2013 Gun Control Proposals: The Subtle Tyranny of Ineffective Action

«‹›96 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2013 Gun Control Proposals: The Subtle Tyranny of Ineffective Action

Joementum: May 23, 2004; I said a million dollars. With a million dollars (unintelligible) clemency. You couldn't do it till after the '74 elections. That's an incriminating thing. His, his word against the President's.

If you're coming back to this with the attitude, "that other thread probably got closed because of other peoples' bad posting, but certainly not mine because I'm always right

", you're mistaken.

There is currently momentum to enact gun control reforms at the state and federal level in the United States.
This is where you post good information about what is happening.
This is where you post politely, voice your opinions articulately and try to understand everyone's point of view, even if it isn't exactly what you believe.
This is where you will stay on topic, which is the reforms currently under consideration in the United States in the year 2013.
This is where you will be put on probation for making comparisons to Hitler and Stalin.
This is where you will be put on probation for talking about overthrowing the government of the United States.
This is where you will get banned if you act like an rear end in a top hat.
This is where you will show D&D and the rest of the forums that you are intelligent and capable of discussing this topic without resorting to ridicule and hyperbole.

This is also currently a discussion on this topic in TFR.

Here is a list of the proposals Obama announced. Additional details at the White House website.

quote:

Calls to Congress

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

End the freeze on gun violence research.

Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

Executive Actions

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Here is the text of the three executive orders Obama has already signed.

Tracing Firearms

Public Health Research

National Instant Criminal Background Check System

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2013 05:07

Kommienzuspadt: Apr 28, 2004; This bear is tops blooby

This was posted in the TFR version of this thread.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/b...kground-checks/

quote:

During the National Rifle Association�s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president�s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: �And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don�t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.�

Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 � required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm � is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge�s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Baker, the NRA�s director of federal affairs, told TheDC that he was given five minutes to present the NRA�s concerns and the approach the group saw as being the most effective to prevent another massacre like the Newtown, Conn. shooting. During those five minutes, he said, he mentioned the need to prosecute existing gun laws.

He pointed to the low number of prosecutions for information falsification and the relatively low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes.

Biden was apparently unmoved by Baker�s concern.

In 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.

In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check.

�We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws,� Baker told TheDC.

�If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now,� he added.

Gun prosecutions in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration�s peak in 2004, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA�s Institute for Legislative Action, said he was shocked by the administration�s lack of interest in pursuing individuals who lied to obtain a firearm.

�They don�t have time to pursue people who are dangerous, who aren�t supposed to get guns, and the message they have sent is literally �Good luck, go get them elsewhere,�� Cox said in an interview with TheDC.

Cox reiterated that he believes the real issues the country needs to deal with are mental health and crime, and he stressed the importance of enforcing and prosecuting existing laws.

�You can talk all you want,� Cox said, �but until there is a will to follow through, then it is literally just going to paper over the problem and guarantee that bad people continue to have access to firearms and good people will be blamed for it.�

Vice President Biden�s press office did not respond to requests for comment.

Keep in mind that the form 4473 is the form that you fill out when you do a background check. Closing the "gun show loophole" would force all firearms sales, whether they be from a licensed dealer (aka an FFL) or a private individual, to go through this process.

Kommienzuspadt fucked around with this message at Jan 19, 2013 around 20:28

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:25

Joementum: May 23, 2004; I said a million dollars. With a million dollars (unintelligible) clemency. You couldn't do it till after the '74 elections. That's an incriminating thing. His, his word against the President's.

That's probably why they're asking Congress for additional funding for law enforcement.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:28

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Please someone tell me that the "freeze on gun violence research" is not what it sounds like. How could such a thing be.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:31

Nunya: Apr 3, 2010; READER ALERT: YOUR IGNORE LIST IS INCOMPLETE

Joementum posted:

That's probably why they're asking Congress for additional funding for law enforcement.

Or they have no intentions of prosecuting people for existing crimes and have no intention of prosecuting people for future crimes and this is all security theater.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:31

Kommienzuspadt: Apr 28, 2004; This bear is tops blooby

Joementum posted:

That's probably why they're asking Congress for additional funding for law enforcement.

If I remember correctly, wouldn't it be the A.G. or the state DA who would be doing the prosecution? Not the ATF or other federal/state LEAs.

For the record I am totally fine with - and actually would be kind of happy - with the closure of the "gun show loophole." That is, requiring all firearms sales to go through an FFL. This is only provided that they set a price cap on the cost of the transfer. If I want to buy a gun from somebody but all the local gun stores can tack on 150 dollars on top of the sale price, it becomes excessively burdensome and creates an artificial monopoly on the sales of firearms.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:33

eSports Chaebol: Feb 22, 2005; Support the International Campaign to Ban Spider Mines

ANIME AKBAR posted:

Please someone tell me that the "freeze on gun violence research" is not what it sounds like. How could such a thing be.

From craziest to most charitable answers:

The CDC is a liberal anti-gun establishment that disregards facts to push their agenda. Also "public health" doesn't exist because society doesn't exist � la Thatcher
Doctors are generally ignorant of guns and gun politics and unqualified to perform studies that are likely to be biased since doctors' primary experience with guns is dealing with gunshot wounds, not dealing with responsible gun owners
Gun control is wholly a political issue, not a public health issue, and studying the methods of violence rather than the causes of violence is fruitless

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:36

Joementum: May 23, 2004; I said a million dollars. With a million dollars (unintelligible) clemency. You couldn't do it till after the '74 elections. That's an incriminating thing. His, his word against the President's.

Kommienzuspadt posted:

If I remember correctly, wouldn't it be the A.G. or the state DA who would be doing the prosecution? Not the ATF or other federal/state LEAs.

Right, the DoJ would handle prosecution or hand it off to the states. The FBI and ATF are investigative and enforcement divisions of the DoJ.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:36

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; REMEMBER ME!

Kommienzuspadt posted:

If I remember correctly, wouldn't it be the A.G. or the state DA who would be doing the prosecution? Not the ATF or other federal/state LEAs.

For the record I am totally fine with - and actually would be kind of happy - with the closure of the "gun show loophole." That is, requiring all firearms sales to go through an FFL. This is only provided that they set a price cap on the cost of the transfer. If I want to buy a gun from somebody but all the local gun stores can tack on 150 dollars on top of the sale price, it becomes excessively burdensome and creates an artificial monopoly on the sales of firearms.

Note for those not in the know, this isn't some ridiculous hypothetical. Some FFLs give reasonable rates to cover their time and hassle, others give punitive rates to try to "encourage" people to buy directly from them instead. When you're in a place with limited choices that matters.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:37

SedanChair: Jun 1, 2003; Farrakhan/Alex Jones 2016

ANIME AKBAR posted:

Please someone tell me that the "freeze on gun violence research" is not what it sounds like. How could such a thing be.

From the NRA's perspective, the CDC was sticking its nose where it didn't belong and was bringing a political agenda to gun violence research from the outset.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:38

Kommienzuspadt: Apr 28, 2004; This bear is tops blooby

eSports Chaebol posted:

From craziest to most charitable answers:

The CDC is a liberal anti-gun establishment that disregards facts to push their agenda. Also "public health" doesn't exist because society doesn't exist � la Thatcher

Doctors are generally ignorant of guns and gun politics and unqualified to perform studies that are likely to be biased since doctors' primary experience with guns is dealing with gunshot wounds, not dealing with responsible gun owners

Gun control is wholly a political issue, not a public health issue, and studying the methods of violence rather than the causes of violence is fruitless

I think the real fear was that, one way or another, an empirical study from the CDC would have a lot of sway among citizens and lawmakers and could be used to push forward new gun control legislation. Or some such. I think the NRA was worried about putting that kind of power in the hands of a bunch of unelected physicians and scientists/statisticians.

I don't really have a problem with the CDC being empowered do research on firearms. They have done so in the past and were in my opinion pretty neutral.

I can post a link to the CDC's evaluation of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban if there is interest. They basically said they couldn't draw any conclusions on its efficacy one way or another due to the flaws in available published research (it was a review).

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:40

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The Screw Whisperer (TM)

Kommienzuspadt posted:

I think the real fear was that, one way or another, an empirical study from the CDC would have a lot of sway among citizens and lawmakers and could be used to push forward new gun control legislation. Or some such. I think the NRA was worried about putting that kind of power in the hands of a bunch of unelected physicians and scientists/statisticians.

I don't really have a problem with the CDC being empowered do research on firearms. They have done so in the past and were in my opinion pretty neutral.

I can post a link to the CDC's evaluation of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban if there is interest. They basically said they couldn't draw any conclusions on its efficacy one way or another due to the flaws in available published research (it was a review).

That is the thing though: A lot of those further to the right believe studies carried out by any agency even remotely related to the Government are flawed or biased, while every so often this may be true, its generally false.

I've cited things like the NOAA/NASA/DoD showing Climate Change and they just dismiss it as government conspiracy/bias, I think they'd do the same with the CDC.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:44

Kommienzuspadt: Apr 28, 2004; This bear is tops blooby

CommieGIR posted:

That is the thing though: A lot of those further to the right believe studies carried out by any agency even remotely related to the Government are flawed or biased, while every so often this may be true, its generally false.

I've cited things like the NOAA/NASA/DoD showing Climate Change and they just dismiss it as government conspiracy/bias, I think they'd do the same with the CDC.

I don't think that confirmation bias is unique to the political right, though it does seem to be worse in those who have little formal education.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:49

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The Screw Whisperer (TM)

Kommienzuspadt posted:

I don't think that confirmation bias is unique to the political right, though it does seem to be worse in those who have little formal education.

Oh no, it is in no way unique, but its more of an emerging problem from the right, especially among the Tea Partiers.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:51

Space Monster: Mar 13, 2009

What are armor piercing bullets again? What are assault weapons again?

Good thing we're banning them. Reposting from TFR because its a good breakdown: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:54

Internet Webguy: Apr 19, 2007; LUCKY DUCK

SedanChair posted:

From the NRA's perspective, the CDC was sticking its nose where it didn't belong and was bringing a political agenda to gun violence research from the outset.

Maybe if we have two groups who are both extreme in views and methods we'll come out with moderate legislation that can please both sides.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 21:00

eSports Chaebol: Feb 22, 2005; Support the International Campaign to Ban Spider Mines

Space Monster posted:

What are armor piercing bullets again?

Is this really so controversial? I don't think reasonable people have much of a problem, for example, with SS190 being unavailable for civilian purchase; the crazy part is stuff like trying specifically to ban the Five-Seven regardless.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 21:53

Butch Cassidy: Jul 28, 2010; Hey there partner!

eSports Chaebol posted:

Is this really so controversial? I don't think reasonable people have much of a problem, for example, with SS190 being unavailable for civilian purchase...

Armor piercing ammo generally performs like FMJ in soft tissue and unless most people go about in armor, banning it is pretty pointless. There is really nothing special about it, especially considering that FMJ will go through a standard cop vest (designed to stop pistol rounds) to begin with.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:07

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; REMEMBER ME!

eSports Chaebol posted:

Is this really so controversial? I don't think reasonable people have much of a problem, for example, with SS190 being unavailable for civilian purchase; the crazy part is stuff like trying specifically to ban the Five-Seven regardless.

That's the thing. Some proposals have made "armor piercing" standards that cover pretty much every rifle round, then there was the panic and ensuing state laws against teflon coatings that don't actually affect penetration. And then there's the people who speak of anything jacketed as "armor piercing." I don't think anyone who really knows what different ammo types really are disagrees much about what's actually armor-piercing, but lots of people don't fall in that category, and a lot of those are suggesting laws. Making sure everyone in the discussion knows what is actually being discussed is useful for reasonable laws no matter where you think the lines should be drawn.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:12

Joementum: May 23, 2004; I said a million dollars. With a million dollars (unintelligible) clemency. You couldn't do it till after the '74 elections. That's an incriminating thing. His, his word against the President's.

For clarity, it should be mentioned that the proposed restrictions on armor piercing bullets only apply to those that are already illegal to manufacture.

quote:

It is already illegal to manufacture and import armor-piercing ammunition except for military or law enforcement use. But it is generally still not illegal to possess or transfer this dangerous ammunition. Congress should finish the job of protecting law enforcement and the public by banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by, and its transfer to, anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:14

Stew Man Chew: Sep 14, 2008; Permission to treat the witness as hostile?

ANIME AKBAR posted:

Please someone tell me that the "freeze on gun violence research" is not what it sounds like. How could such a thing be.

There was a story on NPR the other day about this. It's a real and completely horseshit complication of NRA lobbying efforts.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:16

notaspy: Mar 22, 2009

Space Monster posted:

What are armor piercing bullets again? What are assault weapons again?

Good thing we're banning them. Reposting from TFR because its a good breakdown: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Well I'm convinced, Ban All Guns now.

Seriously, why is the CDC responsible for researching gun related deaths? Or has its remit extended beyond diseases? Oh, and would it be possible to ban hand guns or is that political suicide?

notaspy fucked around with this message at Jan 19, 2013 around 22:40

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:24

Emanuel Collective: Jan 16, 2008

SedanChair posted:

From the NRA's perspective, the CDC was sticking its nose where it didn't belong and was bringing a political agenda to gun violence research from the outset.

The NRA hasn't limited it's anti-research agenda to the CDC: the NIH was blocked last year from gun research, and in 2003 the ATF was forbidden from giving researchers gun violence data.

The anti-research measures are pretty scummy-in addition to being a blatantly political restriction on thr scientific process, it implies the NRA fears the results that a peer reviewed study may find.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:24

Peven Stan: Feb 1, 2006

notaspy posted:

Well I'm convinced, Ban All Guns now.

Seriously why is the CDC responsible for researching gun related deaths? Or has its remit extended beyond diseases? Oh, and would it be possible to ban hand guns or is that political suicide?

The CDC considers researching many things to be in the interest of public health. For example, they research domestic violence and obesity even though those aren't strictly infectious diseases.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:27

BexGu: Jan 9, 2004; This fucking day....

notaspy posted:

Well I'm convinced, Ban All Guns now.

Seriously why is the CDC responsible for researching gun related deaths? Or has its remit extended beyond diseases? Oh, and would it be possible to ban hand guns or is that political suicide?

Honestly I'd rather the FBI handled it, they already have a pretty good 2011 breakdown of Murder Circumstances by weapon.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-11

Or better yet, let the FBI and CDC do both and then can compare stats and data found.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:29

Sancho: Jul 18, 2003

BexGu posted:

Or better yet, let the FBI and CDC do both and then can compare stats and data found.

Seriously I'd rather have more parties studying this than fewer. Information is awesome.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:33

SedanChair: Jun 1, 2003; Farrakhan/Alex Jones 2016

What I wonder is, now that the Republican party base has been newly unified, broadened and reinvigorated by Biden's proposals, will a chastened Democratic party continue to hold onto gun control after midterm and 2016 losses?

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:34

Cream_Filling: Sep 11, 2005; More generally, I worry that the whole 'animal rights' viewpoint is sort of decadent or even dangerous since it can serve to reduce the value of human life when it tries to elevate the value of animal lives.

notaspy posted:

Well I'm convinced, Ban All Guns now.

Seriously why is the CDC responsible for researching gun related deaths? Or has its remit extended beyond diseases? Oh, and would it be possible to ban hand guns or is that political suicide?

The CDC isn't strictly limited to just infectious diseases. They also study occupational health and safety as one of their core duties, along with accidents and violence. The primary mission of the CDC is to monitor health. They have a lot of expertise in the area of, epidemiology and biostatistics, and would be on my short list if I wanted to some people who could collect and monitor population health information.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:34

Emanuel Collective: Jan 16, 2008

BexGu posted:

Honestly I'd rather the FBI handled it, they already have a pretty good 2011 breakdown of Murder Circumstances by weapon.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-11

Or better yet, let the FBI and CDC do both and then can compare stats and data found.

The FBI isn't really in the business of researching public health.

The entire argument is absolutely absurd regardless. The ban is on any research that could contribute to gun control legislation. It's ordering the CDC to do nothing with information in order to protect Congress from itself.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:38

Joementum: May 23, 2004; I said a million dollars. With a million dollars (unintelligible) clemency. You couldn't do it till after the '74 elections. That's an incriminating thing. His, his word against the President's.

SedanChair posted:

What I wonder is, now that the Republican party base has been newly unified, broadened and reinvigorated by Biden's proposals, will a chastened Democratic party continue to hold onto gun control after midterm and 2016 losses?

I wouldn't hold your breath. Republicans in Congress have a 19-76 or 26-49 Approve-Disapprove line and appear to be disarming on holding the debt ceiling hostage. Barring actual unpopular legislation passing on this issue (an impossibility) gun rights will remain a niche topic and the 2014 midterms will focus on the economy, which is the outsize issue in any US election.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:43

Peven Stan: Feb 1, 2006

SedanChair posted:

What I wonder is, now that the Republican party base has been newly unified, broadened and reinvigorated by Biden's proposals, will a chastened Democratic party continue to hold onto gun control after midterm and 2016 losses?

Take it easy Chicken Little, you might have forgotten about the Republican party is divided on immigration, handling of the fiscal cliff, and almost every major issue coming up. They're so disorganized the current speaker of the House breaks the hastert rule left and right to get bills passed and are proffering a 3 month reprieve on the debt ceiling to work out a cohesive strategy that doesn't exist yet. Any gun bill should be able to pass with Boehner breaking the Hastert rule again to get it passed with the Democratic seats + NE and other moderate republicans.

Also see the pew research poll I posted last go around about how gun control tests well minorities, but apparently that might hurt white people's feelings.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:45

Emanuel Collective: Jan 16, 2008

SedanChair posted:

What I wonder is, now that the Republican party base has been newly unified, broadened and reinvigorated by Biden's proposals, will a chastened Democratic party continue to hold onto gun control after midterm and 2016 losses?

Why do you suggest these proposals will be bad for the Democrats? The latest polling we have on the issue shows the proposals are popular, some universally so:

New York Times posted:

The massacre of children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., appears to be profoundly swaying Americans� views on guns, galvanizing the broadest support for stricter gun laws in about a decade, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

As President Obama tries to persuade a reluctant Congress to pass new gun laws, the poll found that a majority of Americans � 54 percent � think gun control laws should be tightened, up markedly from a CBS News poll last April that found that only 39 percent backed stricter laws.

The rise in support for stricter gun laws stretched across political lines, including an 18-point increase among Republicans. A majority of independents now back stricter gun laws.

Whether the Newtown shooting � in which 20 first graders and 6 adults were killed � will have a long-term effect on public opinion of gun laws is hard to assess just a month after the rampage. But unlike the smaller increases in support for gun control immediately after other mass shootings, including after the 2011 shooting in Tucson that severely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the latest polling results suggest a deeper, and possibly more resonating, shift.

In terms of specific gun proposals being considered, the poll found even wider support, including among gun owners.

The idea of requiring background checks on all gun purchases, which would eliminate a provision that allows about 40 percent of guns to be sold by unlicensed sellers without checks, was overwhelmingly popular. Nine in 10 Americans would favor such a law, the poll found � including 9 in 10 of the respondents who said that there was a gun in their household, and 85 percent whose households include National Rifle Association members.

A ban on high-capacity magazines, like the 15- and 30-round magazines that have been used in several recent mass shootings, was supported by more than 6 in 10, and by a majority of those who live in households with guns. And just over half of all respondents, 53 percent, said they would support a ban on some semiautomatic weapons.

After the mass shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Tucson in 2011, polls found that 47 percent of Americans favored stricter gun laws.

�I�m from a rural area in the South, I grew up in a gun culture, my father hunted,� Leslie Hodges, a 64-year-old graphic artist who lives in Atlanta and has a gun, said in a follow-up interview. �However, I don�t believe being able to have a gun keeps you from thinking reasonably about changes that would keep someone from walking into a school and being able to kill 20 children in 20 seconds. I think that we can say, O.K., we want the freedom to have guns in this country, but there are rules we can all agree to that will make us all safer.�

The poll also gave an indication of the state of play in Washington at the outset of what is expected to be a fierce debate over the nation�s gun laws, as the National Rifle Association and several members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the House, have criticized the gun control measures that Mr. Obama proposed Wednesday and have vowed to block them.

Americans said that they trusted the president over Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions about gun laws by a margin of 47 percent to 39 percent, the poll found.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby, is viewed favorably by nearly 4 in 10 Americans, the poll found. All told, 38 percent said that they had a favorable opinion of the group, while 29 percent had a negative view and the rest had no opinion. The N.R.A. was viewed positively by 54 percent of those with guns in their homes.

But the group is deeply unpopular with people in households without guns, who were twice as likely to have a negative view of the N.R.A. as a positive one: 41 percent of them expressed a negative view of it, while only 20 percent expressed a positive one.

The survey underscored how common guns in America are: 47 percent of those surveyed said that they or someone in their household owned a gun, and 31 percent had close friends or relatives who did. The top reasons cited for owning guns were protection and hunting.

The national poll was conducted by land lines and cellphones from Jan. 11 to Jan. 15, before the president announced his proposals to curb gun violence. It surveyed 1,110 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

And lest you think that the minority can ride their militant enthusiasm over this issue to huge gains, well, look how that worked for the GOP in November.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:45

Phone: Jul 30, 2005; brb, shortcut

This happened locally down the street from me: http://www.wral.com/two-people-inju...-show/12000843/

quote:

Visitors are supposed to allow security officials to check in weapons, Keith said, but the man removed the gun from its case before personnel had a chance to handle it. The shotgun was laying flat on a table when it discharged.

It might just be bad writing, but it sounds like the gun randomly went off. I think that this is an example of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner as well as the causal attitude surrounding guns. Luckily only two people wound up with minor injuries, but it should have been zero.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:47

Joementum: May 23, 2004; I said a million dollars. With a million dollars (unintelligible) clemency. You couldn't do it till after the '74 elections. That's an incriminating thing. His, his word against the President's.

Peven Stan posted:

Any gun bill should be able to pass with Boehner breaking the Hastert rule again to get it passed with the Democratic seats + NE and other moderate republicans.

I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised to see Boehner break the Hastert rule on this issue. That'll be reserved for things where full opposition would truly hurt the party. While many of the gun control measures here are popular when polled, what is not shown is the magnitude of people's approval for them. I suspect that this is an issue where there is a small minority on either side that care very deeply and a much broader center that thinks a few reforms would be nice, but would rather Congress focus on the budget and the economy.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:50

SedanChair: Jun 1, 2003; Farrakhan/Alex Jones 2016

I wasn't talking about Republican legislators suddenly being unified. They'll never be able to govern. But the base is now completely unified, has cast off their differences and is pointed in one direction: at the electoral defeat of any Dem who has signaled any support for Biden's proposals. Differences on immigration and the rest of it have faded utterly into the background.

As for polling support for gun control, it's skin-deep, waning and you know it.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 22:56

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005; TEAM LIBERAL
Defending and rationalizing Democratic policy since 2008
Please note: I represent the farthest left of allowed D&D discussion. Going beyond this point may result in probation

SedanChair posted:

I wasn't talking about Republican legislators suddenly being unified. They'll never be able to govern. But the base is now completely unified, has cast off their differences and is pointed in one direction: at the electoral defeat of any Dem who has signaled any support for Biden's proposals. Differences on immigration and the rest of it have faded utterly into the background.

As for polling support for gun control, it's skin-deep, waning and you know it.

I've not seen any polling that suggests this is actually happening.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:00

Peven Stan: Feb 1, 2006

Joementum posted:

I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised to see Boehner break the Hastert rule on this issue. That'll be reserved for things where full opposition would truly hurt the party. While many of the gun control measures here are popular when polled, what is not shown is the magnitude of people's approval for them. I suspect that this is an issue where there is a small minority on either side that care very deeply and a much broader center that thinks a few reforms would be nice, but would rather Congress focus on the budget and the economy.

Same, but for the outraged suburban mom vote I can hope that moderate Republicans in more urban districts will vote for a new gun law package and sell it back to their districts as keeping their kids safe while respecting the 2nd Amendment. It's a flash in the pan issue right now but 2013 just began and if any more events happen like Newtown you can expect public pressure to ramp.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:00

Cream_Filling: Sep 11, 2005; More generally, I worry that the whole 'animal rights' viewpoint is sort of decadent or even dangerous since it can serve to reduce the value of human life when it tries to elevate the value of animal lives.

SedanChair posted:

I wasn't talking about Republican legislators suddenly being unified. They'll never be able to govern. But the base is now completely unified, has cast off their differences and is pointed in one direction: at the electoral defeat of any Dem who has signaled any support for Biden's proposals. Differences on immigration and the rest of it have faded utterly into the background.

As for polling support for gun control, it's skin-deep, waning and you know it.

Seriously, I was really hoping for some soul-searching and massive turmoil in the Republican base following their electoral defeat. Instead, we've ended up putting a lot of them straight back into siege mode, where rational thinking comes in dead last. It's a huge step back right at a time when smart politicking could have put in some serious blows against the worst parts of the party establishment - including the NRA, which was sounding more and more insane and detached from reality in response to Newtown before the proposed AWB made their paranoid ravings actually sort of come true.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:03

Harrower: Nov 30, 2002; Putting small sons in the dumpster.

Phone posted:

This happened locally down the street from me: http://www.wral.com/two-people-inju...-show/12000843/

It might just be bad writing, but it sounds like the gun randomly went off. I think that this is an example of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner as well as the causal attitude surrounding guns. Luckily only two people wound up with minor injuries, but it should have been zero.

Guns don't randomly go off on their own. Except maybe in the rare circumstance they were damaged or modified. "The gun just went off" is pretty much always rear end covering by people who don't want to get in trouble. There was a round chambered, and some one pulled the trigger. Now it may have been legitimately accidental. Some ones hand can slip, or maybe two people grabbed it at the same time, etc. Trying to say it just went off with zero outside influence is pure bull poo poo.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 22, 2013 05:07

Neophyte: Apr 23, 2006; perennially

I was around during the 90's gun control push, and my (admittedly biased and anecdotal) opinion is that the backlash against the CDC came about because the attempts to make gun violence a public health issue was seen as a partisan attempt to do an end-run around resistance against gun control by turning it into a medical issue, short-circuiting most of the normal political objections.

Medical studies, mostly (in)famously by this guy, were widely trumpeted as showing how guns are awful and terrible - you can't argue against it! It's science!

Well, it was bad science, which should come as no surprise since most doctors aren't criminologists, sociologists, or even statisticians.

Whether or not you agree with Kellerman's conclusions, these (again IMO) wobbly studies back then by no means should have been used as political ammunition to try and make sweeping changes in a fundamental political issue like firearm ownership. I believe, and other gun-owners did as well, that the CDC and the medical community as a whole violated the trust we placed in them by entering into the political fray on such flimsy scientific grounds.

Now, was the moratorium on all gun-related violent crime research an overreaction? Personally I think so. But I hope my explanation shows that it wasn't something that happened out of the blue because the NRA/gun owners are a bunch of mustache-twirling villians - even if you think we're hilariously wrong.

Personally, I support increased research into preventing gun (well, really all) violence. And if the CDC and the medical community can provide valuable insights or help in that cause, great! But they had drat well better have all their methodological ducks in a row this time around, and be able to actually approach this extremely divisive issue in an neutral, even-handed, and factual manner.

# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:05

«‹›96 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2013 Gun Control Proposals: The Subtle Tyranny of Ineffective Action