Obama wants gun control talks to resume.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't think that carry is deterrent in nature for the Cho's or Loughner's. Given their suicidial ideation, death is part of the package for rampage shooters, in general.

However, I want to have the ability to mitigate the incident if I can (not as a commando charging). We have some incidents where it has worked well. The Denver Church and Pearl, Mississippi.

Everything is a filter to prevent casualities. Better mental health reporting and carry are solutions.

 

[Tom Servo]

The three concrete proposals made by the President are actually quite modest, and have to do entirely with enforcing existing laws (...) If you read attentively, he's being very careful not to propose making background checks mandatory for private sales.

I noticed that as well. As someone else mentioned, he's playing to the crowd that elected him, while trying his best not to alienate the center. Hence his veiled claim that national park carry was something he supported, rather than something he was forced to swallow.

I just don't see the current administration getting gun control passed in the current situation.

It would take nothing short of a miracle (or a crisis he can handle) to get the current President elected for a second term. He's deep in lame duck territory at the moment, which leaves him as more of a functionary than a leader. In this position, he can conceivably push some of his pet causes under the logic that he's got nothing to lose.

We can compare him (loosely) with LBJ in 1968. The big difference is that there was widespread support for gun control then, while there is very little now. Dianne Feinstein made a call for stricter controls immediately following the Tuscon shooting, and the Speaker of the House shut that idea down almost instantly.

So, let the guy write his op-eds. I'm keeping my eyes peeled, but I don't see any reason to worry right now.

 

[markj]

All responsible gun owners need to write their state law makers and let them know how they feel on this subject.

I read an article yesturday written by a VT survivor, even after he was shot 4 times, he still belives we need less guns and is for laws to take guns away as if the less than law abiding will turn theirs in.

These folks live in a dream world where they IMAGINE everyone lives in harmony and peace. HA, as if that will ever happen. So since them folks have had the ears of congress for so many years, we all need to step up and let them know we will vote em out if they enact laws that may harm our freedom and safety.

Speak up to the right people.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There seems to be two responses to rampages. In TX, after Luby's in Kileen - Dr. Gratia-Hupp felt a reasonable measure was concealed carry.

After the LIRR shooting and Harvey Milk, Rep. McCarthy and Feinstein respectively, thought that bans would prevent massacres.

Interesting to know what channels folks to each solution (without surface psychobabble). Obvious to me that I want the option not to be a simple target.

But not to some, they think it can be prevented. The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.

Those who think total bans and confiscation would work don't know the evidence. Most predictors of violence are unsuccessful or prone to false positives at an unacceptable level. Cho and Loughner probably should have reached the current limits for report but the systems failed.

 

[PawPaw]

Loughner lied on his 4473. He was a well known user of marijuana and he lied when he checked block 11e. If he would have told the truth, the sale would have been immediately stopped.

SO, the question becomes: Has the DOJ initiated prosecution for Loughner lying on the 4473? Crickets, people. It ain't happening.

This isn't about licensed dealers and the NICS. That part is a smoke-screen. If you read some left-leaning media, you start to see the whole picture. From the Huffington Post:

The principal debate, then, will likely center around the application of background-check standards to private dealers.

Private dealer? Who are they? They're you and I, guys. Our President wants all transfers to go through the NICS. Close the gun show loophole. If you want to give a gun to your son, go through NICS. If you want to will a gun to your grandson, go through NICS.

That's what it's about guys. Another layer of government intrusion.

For myself, I'll be writing letters to my Congress-critters immediately. No more compromise. When they prosecute the GunWalker agents, I'll start believing that they want to do the right thing. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Falcon642]

The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.

I agree, however our current society will probably prevent this. Look at the backlash over the terror watch list, now imagine the backlash of an official crazy person list.

Think of the liability, someone gets placed on a crazy person list, go for a gun check and the guy working the counter denies them the gun, but tells everyone at the bar tonight "Hey did you know so and so has been deemed too crazy to own a gun?" Now that word gets around to the persons employer and boy do we have a crap storm on our hands.

Maybe I am off base here, but I can see lawyers rubbing their hands at all the lawsuit potential of such a list.

 

[Evan Thomas]

<snip>

The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.

Those who think total bans and confiscation would work don't know the evidence. Most predictors of violence are unsuccessful or prone to false positives at an unacceptable level. Cho and Loughner probably should have reached the current limits for report but the systems failed.

And proposing that tightening, of course, is the third of the two responses you mention.

It's a nice idea in principle, but in practice, it runs up against:

The already-stated issue of depriving people of rights without some form of due process.

The problem of false positives, which is also one of what criteria, exactly, should be used to decide that someone is "too crazy" (technical term ) to own a gun. "Has been treated for mental illness" would be far too broad; imagine the fuss if everyone who'd ever had a prescription for psychoactive drugs were placed on such a list.

And the (lack of) availability of mental health services: Loughner's college has been criticized for not reporting him to outside authorities, or otherwise seeing that he received a mental health evaluation and treatment -- but, realistically, the resources for this type of intervention have been drastically curtailed in recent years. And that's largely why "the systems failed" in the cases of Cho and Loughner.

People say that they want a system that protects them from the Loughners of the world, but no one wants to pay for it.

 

[USAFNoDak]

PawPaw:

Private dealer? Who are they? They're you and I, guys. Our President wants all transfers to go through the NICS. Close the gun show loophole. If you want to give a gun to your son, go through NICS. If you want to will a gun to your grandson, go through NICS.

That's what it's about guys. Another layer of government intrusion.

I agree. They want all gun sales to go through the NICS. The gun show loophole is one "convenient" argument for them to use in an effort to get to their end game. Once they get all sales going through the NICS and criminals still have guns to commit crimes with, the next logical step will be to "register" all gun sales. The 4473 sort of registers the sale now, but they could kick it up another notch to have a working data base of gun sales by serial number and who has them, or is supposed to have them. That's where they want to go. Where they'd go after they accomplish that is anyones guess, but we can make accurate guesses.

 

[hogdogs]

One issue I have with the mental health issue is if the person is dangerous enuff to lose rights, they need to be controlled far tighter than just 2A rights loss. And if they ain't dangerous enuff to be locked up... I take issue with their medical information privacy being invaded by "THE MAN"...

Brent

 

[jimpeel]

Perhaps the answer to Mr. Obama's aspirations is to implement a law that requires everyone to tell the truth on a 4473. Simple.

 

[liberty -r- death]

He's from Chicago and the general sentiment for politicians there is gun control solves crime problems. They never seem to understand it's not law abiding citizens that commit the crimes with legally obtained fire arms. I worked in the Illinois Senate on staff as a photographer for a few years before I couldn't take it anymore. I spent alot of time in Chicago, and got to hear alot of things behind closed doors. I worked with Obama back then when he was just getting into politics, and he and other liberals feel the streets would be safer if their is more gun control. You can't blame the criminals for what they do or enforce the current laws. They don't fit into the social justice and change he's promised us.

He is has also made statements to the effect that more gun control efforts will be difficult because the 2nd amendment is so entrenched in American culture. (doesn't mean he won't try)

After the way health care went down I doubt he'll care enough to listen to anyone that doesn't want what he does.

Current legislation in Illinois is looking to ban assault rifles, limit gun purchases to one in a 30 day period, require private sales to be done through an FFL. (Thank you Chicago)

In addition they are also looking at passing some sort concealed carry for fee revenues to help the bankrupt state kinda balance a budget.

 

[thallub]

When is the last time you heard of a felon being prosecuted for attempting to buy a gun? That seldom happens. The US Justice Dep't has a very poor record when it comes to prosecuting felons who attempt to buy guns.

In 2008 there were 78,906 NICS denials: There were 39,526 NICS denials for felons attempting to buy guns. In 2008 a whopping 147 cases were referred for prosecution.

The anti gunners in congress and the administration want it both ways. They want to impede or prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns while at the same time refusing to prosecute those felons who attempt to buy guns.

It does not matter which party owns the white house, prosecuting felons who attempt to buy guns is not a priority.


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf) (published June 2010

 

[PawPaw]

Perhaps the answer to Mr. Obama's aspirations is to implement a law that requires everyone to tell the truth on a 4473. Simple.

It's already a felony to misrepresent the truth on a 4473. From the form:

I also understand that making any false oral or written statement or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law.

SO, the law is already in place. Our President can start enforcing it whenever he likes.

When Mr. Obama directs AG Holder to prosecute the federal agents who directed participation in the GunWalker scandal, I"ll believe that he is serious about enforcing the law. Until then, I'll only believe that he's spouting platitudes for his like-minded brethren. At this point, I'm writing letters to my Congress-critters.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA issued a response to this op-ed:
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

They make several valid points that I thought were relevant to this thread, particularly where they identify lax enforcement of existing gun laws as an issue (and mention Gunwalker) as well as pointing out that Loughner isn't a gun problem; but rather a mental health problem and that looking at it that way is going to be a more productive way to solve the problem.

 

[Musketeer]

I'm aware of the argument that campus/work carry would be a deterrent, but I don't find it convincing, given that a number of rampage shootings do occur in places where carry is permitted; the Tucson shootings are a case in point.

Campus and work carry are not deterrents to crime, they are mitigators of the damage the criminal act may accomplish. Plenty of shootings also happen at places where concealed firearms are banned. Columbine, VT, Ft Hood, the list goes on and on.

Those looking to ban public carry use the rational that those authorized to carry can "snap" at any moment and with a gun accessible do immediate harm. The numbers just don't support the position and while I may have greatly desired a truck to flatten my CEO as he exits the building on many occasions I never was anywhere near pulling out a gun and killing him. That is the case with the vast majority of packers but the anti's just get it.

The anti's will acknowldge that a determined rampage shooter will not care about a law banning carry. The solution they see is to ban all arms or at least those making them most effective (in there opinion). They do not understand or care this is both inneffective and also violates the rights of the vast majority in order to curb a minuscule minority.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Was flipping channels last night and came across Tribe on MSNBC talking to McCarthy.

McCarthy was trying to be respectful to the President (her leader) but wanting to push her hi-cap clip (sic) ban as a solution that would have helped in Tucson. However, Tribe was all upset that Obama didn't push for gun control and ammunition control (whatever that is). So, it was funny. The left antigun guy wanted a rave against gun even if would go nowhere as he preferred the noble defeat rant (kind of like the folks who denounced the TX CHL bill and wanted it defeated as the 2nd Amend. should prevail and we needed NO permits - so it was better to have no CHL law for purity). McCarthy had to accept her President and then propose something with minimal effect and that she wouldn't give up. Sadly, for her, a ban of hi-cap 'clips' wouldn't have saved her husband. Not to many nuts have surfaced with the 31 round 'clip' Glocks.

The idea of making Loughner and Cho failures of having sufficient mental health resources is the way to go as it is really the case. But funding isn't there. I'll forgo my analysis of funding as off topic.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Muskteer is right on with the mitigation argument. It's the one to make.

The counter argument that legally armed folks will snap is also not shown in the data. Hasn't happened that I know. The rampagers have been folks who planned the rampage rather than just snapped.

They were not casual carriers but thought it out and brought the weapon for that purpose. They had histories for the attack.

Recall, that institutions only care about liability, so all other arguments are specious. They predict their costs are less if a rampage occurs as compared to someone with a license and their permission doing a boo-boo.

Thus, legislation should shield them from suits flowing from the action of a licensed indivdual, even if a student or employee.

 

[Double J]

They call it "Common Sense". Looking back when Obama was in Illinois and he was hard core anti-gun and he didn't have any more "common sense" than he does now. He may listen, but doesn't hear. Watch him. He's always on a mission of his own.

 

[hogdogs]

He may listen, but doesn't hear.

Personally, I think he HEARS just fine... It is LISTENING to the people that he has a hard time with.

Brent

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Unlike the rest of us!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Let's not veer to much into Obama and stay with the issue. I think his statement was carefully nuanced - that it annoyed left and right is an empirical test of such.

It was like Bush supporting the AWB. Yes, I support it (wink, wink - it won't get to me). All politicians are like that on controversial issues. They can talk the popular cant and then avoid doing something about it.

But we have to stay away from pure politics. I predict nothing will come of all this.

It's like energy - oh, dear - Libya is nuts - we better develop more fuel sources. Are we - NO!

I see that Obama wants both sides of the issues to meet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

LaPierre isn't interested. Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational. Yes, I see the point that they might be trying to co-opt etc. but I'd go for it and whup them.