Two Big Reasons Why New Gun Controls Aren't Going to Happen

n/t

But that hasn't slowed the liberalization of gun laws over the past 15 years.

As the "fiscal cliff" looms, the media will eventually lose interest in the shooting, and will move on, and emotions will fade.

Plus there are many more "assault weapons" owners than back in 1994, many more daily. I just don't see the same dynamics at play as there was when the original 1994 ban was voted into law.

I guess we'll know by the end of January, when Biden & co. make their legislative recommendations

I'm not holding my breath though.

Many more children are beat to death each year than are killed by guns and there are already laws against beating a child too. In on anymore dead than the other?

and backing ANY candidate anti-gun, anti-NRA

and he is relentless

and he is a great American Patriot, a great Liberal Democrat from Mass

and the NRA folks hate him

Meek Mayor Mike. He is the GREAT EQUALIZER

He made it to the talk shows this past weekend, lets see is he sinks beneath the horizon again by January

Aren't you glad to have so many good Americans that are ready and willing to
abrogate our rights? For our own good, of course...

<"Sarcasm Mode" to OFF>

You should cross post it into GD. If you won't do I have your permission to do so?

Or did you miss the discussions regarding Bloomys "Stop and Frisk" program?

... who stood and faced the dreadful Big Gulp ...

eom

We can't win back the House without the support of rural Democrats.

eom

However, pursuing new gun controls would cost ALOT of political capital, with very little potential gain.

Demented individuals will always find ways to hurt people. We need to figure out how to stop them before they strike, not start banning shit (be it guns, music, video games, etc.) left and right.

While I don't agree that these tragedies are simply "the price we pay to live in a free society", we need to be realistic about what solutions will really work to prevent ALL forms of violence.

gun control of other kind is a start, but can't work because of the NRA parsing of what is or isn't that gun

Any firearm with a bullet that fires only one shot maybe


and I assume all of us can agree, a person only needs ONE gun and even at 3am in the morning while fast asleep, finding a gun safely away from the kids and needing to get it while disoriented from sleep, well, two guns are not needed. One can't fire both at the same time

...so they can be more thoughtful of your needs and keep their dirty ol' guns at home?

In America -- we have the right to BEAR arms -- not only the right to STORE arms.

Who mentioned the Mafia?

Did you mean the Irish Mafia back in the early days in NYC?
Did you mean the police motorcycle gangs?
The Hells Angels?
Maybe you meant a mob of MENSA?

being that no mass shooting is done by any member of any gang except the gang of the gun culture NRA, how are gangs relevant to anything in this day and age?

please specifically say what you mean, it is open to interpretation.

reminds me on Christmas, my mother in law was babbling about gangs during Katrina, when the only gang that was worrysome were the cops on Danzinger Bridge pinging any black person who dared look for dry land that was just one step away on the other side of the Bridge.

Here is some info on modern gangs from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#disablemobile

difference between what one or to maniacs armed with regular guns can do and those armed with weapons of war. It is the inability of people like yourself to recognize this distinction that is responsible for our lack of adequate protections. It is impossible to determine, with 100% accuracy, when or who will turn into a homicidal maniac. The most we can hope to do is limit the number of victims. Why pretend you care, when any rational person knows it will never be possible to end all violence, not in a free society....not in any society.

...because that is the most ridiculous, insulting false dichotomy I've seen in a very long time.

eom

Only to see the laws you passed be repealed by the new Republican supermajority...brilliant!

the 2014 elections and the NRA will prevent any meaningful reforms from occurring. They will push for limited magazines, better registration, less violence in games, movies and on the back end throw a few dollars at mental health. It will be the typical Washington answer and finger pointing while most people will be angry that enough wasn't done.

...as long as there's someone(s) to blame then that's fine.

Your writing imdicates you are referencing the NRA but that can't be correct because the NRA will never endorse gun registration. (That is something in which I agree. Registration does nothing but identify which law-abiding citizens own guns).

First the members of congress will check their stock portfolio's

(which is why last time my shotgun was banned....small Italian company)

Upon discovering that banning select firearms will not affect them financially, they will then to decide to focus
on appearance of arms (pistol grips, jagged corners, etc).

Last ban i sold my shotgun for x300% and my little .22LR rifle for x200% because the idiots who wrote the law, had now clue about the law they were writing.

last round they banned a shotgun and a plinking rifle, both of which is still in circulation but i have no idea or control of them these days...

was a franchi spas 12 and a calico .22 lr with wooden stock...those darn spiral magazines will be the death of us all!!!!

The shotgun only did semi-auto with slugs anyways.

(heh unlike the ruger .22 at least the magazine never jammed)

please explain your visual babble.

Sorry if you consider it "babble" because I see it more as a damning self-indictment from Bushmaster.

Most of the problem I have with the over-the-top weapons like the Bushmaster is that many of their owners seem to be fundamentally unserious people. This ad (from a successful two year long campaign ending only on 12/18) supports that thesis -- indicating that a nontrivial fraction of Bushmaster customers may find the purchase the weapon appealing because of masculine self-image issues. Given the inherent recklessness and self-disregard of risk inherent in our current popular image of what is "manly," this is not a behavior consistent with the prerequisites for responsiblity or trust. It is the kind of ideal that has me snatching keys away at parties to prevent drunken auto accidents.

Now you obviously dismiss this as merely an ad, but between the two of us it apparently got you thinking of those phalluses first.

Advertising works by getting inside your head. It has already worked on you. Bushmaster knew what appealed to their clients.

If you were honest with yourself, you would see why this ad is a problem you need to address.

you dodged my point.
'
Word salad will not get your point across....either accuse me of something or refute my point.

You made two points in your last post.

1) It's just an ad.
2) You claim I have a small unit.

I addressed the first one. The ad defines the audience. This particular ad is not a positive message for your position as we debate why these high-powered weapons are necessary.

So I guess you mean the second one? Really, I need to address that one? You'll have to beg for *that* Mister Adult.

The marketing and some parts of the "gun culture" have bloody hands.

When a company markets a gun as a an empowering solution to solve all of your problems they cross the line.


A gun is an effective hunting and defense tool. There is nothing wrong with target shooting.

The gun manufacturers that fund the NRA don't want any restrictions on their marketing efforts. "More doctors smoke Camels"

it had to do with one director of the CDC. There are criminologists, not MDs playing criminologists, doing their own research.

What NRA dues pays for -- lack of transparency, secrecy, BAD PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC POLICY.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/why-does-the-nra-fear-the-truth-about-gun-violence-.html

The Honorable Mr. Brandeis' sunshine is needed in Fairfax Virginia. Badly.

I won't even begin to list all of the nonsense.
The first lie is what the Tiahrt Amendemt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#Tiahrt_Amendment
I never believe anything I read in editorials.

Anyone who censors science is on the wrong side. Period. End of story.

but they are not censoring science. Science goes on. As I understand the situation, the CDC director set out to make antigun ad campaigns with backed with shill studies. That was the claim. True or not, that was the claim. Either way, I'm not big on MDs pretending to be criminologists. There have been criminologists studying the issue for years. Problem is, ones not funded by anti gun groups don't have the results they like.

That said, I showed where the editorial was spreading misinformation on just that one thing. MAIG and Brady lied about the Amendment. Comparing their claim and the law, makes it obvious.

----------------------------------------------------------
1) Injury prevention and control is in the mission statement of the CDC. Yup, guns injure people so it's in the mission statement.
----------------------------------------------------------

CDC Mission (http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm)

Healthy PlacesCollaborating to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats.

CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout the nation and the world to

monitor health,
detect and investigate health problems,
conduct research to enhance prevention,
develop and advocate sound public health policies,
implement prevention strategies,
promote healthy behaviors,
foster safe and healthful environments,
provide leadership and training.

Those functions are the backbone of CDC′s mission. Each of CDC′s component organizations undertakes these activities in conducting its specific programs. The steps needed to accomplish this mission are also based on scientific excellence, requiring well-trained public health practitioners and leaders dedicated to high standards of quality and ethical practice.

--------------------------------------------------------

2) The NRA sponsored mandate to the CDC which is STILL in force (AR-13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities, http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/additional_req.shtm#ar13)

--------------------------------------------------------

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

----------------------------------------------------------

3) In practice the "anti lobbying provision" (stated in its entirety above) is a deliberately vague statement directly intended to muzzle any unfavorable research. As written, any study showing a problem with guns obviously can obviously be interpreted as "advocating gun control." Indirect communications can include WRITTEN ARTICLES so published journal articles count as "lobbying" by this act even if the author never intended the article to be read by a member of congress. A shameful use of "anti-lobbying" legislation by the supremely corrupt lobbying group

Effectively, ANY scientific study into gun violence is stopped by a federal agency with the mandate to do the work in their mission statement.

This ain't one guy's crusade from 30 years back. It is current policy, whose chilling effects are freely discussed by people working the field.

Typical politicians. Typical NRA. Anti-free inquiry to the end. Of course, when you're holding 8 high I guess you need to hedge your bet somehow.

first, NIJ does it. Second, so do universities. Third, the US isn't the only country on the planet. CDC is hardly the only game in town.
second, it prohibits political activities. If they can't tell the difference between scientific research and political activities, I can't help them. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks clear to me.

Fourth, I don't like MDs playing amateur sociologist any more than I like sociologists practicing medicine.
Given that the criminologists with NIJ grants under Carter came up with results gun control advocates didn't like. So, I don't buy the whole premise.

Like the NRA, MAIG, Brady, VPC, SAF, or not. They are trying to sell an ideology. By nature, all ideologies will lie and distort facts when reality doesn't serve their purpose.

1) You are ignorant of what the CDC does and the range of talent and the types of people who work for them. Before you spout nonsense again and waste someone else's time, read this and learn something for a change:

http://www.cdc.gov/employment/menu_topjobs.html

2) Burden is on you -- tell how the definition I quoted before PRECLUDES some in-the-NRA-pocket congressman from classifying ANYTHING they don't like coming out of the CDC as political lobbying. Including a mere statement of numbers. Seeing how the tiniest factoid might "influence" a decision that rule is a baldfaced politically motivated muzzle, just one you happen to like so you see nothing wrong with it. By the way, appeals to expertise are irrelevant here -- you don't have to be a lawyer, you merely need to know how to read. Are you pleading ignorance on that?

3) Given that the "NIJ grants under Carter" pass some test of yours as solid research, we can safely conclude this entire thread PROVES that you're happy with research that backs up your preconceived notion and consider things you don't like to be "ideological" and untrustworthy. In other words, you are a living example of "confirmation bias:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

As such, you really have nothing worthwhile to add to a discussion. Your mind is made up, it will not change.

Add to that, you hate free scientific inquiry of course. Unless it says what you want it to. Of course, then it isn't "free" is it?

I fear you may be projecting.
Yes, Carter era Rossi and Wright study was very solid.
Don't see any criminologists on the list.

but, you knew that didn't you.

And their legally owned firearms? Or would you rather we be denied the opportunity to protect ourselves?

It is a stereotype. Like all stereotypes it is not the claim that all gun nuts are arrested development males, it is the claim that a significant majority are.

Thanks for asking though.

yup

Like the sun rising in the east, you are predictable at least hope you are having a good morning

and thank you!

working for real gun control -- it might take decades. As it took decades to obtain the vote for women. We can't give up.

Repeal the Second Amendment NOW

Even after the ct massacre, Ohio still signed some new pro-gun laws into effect? Much to the howling of some anti-civil liberty people here?

In the vast majority of the US, Gun Rights rule the day.

yup

"everyone" supports them...

by increasing police/trained security on school campuses. Some schools have already done this, some have inadequate armed presence, some are committed to a fanciful policy of "gun-free zones."

I suggest national legislation to fund security measures at schools, and let CITIZENS DECIDE what they want, school-by-school.

What do think?

to your precious toys.

cute.

armed security, just not enough. It's nothing new, except to those who mask their dishonesty in passion.

My daughter teaches there and they have had on duty cops walking the halls every day for at least the last 10 years. They started it in response to parent requests for better security to deal with what was an emerging gang problem.

I know it sounds amazing, but in the last decade no one has knocked them to the ground and took their guns.

Why is it all of a sudden a horrible thing to have an armed cop or security person in a school? Just because you don't like the a-hole that said it?

But "just not enough". Of course. Because lock stepping with the NRA the solution to our hideous gun problem is MORE GUNZ.

Please note I posted in favor of more security before the NRA got around to it.

BTW, was armed security actually present at Columbine? Here in Austin, only a few armed personnel travel school-to-school by auto; there is no full-time coverage. I don't know what the policy of the Conn. school is.

but those police departments that have a School Resource Officer aka trained, certified police officer seem to assign them to high schools either exclusively or almost exclusively.

I'm in a small suburban town with about 12-14,000 people in it and we have a school resource officer assigned full time to the high school.

You are talking about trying to starve a handful of individuals who are mentally capable of slaughtering children by drying up an enormous pool of guns and accessories.


I mean, this guy was SICK. He had absolutely no compassion in him. None. He was turning 1st-graders into HAMBURGER with a rifle, and neither the concept nor the reality of doing so stopped him. The blood splattering, the roar of gunfire, the screams of children.... none of this touched him in the slightest!!!


And your solution is to try to keep the couple of dozen or couple of hundred people in the country that are capable of this level of depravity from getting guns?



Look, teachers are trusted individuals. Educated, intelligent, loving, passionate, and when they're hired they presumably have some sort of background check done. If we can trust them to raise out children for 30 hours a week for the 12 most formative years of their lives, I think we can trust a few of them to carry a concealed pistol to protect them.

Freedom isn't Free and all the happy haorseshit.

yup

I do not accept that law-abiding citizens must imprison themselves and their children because some Americans selfishly demand the right to play with lethal toys as their entertainment.

even though they are not criminals. And many schools ALREADY have armed personnel on campus. Trouble is, the personnel usually are not there full-time.

There is no such thing as a gun-free zone; only signs wishing such.

and it takes a redwood decades from the planting of a seed

The Republican controlled House.

There is no way in hell the Republicans, and more than a few House Dems for that matter, will pass any gun control.

They simply do not care about all these massacres.

For me, the main reason is that the U.S. economy is controlled by powerful business organizations, including financial groups in Wall Street and arms manufacturers. Arms manufacturers profit from local sales and from exports. Government avoids gun control as much as possible thanks to lobbying while also making it easier for manufacturers to export arms to other countries. At the same time, manufacturers and the defense industry arm and equip police and military forces, both of which with surveillance and prison systems are growing and are used to control the populace.

Bullet control on the table. There's an old Chris Rock schtick where he proposes making one bullet cost $5000.

Why not price controls or a TAX on that collected by the Fed. A few years ago I seem to recall a box of 50 for a 9 millimeter costing about $12 at Wal-Mart. Make that box of 50 cost $1200 after taxes AND put folks through rigourous background checks. Keep a database of people who buy ammunition -

Or - make it available only at Federal Dispensaries. Not sure how it works in PA today - but years ago while visitng a friend at Mercyhurst college you had to go to a state dispensary to purchase alcholic beverages.

Both bullets and beer when used improperly with a 'vehicle' in support (think gun/car) cause death when used by people improperly.

You can own a gun. You can keep your gun today. But you can't buy bullets. And make a mandatory 20 year Fed Prison sentence for anyone found selling ammunition outside of the Fed Gov't dispensaries.


If it's TRULY a lost cause to do ANYTHING to curb gun ownership - price using the guns out of the range of normal every day purchase, and keep track of who buys bullets. Do it through the existing OFAC system/Bridger/Lexus Nexus.


***************************************

I hope I've not come off as either naive or snarky - but I do not believe that there is ANYTHING on this planet that is an ungettable get. Anything is gettable if you just get to getting it done. Sometimes though you have to blast through the mountain when you can't to the top to climb over it.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

Then why do I pay such enormous taxes on cigarettes? Or my husband on his American Spirit loose tobacco? Technically - he's not buying cigarettes . . . He is rolling his own.

The idea is to shift the burden of monitoring it on the people who need to monitored.

I know the cost of that box of cartridges for a reason. . I have zero problem declaring to my fellow Americans via the Fed Government those 50 bullets in my possession. If my next door neighbor has 300 of those boxes - I would like to know why. Really - if you only need one. And the fact that I've had them for as long as I have tells me that I really only need one.

So if not a tax - limit the number they can be sold to in boxes of five? 12 for hunting rifles? Gun Ranges sell them/loan them by the bullet and you get back your deposit on any you don't use while learning/practicing?

I'm also not certain mass produced cartridges were indeed covered by the 2nd Amendment. Another poster pointed out to me on another thread that at the time of Revolution - the colonists made their own. So the product sold today didn't exist. It was not even conceived at the time.

Not giving you a hard time to give it. But firearms themselves may not be possible to regulate that I think they really need to be. So fine - you can buy an AK-47 - but each bullet on the magazine should be priced at $30 and you can only buy it from the Fed - or law enforcement. My husband's guns in our home in Italy he had to get through the Police. And he has to re-register every few years.

mentioned in the BoR.

Was the right to purchase bullets/magazines/cartridges. I've combed through it several times and I can't see it. What am I missing?

Or was it implied? Like the right to pursue happiness included the acquisition of property - even if that being purchased was a living breathing human being. Here's how that played out -

2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ratified. Reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But then this -
Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition


If we are going to adhere to these very old ideas and take them at face value - what does that mean? Could this potentially mean my father's military benefits being paid to my mother could be revoked as the militias became our military - and he was never supposed to have been allowed to serve?


I think that's a silly idea. But Democratics tend to engage in progressive and forward thinking and don't have to do what a bunch of slave owners and slave owner supporters (by supporting te 2/3 Compromise I condemn them all) did - just because they did it.

Free Speech says I have the right to question everything. To include something written so long ago. Tey weren't perfect people and they are not infallible. If they were - they would have held themselves to higher moral standards.

And soon. The tipping point is here.