out of my home due to my mentally ill child, or at the very least, scaled down my collection and bought a serious gun safe to keep others from using my guns.
That is incorrect, during the assault weapons ban, you could still buy AR-15s (I actually purchased mine during the ban). The only difference is that the buttstock couldn't collapse all the way, and it couldn't have a flash suppressor or bayonet lug,and you could not fit a forward pistol grip. It still accepted high capacity magazines and you couldn't buy mags over 10 rounds made after 1994, but you could still get mags surplus that were pre ban 30 round mags for a little more money. You could also legally buy spring kits to keep refurbishing the high cap mags you had so they didn't go bad. Not having a flash supressor wouldn't have stopped what happened, and he didn't have a bayonet fixed or a forward pistol grip. Feel free to not beleive anything I say, and google what the old ban actually said and what types of weapons were sold then. Unless you know something about AR-15s, a pre ban gun and a post ban gun looked almost identical. Semi auto AR-15s have never been banned in this country at all, google it.
How do you know this was her reasoning? Statements I've heard from those who knew her say she viewed going to a firing range as a way to bond with her sons, not a means of protection. Can you source your statement of "fact?" Like many here, you make a statement of fact with no source and pretend it is gospel because you say it is.
Second, you did not address my point, that being considering he was carrying two handguns he still could have carried off his intent to kill.
Letsfixthis: I stand corrected; I didn't realize you could by an AR-15 during the ban. I do remember the banning of folding stocks, yes.
Alva - I agree, I am dumbfounded that her weapons weren't secured with a known mentally unstable child in the home. It's a mistake she paid for with her life. But, I still stand by my assertion that she bought these weapons primarily for defense. And so that begs the question, why would a mother of two (with an unstable child as we all know), feel the need to arm herself to the teeth? It's part of the glorification of firearms, and it absolutely is part of a larger marketing scheme by the armaments manufacturers to sell more guns, it's really that simple. It's a targeted marketing campaign designed to create demand.
I think biometric safeguards are the way to go in the future. Gun safes can always be broken into. Put a fingerprint reader on the gun itself and then only the owner can engage the firing mechanism.
Rob: Lets carry your attitude about guns over to other societal problems and see what we get:
Income disparity: It's already too out of control to even try to fix, but lets study it to find out more.
Education: It's already too out of control to fix, but lets study it to find out more.
Banking and Wall Street: It's already too out of control to even try to fix, but lets commission a study to find out more.
Maybe you are on to something Ron, lets commission a study to examine that. Maybe that study can study studies, so that just limiting the amount of casualties will be but an afterthought...
Lebowsky, where did you get the opinion that my attitude towards guns that it was "too out of control to fix?"
Second, I've not advocated a commission to study, that was President Obama.
Rather than focusing on gun control what congress should be focusing on is controling the rate at which a gun can fire rounds of ammunition. By requiring that all guns be bolt-action you severly limit the firing rate of a gun. By restricting the magazine to three rounds of ammunition you require more time to be spent reloading. I am not a constitutional scholar but I do not believe that imposing the restrictions I have listed are contrary to the constitution.
I fully realize that what I am proposing will eliminate all mass murders; I'm not that naïve. By reducing the rate at which bullets can be launched you will still have serious injury and/or death, but this will give the good guys a better chance of taking down the perpetrator with the minimum of harm. Also, if the perpetrator realized that his fire power is severly limited maybe he won't commit the act.
Ummm, wasn't it Biden, who a few years back said Obama will never take my guns away from me...over my dead body...or something like that...another great leadership call by Obama. He should have appointed Michelle instead.
Why not restrict sales of bullets instead? As the law stands now anyone can buy bullets and as many as they want. What good is a gun if you can't buy ammo for it. It is a whole lot easier to make a gun then it is to make ammo.
Imagine this: A parent of one of the murdered children of Sandy Hook Elementary bursts into an NRA meeting with an assault weapon and takes out 28 of the leaders and members of the NRA.
Barry,
You are, quite plainly, sick.
Not for anything if you're getting this much back and forth on a center-left board. What are the right leaning boards suggesting Laser guns for every teacher and a rocket launcher next to the fire extinguisher? If you account for The Health and financial laws that were passed and how far to the right of the rest of the world they sit then factor the in the tradition and constitutional issues. Well you get it right
If there was a Gun Violence Prevention Program in place, where people who knew the potential threat was there and could report it, this evil could have been prevented.
Support the (GVPP) indiegogo.com/gvpp. Action speaks louder than words. One ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Give your opinion it is important ...
Condolences to the families...
It is about time that you propose something, Mr. President! Why did so many children have to die before you acted? You've had 4 long years to look at this issue and have done absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court agrees that the Constitution protects the right for citizens to bear arms. But assault weapons and automatic weapons don't belong in private hands/homes, because they serve little purpose for personal protection. These can be kept locked up at firing ranges/gun clubs, in limited numbers, for those that enjoy firing those devices. After use, they can be locked away.
Anyone who says you have to get a background check at a gun show is lying. I've been to many, and you only need a background check if you are buying from a dealer that has a table there. There IS NO background check for private sales in TX. None. That's a fact. And who cares if the gun has a serial number already? In TX pistols, rifles and shotguns are NOT TRACKED. Yep, there is NO REGISTRY of any kind to track anything unless it is an NFA controlled item. But lets forget gun shows, I could just put an ad on texasguntrader.com, meet you somewhere and sell you a gun and there is NO bacground check. So tell me again how titling weapons would be a bad idea? Once again, don't trust anything I say, just google it. There is NO requirement for a private person in TX to explain where any of his weapons end up, and if they somehow get into a felon's hands, they won't be able to track it back to you. If by some miracle they could, you can just say "sold it at a gun show", and that's that. So just to be clear, all the background checks in the world won't help. You know why? Because anyone who can pass one can just go buy a gun and sell it for a profit to a felon on the streets of Chicago. This happens all the time (you surely don't think all the guns there just magically appear right? They were legally purchased at some point) and it needs to stop. Is it already illegal for someone to buy a gun for a felon? Yup, it sure is, but how could you prove it unless it was somehow registered to you? Answer that question better than I've already tried to do if you can. I think I have a decent idea.
You could give internet access to private sellers to the nics check system and require it be used in private sales you could charge $5 or nothing but assess a heavy fine for failure to use it in private sales. Right wing Icon Charles Schumer just wrote an op ed in the washington post not far off from the positions I've been posting.
wow, I was just researching the ATF to see where it stands to possibly start a petition to have Congress confirm a Director and it's your lead story.......thanks for the info
This is priceless: a suburban school district in MO is considering a new crisis plan whereby students wouldn't be passive and take cover when a shooter enters their school. Instead they would be encouraged to take an active role when a shooter enters their school.
I guess the reasoning is that a moving target is harder to hit? Not with a semi-automatic which sprays the the entire area instead of targeting in on a specific victim. They could jump out of second and third story windows? Take a dish of hemlock?
Effective gun control can only be realized by passing a few
simple laws. There really are no alternatives. Keeping guns out of the hands of
some particular group is infeasible and fraught with insoluble problems because
no one is qualified to judge another persons potential for random gun violence.
Psychiatrists and psychologists simply do not have the knowledge or tests to distinguish
a potential killer from all of the other disaffected unconventional and sad but
innocent people who walk the streets and halls of society. There is no way to
assure the security of guns in the hands of the public, the will always be
borrowed, stolen, or taken without permission. Gun safe doors are left open,
trigger locks are lost, guns find there way into the hands of people who should
not have them.
We need to illegalize all hand guns. No one has an important
use for them and they are the principal cause of gun deaths in the US.
The unique feature of hand guns is that they can be concealed on a person while
being carried. Experts will confirm that the best weapon for home defense is a
shotgun. Hunters do not need handguns and no reasonable person can justify
private handgun ownership because a select few make a hobby of hunting with
handguns. Pistols are simply irrelevant to any discussion of peoples right to
bear arms.
The thorniest problem for gun control is assault weapons.
There is no cogent definition of an assault weapon. "Looks scary and has a
big magazine" is not useful. What we need is a law that specifies exactly
what a legal semiautomatic rifle is. The specifications of the WWII M-1 Garrand
are a good place to start. The M-1's design virtually rules out the use of a
clip containing more than eight rounds. The M-1's semi-automatic function
depends on a gas trap at the far end of the barrel. This means that shortening
the barrel would involve very serious gunsmithing. This is not to say that an
M-1 is not lethal for it was proved to be extremely lethal in three wars. But
using its design as the limiting case for semiautomatic rifles would significantly
reduce the probabilities of people successfully using a rifle to commit mayhem.
An even better variant would be the same rifle with a welded in seat that
restricted the clip to three or four rounds. As for grandfathering in guns
already in circulation, people can maintain their collections so long as the barrels
are welded shut.
There surely are most probably other people out there who are more educated on and more interpretive of the United States Constitution, than I am. However, in my reading of the second amendment to the Constitution, I do not read that it guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms. At least, not in the sense that has become the normal understanding. I read that amendment, which is one complete sentence and one thought, in relationship to maintaining a “well regulated Militia, for the security of a free state”. I read this to say, in order to have a well regulated militia, the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied. I don’t understand how you can single out one portion of a sentence and say that it is the complete amendment. In my mind, the entire sentence has to be taken in context. Let us say for the sake of argument that the writers of the amendment did intend and mean that the people have a guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, without regards to the Militia, and that that right cannot be infringed upon. Nowhere does it say that the people have the right to use those arms to kill or maim other people. The Constitution reserves all rights not specifically given to the federal or state governments for the people and the people have the right to be safe. So, tell me now, what happens when one right in the Constitution is in conflict with another right. As I see it, one person’s rights are guaranteed, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
If these mass shootings and drive by shootings were taking place in the communities where our elected representatives lived, they would have done something a long time ago. If we continue to live in the shadows because it isn’t happening to us, I pray for this country.
Kenn143fromVirginia