Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns

reply to post by LogicGrind


Um, if it's only 2000 people and is meant to sample the entirety of the US, the margin of error would be so huge as to render the findings irrelevant. en.wikipedia.org...

Not saying the other one is any better, but a larger pool is always a better idea in that kind of thing.
Might be time for a referendum, at least the argument gets settled one way or the other and the country can move on then

reply to post by kaylaluv


You can't purchase a gun online without a background check.

Good hell. Get your facts straight.

Any purchase from a online site has to be delivered to an FFL. Period, end of story.

Originally posted by solizer
Serious question here.... Gun owners really dont think a universal background check is a good idea? I may be naive ignorant but if you dont have a criminal background and are mentally stable you should have nothing to worry about. Right? Someone educate me briefly.

Oh, the old "If you have nothing to hide" argument.

Yeah, I used that when I was LE during investigations.

The 2nd Amendment states otherwise.

reply to post by Dianec

NO. They will not ship it to you. It will get shipped to an FFL of your choosing.

reply to post by LogicGrind


Seriously???
Okay then. Sure sure.


So, you truly believe because it is deemed as "scientific" that is is valid?

Oh, forgot to mention, the whole phone polling process as developed how long ago? And was applied to people during what decade?

So, yeah....Umm...Keep trying.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

Well the second paragraph answers who would pay for them, people who want guns

Administering a psych test doesn't require any training, you just give them a piece of paper to fill in that only gets checked by a professional if its flagged.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree that mentalists going crazy and shooting up random people is an inevitability with that many guns on the street, but you must concede that steps can be taken to reduce the amount that it happens, even if it only reduces it slightly that's slightly less people killed in a gun crime.

OK, so in your scenario, a piece of paper that needs to get filled out will ultimately determine if somebody is "sane" enough for owning a firearm or not.

But who is going to set the boundaries for what is mentally acceptable and unacceptable for someone to be deemed worthy of owning a firearm? The government? I can see where that would be going.

People that are mentally insane (i.e. people locked away in mental institutions) are obviously discounted. But how can you really know who would be a responsible or irresponsible gun owner? What is to say that they pass your "test" only to develop suicidal tendencies a year later?

And making the people pay for a psychiatric test that would clearly be unproductive and unnecessary I see as a total 2nd amendment infringement. We already have enough bullsnip things to pay for in this country.

Yesterday I was watching TV, and saw a small clip on TV, I think it may have been from CNN. Anyway, it was pertaining to the Boston bombing, and their was a voice over speech of Obama in the back round, then it eventually transitioned to him speaking behind a podium. And I even said "Oh shut up Obama!" to my TV.

As soon as I heard about this bombing, I knew Obama would be all over it in a nanosecond. And I knew he was going to scapegoat the hell out of it. Perfect timing too, since the Sandy Hook hype has been dying down. Now he's going to act like he really cares and probably try to enforce more ridiculous laws to keep up "safer." Looks like were going to hear about this event from big brother for the next couple of months, until something else ends up happening.

reply to post by Lingweenie


"Never let a good tragedy go to waste."

It is the same as when he signed E.O. on gun legislation last month and they showed him in the Oval office signing it with lots of little kids surrounding him. The message was clear. He was saying, "We are doing this for the children." I remember right before that Obama looking at a news camera and trying to look tearful and saying how he had to do something even if it meant only one child was saved. Nevermind that nine children were killed the day before in a drone airstrike at a wedding on the Pakistan/Afghan border. I guess he means as long as its not brown children.

I don't know how any of these people sleep at night.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior



A multiple choice questionnaire can actually give a pretty good indicator of some problems, it seems you agree that some people shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place (is that unconstitutional?) so testing for those sorts of people isn't such a leap is it?

You do at least accept that school shootings and spree killers are a natural symptom of having so many guns out there though right?

Given that and the fact that outlined solutions clearly don't wash for you though, what would you suggest? Because there is clearly a problem with the current system in the US, as evidenced by gun atrocities - I'm not including gun crime, because that will happen anyway, but more the actions of unstable individuals committing acts that play out around the world.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

A multiple choice questionnaire can actually give a pretty good indicator of some problems, it seems you agree that some people shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place (is that unconstitutional?) so testing for those sorts of people isn't such a leap is it?

You do at least accept that school shootings and spree killers are a natural symptom of having so many guns out there though right?

Given that and the fact that outlined solutions clearly don't wash for you though, what would you suggest? Because there is clearly a problem with the current system in the US, as evidenced by gun atrocities - I'm not including gun crime, because that will happen anyway, but more the actions of unstable individuals committing acts that play out around the world.

Almost all gun crime comes from illegally possessed firearms. Legislating restrictions on legal guns will accomplish nothing.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

A multiple choice questionnaire can actually give a pretty good indicator of some problems,

Once again I will ask you, who will make this "list"?

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
it seems you agree that some people shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place (is that unconstitutional?) so testing for those sorts of people isn't such a leap is it?

I would say that people commited to psych wards be restricted from gun ownership yes. But I would also restrict them from having knives, baseball bats, automobiles, rat poison, even broken glass or shoelaces. Anything they can harm themselves or others with. I used to work in a psych ward and I once saw a schizophrenic patient beat the hell out of a nurse with a purse full of cokes.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
You do at least accept that school shootings and spree killers are a natural symptom of having so many guns out there though right?

No I do not. To give a simple answer to this question would trivialize the problem which is in itself a reflection of the society we live in. Not a problem of responsible firearm use.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Given that and the fact that outlined solutions clearly don't wash for you though, what would you suggest? Because there is clearly a problem with the current system in the US, as evidenced by gun atrocities - I'm not including gun crime, because that will happen anyway, but more the actions of unstable individuals committing acts that play out around the world.

I would suggest keeping things essentially as they are with regards to gun ownership. There are plenty of laws already on the books regarding who can have and cannot have firearms. Enacting more of these is not going to make the problem of people committing homicides go away.

Despite the media hype and spin, only 0.34 percent of all deaths in the U.S. in 2011 were gun related. There are many more problems that need addressing in this country than enacting more draconian gun laws that woul do nothing but in effect punish responsible gun owners.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

"Never let a good tragedy go to waste."

It is the same as when he signed E.O. on gun legislation last month and they showed him in the Oval office signing it with lots of little kids surrounding him. The message was clear. He was saying, "We are doing this for the children." I remember right before that Obama looking at a news camera and trying to look tearful and saying how he had to do something even if it meant only one child was saved. Nevermind that nine children were killed the day before in a drone airstrike at a wedding on the Pakistan/Afghan border. I guess he means as long as its not brown children.

I don't know how any of these people sleep at night.

Yup, I've come to learn all this excessive babbling about the safety for children, is simply playing on the hearts of the people. They know good and well children are a pretty big weakness to us average citizens. And they will get teary-eyed, and sound like their heart is broken all day long, in order to push their own agenda.

Like you said, we bomb the hell out of Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Usually these bombs/missiles kill multiple innocent people. And often times women and children are killed or injured in these strikes. I won't buy into Obama's "sympathy" when he goes out and kills innocent people overseas, and doesn't even say a word about it, and doesn't even shed one of his fake tears towards it.

It's simply using emotion to his advantage. Obama is not a stupid man, he knows how he can try to get his way. And he will use any tactic or scapegoat to persuade those around him.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


To be honest the list should really exist already you would have hoped - at least a list of everyone with a mental condition that should preclude owning a gun who's receiving medication.
Your wording makes it sound like you're only in favor of denying guns to people actually on the ward? Is that the case? I'd be very worried if they were allowed guns and knives whilst sectioned.
But assuming you mean people who have already been judged unsound and show signs of relapse I'd agree with you.

I would question how you can claim that school shootings and cinema slayings and the like aren't a symptom of having guns, don't think we've had a school shooting in the UK for instance since we passed our laws (you can still have certain fire arms if you pass the required tests and pay for your licenses)

I am actually in favour of gun ownership, like you I don't think you can ever get rid of gun crime and murder - but that's not the problem, the problem as I see it is high profile mass slayings carried out by people who never should have been able to get their hands on guns or ammunition in the first place - admittedly the last one you had the guy took the guns off his father or something similar but that could be easily handled by saying no guns in a household where someone fulfills the previous criteria for a ban on gun ownership.

reply to post by MaxSteiner

at least a list of everyone with a mental condition that should preclude owning a gun who's receiving medication.

That would be a good majority of the country since most everyone is on some kind of SSRI, anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, etc.

I would question how you can claim that school shootings and cinema slayings and the like aren't a symptom of having guns, don't think we've had a school shooting in the UK for instance since we passed our laws (you can still have certain fire arms if you pass the required tests and pay for your licenses)

I think a big part of the reasons these targets are chosen is because people know that they are going to be the only person with a gun at any of these places. Do you ever notice how almost all of these mass shooting that are hyped up by the media are at places like churches, schools, etc.? If just one person in the Aurora movie theater had a conceal-carry then there would have been nowhere near the body count that it was. The fact is that many more people are saved by guns than are killed by them. You only hear about the killings from the pretty people on TV. There was an article I read about a month ago where a man walked into a mall in Arkansas and wounded two people with a firearm. Who stopped him before he could kill/wound more? A privately armed citizen with a conceal carry permit.

But yet again, I think these people show just how American society has broken down at the core. As we have seen with the recent tragedy in Boston, a pressure cooker, some nails and homemade explosives were all that was needed to cause mass hysteria and casulaties. I don't see how legislating gun ownership any further is going to address the root of this problem.

And you cannot compare UK culture with US culture on this one. That is often the reason cited in many of these types of threads but you have to understand. You have grown up in a society where firearms are very rare. I have grown up in the deep south where boys and girls are taught how to shoot and safely maintain a firearm since they are old enough to hold one in many cases.

I am actually in favour of gun ownership, like you I don't think you can ever get rid of gun crime and murder - but that's not the problem, the problem as I see it is high profile mass slayings carried out by people who never should have been able to get their hands on guns or ammunition in the first place - admittedly the last one you had the guy took the guns off his father or something similar but that could be easily handled by saying no guns in a household where someone fulfills the previous criteria for a ban on gun ownership.

The thing that makes me wary of things like you suggest like extra screenings and questionaires to determine my sanity is that I know if they start with a little, in the end it will be alot. They always start with just a little. Here is an interesting article from a few months back.

disinfo.com...

Senate Bill 5737 would permit police to make an annual, warrantless search of homes to inspect for firearms. State Senators Ed Murray and Adam Kline, who are sponsoring the bill, have responded to criticism by explaining they hadn’t read the legislation before introducing it. - See more at: disinfo.com...

Once people realized what was in the bill even people who were staunchly pro-gun control were shocked and caused such an uproar that it was immediately rejected.

I should point out that gun ownership in Victorian London was huge, we as a society made the logical conclusion that guns in the hands of the masses would cause some problems.

I don't think the US could do the same thing by this stage, which is the second b est reason for gun ownership (first being recreational use in my opinion).

But still, the US clearly has a problem. Here's a list of School Shootings around the world - US is the location of.... most of them (I was expecting a few more countries on there to be honest, it certainly indicates that it is something to do with the US itself rather than just gun ownership):

www.infoplease.com...

Countries which pass laws in the aftermath of such attacks (like banning the public from owning assault rifles and full automatics) suffer less attacks.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
I should point out that gun ownership in Victorian London was huge, we as a society made the logical conclusion that guns in the hands of the masses would cause some problems.

I don't think the US could do the same thing by this stage, which is the second b est reason for gun ownership (first being recreational use in my opinion).

But still, the US clearly has a problem. Here's a list of School Shootings around the world - US is the location of.... most of them (I was expecting a few more countries on there to be honest, it certainly indicates that it is something to do with the US itself rather than just gun ownership):

Victorian London also had alot of societal problems. Rampant drug/alcohol abuse, mental illness, poverty, disease, unemployment etc. So of course those factors would contribute quite a bit to problems with the masses.

And I agree with you when you say that America has a problem. And like you also state it is something other than gun ownership.

America is overrun by psychopaths on just about every level. Most people look somewhat “normal” when you meet them, but unfortunately very few people have pure motives these days. Most people will do whatever they will see as right and that makes society a very unpredictable place. Economically, politically, socially, nobody trusts anyone on any level. As the economy get worse and people get more broke and desperate it will only get worse. And also its not just happening in the U.S. it is happening worldwide.

America by far has the largest percentage of gun ownership of any country. But did you know it does not even crack the top 25 when it comes to gun murder rate? A fact conveniently ignored by the pretty people on TV.


infogr.am...

Americans also use guns to defend themselves alot more than you might think. There were 2.5 million estimated incidents of defensive gun use last year in the U.S. Which is another point the pretty people on TV fail to mention.

When you have a broken Congress, where majority votes aren't enough to do the will of the people, then Obama should step in and do what he can by himself. He gave the Republicans a chance to be for the people and not suck the boots of the NRA and big money lobby, they failed.

reply to post by LogicGrind

I am so disgusted to keep hearing this so called majority will BS. Is it actually the majority or is there a whole lot of cherry picking statistics? I can imagine that the folks in the cities like the idea, they are so dependent on what the gov't provides them. But the people who dwell in rural areas are a lot less enthused with the idea since they need guns for protection from things that the typical city dweller never sees except in a zoo. Try calling the cops if a coyote attacks your kid, your kid will not survive the wait. The big cities in their arrogance feel that they speak for everybody, they just like to feel important is what it really is!

reply to post by hangedman13


I think a big part of that has to do with the fact that people in the cities feel safe there. The huge cities that we have nowadays are very dependent on things like transportation and electricity infrastructure and it is my belief that when the inevitable economy collapse happens the people in the cities will bear the brunt of the suffering and will be the first places where martial law will be instituted. There are only so many entrances and exits to a city that can easily be cordoned off and people there can be controlled.

Out where I live though it is much different. The nearest big city is Shreveport and it is almost 2 hours away. People out here all have gardens, can hunt, fish. We all know the land and where the critters go. We know where the roads and the places we can hide are if we need to. I don't see how anybody could be foolish enough to try and force the folks that live where I am at to do anything that they don't want to. I will never live in a city if I can help it.

People have to remember he is a tricky dude;

fox2now.com...

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

Seriously???
Okay then. Sure sure.


So, you truly believe because it is deemed as "scientific" that is is valid?

Oh, forgot to mention, the whole phone polling process as developed how long ago? And was applied to people during what decade?

So, yeah....Umm...Keep trying.

The same arguments were made during the election and Nate Silver's statistical analysis. People saying no way it was accurate because the sample sizes were too small in all the polls.

But at the end of the day, Nate Silver was almost 100% accurate.

The word "scientific" simple means that it is conducted using scientific methodologies and protocols. If a poll is done correctly, it is very accurate.

You can continue to deny the accuracy of polls, but you are denying mathmatics and the scientific process.