HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "What would ‘meaning...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:28 PM

"What would ‘meaningful action’ on gun control look like?"

What would ‘meaningful action’ on gun control look like?

Posted by Sarah Kliff at WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/15/what-would-meaningful-action-on-gun-control-look-like/

"SNIP.............................................

More extensive background checks. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, passed in 1993, mandated federal background checks on individual firearms from a registered firearms seller. Between 1994 and 2007, federal data show 1.6 million gun sales were blocked by background checks, half due to felony convictions.

.............

Ban certain types of firearms. Between 1994 and 2004, the United States had a federal assault weapons ban, which prohibited the manufacturing of semi-automatic weapons for civilian use. That law had a sunset provision and lapsed during President George W. Bush’s presidency. Congressional attempts to reauthorize the law have never received a floor vote.

.............

Increase waiting periods. A handful of states have established waiting periods for obtaining a firearm, some lasting as long as two weeks (and some as short as two days). The idea is to create a “cool-down” period for the potential gun buyer. The federal government could, via legislation, set up a similar, national waiting period.

.............

Increase public health funding. Researchers have recently begun to look at public health approaches to reducing gun violence. CureViolence, a Chicago-based non-profit, uses outreach workers to try an interrupt gun violence, much like public health workers attempt to stop the transmission of disease. Their initial work has shown some success: A recent intervention in Baltimore led to a 54 percent reduction in homicides in one of the city’s most violent neighborhoods.




.............................................SNIP"

35 replies, 1760 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply "What would ‘meaningful action’ on gun control look like?" (Original post)
applegrove Dec 2012 OP
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #1
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #4
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #6
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #7
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #11
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #14
X_Digger Dec 2012 #15
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #19
X_Digger Dec 2012 #21
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #22
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #9
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #10
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #12
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #16
RegieRocker Dec 2012 #18
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #13
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #23
X_Digger Dec 2012 #17
Lurks Often Dec 2012 #25
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #29
Lurks Often Dec 2012 #30
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #31
Lurks Often Dec 2012 #32
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #34
spanone Dec 2012 #35
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #2
ellisonz Dec 2012 #3
reformist2 Dec 2012 #5
pipoman Dec 2012 #20
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #24
pipoman Dec 2012 #27
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #28
Recursion Dec 2012 #26
99Forever Dec 2012 #33

Response to applegrove (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:35 PM

1. There was never

 

a ban on all semi automatic weapons. Only 18 assault weapons. Stop spreading false info. It's a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:53 PM

4. You are feeling threatened

Aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:58 PM

6. No that is you

 

That is why you post lame type that is false. You're skered of gunz and those that own them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:03 PM

7. Yup, that is why I own two

So I am scared of myself I guess.

Funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:20 PM

11. Then why are you scared of the truth.

 

I think you're full of it. Semi-automatic weapons were never illegal yet you are scared of that truth. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:28 PM

14. Who said they were illegal?

:scratches head:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:30 PM

15. Apparently, Sarah Kliff at WP did..

Between 1994 and 2004, the United States had a federal assault weapons ban, which prohibited the manufacturing of semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.


Did you miss that part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:40 PM

19. I swear

 

it's like talking to brick walls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:42 PM

21. That's okay, she also thinks you can't buy tracer rounds.. even with proof ;) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:44 PM

22. Not the only

 

brick wall. So many brick walls not enough time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:03 PM

8. Here's the thing...

The AWB was poorly crafted legislation. You could still have a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine (which is pretty much the heart of the matter) you just couldn't have it with more than two of five designated features, most of which were largely cosmetic.

What's below is a picture of a "Post Ban" AR-15. It was manufactured during the Clinton Administration and met all the requirements of the AWB.



Now, do you notice and difference between the weapon above and the one below?



That's sort of my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:13 PM

9. Having been around FAL battle rifles

AR-15' Fully automatic M-16, and M-4 and AK, as well as their semi weapons, I don't need your education on the differences of the selector switch.

Trust me, the 5.56 round cares little if it left the muzzle of an M-16 or the AR. It really does not care.

There is more, the legislation was not the best, but according to the GAO it did reduce some crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:18 PM

10. I have no idea what you're talking about...

For starters, the difference between the two is the presence of a flash suppressor on the pre-ban version.

My beef with the AWB is that is was full of holes like a Swiss Cheese. It banned almost nothing of consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:23 PM

12. You can't have a meaningful

 

conversation with this one. It's a one way communication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:30 PM

16. You are right, you cannot talk to RegieRocker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:38 PM

18. Proven

 

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:24 PM

13. Alas it reduced crime

These days am afraid 1934 comes to mind.

And I do not know what you are talking about is usually code. Some sort of law WILL BE ENACTED. It will change the culture. We have suffered that seismic shift. We are seeing it everywhere now. So AWB banned virtually nothing (careful, talking points are showing) well, you will have one now.

I hope it is far more extensive this time around, and concentrates on the actual workings of te weapon. And let the chips fall where they may.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:41 AM

23. Usually Code?

What the fuck are you talking about? The old AWB made it possible for gun manufacturers to make slight design changes and then go about their business. If you're going to do something about semi-automatic weapons, it needs to be a better written law than the old one.

I think we're in agreement, but you appear to be accusing me of something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:32 PM

17. Don't forget that evil bayonet lug. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:10 AM

25. The CDC and National Institute of Justice state otherwise

CDC stated that there was "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm


National Institute of Justice "should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes" https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:19 AM

29. And the GAO states otherwise.

You also know the CDC research on guns was defunded in 1997 right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:17 PM

30. Yes, because it stopped being non-partisan research

and started being used for political purposes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:30 PM

31. Does Polly want a cracker? That my friend is an NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:04 AM

32. Yawn

don't like it when some one disagrees with you on a gun related topic, you trot the "NRA talking point" nonsense out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:44 PM

34. It is one, and I will call you on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:47 PM

35. time to start one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to applegrove (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:52 PM

3. At the very least!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:54 PM

5. Impose limits on the number of firearms one could purchase.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:41 PM

20. How about enforcing some already existing laws along the way, eh?

More extensive background checks. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, passed in 1993, mandated federal background checks on individual firearms from a registered firearms seller. Between 1994 and 2007, federal data show 1.6 million gun sales were blocked by background checks, half due to felony convictions.

Picture this...A guy walks into a gun shop with a felony conviction. He fills out the US government form #4473, required to buy a gun from a federal firearms dealer. There are questions on form 4473 including "have you ever been convicted of a felony"? The guy checks the no box, because if he checks the yes box the dealer won't even call NICS. The guy signs the form which states that the form is truthful under penalty of perjury. NICS denies the transfer because the guy lied on his 4473 and actually does have a felony conviction. Now the FBI knows that this convicted felon who is prohibited from owning a firearm is actively trying to buy a firearm....This exact scenario played out 132,000 times in 2005 (and every day of every year since). Wow! The FBI must sure be busy tracking down these convicted felons who they know have at least committed perjury and likely have acquired a gun, huh? Wouldn't these bona fide criminal leads be a fairly high priority? Turns out not so much....

Highlights

Nearly 70 million background checks conducted under the
Brady Act through 2005; over 57 million since the
permanent provisions took effect

* 1.6% of the 8.3 million applications for firearm transfers
or permits in 2005 were rejected by the FBI (66,700
applications)or State and local agencies(65,200
applications).

* Among State and local checking agencies in 2005, 46% of all
rejections for firearm transfers (about 30,000 applications)
were due to a felony conviction or indictment.

* About 15% of State and local rejections(10,000 applications)
were due to a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or
restraining order.

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosive's(ATF)
field offices investigated 9,575 National Instant Criminal
Background Check System(NICS)denials that were referred by
the FBI in 2005.

* In 2005 agencies reported 1,400 arrests of persons denied
a firearm or a permit.

* In 2005 U.S. attorney offices accepted for prosecution 135
NICS denial cases investigated by ATF.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/bcft05.txt


Apparently criminals trying illegally to acquire firearms which they are prohibited from possessing isn't a very high priority. How high of priority would enforcing any new laws be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:43 AM

24. Well...

The point of the law is to prevent felons from buying guns. In that respect, it has worked.

If the point was to round up felons who lied on a government form and imprison them (hint: it's not) then it's not being enforced. I think most people would agree that as long as the sale is being blocked, the law is doing that job as intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:33 AM

27. So a felon who is known

to be trying to acquire a gun, was turned down at a FFL, will just decide not to get a gun after all? Or will the felon continue trying to buy a gun from a non-ffl or black market. No, I'm thinking that at least local law enforcement should be alerted that this felon is in the market for a gun and make contact with the felon. Again, if tracking down felons with guns isn't a priority, why would any other law be a priority?

There was another story recently I can look for later. This story is about people who are approved by NICS initially, sold a gun, then found later to have been prohibited. BATFE agents are supposed to go to the prohibited person and retrieve the firearm. The story stated that only 1 in 5 are actually being picked up or even attempted. "We should enforce existing laws" has almost turned into a cliche, but it turns out to be true. I am in opposition to new laws until we are doing all we can to enforce the existing laws....laws for laws sake...feel good laws, and all that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:54 AM

28. In answer to your first question...

I'm sure that most felons who are turned down will go somewhere else. Some won't because being a convicted felon is not the same as being a career criminal -- you might have a twenty-year-old felony conviction on the books but have been (since then) a law-abiding citizen. But a hardened criminal is going to look elsewhere -- actually a hardened criminal probably knows better than to go to Dicks Sporting Goods to buy a gun.

The next step is to eliminate strawman purchases and to ban sales at gun shows. The idea here is to force criminals into the black market, and then we have a reasonbly-sized target for enforcement. Right now there are nearly 130,000 FFL nationwide and only about 2,500 ATF agents. Once we get the number of FFL's down to a manageable number, enforcement becomes possible. Right now the AFT is grossly understaffed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:22 AM

26. If we can't even accurately describe what the assault weapons ban did...

...why are we so interested in reinstating it?

It banned the manufacture or import of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that had two of the following characteristics:
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet lug
* Threaded barrel
* Flash suppressor

The rifle the Newtown killer used only had one of those (a pistol grip), which is why it was legal under Connecticut's AWB, and why it's such a stupid idea to try to reinstate the national one.

Cue people who don't know what the AWB actually did calling me a psycho for not supporting it in 3... 2... 1...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:10 AM

33. Doesn't matter.

Not gonna happen. "Our" government doesn't care fuckall about how many people these psychos slaughter in the obsession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread