Vodka Zombie: Seriously, Florida.  You have "stand-your-ground," and Limbaugh's a strung out, drug-addicted maniac with a long history of advocating violence against innocent people.

All you gotta do is yell "OMG THAT FAT BASTARD'S ASSAULTING ME!" and you're covered.

/Worked for George Zimmerman.
//Of course, he said the n-word rather than Fat Bastard.

The 4chan Psychiatrist: 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Because gun violence is inherently worse than every other type of violence...

You have to admit, it is pretty effective and usually final so there's that . . .

jigoro: By number of incidents, yes. But by pure body count, loner white guys without mortgages are starting to pull ahead.

Not really -- very few people are killed in mass shootings as a percentage of all the thousands of murders committed in the US every year, and in any event non- white mass shooters are proportionally well- represented (e.g. Colin Ferguson, Omar Thornton, One Goh, Seung- Hui Cho, Chai Vang, that guy who torched Freddy's Fashion Mart at Al Sharpton's instigation...) Basically the "white shooter" myth is just socially acceptable anti- white racism for progressives, and in at least one case -- that of the Beltway Sniper -- that theory has proved to be a serious impediment for law enforcement.

Weaver95: bullsballs: THERE ISN'T A LAW IN EXISTENCE THAT WILL PREVENT VIOLENCE... people from using cannabis
lather, rinse, repeat...

And yet, we keep trying...

I think we probably agree in principle on marijuana legalization. But we can reduce the prevalence of banned materials and actions in society. We'll never stop everyone who wants to commit murder either. But that's no good reason not to make it illegal.

queezyweezel: Sorry, I was going with the media (and common gun control discussion) parlance.

In other words, you didn't give a shiat if you were right and were willing to increase the level of misinformation?

Based on this thread, I have determined...

1) The pro-gun lobby thinks Obama overstepped his bounds.
2) The anti-gun lobby doesn't think Obama did enough
3) Drug dealers get guns from law abiding citizens
4) Don't give guns to Mexican's or African Americans, unless they are Bill Cosby or George Lopez.

Cliff notes, they aren't just for school.

Pocket Ninja: Actually, I've learned recently of how many road signs in the US are actually marked on the back with secret signals designed to communicate high-value strike targets and directions to an invading UN army, and on a recent trip into town noticed no less than FOUR new road signs along my regular route. I don't know if all of them had secret signals on the back, because it did not occur to me then to stop and check, but that sudden proliferation along with his new and unprecedented move against the Constitution makes me wonder if perhaps we are approaching some tipping point. I'm going to study it out a little more and see what else I can find; I earnestly suggest that everyone else does likewise.

not only that but soil, around any major US city, say Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example...

And for all the "zomg" Obama has armed security for his kids, why are mine different. Because, his are high profile children, and a legitimate political target. Yours, are not. That being said, i have 0 problem with armed guards in schools. In this day and age, it looks like we need SOMEONE that could stop a armed intruder.

Ow! That was my feelings!: PsiChick: This is awesome. Still relies purely on background checks, which don't catch undiagnosed conditions, but still--FINALLY that damn gun-show loophole is closed, and the health care providers are getting clearer instructions. Those are  great first steps.

The background checks still require Congressional approval.

...Instructions.  Instructions are good. I will cling to my fantasy that this does something, damnit! :p

Uranus Is Huge!: My God.

This is how democracy dies... with enhanced background checks and enforcement of existing laws.

It is my understanding that the Sandy Hook shooter didn't have any guns of his own, he took his mother's guns. He never had to pass a background check. So this new law would have done nothing to stop that shooting.

So what's the point, then?

Oh yeah, to avoid the future pre-crime stuff. Got it.

So the two handguns that the wife and I carry on a daily basis came purchased with no modifications with a 19 round clip. Now because some asshats are retards with guns I have to go buy new clips that hold only 10 rounds? Or will the government buy this for me?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: -The ECs are immediate, are well within his authority

That's if you assume the president has the authority to create law with the stroke of his pen and without congressional approval.  Last I checked, only Congress has the power to create laws, the president's job is to enforce them.

/executive orders are an abuse of power that have been going on for far too long

Caluth: So the two handguns that the wife and I carry on a daily basis came purchased with no modifications with a 19 round clip. Now because some asshats are retards with guns I have to go buy new clips that hold only 10 rounds? Or will the government buy this for me?

shut up criminal.

Link sucks, so here's a list of the executive orders

Mostly meh, but 3 raised an eyebrow:
2. Lowering HIPPA boundaries -- sounds great, but with mandated EMR (electronic medical records), the easiest info to glean is diagnosis codes. Discuss any anxiety or depression with your doctor, and he/she may in haste click on a rubber stamp psychiatric diagnosis rather than taking the time/effort to look up a more accurate and less serious diagnosis. The background check system then kicks out your application rather than having a person actually read your medical record.
11. Why don't we have an ATF director now?
14. How impartial is a CDC study going to be when the funder of a study has a stake in the outcome?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: see, I knew about many of those events of history, but for some reason, none of them came to mind when I mentioned requiring firearm registration. Maybe because we don't live in a Bolshevik state, or Imperial China, or Nazi Germany. Sure, some UK/EU countries (and Canada) curtailed firearm ownership, but A)they aren't dictatorships and B) the populace there seems not to mind, given their lack of protests over it

Nazi Germany was ostensibly a democracy.

And the citizens of Bolshevik Russia and Republican China (Imperial China hadn't existed for almost 40 years by the close of the Chinese civil war) didn't live in those states either, until suddenly they did.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Sure, some UK/EU countries (and Canada) curtailed firearm ownership, but A)they aren't dictatorships and B) the populace there seems not to mind, given their lack of protests  over it

Firearms owners in Canada complained about the (ridiculously expensive) and useless long- gun registry until it was abolished. Interestingly, the registry was also a piece of legislation rushed through in a panic after a mass shooting, and was equally ineffective in preventing others as Obama's initiatives will be.

queezyweezel: Just like when we banned growing Marijuana in the US

Just like the time we banned murder and rape, but people still committed murder and rape. Why do we even bother with these bullsh*t "bans" anyway? None of them stamp out every prohibited item or activity. So why bother? Ridiculous.

I just find it amazing how anti-gun Fark is and how pro-gun Reddit is.

Endive Wombat: Sure, they seized a lot of high cap mags, but you cannot say that there was less gun violence or less crime involving guns due to the high cap ban portion of the AWB.

Yeah, I think the NRA/Right blocking such stats is silly to a certain degree. But I can see their point, in that if a specific type of gun or ammo size is used in a majority of crimes, then politicians will try to legislate against it and get it banned...which does nothing in addressing the root causes. They are fearful that the data will be used incorrectly, like being used for politicking rather than addressing social issues...

Gee, and why can't I say that? Oh yeah, the NRA blocking collection of data. Blocking collection of data is the move of something like a tobacco lobby. Why not require the collection of data on the use of guns in defense?

Thugs typically shoot thugs with low capacity handguns. Mass murdering psychos who kill indiscriminately have shown a tendency to use large capacity magazines. That should be a touted fact to protect handgun ownership, not shouted down to protect a few fanboy's hobby.

SpectroBoy: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

First, you can always switch doctors.

Second, it's not illegal to lie to a doctor.

Doctor: Any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, not a one. Once my wife bought a staple gun and I beat her with it to drive the point home. Now can we get on with the actual HEALTH related part of this process?

Exactly. Having a doctor ask about guns during a visit with someone who potentially has a serious mental health problem seems like a good way to get them to clam up and stop seeking treatment. Criminalizing someone the second there "might" be a problem is going to do more harm than good when trying to keep guns out of the hands of seriously disturbed people.

Most of these seem reasonable. But I think anytime you start talking about a ban, the real gun nuts feel like they are being backed into a corner and start lashing out like McVey in OKC. This might "help" prevent a few mass shootings but it may just change the profile of the people committing the violence from "weird loners" to wingnut militia types.

Endive Wombat: The big issue here is with trying to make sure someone fits into a predefined set of criteria, and you run into the issue where the evaluator (the shrink) may be biased against guns or specific topics, and you now create a market where enterprising shrinks do nothing but "mental health screenings" and for a nominal fee, you get a clean bill of health - I would point to the doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal.

I am having difficulty in coming up with an extensive enough mental health check that is totally objective and has zero room for the subjective interpretation by the evaluator.

You'd almost have to make it a blind one or something. Like tell the shrink the guy is just coming in for a check with regard to becoming a LEO, getting a security clearance, or just a general background check. Or perhaps a general neurological thing. For example when I was in a car accident, one neurologist thought I was faking the pain and sent me to a shrink for an evaluation. So tell the shrink the guy is coming in for that. Then take the shrink's report and if it says "This guy is normal", issue the permit. If it shows anything, don't issue. Of course then you get into the business of lying to doctors about the reason you're sending them a patient.

Basically don't tell the shrink that you're sending the guy with a specific regard to guns (after all it isn't like I have a specific reason to showing up for my physical aside from the fact a year has gone by). Then the shrink submits a standard form, which is done for all visits, and that depending on what was filled out on that form, you get a permit or you don't.

Although personally given the role of guns in suicides and rage shootings around the home, I think as a general rule gun owners should be encouraged to see a shrink for a general mental health checkup as a form of gun safety. An intelligent gun owners org would push their members in that direction. Plus your insurance covers it and you get an afternoon off work, so win win.

queezyweezel: Deep Contact: So how do these new rules stop someone from using a gun to kill someone without a gun.

In twenty years, there will be less guns, and it will be harder to kill someone with a gun.  Get rid of the guns, and people wont kill people with guns.  Simple really.

OK, I feel better already(puts another clip in belt)

Weaver95: huh.  Rush Limbaugh just implied he's pro-choice now.

Watch Fox noise accidentally put a D after his name now.

Endive Wombat: I never said that.  I was pointing out that the mere possession of a high cap mag is not going to turn you into a killer.  If you go way back to my post at the beginning of this thread, I said that I am not bothered by Obama's EOs.  I am insane because why?

I called you insane because it sounded like you were advocating the search and seizure of all hicap mags. If you're not, I'm not sure why you're saying it's the only solution.

Obamas list seems pretty reasonable to me.
So my only issue is if they tried to ban semi-auto weapons would that not be most modern revolvers also? Every pull of the trigger fires the gun with no need to pull back the hammer. Not saying this is on the proposed list of things Obama put forth but a lot of anti gun people want it.

treesloth: cleek: Limbaugh's job is to be very angry at everything Obama does. it's what he gets paid for.

fark that pustule.

He's a lot more tolerable once you realize he's an actor in a role, an entertainer. Still can't stand him, though.

I don't think that fat windbag is acting at all. just getting paid to spew his really farked up opinions at the rest of the world..or at least to the ones who will listen to him.

Endive Wombat: LasersHurt: Endive Wombat: Grand_Moff_Joseph: That's pretty much the point.  Yeah, it'll be a little more annoying for the 95% of folks like you who play it straight, but it standardizes the entire system, and (hopefully) makes a dent in keeping wholly unqualified people away from the guns.  The upshot, like you said, is that it's not a ban.  It's a bit more headache for a lot more safety, imo.

How does this address the millions of guns that are on the black market/in the hands of criminals who are not allowed to own a gun?

It helps to slow the supply of guns through buyers TO the black market. After all, they start somewhere.

No it doesn't.  There are an estimated 300M guns in the US.  All a determined criminal needs to do is to simply break into someones house and take them.  Which is how a lot of guns get into the black market to begin with.  So this does nothing to address current supply.

Incorrect, perfect solution fallacy.

My, that was a short, uninformative article.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Aarontology: I can't wait for a brave patriot to fight back against this and blow up a Federal building and murder hundreds of people like they did last time.

You want people to die just to prove what a pretentious partisan douchebag you are? Get help.

Insatiable Jesus: USP .45: MayoSlather: I'm for banning all conservatives/libertarians from owning guns. That should solve most of the problem.

yeah all those freemarket drug distributing entrepreneurs in the inner city and southern border.

Criminlas would soon run out of guns without "responsible gun owners" and dealers to buy them from.

You actually believe that criminals are going to obey some gun control law? You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Sweet, it's the thread shiatter.

ferretman: The non-sense of passing 'gun  control' bills quickly without actually discussing them. In New York Gov. Cuomo  passed strict new guns laws:
[www.nypost.com image 525x300]

Rushing new stupid laws into effect just waste time and money.

We have caused minor ergonomic pain to criminals and annoyed a bunch of law abiding gun owners in the process, good job!

I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!

NightOwl2255: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Good job at keeping the screaming dumb masses focused on something other than the disaster that Obama has made of the economy though, huh?

Masterful.

Let me guess. Did you also prepare a post that says "Obama has done nothing about gun because he keeps trying to spin the economy by talking about it!?!?"

I mean let's be honest. The guy could cure cancer and make blowjob mandatory and you would still hate him.

If the front page of the New York Times was "Obama Walks On Water" Thunderpipes would say, "told you that coon couldn't swim".

Ahhh, bring race into it when there is none. Classic.

Way to go, Hitler!

CADMonkey79: Farce-Side: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

So your insurance could increase your premiums and deductable.

How would that conversation even start? I mean I know how it would end with me telling to get farked.
Are there doctors out there that even want to ask this question? I don't get it.

I had my pediatrician tell me that his professional organization (American Academy of Pediatrics, notable for their vocal position on banning gun ownership) encouraged all pediatricians to ask this, and at one point even wanted their doctors to REPORT THE PEOPLE WHO ANSWERED YES TO BE PUT IN A DATABASE.
He refused to even ask, he didn't feel it was his place. Not all are that cool. When I moved recently, one pediatrician I looked into refused to treat my son at all due to my answer. I quickly found another one that refuses to ask, though there is more pressure recently for them to ask and report.
My understanding is that during some times in the past, they have turned over lists of 'suspected gun owners' to police. Remember Maryland when the police searched homes of 'suspected gun owners' and confiscated all the .223 rifles for testing during the DC Sniper thing? Last thing we need are more gun grabbers with lists of our addresses.

Theburner: CADMonkey79: AFKobel: CADMonkey79: Why would my doctor ask me if I had guns in the house?

Because you just came in his office for a checkup, and muttered out of the side of your mouth that you WISH THIS VOICES WOULD STOP TELLING YOU TO ALL THE BODYSNATCHERS IN YOUR LOCAL MALL!!

I imagine primary health care professionals might be well suited to identify some of the up-and-coming paranoid mass murderers among us. So, lets not stop doctors from at least asking the question.

There is nothing preventing a doctor from asking you questions about your mental health and trying to diagnose any problems you might have. What would be the reason for him to ask if you have a gun? Would he also need to ask about any other potential weapons you might have. Why would his be the doctor's responsibility, they are healthcare providers not law enforcers.

The doctor would then report you to the BATF, local police, Obama himself. He is a menace, and has guns in the house. And then you would get a visit from the nice policemen with "assault weapons" to take yours away.

There was an article about 4 or 5 years ago when a man told a doctor he drank 8 to 12 beers a day. The doctor called the DMV, and the man's drivers license was suspended.

Bottom line, the first rule of the gun club is don't talk about the gun club.

Doctor: Do you have any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, nothing to see here.

This whole 'doctors talking about guns' thing got started because the NRA got it's panties in a bunch when some pediatricians thought it was appropriate to tell new parents that, with toddlers, keeping guns in a safe place might be a good idea.

The horror!

Classic example of how being unremittingly pro- something can be completely unreasonable.

Afa the mental health aspect, the 1/6 New Yorker has an excellent article on how dubious psychiatry has turned into a lucrative racket in the 'treatment' of pedophiles.

Very Orwellian, and reinforces my low opinion of the mental health profession.

star_topology: I don't seem to see the "round up all the guns" part anywhere... They clearly left it out!

That's just what they want you to think!
Study it out!
/!