Obama Signs Executive Orders on Gun Control

[Slyfox696]

Incredibly skewed numbers. Most of those deaths are criminal on criminal violence associated with illegal activity.

Not skewed at all. First of all, to believe the numbers are skewed, you're assuming one life is less valuable than another. Second of all, those deaths still cost taxpayers. Finally, even if most are, that doesn't change the fact that not all are, as we've seen several times publicly in the last 12 months.

 

[Moon Knight]

No.

England has zero guns and the highest violent crime rate in the world. I can't imagine why.

For once I would like you people to source this.

 

[Slyfox696]

For once I would like you people to source this.

He can't, because it's not true.

 

[Moon Knight]

He can't, because it's not true.

I looked it up, all I can find is Nationmaster which put our crime rate higher than the UK.

 

[Shocky]

Not skewed at all. First of all, to believe the numbers are skewed, you're assuming one life is less valuable than another. Second of all, those deaths still cost taxpayers. Finally, even if most are, that doesn't change the fact that not all are, as we've seen several times publicly in the last 12 months.

It probably comes across as extremely jaded, but if you get into that lifestyle, you get what you have coming to you. The illegal drug trade and the drug war along the Mexican border is probably ballooning those numbers higher.

I wouldn't even begin to look and find numbers when you remove the criminal element out of the equation. I still say the problem is the De-institutionalization of the mentally ill in this country. It's not PC to tell people they have a mental problem. It's easier to go after the inanimate object as opposed to the nutcase wielding it.

 

[Slyfox696]

I looked it up, all I can find is Nationmaster which put our crime rate higher than the UK.

He's mixed up his facts. The UK does not have the highest violent crime rate in the world, just in Europe. Of course, the gun supporters rarely point out how incidence of reported crimes has continually declined over the last decade or the fact that the UK reports their violent crime differently than the United States does.

It probably comes across as extremely jaded, but if you get into that lifestyle, you get what you have coming to you.

But it's not that simple, because so many who get into that lifestyle do so because they feel they have no other choice (and realistically, many of them don't). Many of those who get into that lifestyle come from poor economic backgrounds and poor schools. I would guess most have family members who were and/or are in the lifestyle.

For many of them it's not a conscious choice of right and wrong, it's simply what they think is the only option available to them to survive. My cousin defended a felony case where the guy she was defending was busted as a drug runner, with over $1 million in cocaine in his car trunk. He came from a family where his parents were in jail early in his life, he had no money until he got into the lifestyle, but after getting into the lifestyle he was making very good money.

It's just not that simple.

I still say the problem is the De-institutionalization of the mentally ill in this country. It's not PC to tell people they have a mental problem. It's easier to go after the inanimate object as opposed to the nutcase wielding it.

And I still say the problem isn't just the mentally ill. It's also the incredible disparity between rich and poor. It's the violent culture we've cultivated over the years with violent TV/movies/video games/music. And it's the tolerant attitudes of our country towards unabridged rights to guns and the Dirty Harry mentality when it comes to shooting them.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

It's easier to go after the inanimate object as opposed to the nutcase wielding it.

I'd like to go after both. Ban guns people do not need and put the mentally ill where they belong.

Sound solution.

And I'm good with the 2nd Amendment... we'll pass out muskets. Every single household gets a musket which takes 30-60 seconds to load. That's what they had in mind when crafting the 2nd Amendment (obviously not a machine gun), so that's what gun nuts should have, and nothing more.

 

[klunderbunker]

Somehow I haven't gotten in on this.

In short, it's not going to fix everything. The situation is far too engrained in our culture to fix it in one or even a good amount of changes. What this does at least is show that something is being attempted, which is more than we've gotten in years.

There is zero reason for assault rifles to be available to the general public. They're far more than needed for self-protection, they're not for sport, and they're too dangerous to be in civilian hands. I know this is hard for some people to accept, but there are some things that anyone, no matter how much of an expert you are or how well trained you are, should not have access to under any circumstances. This is one of them.

 

[UrUp]

Americans are mean, competitive, brutal people. That's a bad concoction for millions of gun owners if you ask me. There are so many bad people/ gangs loaded to the teeth with weapons that it gives the Govn. no choice but to have stiffer legislation on fire arms.

No one will be safe till guns are outlawed for all non-military.

 

[Moon Knight]

Americans are mean, competitive, brutal people. That's a bad concoction for millions of gun owners if you ask me. There are so many bad people/ gangs loaded to the teeth with weapons that it gives the Govn. no choice but to have stiffer legislation on fire arms.

No one will be safe till guns are outlawed for all non-military.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I fail to see why anyone thinks the second amendment is the least bit relevant to any of this.

Prehaps we shall go to the same time period and use their laws and writings in regard to airplane regulations, automobile laws, and, well, black people. Yea.

All just as relevant as the second amendment is in regards to assault rifles. And a time period were we have a stable, giving government, and people kill classrooms full of children.

 

[Natural Selection]

Somehow I haven't gotten in on this.

In short, it's not going to fix everything. The situation is far too engrained in our culture to fix it in one or even a good amount of changes. What this does at least is show that something is being attempted, which is more than we've gotten in years.

There is zero reason for assault rifles to be available to the general public. They're far more than needed for self-protection, they're not for sport, and they're too dangerous to be in civilian hands. I know this is hard for some people to accept, but there are some things that anyone, no matter how much of an expert you are or how well trained you are, should not have access to under any circumstances. This is one of them.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

How much gun experience do you have?

 

[Slyfox696]

No one will be safe till guns are outlawed for all non-military.

I've sort of evolved in my thinking on this.

Instead of taking the rather extreme approach of banning all weapons, let's first start by making these weapons more difficult to get, not just illegally but legally as well. Let's make those who TRULY want a firearm to have to earn their firearm. Mandatory training, written tests, licenses...we do these things for other areas in life, so let's do them for this.

I'm against assault weapons and handguns. I don't see the need for any object whose intended purpose is to shoot people. But I also know that not everyone agrees with me and that ban will never happen. So let's meet in the middle, take quality steps towards gun control (not ban, but control) and let's protect all Americans.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

How much gun experience do you have?

How much ignorance do you want people to think you possess? When you start trying to nitpick at a specific term that everyone basically understands the meaning of, your argument loses credibility.

I also think it's funny that the site tried to tell me a 30 magazine AR-15 is the same type of gun as a 6 shot double action revolver. Ignoring for a moment the difference in accuracy and power over distances, the fact one holds 30 rounds and the other holds 6 is quite important. But even that hilarity paled in comparison to when it said the modern AR-15 is a "modern musket".

Do you have a site which isn't so ridiculous?

 

[klunderbunker]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

How much gun experience do you have?

Not as much as Stanley McChrystal, the general who ran the war in Afghanistan and the man who said what I said.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/form...ault-rifles-are-for-battlefields-not-schools/

 

[ABMorales787]

Americans are mean, competitive, brutal people. That's a bad concoction for millions of gun owners if you ask me. There are so many bad people/ gangs loaded to the teeth with weapons that it gives the Govn. no choice but to have stiffer legislation on fire arms.

No one will be safe till guns are outlawed for all non-military.

I know.

 

[GI Cake]

 

[Clark Kent]

FBI crime stats for 2011:

12,664 homicides
8,583 were caused by firearms
400 listed as justifiable by law enforcement
260 justifiable by private citizens

In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,00 people. The US is 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

As far as Obama goes, I'm split. I don't think what he's doing is asking too much. However, I don't think it's gonna help much. I think criminals will still get a hold of assualt rifles and these recent shootings still would've occured without them. There was a man in China who stabbed 22 children about a month ago. Fortunately no one was killed, but the point is people will try and kill people regardless. Eric and Dylan didn't have an AR-15 and look what happened.

 

[Slyfox696]

FBI crime stats for 2011:

12,664 homicides
8,583 were caused by firearms
400 listed as justifiable by law enforcement
260 justifiable by private citizens

~8,000 murders from guns, and people still say there isn't a problem.

In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,00 people. The US is 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Of course, the gun supporters rarely point out how incidence of reported crimes [in the UK] has continually declined over the last decade or the fact that the UK reports their violent crime differently than the United States does.

As far as Obama goes, I'm split. I don't think what he's doing is asking too much. However, I don't think it's gonna help much. I think criminals will still get a hold of assualt rifles and these recent shootings still would've occured without them. There was a man in China who stabbed 22 children about a month ago. Fortunately no one was killed, but the point is people will try and kill people regardless.

Really? I thought the point was that no one was killed from the stabbing which happened the same day Adam Lanza killed 27 people.

Eric and Dylan didn't have an AR-15 and look what happened.

Which is why we need to have tighter gun control all around, not just AR-15s.

 

[Clark Kent]

~8,000 murders from guns, and people still say there isn't a problem.

I'm pro-Constitution so I do believe in the right to bear arms. Let's also not forget the gang related gun violence in this country which account for many of these deaths. If we were more stricter on prison sentences with gang violence, or more leanient on drug laws(depending on where you stand politically), that number would go down.

Really? I thought the point was that no one was killed from the stabbing which happened the same day Adam Lanza killed 27 people.

Which is why we need to have tighter gun control all around, not just AR-15s.

Nobody dying in China is a valid point, but another one is people will try and kill people regardless. As I"ve said too, criminals will still get a hold of weapons. Sure Englands gun related death percentage is really low, but they don't share a border with Mexico. I know guns are banned in Mexico, but our own government gives them weapons. I'd wager they could find their way back up here in the wrong hands.

I'll have to find evidence of this, or maybe you can, but I read the UK is more causal with reporting violent crimes. Such as, if two men are stabbed, they count that as one incident and we count it as two. I could be wrong.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm pro-Constitution so I do believe in the right to bear arms.

I'm pro-Constitution so I believe in forming "a more perfect union...insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare".

I'm glad we're both pro-Constitution, that should make this simple, right?

Let's also not forget the gang related gun violence in this country which account for many of these deaths.

As I said to Shocky, is there a reason life is less sanctimonious when it is in a gang?

If we were more stricter on prison sentences with gang violence, or more leanient on drug laws(depending on where you stand politically), that number would go down.

So would making it much more difficult to purchase a gun, helping to eliminate straw buyers.

Nobody dying in China is a valid point, but another one is people will try and kill people regardless.

Yes. And don't we owe it to ourselves and our fellow Americans to make that chance the least likely as possible?

As I"ve said too, criminals will still get a hold of weapons.

Neither James Holmes nor Adam Lanza were criminals until after they got a hold of weapons.

Sure Englands gun related death percentage is really low, but they don't share a border with Mexico. I know guns are banned in Mexico, but our own government gives them weapons. I'd wager they could find their way back up here in the wrong hands.

But Canada shares a border with the country boasting the most guns in the entire world and they don't seem to have nearly the problem we do.

I'll have to find evidence of this, or maybe you can, but I read the UK is more causal with reporting violent crimes. Such as, if two men are stabbed, they count that as one incident and we count it as two. I could be wrong.

First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point,” and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.” And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

 

[Clark Kent]

I have The Skeptical Libertarian "liked" on Facebook and interestingly enough, just read that same article after I last posted. Kudos on finding it too, though.

I'm pro-Constitution so I believe in forming "a more perfect union...insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare".

I'm glad we're both pro-Constitution, that should make this simple, right?

Pro-Second Amendment. Better? We have a right to bear arms. What's ironic about the Willy Wonka meme posted earlier is, it goes both ways. It claims that the people who fight for rights to have guns should also fight for gay marriage rights too. Well, I do.

This is something I saw on another Facebook page I like and it illustrates my point:

ORIGINAL POST IN A THREAD ON GUN CONTROL
The restriction in liberty would be to deny the right to own guns. That's surely an argument that few would advocate--although the few who do are vocal. The restriction is not in liberty, it is in the types of weapons one may own. That restriction is already in place; otherwise, Ted Nugent, et.al, would own a tank with all the munitions,... and some would have missiles armed with warheads. Or how about a howitzer with live rounds? After all, by the denial of liberties argument, why should anyone even be denied these larger, grander, more lethal weapons?

My point is that we're mixing up several arguments here. People have the right to bear arms. The types of weapons are already subject to restrictions. Over 30 years ago, people did not own military-style semi-automatic assault rifles with magazines of 100+ or automatic handguns with 20 rounds in a clip. These are fairly recent phenomena. These weapons serve no other purpose other than to be super-efficient human killing machines. For all intents and purposes, they differ little from actual military weapons. They are not a requirement for self-defense, and, yes, I think we, as a society, should set those limits. Some people clearly will not like any restrictions whatsoever. Sorry. Sensible restrictions on the types of weapons is part of this discussion. There are, of course, other issues involved in terms of a national firearm policy.

The PAGE RUNNER'S ALTERED RESPONSE
The restriction in liberty would be to deny the right to get married altogether. That's surely an argument that few would advocate--although the few who do are vocal. The restriction is not in liberty, it is in the types of marriages one may have. That restriction is already in place; otherwise, George Takei, et.al, would ruin the sanctity of marriage, and some would have massive orgies in public. Or how about a ceremony in a church? After all, by the denial of liberties argument, why should anyone even be denied these larger, grander, more flamboyant displays?

My point is that we're mixing up several arguments here. People have the right to marry. The types of marriages are already subject to restrictions. Over 30 years ago, men did not get marred to other men, buying houses together or adopting and raising children. These are fairly recent phenomena. These marriages serve no other purpose other than to defile tradition and laugh in the face of God. For all intents and purposes, they differ little from actual bestiality. They are not a requirement for self-content, and, yes, I think we, as a society, should set those limits. Some people clearly will not like any restrictions whatsoever. Sorry. Sensible restrictions on the types of marriages are part of this discussion. There are, of course, other issues involved in terms of a national marriage policy.

As I said to Shocky, is there a reason life is less sanctimonious when it is in a gang?

Not at all, I'm just saying let's focus more on the people than the guns. In my previous post, you quoted the number of gun murders, if every life is equal, why not quote the number of ALL murders? Roughly 1/3 of all murders that take place each year aren't gun related, according to FBI stats. I know the one's I provided might be a little outdated but most figures I see put overall murders at around 15,000 a year and gunr murders around 10,000.

Yes. And don't we owe it to ourselves and our fellow Americans to make that chance the least likely as possible?

Within our rights protected by the Constitution, yes. If our second amendment is the problem by the way, then I wish Obama would come out and just propose to reform or amend it. I wouldn't support it, but I don't like him dancing around that.

Neither James Holmes nor Adam Lanza were criminals until after they got a hold of weapons.

When I say criminals I mean people who would become them as well. A gun doesn't put in your hand to beome a criminal, the criminal goes out and finds it before they committ a crime.

 

[Slyfox696]

Pro-Second Amendment. Better?

Pro guns. That's what you really mean.

We have a right to bear arms.

We have the right to organize under a well-regulated militia. That's the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

This is something I saw on another Facebook page I like and it illustrates my point:

If it illustrates your point, you have a terrible point. Here's why...

Guns are not people. There is no right for guns to be treated as equal to other guns. That argument simply does not exist. People, however, deserve to be treated equally as all other people. The problem with the argument you like is that PEOPLE are not being discriminated against if you remove certain types of weapons. If we ban an AR-15, it's banned for everyone, not just for black people or gay people. With marriage, however, we're discriminating against homosexuals if we try to restrict marriage. And when marriage comes with a bevy of benefits from the government, telling certain groups of people they are not worthy of being treated as equal is wrong. Telling inanimate objects they are not equal is not only not morally wrong, it's also accurate. A 6 shout revolver is not the same thing as an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

The original comment is much more solid in logic. The response is illogical because we do not bestow upon inanimate objects the same rights we do people.

Not at all, I'm just saying let's focus more on the people than the guns.

Is there some reason we cannot do both that I'm not aware of?

In my previous post, you quoted the number of gun murders, if every life is equal, why not quote the number of ALL murders? Roughly 1/3 of all murders that take place each year aren't gun related, according to FBI stats. I know the one's I provided might be a little outdated but most figures I see put overall murders at around 15,000 a year and gunr murders around 10,000.

I don't want anyone to be murdered. I have no problem at all with working to help all Americans become safer.

But if you're telling me 1/3 of murders which take place every year are not gun related, then that means 2/3 are gun related...shouldn't that be a bright neon sign pointing out a good place to start?

Within our rights protected by the Constitution, yes.

Nothing I've said violates the 2nd Amendment.

If our second amendment is the problem by the way, then I wish Obama would come out and just propose to reform or amend it. I wouldn't support it, but I don't like him dancing around that.

The 2nd Amendment isn't the problem, the problem is the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the extreme it has become.

When I say criminals I mean people who would become them as well. A gun doesn't put in your hand to beome a criminal, the criminal goes out and finds it before they committ a crime.

Unless that criminal is Jevon Belcher, who shot someone 9 times in rage while being drunk over twice the legal driving limit before driving to his NFL team facility and shooting himself.

 

[Clark Kent]

Pro guns. That's what you really mean.

We have the right to organize under a well-regulated militia. That's the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Nothing I've said violates the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment isn't the problem, the problem is the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the extreme it has become.

Actually, you're misinterpretation is the one that's become extreme. Also, I meant pro second amendment.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

This link provides an examniation of the wording of the second amendment. It is non-partisan and does say the second amendment can be used to argue either side of the debate. However, it also states that the Bill of Rights were based on mistrust of the government. This makes perfect sense considering we broke away from Great Britain to gain independence. Why? Just to give all our guns to the military? When it was the military we had to fight against to gain independence in the first place? Am I saying the right to bear arms is only to protect us under tyranical government? Not entirely because I think the way they wrote the amendment was intentional for it to also be interpreted like all citizens have a right, not only to protect themselves from tyranny, but from other citizens as well. Hence, it's a right we have.

If it illustrates your point, you have a terrible point. Here's why...

Guns are not people. There is no right for guns to be treated as equal to other guns. That argument simply does not exist. People, however, deserve to be treated equally as all other people. The problem with the argument you like is that PEOPLE are not being discriminated against if you remove certain types of weapons. If we ban an AR-15, it's banned for everyone, not just for black people or gay people. With marriage, however, we're discriminating against homosexuals if we try to restrict marriage. And when marriage comes with a bevy of benefits from the government, telling certain groups of people they are not worthy of being treated as equal is wrong. Telling inanimate objects they are not equal is not only not morally wrong, it's also accurate. A 6 shout revolver is not the same thing as an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

The original comment is much more solid in logic. The response is illogical because we do not bestow upon inanimate objects the same rights we do people.

You're missing the comparison here completely. It's not saying guns are people who have rights. It's saying people have rights to have guns like people should have rights to marry who they want. Yes, banning guns would effect everyone, but that would leave a very vocal, and very big, group of people who would argue against that. Why should straight people be allowed to marry and not homosexuals? Why should government have guns and not citizens? Sure you can argue the dangers of guns, so let's do that and also look at some facts.

Guns have actually preempted mass shootings from happening:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...dren-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in

Murder isn't even close to the leading cause of death:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Nor are homicide numbers even close to other violent crimes and murder numbers have decreased greatly in the past 20 years:

http://leftcall.com/u-s-crime-rates-1960-2010-the-facts-might-surprise-you/

Lastly, assualt rifles account for a very tiny percentage of gun related murders(I know you want all guns banned so this is for everyone else reading):

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/electi...olved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/

But if you're telling me 1/3 of murders which take place every year are not gun related, then that means 2/3 are gun related...shouldn't that be a bright neon sign pointing out a good place to start?

With numbers decreasing as they are, I'd say we're dealing with murder over all on a steady and and consistant basis.

You gotta consider, too, that the places with the highest gun bans also have the highest murder rates. Both Sandy Hook and the Aurora movie theater ban guns. Before you think I want teachers to have guns, I don't. I think all schools should have an officier on duty. If I'm not mistaken, ths was one of Obama's executive orders and one I agree with.

Unless that criminal is Jevon Belcher, who shot someone 9 times in rage while being drunk over twice the legal driving limit before driving to his NFL team facility and shooting himself.

One bad apple should never spoil the whole bunch. Hell, there are 300 million guns in this country and around 10,000 gun related deaths each year. That's less than one percent of guns being used to kill people.

There's also the argument about protecting yourself from home invasion. My own girlfriend wants us to have a gun for protection when we move in with each other in a few months. She grew up in a really bad area where people broke into each others houses so a gun will make her feel safe. Many Americans are like this too. They're responsible people who just wanna feel safe.

 

[Wrestling101]

FBI crime stats for 2011:

12,664 homicides
8,583 were caused by firearms
400 listed as justifiable by law enforcement
260 justifiable by private citizens

In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,00 people. The US is 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

As far as Obama goes, I'm split. I don't think what he's doing is asking too much. However, I don't think it's gonna help much. I think criminals will still get a hold of assualt rifles and these recent shootings still would've occured without them. There was a man in China who stabbed 22 children about a month ago. Fortunately no one was killed, but the point is people will try and kill people regardless. Eric and Dylan didn't have an AR-15 and look what happened.

It's amazing you brought that up.....listen to this. That man that stabbed those 22 kids, that happened the same day as Sandy Hook. Interesting fact about that.

Man in US goes to a school with a gun and shoots people.....26 deaths
Man in China goes to a school with a knife and stabs people.....0 deaths

Get the difference?


At some point, people prove themselves to not be worthy of making choices, and the decisions need to be made for them. Guns need to be limited to those who have a need for them.

 

[Killercam]

Here's where the problem is, if you are paying attention major businesses such as Wal-Mart are being given executive orders to completely cut off selling ammunition for fire arms. It's not just Wal-Mart that is just an example. There is also a bill on the table that is going to ban buying ammo through Internet purchases. What law abiding, gun owning citizens are worried about is the fact that when you start putting things together there is an absolute movement to disarm (and if you can't disarm, you make purchasing ammo legally nearly impossible) the American public.