Senate Gun Control

Goooo science.

 

Jackie Chan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hydroplane

From about 8:40 on.



EDIT: The lesson, clearly, is that we should have Jackie Chan clones posted in all schools.

 

Time for some more firearm-related news.

Four injured in New Orleans shooting.
Steven Seagal/Joe Arpaio combination takes on school security.

 

knock knock!
who's there?
media!
media who?
GRUN CONTROLS

 

So, a vote in the Senate is expected on Thursday. It looks like some Republicans, like McCain, will NOT go along with the filibuster.

Also, there was a mass stabbing in Texas earlier today. Over a dozen people stabbed, 2 in critical condition, but none dead. And there are conservatives saying "if only he had a gun, then at least the victims would be dead."

 

McCain's aware of the fact that as of the last polling almost 90% of registered voters are supportive of at least universal background checks. And 60% still favor stricter gun control of some form or another. I wouldn't go as far as to say it would be political suicide, but my gut's telling me there's going to be some backlash if McConnell and these 12 other Senators filibuster this bill Thursday.

Huh, I thought it would have been the other way around the "If somebody had a gun, the stabber would be dead and wouldn't be able to harm anybody else" rhetoric.

 

That would have been at least somewhat sensical. No, to them, being shot and likely killed is better than being stabbed.


And I really hope the filibuster fails. Right now, it seems to be people afraid of primaries (McConnell), people with 2016 aspirations (Rubio, Paul). Let's hope McCain and the other vote for cloture.

 

That actually happened here in Baton Rouge....but it's not newsworthy like when there's a suspect on the loose. Suspects on the lam make for sexy action news or something.

Baton Rouge cops shoot and kill attacker with knife. Two cops in hospital, stabbed in the head and neck.

 

The Manchin-Toomey proposal has numerous major issues.

First of all, with regards to the idea of "universal background checks", it actually creates a whole host of nebulous exceptions that could easily turn average people into felons. For example, under the text of the bill, if I make a verbal offer to a friend to sell him a gun out of my collection, there's no need for a background check. However, if I send him a message over Facebook, suddenly we need to go to an FFL for a background check. Similarly, if I post my gun on GunBroker (sort of like eBay for guns), and he mentions that he's actually interested in it, then we also have to go through an FFL, whereas if I mention it to him first, we wouldn't. The same would actually apply even if I just post a notice on a bulletin board at my local range.

Similarly, its definition of what makes something a gun show causes some real problems. If there are 75 guns for sale, then it's a gun show, but if there are fewer, it's not. What about cases like a large flea market, where a vendor might have only 1-2 old guns? Well, if there happen to be enough other vendors to the point that there are another 73 guns for sale at the flea market, they all just became felons if they don't perform background checks (which you can't do unless you are a FFL).

Bad definitions also cause problems in other ways. For example, what constitutes a "transfer" of a firearm? If we are both at the range and I hand my gun to you to try out? How about if you ask to borrow it to take to the range without me, but return it a few hours later? How about if I leave town for a week, but have a roommate who could conceivably access it? How about if my brother moves into a new apartment where he can't store his guns, so I offer him room in my safe to store them (but they remain his guns)? Under the definitions in this bill, some or all of these would arguably require a background check before each and every "transfer".

It claims to strengthen the protections in the Firearm Owners Protect Act of 1986 (Which provide guidelines for transporting guns from one state to another when they might be prohibited at a state in between), but it introduces an exception to those protections that completely undoes them in many places. It states that the protections for travel don't apply if you commit a crime involving a firearm that can be punished by more than 1 year in prison. Well, in some places (such as Massachusetts), the mere possession of a gun without a locally-issued permit is punishable by 2 or more years. In Colorado, under their new law, possession of an unregistered "high capacity" magazine can get you a year in prison. This exception makes ordinary people who are simply passing through a state into felons.

In addition, the prohibition of creating a firearms registry only applies to the Attorney General (and those under him). Nothing would prohibit another organization from outside the Department of Justice from creating such a registry.

I honestly don't have a problem with requiring background checks at gun shows. Currently, less than 5% of transactions at guns shows happen without a background check. (Don't believe the 40% statistic, as it predates our background check system, used an insufficient sample, and is about 20 years old.) Similarly, only a fraction of online gun purchases happen without a background check, as you are still required to have the gun shipped to a FFL in your home state unless you are both residents of the same state. (There are a few websites like Virginia Gun Trader that help people in the same state meet up, and those are the only sites that would then fall under the new requirement.) Neither of these are a big issue to me, compared to the effects on private transfers I described above.

Similarly, there are some good points in the bill that I could support. For example, right now I can go to another state and buy a rifle or shotgun from a dealer (who is required to perform a background check), then bring it home with me. However, if I want to buy a handgun in another state, I have to have it shipped to a FFL in my home state, who then performs the background check. The Manchin-Toomey proposal would treat them all the same. Similarly, I like the provisions that would allow dealers to sell at shows that are out-of-state (as it would provide more options at my local gun shows).

I also like the clarification of activities protected by the FOPA (except for the problems I noted above with the exception). Currently, for example, you are protected while in your car, and you can legally check a firearm in your checked baggage on a plane, but you aren't protected in the time you go from your car to the counter to check your baggage. Similarly, you are protected while you make an incidental stop for gas or overnight lodging, but not if your car breaks down and you need to get it repaired.

I fully support the measures to improve the data that goes into the NICS database, including the clarification that providing the necessary medical records doesn't violate HIPPA. I also like allowing FFL dealers to run NICS checks on their employees (which is currently prohibited).

But, in the final analysis, the good points don't make up for the serious issues that are created by this proposal. It creates too much potential to turn law-abiding citizens into accidental felons and has too many ambiguous or poorly-worded provisions. In the end, it would do more harm than good.

 

All of which are excellent issues which are never really explored in any of the popular coverage of said issue. Typically, the coverage only breaks the issue down into binary camps, ie...you're either for or against, but in reality, there are all sorts of other issues that matter and (should) be explored.

I especially like your "bad definition" sub-point, because the definitions do matter. New York's recent eh, tweaking of its gun laws is the textbook example of bad definition. A couple of weeks ago, one Senator gave a speech and said she thought that firearm magazines are used up when you fire them, until a constituent pointed out that she was completely wrong, and magazines can simply be reloaded. This has nothing to do with one's belief on the issue, but if you are going to actually make law over something, you should really take the time to find out what you are talking about and what goal you want to achieve.....(and consequently voting on a law based on such incorrectness)

Or I'm sure everyone has heard the story about how in the rush to "do something gun control-ish," New York forgot to exempt police officers with its new restrictions, and for a couple of days, every police officer technically became a criminal simply for doing their job. That had to be addressed. But New York has run into a entire host of other problems. For example, when it comes its new magazine standard, New York made a limit of 7 rounds. That is, until the AG pointed out that no gun manufacturer makes 7 round magazines for the new items listed within the law, because the adopted standard for this is 10 rounds, and so the new restriction probably wouldn't survive a court challenge. As such, the general assembly had to go back and amend the law again, which said that 10 round magazines can be used, but citizens can only load 7 bullets into them in order to comply with the law. But what makes 7 bullets ok, but 10 bullets suddenly a "high capacity magazine?" The problem is that New York didn't define what they wanted to do, and instead focused on doing something on the issue, even if it didn't make any sense.

Stupid things like the above are the result of rushing, combined with bad definitions.

 

Senators Grassley and Cruz are putting forward an alternative, which I like a lot better than the Manchin-Toomey proposal. You can read the full proposal here.

The short version is that it doesn't change who is required to undergo a background check (i.e. no gun show requirement, etc), but it provides new resources to enforce existing laws (such as prosecuting felons who failed background checks, or straw purchasers). It keeps the provisions of Manchin-Toomey regarding the interstate sale of handguns, and strengthens the mental health data provided to NICS. It also provides additional resources for treating the mentally ill, increasing school security, and a study on how to prevent mass shootings in the future.

 

In defence of the politicians acting on urgency, the sort of technical detail that's common knowledge to enthusiasts like yourselves is really obscure to 'normal people'. Politicians (and to a slightly lesser extent lawyers and judges) have to be generalists and rely on the guidance of specialists... Now if the specialists they're consulting are so inept, why not offer your services instead?

I'm sure that if the gun lobby and gun enthusiasts were more helpful and cooperative we could sort the whole mess out and legislate more effectively.

 

There have been quite a few firearm experts who have been offering advice on it, and to a large extent they have been ignored. In some cases, it appears to be deliberate.

For example, consider what is a "transfer" of a firearm. Under current federal law, a "transfer" only takes place when you are changing ownership of a firearm. However, both the recent New York and Colorado laws included definitions of "transfers" that appear to have been written by Bloomberg's group (Mayors Against Illegal Guns). Those definitions are such a mess that they would do things like make it illegal for you to go on a two week vacation while a friend house sits for you. They would make it illegal for someone to let someone else try their gun at a private range (when they could do so at a public range), and so forth, unless you had a full background check performed for each "transfer".

These problems have been repeatedly pointed out, and still ignored. That strongly suggests that they are not "bugs" in the law, but "features" meant to make it easier to restrict gun ownership, and make almost every gun owner a criminal.

It's been repeatedly pointed out that none of the proposed "fixes" would have prevented any of the mass shootings that are being used to justify them. Dianne Feinstein herself admitted as much today, and yet she still insists that they are necessary because of incidents like Sandy Hook.

I'm sorry, but that, to me, is clear evidence that the gun control side is arguing in bad faith, and trying to use tragedies to advance their own ulterior motives. You can see the same thing from other mass shootings (such as how families of Virginia Tech victims keep demanding that we close the "gun show loophole", even though Cho didn't buy either gun from a gun show and passed the background checks that were required).

The one exception to that is after Virginia Tech Congress passed a law to get mental health records entered into NICS, which would have prevented Cho from passing his background checks. However, most of the states haven't complied with that law, and attempts to fix that problem (which would have likely stopped both Holmes and Laughner) keep getting ignored or voted down in favor of banning "assault weapons", or "high-capacity magazines", or demanding "universal background checks" (when the killers passed the same background checks already).

The proposed Grassley-Cruz amendment would address those issues directly, without adding the sort of problems that the Manchin-Toomey amendment would cause. And yet, watch how that proposal is treated by gun control proponents in the Senate.

 

Until politicians talk about banning hand guns all theyre doing is blowing hot air up the publics ass... Looking busy without actually tackling the real issue head on.

 

Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago already established that such a ban would be unconstitutional.

 

That is all this ever was, and everyone pretty much knows it.

 

Im not speaking on any of that, all im saying is unless hand guns are banned nothing will change. The murder rate with hand guns containing clips of 10 bullets in the U.S. is astronomical.

 

So the constitution needs to change.

 

Rednecks would be up in arms (literally). This sort of measure will have to await either The Revolution (stares off into the distance Che style) or someone murdering everyone in a major metro city (in a red state) with a handgun.

 

Lol im not saying that either, hand guns and the deaths that come from them are more of a cultural problem than anything else... Everyone can technically own guns and there dosnt have to be 1 murder a year. Saying its just "guns" as the problem leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Well, to change the culture we need to get rid of microphallused Rednecks and tools who think they are being rugged individualists by thoughtlessly repeating right wing talking points.

 

this has nothing to do with anything though... These aren't the people killing each other at an alarming rate.

 

No, they are just their enablers. Which is sort of the point.

 

While not reading through the walls upon walls of "serious" posts, I thought I'd chime in, not even giving a damn if what I'm about to say has been brought up already.

Has anyone made the point that the gun violence problem in the world is actually NOT the guns and that banning and regulating gun and ammo sales will do nothing to stop the problem of violence and massacres that guns were involved in?

If the "War on Drugs" has proven to be a miserable failure, is it not safe to assume that a comparable "War on Guns" will be just as miserable?

Am I one of those crackpots who believe that responsible gun ownership doesn't necessarily lead to school shootings, etc?