If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   The first bipartisan gun safety legislation to be introduced in the new Congress. Five common sense steps to the left, 500 angry farkers to the right   (usatoday.com) divider line 412
    More: Unlikely, gun safety, Sandy Hook Elementary School, gun deaths, school massacre, gun dealers, assault weapons, firearms dealer, gun ownership  
•       •       •

4097 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jan 2013 at 2:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



412 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-30 11:27:48 AM
Well we already have an entire Federal law enforcement agency that's already tasked with taking care of three of those, but they're too busy trying to steal hotels from innocent people.
 
2013-01-30 11:28:36 AM

Voiceofreason01: Well we already have an entire Federal law enforcement agency that's already tasked with taking care of three of those, but they're too busy trying to steal hotels from innocent people.


and actively aiding terrorism in foreign countries
 
2013-01-30 11:31:03 AM
I get 1-4 but the "personal responsibility" thing seems a bit vague.

Also: "1.2% of gun dealers accounted for 57% of guns traced to crimes." WTF? That seems fairly easy to resolve, no?
 
2013-01-30 11:31:25 AM

Voiceofreason01: Voiceofreason01: Well we already have an entire Federal law enforcement agency that's already tasked with taking care of three of those, but they're too busy trying to steal hotels from innocent people.

and actively aiding terrorism in foreign countries


Sounds to me like they need some new legislation to change the way they're run then
 
2013-01-30 11:35:12 AM
DammitIForgotMyLogin:
Sounds to me like they need some new legislation to change the way they're run then

ATF

/fixed?
 
2013-01-30 11:51:47 AM

ginandbacon: I get 1-4 but the "personal responsibility" thing seems a bit vague.

Also: "1.2% of gun dealers accounted for 57% of guns traced to crimes." WTF? That seems fairly easy to resolve, no?


Absolutely! and the NRApublicans have been consistently demanding that Obama name a new BATFE director, and allow gun dealers to demonstrate their commitment to good citizenshi... Oh, wait. I forgot - abortion and gays. They were gonna get around to it soon as they got rid of those And Mexicans.
 
2013-01-30 12:16:04 PM
more cowbell... Jesus Christ is this is basically a rehash of existing laws.  As Senator Sessions pointed out today - Obama has not been tough on gun crimes with a 50% reduction in prosecution of federal crimes since Bush's first term.

Either guns aren't a problem, or the feds aren't going after gun crime.  Which is it?
 
2013-01-30 12:20:58 PM

bradkanus: more cowbell... Jesus Christ is this is basically a rehash of existing laws.  As Senator Sessions pointed out today - Obama has not been tough on gun crimes with a 50% reduction in prosecution of federal crimes since Bush's first term.

Either guns aren't a problem, or the feds aren't going after gun crime.  Which is it?


Maybe the Republicans in the Senate could confirm some of Obama's appointees so he could do his job correctly.
 
2013-01-30 12:22:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: more cowbell... Jesus Christ is this is basically a rehash of existing laws.  As Senator Sessions pointed out today - Obama has not been tough on gun crimes with a 50% reduction in prosecution of federal crimes since Bush's first term.

Either guns aren't a problem, or the feds aren't going after gun crime.  Which is it?

Maybe the Republicans in the Senate could confirm some of Obama's appointees so he could do his job correctly.


That would be nice.
 
2013-01-30 12:41:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: more cowbell... Jesus Christ is this is basically a rehash of existing laws.  As Senator Sessions pointed out today - Obama has not been tough on gun crimes with a 50% reduction in prosecution of federal crimes since Bush's first term.

Either guns aren't a problem, or the feds aren't going after gun crime.  Which is it?

Maybe the Republicans in the Senate could confirm some of Obama's appointees so he could do his job correctly.


The BATF is not the Justice Department - Eric Holder is the one persiding over the prosecution of gun crimes.
 
2013-01-30 12:55:07 PM
I agree with the sentiment behind these 100%. I'd like to see what the actual language of the bill or bills are.
 
2013-01-30 12:56:05 PM
Oh boy, another gun thread!

Getcha popcorn ready.
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-30 12:58:08 PM

bradkanus: Either guns aren't a problem, or the feds aren't going after gun crime.  Which is it?


Guns in the hands of criminals are the problem, and the feds not going after gun crime makes it possible.
 
2013-01-30 12:58:21 PM
Common sense on the left.  Anger on the right.

You said it, subby.
 
2013-01-30 01:03:44 PM
Improved background checks are going to happen. That's a huge step in the right direction.
 
2013-01-30 01:05:24 PM

R.A.Danny: I agree with the sentiment behind these 100%. I'd like to see what the actual language of the bill or bills are.


I can't find the actual bill but Senator Gillibrand's Senate site has her full press release with some specifics.
 
2013-01-30 01:09:50 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Improved background checks are going to happen. That's a huge step in the right direction.


Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?  I mean, what different are they going to do.
 
2013-01-30 01:11:25 PM

bradkanus: Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?


I don't think the legislation has been written yet but the proposal is discussed in the article.
 
2013-01-30 01:12:34 PM
Nothing we can do will ever stop bad people from doing bad things, so we should just do nothing.

/Nihilist.
 
2013-01-30 01:16:03 PM

bradkanus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Improved background checks are going to happen. That's a huge step in the right direction.

Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?  I mean, what different are they going to do.


Pretty sure it involves a UFIA. And bodily fluids.
 
2013-01-30 01:18:09 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Common sense on the left.  Anger on the right.

You said it, subby.


Implying that the anger is unreasonable. Gun control and gun culture in the US is a really complicated subject and there are a lot of different ways to look at it. On the one hand you have groups who would like very strict restrictions on guns, and looking at the level of violence in the US they have a point. You also have groups (especially hunters and collectors) who own guns and are no danger to anybody and there are millions of gun owners in the US who never hurt anybody so they have a point. And there are groups pointing out how public policy creates social inequality and poverty and correlates closely with violent crime. And we can look at how current gun laws are applied and see that there are problems there too. There is no simple solution to the problem and while I personally don't think new restrictive gun laws are likely to help I can certainly see why some people think so.

/lots of reasons to be frustrated with the current situation.
 
2013-01-30 01:37:10 PM

ginandbacon: I get 1-4 but the "personal responsibility" thing seems a bit vague.


If you do not live alone, you 1) should be legally required to secure your weapons when not in use, and 2) face both criminal penalties if you don't, and 3) be liable for civil damages for harm caused by others using your unsecured weapon(s).   Not that hard to pin down.
 
2013-01-30 01:38:31 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pretty sure it involves a UFIA. And bodily fluids.


That's just in Texas.
 
2013-01-30 01:40:23 PM

bradkanus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Improved background checks are going to happen. That's a huge step in the right direction.

Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?  I mean, what different are they going to do.


If they actually tie the background check into a well regulated mental health database it would be an improvement.
 
2013-01-30 01:40:33 PM

bradkanus: Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?  I mean, what different are they going to do.


The article mentions adding mental health records to background checks: a la Virginia after Virginia Tech. That's been something the NRA has been for. Also making them required for all purchases, public and private.
 
2013-01-30 01:42:45 PM

Somacandra: ginandbacon: I get 1-4 but the "personal responsibility" thing seems a bit vague.

If you do not live alone, you 1) should be legally required to secure your weapons when not in use, and 2) face both criminal penalties if you don't, and 3) be liable for civil damages for harm caused by others using your unsecured weapon(s).   Not that hard to pin down.


But how do you enforce that? Or does it only come into play after a crime has been committed?
 
2013-01-30 01:47:24 PM
Sadly no mention of the role violent video games play in some mass shootings.
 
2013-01-30 01:57:48 PM

BillCo: Sadly no mention of the role violent video games play in some mass shootings.


10/10 -a little obvious but if you don't get some bites I will eat my hat

/disclaimer: I am not wearing a hat today
 
2013-01-30 02:00:08 PM
The problem with tying background checks to a comprehensive mental health data base is that it might give some people a disincentive to seek necessary treatment. Don't want your gun taken away? Don't go to a shrink. There are some people we don't want to a avoid treatment and don't want to disincentivise treatment. I'm not against the proposal, but law of I intended consequences and all.
 
2013-01-30 02:00:26 PM

violentsalvation: bradkanus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Improved background checks are going to happen. That's a huge step in the right direction.

Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?  I mean, what different are they going to do.

If they actually tie the background check into a well regulated mental health database it would be an improvement.


Somacandra: bradkanus: Can I ask how they are going to "improve" the background check I was put through just over five months ago?  I mean, what different are they going to do.

The article mentions adding mental health records to background checks: a la Virginia after Virginia Tech. That's been something the NRA has been for. Also making them required for all purchases, public and private.


I see.  So, when are they going to fix the laws current on the books that bar folks from compiling and making this data searchable?  It's one thing to say "better background checks including mental health" however, it's another issue to get into HIPPA regulations and 20 years worth of legislation creating a privacy wall around this information.

I'm all for stricter backgroun checks - and that means people with mental health issues are reported, assessed by an impartial judge of some kind and then put on a list.  However, knowing a lot about the laws surrounding health record security - it's a long way away from simply sliding it into a gun bill.
 
2013-01-30 02:00:40 PM
Suck it Libs
www.awesomestories.com
 
2013-01-30 02:01:02 PM

BillCo: Sadly no mention of the role violent video games play in some mass shootings.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-30 02:02:01 PM

BillCo: Sadly no mention of the role violent video games play in some mass shootings.


Also the left-wing media refuses to investigate what role that sinister-looking cat down the street has in the latest round of massacres.
 
2013-01-30 02:03:14 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-30 02:04:00 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: The problem with tying background checks to a comprehensive mental health data base is that it might give some people a disincentive to seek necessary treatment. Don't want your gun taken away? Don't go to a shrink. There are some people we don't want to a avoid treatment and don't want to disincentivise treatment. I'm not against the proposal, but law of I intended consequences and all.


And there you have a very good point about how we've dealt with mental health issues over the last 20 years.  Before the late 1980s we simply didn't mind using mental health information to limit people from doing things.  About 1990 we started thinking we should not do that anymore and that we should protect the privacy of people with mental problems so the could do more things in life.  The idea being that people who were sick were barred from doing everything and that less people needed to know about their problems so they could try to live a normal life.  Now we want to revert back to our old mantra.
 
2013-01-30 02:04:31 PM

BunkoSquad: BillCo: Sadly no mention of the role violent video games play in some mass shootings.

Also the left-wing media refuses to investigate what role that sinister-looking cat down the street has in the latest round of massacres.


You joke about this, but the problem of kitteh on kitteh violence has gotten to dangerous levels.

www.petmd.com

THANKS OBAMA.
 
2013-01-30 02:07:23 PM
FTFA: Public responsibility. One of the least controversial but potentially most effective ways to cut gun violence could be to encourage the owners of the nation's roughly 300 million guns to take personal responsibility for keeping them safe.

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-01-30 02:08:17 PM

what_now: You joke about this, but the problem of kitteh on kitteh violence has gotten to dangerous levels.


The Bushmaster AR-15*: When You Absolutely, Positively Have to Kill Every Bit of String in the Room

*I neither know or care what actual gun the cat is supposedly holding in that picture
 
2013-01-30 02:12:13 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: The problem with tying background checks to a comprehensive mental health data base is that it might give some people a disincentive to seek necessary treatment. Don't want your gun taken away? Don't go to a shrink. There are some people we don't want to a avoid treatment and don't want to disincentivise treatment. I'm not against the proposal, but law of I intended consequences and all.


Or what happens if someone is sane while on their meds, then goes off their meds? Considering that psychotherapy these days mostly = pharmaceuticals, that is a real prospect.
 
2013-01-30 02:42:52 PM

simplicimus: Three Crooked Squirrels: The problem with tying background checks to a comprehensive mental health data base is that it might give some people a disincentive to seek necessary treatment. Don't want your gun taken away? Don't go to a shrink. There are some people we don't want to a avoid treatment and don't want to disincentivise treatment. I'm not against the proposal, but law of I intended consequences and all.

Or what happens if someone is sane while on their meds, then goes off their meds? Considering that  psychotherapy these days mostly = pharmaceuticals, that is a real prospect.


wut?
 
2013-01-30 02:44:53 PM
 
2013-01-30 02:46:20 PM
Its disgusting that Libs would use the senseless deaths of innocent children as an excuse to solve a problem.
 
2013-01-30 02:46:48 PM
If you want to make a fast impact, institute cradle to grave strict liability for any (new) gun used in a crime (i.e, manufacturer, distributor, seller and person who pulled the trigger are all liable now and forever). As a manufacturer, you'll go to great lengths to make sure you sell only to responsible resellers, who will also go to great lengths to sell to responsible owners (e.g., those with gun safes, those NOT purchasing so many guns they are difficult to keep track of, etc.)

If you think unending liability is too harsh, you can design an "out" where if a manufacturer can document that appropriate (TBD) steps were taken when selling to a middleman (and a reseller can demonstrate a set of similar steps when selling to an end user), than liability "fades away" over time - diminishes to "half-liability" in 5 years, 25% percent in 10 years, etc. Don't know what would work best, but the point is to have those in the industry figure out best practices to keep guns away from criminals. Ultimately if they decide they'd rather close up shop than figure this stuff out, that tells you something about the industry.

A secondary insurance market would be created where industry participants would seek to transfer this liability to insurers. Insurers would quickly become experts at assessing risks and determining best practices (and whether such practices were followed) and set rates accordingly.

The overall effect would be to put a price tag on gun crime which would be borne by the industry itself. They can, of course, pursue the criminal himself (or herself), but since most won't have a pot to piss in, the industry will quickly feel the impact of bad business practices (i.e., those that tend to put guns in the hands of people who use them in criminal acts).

A perfect solution, no, but one that harnesses the free market to design a system that maximizes gun sales to responsible owners, and minimizes sales to irresponsible owners (and criminals).

This approach was (sort-of) used in Superfund, and largely put an end to the practice of giant chemical and other companies handing their waste stream off to small, undercapitalized and unqualified local waste haulers who routinely disposed of waste improperly. The manufacturers understood that only by acting responsibly, and dealing with those who also acted responsibly, could they understand and limit liability.

/repost
 
2013-01-30 02:47:17 PM

Voiceofreason01: Well we already have an entire Federal law enforcement agency that's already tasked with taking care of three of those, but they're too busy trying to steal hotels from innocent people.


Sure, that's why the Republicans have been blocking the appointment of an ATF head since Obama took office.

Can we drop the whole "bipartisan" routine? Republicans have fought every single one of these issues from being fixed.
 
2013-01-30 02:48:52 PM

CPennypacker: simplicimus: Three Crooked Squirrels: The problem with tying background checks to a comprehensive mental health data base is that it might give some people a disincentive to seek necessary treatment. Don't want your gun taken away? Don't go to a shrink. There are some people we don't want to a avoid treatment and don't want to disincentivise treatment. I'm not against the proposal, but law of I intended consequences and all.

Or what happens if someone is sane while on their meds, then goes off their meds? Considering that  psychotherapy these days mostly = pharmaceuticals, that is a real prospect.

wut?


Depressed? Psychotic/Schizophrenic? There's a pill for that.
 
2013-01-30 02:48:58 PM
So, the implicit point in this is "why are you putting an AWB, which is controversial on constitutional grounds, demonstrably ineffective at doing anything to crime rates, and hassles legal gun owners for no reason, into a package of reforms that otherwise everyone pretty much agrees with? Are you trying to sabotage actual sensible gun control measures?"


To which I say yes, good question. Presented outside this package legislation, closing the gun-show loophole is so overwhelmingly popular you'd barely even get any GOP votes against it. But including the AWB puts you back into "even some of the Dems are going to go against you on this" territory, which makes it seem like a pretty dumb choice there.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:03 PM

ginandbacon: I get 1-4 but the "personal responsibility" thing seems a bit vague.

Also: "1.2% of gun dealers accounted for 57% of guns traced to crimes." WTF? That seems fairly easy to resolve, no?


Bloomberg tried going after the "rogue dealers." Turns out, the NRA doesn't like politicians trying to cut into firearm profits, whether the sales are legal or otherwise.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:04 PM

vernonFL: Its disgusting that Libs would use the senseless deaths of innocent children as an excuse to solve a problem.


I couldn't agree more.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:57 PM
reads article

Yep. Okay, do those things.

/gun owner
 
2013-01-30 02:50:25 PM

Somacandra: ginandbacon: I get 1-4 but the "personal responsibility" thing seems a bit vague.

If you do not live alone, you 1) should be legally required to secure your weapons when not in use, and 2) face both criminal penalties if you don't, and 3) be liable for civil damages for harm caused by others using your unsecured weapon(s).   Not that hard to pin down.


Except that it's explicitly unconstitutional to require that:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. -DC v. Heller
 
Displayed 50 of 412 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report