PROMISES, PROMISES: No action from Obama on guns ...

[spin]

6/20/2011 3:08 AM



More than five months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, the White House has yet to take any new steps on gun violence, even though that's what President Barack Obama called for in the wake of the shooting.

The silence from the administration is drawing criticism from gun control activists and even some of Obama's Democratic allies. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., told the president in a letter last week that the administration "has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence."

***snip***

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that the Justice Department is "consulting with the key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights."

***snip***

A government official involved in the talks said that suggestions under consideration include ways to improve the background check system dealers use to avoid selling guns to criminals, which activists say is ineffective and riddled with loopholes. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations.
http://www.ksro.com/news/article.aspx?id=3117592

[Bold Lib]

1. I'm wondering if he is hanging his hat on the UN small arms treaty.

It will not be ratified and he knows it. BUT, he can at least claim to have tried.

[Xithras]

2. NOT ONE gun law would have prevented the Tucson shooting.

He wasn't a felon and had no mental health holds, so he'd have passed a NICS check. He didn't buy his gun at a gun show or from a private seller. He bought it months before the shooting, so waiting periods wouldn't have mattered. He didn't use an "assault weapon". He hit his primary target with his first bullet, so even limiting the size of his magazine wouldn't have saved her.

You want to stop shootings like this one? Change the MENTAL HEALTH laws. This guy had multiple contacts with police and administrators who considered him a nutcase, with the college even going so far as to suspend him as a threat to the campus, but nobody had the power to actually force a mental health evaluation which probably would have found his underlying instability. If he'd been examined and found to be a threat when he was kicked out of his college in mid 2010, he would have failed his NICS check when he went to buy that gun a few months later, and six people would be alive today.

[damntexdem]

3. This is total bullshit! Even concealed-carry licensing might have done so.

Under AZ law, a perp can carry a gun into any political meeting and not even be questioned about it.

Allowing political events to be closed to guns would have given authorities the ability to check for guns, and perhaps prevent the shooting.

Adequate tracking of gun purchases and checking on purchasers might have caught the mentally-ill Loughner.

Of course there are no guarantees, no WOULD HAVE. But to say that nothing WOULD HAVE stopped the shooting is as silly as saying that a law would have done so.

[slackmaster]

5. Just about any law would have worked, if only Loughner had decided...

...to comply with it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

7. "Even concealed-carry licensing might have done so"

How is that? Criminals don't follow concealed carry laws. They're criminals.

"Allowing political events to be closed to guns would have given authorities the ability to check for guns, and perhaps prevent the shooting."

Only if they have metal detectors at the political events and most politicians want to be accessable to the public.

[Xithras]

8. The meeting was held on a sidewalk in front of a supermarket,.

Sorry, but unless you want to empower the police to search, detain, and arrest people who were simply grocery shopping while otherwise in compliance with AZ gun laws, even banning concealed carry at political events wouldn't have helped. There was no fence, no search perimiter, and no security. Loughner merely had to walk out of the store, take a few steps from the door, and shoot her in the back of the head at a range of less than three feet.

No concealed carry law would have prevented him from doing what he did. Even banning concealed carry completely wouldn't have stopped him.

The guy was known to be a bit off balance and was seen as threatening, and yet our laws wouldn't allow law enforcement or the officials at the college to require a mental health check. If he had a real mental problem (and by all accounts he does), that simple check would have flagged him in the NICS system, preventing him from buying his handgun.

Keep in mind, that at a range of less than three feet, he could have done the same damage to her swinging a hammer down onto her skull. He was at arms length. There would have been fewer OTHER people injured, but Giffords would be just as crippled. The solution is NOT to pass more gun laws, but to expand our ability to locate and treat...or at least identify...people with mental illnesses who might cause injury to others.

[TheWraith]

9. Everything you just said is wrong.

"Even concealed-carry licensing might have done so."

Except that licenses are only required for people who aren't intending to break the lawb by committing multiple murder.

"Allowing political events to be closed to guns would have given authorities the ability to check for guns, and perhaps prevent the shooting."

The event was outdoors in a parking lot. Unless you want to limit political events to indoors behind metal detectors or a ring of cops 20 feet thick, this is absurd.

"Adequate tracking of gun purchases and checking on purchasers might have caught the mentally-ill Loughner."

Loughner passed a background check.

[PavePusher]

10. Did he have anything on record that would have prevented him from getting a Concealment permit?

And why would a criminal go to the trouble to do so?


"Under AZ law, a perp can carry a gun into any political meeting and not even be questioned about it."
Really? Since when? How do you determine who is a "perp"? As far as I know, it's a crime to carry a gun for illegal purposes. Of course nothing about that law will actually stop a criminal.


"Allowing political events to be closed to guns would have given authorities the ability to check for guns, and perhaps prevent the shooting."
This would appear to be a violation of the First, Second and Fourth Amendments, but it's an inventive hat trick indeed. It also means you're buying in to Republican ideas. (Peter King ring any bells? http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/01/peter-kings-silly-gun-ban-idea)


"Adequate tracking of gun purchases and checking on purchasers might have caught the mentally-ill Loughner."
He had nothing on record. How often does this have to be repeated....?

[Atypical Liberal]

23. I think you are incorrect.

Under AZ law, a perp can carry a gun into any political meeting and not even be questioned about it.

Allowing political events to be closed to guns would have given authorities the ability to check for guns, and perhaps prevent the shooting.

There is absolutely nothing that stops politicians anywhere, including in Arizona, from holding political meetings in private facilities where screening for firearms can be done.

Giffords chose, in the name of accessibility, to hold her meeting in public, and in public people can carry firearms. Although I am not sure if the parking lot where she was holding her meeting was private property that disallowed firearms or not.

Adequate tracking of gun purchases and checking on purchasers might have caught the mentally-ill Loughner.

How? Loughner had no criminal record nor mental health record to show up in NICS. What would you consider "adequate tracking of gun purchases and checking on purchasers"?

[X_Digger]

47. Concealed carry licensing prevents criminals from carrying, eh?

Would Loughner (who was a. mentally ill, and b. bent on murder) have complied with a law whose violation isn't immediately apparent?

Allowing political events to be closed to guns would have given authorities the ability to check for guns, and perhaps prevent the shooting.

They could have held the meeting in a private space and arranged as much or as little security as they wished. They weren't forced to hold it in an open air venue with unlimited access. Had they chosen to have it there anyway, in your scenario, would you have had them search everyone shopping in the shopping center that day?

My.. how.. progressive of you.

Adequate tracking of gun purchases and checking on purchasers might have caught the mentally-ill Loughner.

What's this nonsense, hrmm? Within hours we knew where and when Loughner purchased the gun. Tracked? Check.

What is this "checking on purchasers", eh? Loughner had never been adjudicated "mentally defective" or "a danger to himself or others" and he'd never been convicted of a crime for which the possible punishment is a year or more, nor had he been convicted of domestic violence. What are your criteria for "checking on purchasers"?

No, the bullshit is your reply.

[krispos42]

48. She was in the parking lot of a supermarket.

So what do we do about that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Clearly you are not on top of the facts in this case

[Euromutt]

11. One correction to your post

Arizona's mental health laws are apparently somewhat more robust than most states': http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/arizonas_mental_health_law_mig.php
While Pima CC didn't have the authority to impose an involuntary mental health evaluation, it could have requested Loughner be subjected to an involuntary psychiatric evaluation, which in turn could have led to the evaluating psychiatrist requesting a court hearing (in which the patient would have legal representation) concerning whether the patient should be subjected to involuntary treatment (so due process would, as far as I can tell, be observed).

Problem is, nobody availed themselves of that option in time.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I have hope.

There are some very meaningful reforms we can apply to the ATF, and various mental health reporting systems. We might get a well-crafted, intelligent mandate or bill request out of the White House on this issue, instead of the same old stupid warmed over 'assault weapon' bullshit.

[spin]

6. +1000 (n/t)

[eqfan592]

13. WELL SAID! nt

[Hoyt]

14. Until economy improves, can't pass legislation that sends 4% of population into whining depression.

[gejohnston]

15. before he does that how about doing something that really matters first like:

up the min wage to $11/hour and linked to inflation
single payer health care for all
close GITMO detention center
give better support to the unions
raise tarrifs and bring jobs back

[Hoyt]

16. I'd go for that, and throw in ban on carrying in public that would move us into civilized category.

[gejohnston]

17. All of the gun free paradises

You mean places like New York where a murder victim become a household name because half of her neighborhood stood around and watched? Places like California and New York working people with death threats are simply told to dial 911. Meanwhile celebraties like drug addict Don Imus and violent hothead Sean Penn has no problem getting a CCW. Sorry, I fail to see how that is civilized.

[Hoyt]

19. I think most people that have gun separation difficulties, have a distorted view of "civilized."

I was thinking more like Europe -- including Finland, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland (where you can have guns at home, but they better stay there for most folks unless hunting).

[spin]

22. I have no desire to live in Europe ...

I prefer to live in the country that has the longest lasting written constitution in the world today. Two of the reasons our nation has this distinction is the First and Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

[Hoyt]

25. You've got serious rights in Europe, England, etc., too. Just not to be barbaric with guns in public

I know that is frightening to you guys, but some of you might adapt after some serious withdrawal.

[gejohnston]

31. Sorry that is not civilized,

it is feudal. Anti toting laws only apply to commoners. BTW, how is UK civilized when they have among the highest violent crime rates in the world?

[PavePusher]

44. I lived in England for 7 1/2 years. I was glad to come back to the U.S.....

I feel much safer here, even though police response to crime is remarkable similar.

By the way, if Shares is listening in, I'm still waiting for the cops to show up. Where the fuck are they?

[gejohnston]

30. acually in Switzerland, target shooting is the national pastime

kids ride their bikes to the range, and they openly "tote" full auto assault rifles during shooting festival and on the trains to the range anytime.

[Hoyt]

34. Can't carry loaded, nor for other purposes. Swiss aren't afraid to walk by trees unarmed either.

[gejohnston]

36. Their murder rate is half to one third of Japan's and

they have almost no violent crime, unlike UK or many of our cities. Apples and oranges.

What I always find ironic, is that it is easier to carry in places least likely to need it (Wyoming, Vermont) and almost impossible where you have a higher probability of needing it (DC, Chicago, Baltimore)

[spin]

21. And how exactly has legal concealed carry caused us to be uncivilized?

since "shall issue" concealed carry swept across this nation has the violent crime climbed dramatically?





Name one state that turned in the "Wild West" because it allowed honest people to carry in public. Name one state that repealed "shall issue" concealed carry after it passed the law.

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Because legal public carry has caused so much trouble.

Oh, wait...

[AtheistCrusader]

18. 4%? Is this the new math?

[Hoyt]

20. Yep, that's right, 4% is percentage of population gunners say carry in public.

Maybe it's 5, 6, 3% -- but it's a good estimate for our purposes unless you have a better one.

[gejohnston]

38. what are you basing your numbers on?

What if Bernie Sanders carries when he is home? Or Howard Dean? I have no idea if they do, I kind of doubt it. But how would you react?

[Hoyt]

41. I kind of doubt it too, and would be surprised. Numbers are based on stats often quoted here.

They usually indicate 8 - 10 million carry in public some of the time. If you have an update, I'll modify the percentage. Fact is, the number of people who feel the need to pack when they go order a hamburger, go to church, public parks, museums, etc., is relatively small.

[drpepper67]

42. It must feel terrible going out and knowing how many people are carrying guns.

Especially since that number is rising and will continue to rise.

It must make some people, especially those with an irrational fear of guns, feel like the world is coming to an end.

Even though FBI crime stats show we are safer now than in years past.

It must be a lonely feeling.

[Hoyt]

43. You may feel safer, but not because of more guns -- stiffer sentences, better surveillance, aging

population, etc., are cause. Leave you guns at home if you can.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Why would you legislate against the 4% that are less likely to commit crimes than the other 96%?

Until economy improves, can't pass legislation that sends 4% of population into whining depression.

Face it, the data is now well known, with some states having tracked this data for decades.

Those 4% of citizens who carry firearms are less likely to commit any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than the other 96% of the population.

This is why the tide of concealed carry rights is blowing in the pro-firearm favor, and will continue to do so.

[Hoyt]

26. First you are wrong. The 85% or so who could qualify for a permit are just as law abiding as you.

Perhaps, more so. They could get a permit, but choose -- wisely -- not to do so.

And, they are more civilized, preferring not to leave the house everyday prepared to shoot another citizen.

You guys have twisted ways of looking at things if you think the 4% who pack are more law abiding than that other 85% who could easily qualify if they wanted to leave home everyday with a gun weighing them (and society) down.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. "All we need to do is (ban carrying guns/come to Jesus/quit eating meat/stop gay marriage).

You religious types are always ready with an 'answer' that is simple, direct, and (99% of the time) wrong.

[Hoyt]

28. That's funny considering guns and the religious right kind of go together in this country.

Care to address the post, or you just running your keyboard?

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Seeing as statistics don't seem to support the notion that 'gun laws define a society'...

...I gave your post all the consideration it deserves.

[Hoyt]

32. Lots of things get lost in stats you use to support 4% of population carrying guns in public.

The real shame is that we need "gun laws" for folks to act sensibly when it comes to guns, especially toting them.

[gejohnston]

39. They kind of do, but not always you think. There are churches on your side too, they fund

Brady and company when Joyce Foundation can't come up with cash to pay Helmke his $500K

[Blown330]

33. You definition of civilized...

...is rather dim and narrowly focused. Apparently the police and members of the armed forces aren't as civilized either. Which is total and complete bullcrap as many that carry are better educated and better equipped to handle responsibility than one such as yourself. And it is already a proven fact that those who lawfully carry are far less likely to commit any type of crime than the rest of the population. But we all know you don't inconvenience yourself with facts in these discussions.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Nope.

First you are wrong. The 85% or so who could qualify for a permit are just as law abiding as you.

Nope. As has been posted here many times before, the data clearly shows that CCW permit holders are less likely to be convicted of crimes than all of the rest of the population - even those who are eligible for a permit but choose not to do so.

And the reason should be obvious. Not only are CCW carries eligible to obtain CCW permits, but they are highly motivated law-abiders. While most people may obey the law just through going the motions of their daily lives. But people who go out of the way to abide by government regulations to undertake a voluntary, heavy, expensive responsibility must have a much higher sense of obligation to following the law than others.

And, they are more civilized, preferring not to leave the house everyday prepared to shoot another citizen.

Are policemen then less civilized than civilians? How about armed security guards?

You guys have twisted ways of looking at things if you think the 4% who pack are more law abiding than that other 85% who could easily qualify if they wanted to leave home everyday with a gun weighing them (and society) down.

So since 89% of the population is law-abiding, why are you so eager to enforce laws on behalf of the other 11% that mostly impact the 89%? Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Atypical Liberal]

53. So why pass laws that only impact 89% of the population?

If 85% of the population is just as law-abiding as the 4% of CCW permit holders (which isn't true, but anyways...), why pass laws aimed at the other 11% that instead affect those 89%?

[Union Scribe]

40. Is that what's causing your whining depression? nt

[krispos42]

49. So once the economy improves, we can start sewing yellow stars on sleeves again?

And green crescents? Yay!


No pink triangles, though... they're more than 4%.

[aikoaiko]

51. Most of the recent gun control bills would impact well beyond those who carry in public.

Anyone who might buy a rifle, shotgun, or pistol (for hunting, self-defense, competition, or recreation) with certain accessories or standard magazines would be impacted.

[Logical]

35. I do not think Obama gives a crap about guns. Much bigger battles to fight. n-t

[gejohnston]

37. Hope you are right about the first part, second part is definitely true.

[ileus]

46. No action from Obama on guns ...I think we all can agree we hope this continues.

[gejohnston]

50. I don't recall him promising anyone anything about guns nt

[aikoaiko]

52. Well, this is as close to a promise any politician will make..

On Change.gov under Crime and Law Enforcement of the Urban Policies section...

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.