Reducing Gun Violence

[Legacy Fan]

I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.

 

You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.

 

I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."

 

And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.

 

I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.

 

Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.

[The Cysko Kid]

You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.

 

I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."

 

And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.

 

I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.

 

Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.

 

 

Yes, uh, but you can't directly murder a bunch of people with beer.

[Legacy Fan]

Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?

 

Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.

[The Cysko Kid]

Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?

 

Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.

 

 

Says the guy who's fallback arguement is "crooks will still get guns illegally" you wouldnt sell jared loughner a pack of gum? I'm sure you'd give him a root canal, and its quite likely face to face that he didn't 'look' like a killer. How are you going to profile that? It's not as easy as racial profiling, especially with no criminal convictions. I mean a cop pulled him over the morning of the shooting and let him go. If a cop can't recognize crazy what makes you think you can?

[Kosar_For_President]

Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.

 

Funniest post of the year so far. It's still early.

[heckofajobbrownie]

While still president in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

 

Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.

 

Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."

 

Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's what New York did today:

 

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.

Current owners of those guns will have to register them.

 

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

 

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

 

Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.

 

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

 

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

 

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored bills that were once blocked by Republicans. The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.

[Kosar_For_President]

While still president in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

 

Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.

 

Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."

 

Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."

 

This has to be a conspiracy. Where is Alex Jones when you need him.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Reagan is always a good measure of how far right the Republican Party has drifted. They would run that guy out of the Party today, no question.

[Legacy Fan]

Says the guy who's fallback arguement is "crooks will still get guns illegally" you wouldnt sell jared loughner a pack of gum? I'm sure you'd give him a root canal, and its quite likely face to face that he didn't 'look' like a killer. How are you going to profile that? It's not as easy as racial profiling, especially with no criminal convictions. I mean a cop pulled him over the morning of the shooting and let him go. If a cop can't recognize crazy what makes you think you can?

 

And we're finished. Cherry pick somebody else's posts.

[heckofajobbrownie]

For some of the guys with real gun knowledge - Leg, Cysko, etc. - what are the distinctions that made the old assault weapons ban mostly useless, and how would you craft one that wasn't?

[VaporTrail]

One instance of its stupidity was that it banned the AR-15, while the Mini-14 was still allowed to be sold. Both fire .223's and the Mini-14 can be just as effective as the AR-15. The only real difference is that one gun looked scary and futuristic, and like something the Army has, while the other gun looks like something out of nam. Basically, this showed that the people who threw the ban together really didn't have much of a clue of what they were doing.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

One instance of its stupidity was that it banned the AR-15, while the Mini-14 was still allowed to be sold. Both fire .223's and the Mini-14 can be just as effective as the AR-15. The only real difference is that one gun looked scary and futuristic, and like something the Army has, while the other gun looks like something out of nam. Basically, this showed that the people who threw the ban together really didn't have much of a clue of what they were doing.

 

Actually Vapor, they used the M-16 in Nam also. They started out with the M14, and changed to the M16

[Legacy Fan]

For some of the guys with real gun knowledge - Leg, Cysko, etc. - what are the distinctions that made the old assault weapons ban mostly useless, and how would you craft one that wasn't?

Vapor hit it on the head. Simply just going based off of looks, not capability.

 

The clause "military component" or "tactical component" is also useless as it too focuses on looks (pistol grip, barrel guards etc). The media is just as clueless in this regard which perpetuates a never-ending cycle of idiocy. Reports of Holmes "wearing body armor" is the type of misinformation that leads to worthless bills that don't address real problems. Holmes wore a "tactical style" vest that allowed him to hold multiple magazines. Not unlike a fly-fishing vest that allows you to attach a bunch of flies for easy access.

 

Plus it (the AWBan) didn't go after practical modifications, just the superficial ones (collapsible stock etc)

For instance, I can remove the receiver from my bolt-action Remington 700 and for about $250 & a little NAPA know-how, I can alter it to accept mags. Including the 30 rounders currently legal, previously not, but forever ubiquitous regardless of the next round of legislation. I wouldn't do that, because its a nice hunting rifle, and I don't feel like hauling 30 deer out of the woods. That modification is and was legal throughout the Brady bill. Basically takes a hunting rifle and makes it a much more accurate "assault rifle" in a much larger caliber (.308 vs .223).

 

It seems like NY got some things right today with the bill they passed; mostly, "breaking into" the therapy room/session and intensifying their background checks.

Good for them.

The 10->7 rd magazine reduction will make a lot good people into law-breakers yet won't address any real problem. That one is for the headlines & soundbites so they can say "see we did something". Idiots.

[Legacy Fan]

As for what would be on my "AWB bill"?

 

Full auto's (or anything that can be selected to full auto)

 

 

Next?

 

Seriously though I'm of the opinion that the focus needs to be on background, mental health, & personal responsibility. Enforce that, and the word " assault weapon" will disappear from the lexicon quickly.

[VaporTrail]

Actually Vapor, they used the M-16 in Nam also. They started out with the M14, and changed to the M16

 

Yeah, I wanted to say Korea, but I think the M1 Garand was still around then. Maybe just starting to be replaced with the M14. But didn't the majority of M16's suck a D back then? I was under the impression that they were very suspect for a significant amount of time in the jungle.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Thanks for the input.

[Legacy Fan]

Thanks for the input.

 

Not sure if this was sarcastic or not, but I think more well defined goals of a 'ban' need to be established in addition to the vague "lowering gun violence". Start with the goals, then put measures in place to reach those goals.

 

Do you have specific goals you'd like to see legislation achieve?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Not sarcastic at all.

[Legacy Fan]

Ok.

 

 

And do you have goals you'd like to see legislation try to reach?

[Westside Steve]

Here's a pretty obvious tell.

How many times have we heard the term assault style weapons?

 

As I've mentioned before the difference between a shotgun with an oak stock and 1 with an aluminum stock is the difference that makes the latter and assault weapon.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Reagan is always a good measure of how far right the Republican Party has drifted. They would run that guy out of the Party today, no question.

Ah it's a party consistency you yearn for!

Well then you're in luck.

Ramp up the government handouts and you get a pass for a useless war!

 

LBJ Would be proud.

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

Banning any gun is useless and is just going to divide the nation. It's too late for that anyway. You have to go a different way, but that doesn't mean nothing could be done. Certain people both in here and in the nation in general are only fighting to preserve the status quo. Why else would you rally for absolutely no change? That's insane.

[The Cysko Kid]

And we're finished. Cherry pick somebody else's posts.

 

 

Classic dish it out but can't take it move. I care. Really.

[FairHooker11]

But back to the topic:

 

It's hard to say - hard to think like a criminal/loop-holer when you aren't one. I'm not really sure what would be a solution. What I do know is that nothing found in Feinstein's proposal would have prevented Sandy Hook. (or Aurora, or Columbine, etc)

 

Bans on mag size, weapon type, amount, etc. wouldn't really have an effect on volume of gun violence, imo. It would just shift the demographics of victim/criminal. The cat is already out of the bag, and we know (from endless data on prohibition of various vices) that criminalizing any vice just puts said vice in the wrong hands.

 

 

The "repeating" firearm has been around for well over 100 years and these mass killings have just been a phenomenon over the last 30-40 years. For me, the weapon type/size/caliber isn't the problem. So here is where I would focus my efforts. I think background checks don't necessarily need to be more extensive, but maybe a little more focused. I think many understand the trade of freedom for safety and it would apply here too. Your medical records don't remain as private anymore. Adderall, Ritalin, these scripts are a red flag. Psychiatrists should have some responsibility/culpability moving forward. They don't get to remain silent. Not to get all Alex Jonesy, but we are waaaaaay to big for our britches when it comes to what we think we know about neural pathways. Drugs for depression, anxiety, etc., only treat symptoms, and do not focus on cause. Which, to me, is dangerous when dealing with the mind. Despite being the same mechanism of action, there's a big difference in stopping a runny nose and targeting neural receptors.

 

This is a mental health issue, not a guns issue.

 

 

 

I watched a 30 min vid on Sandy Hook last night that is kind of intense. I need to dig around more to determine the validity of some of the things addressed in the film, but they are pretty scary if accurate.

 

Also, if you want to get in the mind of a clueless, deceitful member of congress, read this:

http://www.fieldands...shoots-intruder

 

"Sandy Hook Hoax " the subject matter? not a conspiracy guy, but kind of compelling.

 

wont post links -but you can find a bunch on youtube...

[calfoxwc]

and yet, still, Mr. heckbunker Know-it-all doesn't answer his own question.

 

And most Reps would dearly wish for another Reagan.

 

Heckbunker and the rest of the left would run JFK and RFK right out of town.

 

Ah...I long for the old days, when both political parties were AMERICAN.

 

We only have the Republican party now, and now we need another AMERICAN political

 

party to run against them.

 

"sigh"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ah it's a party consistency you yearn for!

Well then you're in luck.

Ramp up the government handouts and you get a pass for a useless war!

 

LBJ Would be proud.

WSS

 

Oh, how I really missed this.

 

Steve, you, whether knowingly or not, are a prime example of someone who has really lost his bearings during the Obama administration. You're not as good as you used to be. And I'm not taking the bait. Life is too short.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ok.

 

 

And do you have goals you'd like to see legislation try to reach?

 

I think it's pretty simple: you'd be looking for reductions in gun crime, homicides, the incidence of mass shootings, the lethality of mass shootings. Those are all going to be affected by lots of variables, but the ease with which Americans of any stripe can obtain firearms, and pretty lethal firearms that go beyond what's needed for self-defense or hunting, is certainly one of them. So you'd be trying to affect that variable as best you could, as well as the others.

 

I don't expect major results. We've already baked so much of this into our cake. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Sandy Hook - from a policy level anyway - is that in a nation with 300 million guns, a 2nd Amendment, and the Heller decision there's not a whole lot you can do. Even the mental health stuff is a long shot. In almost any of the mass shootings you can think of, these guys - while batshit insane - weren't even diagnosed with anything yet, so there's zero chance you're going to make a law that affects that.

[The Cysko Kid]

"Sandy Hook Hoax " the subject matter? not a conspiracy guy, but kind of compelling.

 

wont post links -but you can find a bunch on youtube...

 

There is no hoax. There is no conspiracy. God, I wish there was. Sometimes things are what they look like.

[Westside Steve]

Oh, how I really missed this.

 

Steve, you, whether knowingly or not, are a prime example of someone who has really lost his bearings during the Obama administration. You're not as good as you used to be. And I'm not taking the bait. Life is too short.

Oh dear me.

Look if you insist upon spouting the talking points of the left what in the world do you expect?

And I'm not even kidding.

 

And no I wasn't assuming you'd want to get into a deep debate about the little piece of snark, but I know you get it.

To you and your people anyone to the right of Lenin is fringe.

I get it.

WSS