main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Tim Battershell

    Tim Battershell Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    I'm talking about the armed criminals there are now (while law-abiding citizens can still legally own firearms). They will not disarm, no matter what the Law says. Disarming the general population would (IMHO) just make their depredations easier and less risky.
     
  2. Violent Violet Menace

    Violent Violet Menace Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2004
  3. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    But where do criminals get their guns if not from the same avenues as law-abiding citizens? By making guns readily available, that means criminals get easier access to them as well, whether it's because gunowners are unscrupulous or neglectful in who they allow access to their guns.
     
    V-2 likes this.
  4. Blue_Jedi33

    Blue_Jedi33 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Even if you ran a total probation against all guns, you would have about as much success as you have on illegal drugs.
    We all know how that is working these days.
     
  5. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Well you could probably convince (some) people to get rid of their guns, like with buyback programs and whatnot. You don't get physically addicted to firearms.
     
    V-2 likes this.
  6. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    The NRA had better be careful at the approach it takes to fighting gun control, and the same goes for Congressional Republicans. It could get supremely ugly for all of them in the event of another massacre, which we all know is inevitable.
     
  7. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    KnightWriter likes this.
  8. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Obama announced 23 executive actions today relating to guns. According to the White House, they are as follows:
    He also is proposing 4 major reforms that he wants Congress to pass:
    My analysis?

    Of the proposed legislation, the most we are likely to see from Congress is #4. #2 and #3 are going to be almost impossible to pass, and #1 is only a little bit less impossible.

    As for the Executive actions, I would say that there's little objectionable in there. #7 could be somewhat concerning depending on what they include in their "responsible gun ownership campaign", as could #23. Similarly, #14 can be concerning depending on how they decide to target their research. If the research is performed in a non-biased manner, it could be a good thing. He's already done #11, nominating the current acting director of BATFE (B. Todd Jones) as the new permanent director, withdrawing the nomination of Andrew Traver who was unable to get significant support. Most of the Executive actions are things that should already have been in place a long time ago.
     
  9. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    "Non-biased" research means reaching conclusions that are to the liking of Republicans. If it upsets Republicans, it cannot be unbiased.
     
  10. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    You may be right about 1, but I hope not. It's more important than 2 or 3. This may be the first time in decades that the gun control opponents aren't able to drown out everyone else's voice in terms of calls to legislators, etc. The NRA lobbyists can still make better direct threats.
     
  11. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    No, "non-biased" research would be research that doesn't have a clear agenda.

    For example, the majority of "children" killed by firearms according to previous CDC research are actually in their late teens (often as part of gang violence), and yet because of classifications they are treated the same as young children. That sort of research has a clear bias to it, clearly meant to inflame public opinion and inflate the numbers. Similarly, the CDC numbers usually don't differentiate between a legally-justified shooting (i.e. self-defense) and a non-justified one (i.e. murder). Ignoring data like that will present a bias to the conclusions.

    Essentially, as long as the CDC isn't instructed to go into the research with the goal of justifying gun control, it should be fine. They need to look at factors on both sides of the issue. Otherwise, you won't get good data.
     
  12. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    "Research that doesn't have a clear agenda" cannot reach a conclusion that supports Democratic or liberal ideas. If it does, it must have an agenda.

    "Good data" means data that supports primarily Republican ideas.

    Right, KK?
     
    Juliet316 and V-2 like this.
  13. Rogue1-and-a-half

    Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Yeah, I agree with most of those executive actions. All the barriers to getting really good information out of the background check information, like loosening some of the HIPAA restrictions (which I deal with every day at my job), stopping the freeze on research, etc. are all completely unobjectionable. I think, at this point, he may not get anything through Congress, but it's a net gain for everybody, I should think. The Republicans in Congress can say, "We stopped everything we could." And Obama can say, "I implemented twenty-three new policies." Everybody comes out looking pretty good. ​
     
  14. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    My how you project your own attitudes onto others. You've already admitted that you want all guns banned. It's clear that you wouldn't accept any research that doesn't support your predetermined agenda.

    It's pretty clear to identify when research has an agenda. Factors like I mentioned (grouping late teens into studies as "children", grouping legitimate self-defense shootings as if they were murders, etc) can do a lot to skew the results of a study. When most of the "children" killed by guns are actually teenagers involved in gang activity, it makes a big difference. A study that doesn't take that into account, but treats everyone under the age of 18 as if they were just elementary students is blatantly biased.

    Show the raw data, and allow the results to face a strenuous peer review from people on all sides of the issue. If they aren't willing to do that, and use a non-biased methodology (i.e. they don't specifically include or exclude critical factors), it should be fine.
     
  15. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Let's see you cite examples of studies you support that reached conclusions that defied your previous thinking, or challenge accepted GOP ideas of today.

    I await your post with great anticipation.
     
    V-2 likes this.
  16. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I'm sorry, but I'm not the one making the accusation here. You are.

    You can't just accuse me of holding positions or criteria that I don't hold, and then demand that I prove that I don't. I made a neutral statement, that the CDC research would not be a problem as long as it's non-biased, and you launched into what amounts to a personal attack on me, attributing all sorts of claims to my statement.

    I have nothing to prove. Obviously, you feel that you do.
     
  17. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Just as figured.

    Anyway, Republicans and the NRA will get crushed politically in the event of another mass shooting if they are perceived to have blocked potentially life-saving regulations or laws.
     
    V-2 likes this.
  18. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    As compared to the nonsensical regulations proposed in response to Sandy Hook? All I have done is argue for rationality, rather than emotionalism, in how we respond.

    For example, New York's attempt to be the first in the nation to respond (largely because Cuomo has ambitions for 2016) is ridiculous. Setting a 7-round limit on magazine size instantly turns pretty much every 22 rifle used at scout camp into an assault weapon (as most 22 rifles have a 10-round capacity). The 1-factor test is also ridiculous. Essentially, the plan is to ban anything with a "pistol grip", but then they put in factors like an adjustable or folding stock (which you can't really put on a gun unless it has a pistol grip), which are completely superfluous.

    If you could make a logical or reasoned argument, you would. Instead, all you have offered is personal attacks, unrealistic solutions (such as banning all guns) and emotional pleas for regulations that would make no real difference. Why don't you come back when you have something serious to say?
     
  19. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    KW you gotta stop confusing what you want to happen with what's likely to happen.

    After each major shooting happens, and people talk of reform, NRA membership grows. We literally just had Lee bragging about how he's rejoined, which is similar to teenagers declaring their love of Satan - a cute, cheap ploy to shock and offend.

    The NRA will not get crushed as you claim. There mere fact you wish it would be so is not sufficient to ensure it is.
     
  20. V-2

    V-2 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2012
    I just wrote a rant about KK's use of stats and tangential arguments, but it's really not worth it, is it?
     
    KnightWriter likes this.
  21. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Building on this, for all the claims that the NRA is controlled by gun manufacturers, it's really supported by the 4.25 million members. Based on some reports, they've added almost 250000 members in the last month alone.

    For contrast, the ACLU is also considered a powerful lobby group, and they have only 500000 members. The NRA is almost 9 times the size of the ACLU. That is why it is so powerful. There are a lot of members, and they actually believe in the cause that they support.

    Gun manufacturers are actually represented by the National Shooting Sports Federation.
     
  22. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Ender, you seriously don't think there would be heavy fallout on the NRA and Republicans in the event of another massacre if they're perceived to have blocked new gun regulations? What happens if this time fails, another massacre happens and the President tries again?

    If the NRA was more strategic, they would push for some kind of compromise deal, probably more favorable to them, but still requiring them to give up something. Cutting your losses is the term, I believe.
     
  23. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Why should they? After the last Assault Weapons Ban, the NRA helped the Republicans retake both houses of Congress. Since then they have maintained a high level of support in Congress, to the point that more than half of all members of Congress are rated "A" by the NRA (including quite a few Democrats).

    You seriously underestimate the level of support the NRA and other Second Amendment organizations (such as GOA and the SAF) have. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that everyone doesn't like them.
     
  24. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Nope.

    Anyway, I think there might at least be a chance of getting a universal background check bill at least to the Floor of the House and Senate for a vote this time out. In the aftermath of Newtown, there seem to be at least a few more Republican Congresspeople who are at least open to the idea of expanded background checks and closing the 'gunshow loophole.' Whether or not any such bill actually gets passed remains to be seen.

    I see no problem with the Executive Orders.
     
  25. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Based in history to date? No. In fact, I think it's a pretty solid position I've taken. I'm comfortable in saying that the NRA is blithely indifferent to public sentiment and cares solely about it's base and the 2nd Amendment.

    The GOP? Didn't reference them intentionally. Can't link the two together, KW, as they're completely different entities. One's a single issue interest group; the other a major party. That many members of the former support the latter does not automatically mean that all members of the latter support the former.