Biden hints at Obama executive order (concerning guns)

[Bowfinger]

I don't know why there's really opposition to universal background checks. It just seems like common sense to me. If I were to ever sell a gun, I'd want to make sure it wasn't going to someone who couldn't legally own it, even if I had no liability for whatever they did with it. Gun shows and private sellers will work out a way to make it happen. It's as simple as finding an FFL holder with a computer and phone.

There should be a national mental health registry that can prevent someone from purchasing a gun. It should be somewhat difficult to get people on the registry and they should have a process that they can go through to get off of it.

There should be an armed police officer at each school. We already have one at each high school and middle school in my area. I see absolutely no reason to not do this, other than having to fund an extra officer's salary each year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the salaries of all faculty and staff at each school.

Semi-automatic weapons with various features (ex. bayonet lug, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, pistol grip, second hand grip, etc.) should not be banned. There is no proof that this will affect crime at all and limiting the rights of people to own scary looking guns is just a security theater type action, similar to TSA screenings. I feel like a majority of the people on the other side of the AWB debate just don't have a lot of knowledge on the topic.

Limiting magazine sizes will also do nothing. This only impacts mass shootings, which are a ridiculously small percentage of shootings in the US. Swapping a magazine only takes a couple of seconds. People talk about rushing an active shooter while they reload, but it just doesn't happen. Mass shootings almost always end with either the shooter killing himself or being shot by a citizen or officer.

Guns are not just for hunting and sport. The argument that you don't need a semi-automatic gun for those types of things has no bearing. Read the 2nd amendment for the major reason that the right to bear arms exists.

Using children and tragedy to play on people's emotions - people who don't even have the requisite knowledge to know what they are opposing or supporting - is despicable. The left and most sensible people said this about the Patriot Act. Some of these renewed gun control proposals are in the same vein - overreaching measures that have no demonstrable effect other than to infringe on the liberty of citizens.

Well said.

I need to think through it more, and learn more about the pros, cons, and costs, but I'm not inclined to support an armed officer in each school. It seems like another overreaction, an empty feel-good measure much like removing shoes at airport security. While the cost of such officers isn't out of reach, I really question the benefit. Can we really justify paying for tens of thousands of extra officers in the hope of maybe interrupting one event every few years? Do we really want to pay tens of thousands of highly-trained law enforcement professionals to sit on their thumbs for entire careers, never called to do anything more substantive than breaking up playground fights? Or would we lower our standards and hire a bunch of mall cops who would probably do more harm than good?

Also remember Columbine proved that such officers are not a guarantee of preventing such attacks. I do recognize, however, the deterrence value of having officers in every school. The crazies may just think twice if they know there's a chance of facing armed opposition. I wonder if we couldn't accomplish the same thing through more efficient approaches.

For example, what if we established a closer partnership between schools and local law enforcement across America? Instead of assigning a full time officer to each school, perhaps we could have some smaller number of officers continually moving among the areas' schools. Some would be highly visible, in marked cars and uniform. In addition to providing the LEO presence for a few hours, they would also would hold activities with the children, both to educate them and help them become more comfortable with law enforcement. That makes their time (and our investment) more effective.

Every community would also have some number of "covert" officers moving around, in personal vehicles and street clothes, much like air marshals. This would make it more difficult for a potential attacker to know where the officers are and are not.

Random thoughts.

 

[sigurros81]

Well said.

I need to think through it more, and learn more about the pros, cons, and costs, but I'm not inclined to support an armed officer in each school. It seems like another overreaction, an empty feel-good measure much like removing shoes at airport security. While the cost of such officers isn't out of reach, I really question the benefit. Can we really justify paying for tens of thousands of extra officers in the hope of maybe interrupting one event every few years? Do we really want to pay tens of thousands of highly-trained law enforcement professionals to sit on their thumbs for entire careers, never called to do anything more substantive than breaking up playground fights? Or would we lower our standards and hire a bunch of mall cops who would probably do more harm than good?

Also remember Columbine proved that such officers are not a guarantee of preventing such attacks. I do recognize, however, the deterrence value of having officers in every school. The crazies may just think twice if they know there's a chance of facing armed opposition. I wonder if we couldn't accomplish the same thing through more efficient approaches.

For example, what if we established a closer partnership between schools and local law enforcement across America? Instead of assigning a full time officer to each school, perhaps we could have some smaller number of officers continually moving among the areas' schools. Some would be highly visible, in marked cars and uniform. In addition to providing the LEO presence for a few hours, they would also would hold activities with the children, both to educate them and help them become more comfortable with law enforcement. That makes their time (and our investment) more effective.

Every community would also have some number of "covert" officers moving around, in personal vehicles and street clothes, much like air marshals. This would make it more difficult for a potential attacker to know where the officers are and are not.

Random thoughts.

Wow, to Bowfinger and JoshSquall, actual logical, sensible posts. Can we have more of this? LoL.

 

[jstern01]

Well said.

I need to think through it more, and learn more about the pros, cons, and costs, but I'm not inclined to support an armed officer in each school. It seems like another overreaction, an empty feel-good measure much like removing shoes at airport security. While the cost of such officers isn't out of reach, I really question the benefit. Can we really justify paying for tens of thousands of extra officers in the hope of maybe interrupting one event every few years? Do we really want to pay tens of thousands of highly-trained law enforcement professionals to sit on their thumbs for entire careers, never called to do anything more substantive than breaking up playground fights? Or would we lower our standards and hire a bunch of mall cops who would probably do more harm than good?

Also remember Columbine proved that such officers are not a guarantee of preventing such attacks. I do recognize, however, the deterrence value of having officers in every school. The crazies may just think twice if they know there's a chance of facing armed opposition. I wonder if we couldn't accomplish the same thing through more efficient approaches.

For example, what if we established a closer partnership between schools and local law enforcement across America? Instead of assigning a full time officer to each school, perhaps we could have some smaller number of officers continually moving among the areas' schools. Some would be highly visible, in marked cars and uniform. In addition to providing the LEO presence for a few hours, they would also would hold activities with the children, both to educate them and help them become more comfortable with law enforcement. That makes their time (and our investment) more effective.

Every community would also have some number of "covert" officers moving around, in personal vehicles and street clothes, much like air marshals. This would make it more difficult for a potential attacker to know where the officers are and are not.

Random thoughts.

There is no guarantee that these roving or covert officers would deter these nutcases. In fact its probably equivalent to no officer being present. The deterrence effect is a officer armed and present at the school/library/mall.... Get the problem. We do not have enough trained officers to cover all the possible targets of nutcases.

 

[HumblePie]

I guess we are going to have this in every school now ?

Personally I prefer just to allow teachers and/or administration that is willing to carry concealed and go through the proper training course (such as crisis scenario training) to carry. I'd feel far more comfortable with that.

 

[sigurros81]

There is no guarantee that these roving or covert officers would deter these nutcases. In fact its probably equivalent to no officer being present. The deterrence effect is a officer armed and present at the school/library/mall.... Get the problem. We do not have enough trained officers to cover all the possible targets of nutcases.

Yeah, the shooting at the mall, people still died, and aren't malls typically filled with security officers?

Again, I'm a liberal, but I have a problem with this knee-jerk reaction by Obama to ban 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines. All that does is make the liberals feel 'safer' when it's all an illusion. And all it will do to the gun-nuts is make them go buy more guns before the bans take effect. Bottom line, I won't be able to find any ammo for my gun at all

 

[cwjerome]

Personally I prefer just to allow teachers and/or administration that is willing to carry concealed and go through the proper training course (such as crisis scenario training) to carry. I'd feel far more comfortable with that.

More resource officers is good, but I agree with letting those school staff that want to be allowed to carry, with the right training.

 

[zinfamous]

There is no guarantee that these roving or covert officers would deter these nutcases. In fact its probably equivalent to no officer being present. The deterrence effect is a officer armed and present at the school/library/mall.... Get the problem. We do not have enough trained officers to cover all the possible targets of nutcases.

further, just look at the nutcases: VT, Aurora, Columbine--these guys show up armed to the teeth, often with vests. They are expecting armed opposition.

Odd that people assume that the potential for opposition is deterrence enough, which these individuals already prepare for opposition.

 

[Incorruptible]

further, just look at the nutcases: VT, Aurora, Columbine--these guys show up armed to the teeth, often with vests. They are expecting armed opposition.

Odd that people assume that the potential for opposition is deterrence enough, which these individuals already prepare for opposition.

Yet in many of the shootings the killers stopped and KILLED THEMSELVES once there was ARMED RESISTANCE.

These people are cowards like obama, they dont want resistance but prefer easy targets. How come they dont attack a police station or somewhere else with armed people? They want an easy target

 

[zinfamous]

Yet in many of the shootings the killers stopped and KILLED THEMSELVES once there was ARMED RESISTANCE.

Did you even read the argument, Francis? fucking try for once.

do you understand what "deterrence" means?

 

[jackstar7]

These people are cowards like obama, they dont want resistance but prefer easy targets. How come they dont attack a police station or somewhere else with armed people? They want an easy target

You're equating the President to these shooters. Your irresponsible rhetoric just jumped the sharktopus.

Welcome to my ignore.

 

[spidey07]

further, just look at the nutcases: VT, Aurora, Columbine--these guys show up armed to the teeth, often with vests. They are expecting armed opposition.

Odd that people assume that the potential for opposition is deterrence enough, which these individuals already prepare for opposition.

No they weren't, they were gun free zones. No opposition allowed.

Mass murders specifically target gun free zones every time.

 

[sigurros81]

Did you even read the argument, Francis? fucking try for once.

do you understand what "deterrence" means?

Incorruptible is the equivalence of the village idiot on these forums, he's too fucking stupid that people don't mind him hanging around just to hear what sort of dumb shit will spew out of his mouth next.

 

[Incorruptible]

You're equating the President to these shooters. Your irresponsible rhetoric just jumped the sharktopus.

Welcome to my ignore.

obama IS a coward like them but that doesn't mean I am equating him to them. Considering he used the Newtown tragedy to push for his agenda he deserves any criticism that he gets

Where was this defense when gwb was president and was compared to killers and hitler?

 

[PokerGuy]

Our pathetic idiot in chief has sunk to a new level of low. I wonder which constitutional amendment he'll try to curb stomp next

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No they weren't, they were gun free zones. No opposition allowed.

Mass murders specifically target gun free zones every time.

Every time huh? Care to support that comment?

 

[sigurros81]

Our pathetic idiot in chief has sunk to a new level of low. I wonder which constitutional amendment he'll try to curb stomp next

I'm guessing you haven't actually read the news in the past few hours, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you're another one of those pathetic drama queens?

 

[Incorruptible]

Our pathetic idiot in chief has sunk to a new level of low. I wonder which constitutional amendment he'll try to curb stomp next

Wont be surprised if that POS goes after free speech. Where are his supporters criticizing him? They would be outraged if bush did it to them

 

[Pens1566]

Our pathetic idiot in chief has sunk to a new level of low. I wonder which constitutional amendment he'll try to curb stomp next

What did today's announcement "curb stomp" other than the hysteric paranoia from gun nutjobs?

 

[Pens1566]

Wont be surprised if that POS goes after free speech. Where are his supporters criticizing him? They would be outraged if bush did it to them

Ahem, Bush was in favor of an AWB. Moron.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Every time huh? Care to support that comment?

Columbine
VT
Aurora
Newtown


All of the above shootings occurred in gun free zones.

 

[Incorruptible]

Ahem, Bush was in favor of an AWB. Moron.

And I was against bush, Moron

bush and obama are the same serving special interests and the MIC

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Columbine
VT
Aurora
Newtown


All of the above shootings occurred in gun free zones.

That's cherry picking.

How about an IHOP, Hair Salon, Arizona parking lot. Those gun free too?

 

[cwjerome]

What did today's announcement "curb stomp" other than the hysteric paranoia from gun nutjobs?

Yes, hysteria. When Sandy Hook happened, the gun rights people were cautious and wary about politicians jumping the gun control bandwagon, yet the Libs laughed and said we were hysterical. Then we were "hysterical" over national level politicians, bureaucrats, media types, and "celebrities" ramping up the vicious anti-gun rhetoric. But we were warned not to be hysterical. Then policymakers at the national and a slew of others at the state level began introducing a wide range of restrictive gun control measures... but we were being hysterical. Then multiple states quickly started passing actual laws and Obama goes on TV and states an AWB should be re-instated, along with magazine restrictions, but damnit, the Libs say we are still just hysterical. And the whole time dimwits from internet forums and other sources continually misrepresent the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or outright oppose it entirely. But, we're still being hysterical.

Wow, I'm starting to think you people only say that to help silence opposition while you ramrod shit down people's throats. That couldn't be it, you're right, there's nothing to be worried about.

 

[conehead433]

Wow at all the nut jobs posting here. Nothing has been passed yet by Congress to limit high capacity magazines or military style assault rifles. The second ammendment guarantees you the right to posess firearms, not that that necessarily included bazookas, stinger missle launchers, as well as the aforementioned. The AWB had been law in the past and to my knowledge no President was impeached for signing it into law. Making everyone go through background checks to purchase guns is only common sense and I don't see how any of the executive orders the president signed today infringe on anyone's 2nd ammendment rights.
With that said I think everyone here knows the problem is not the types of guns, or even high capacity magazines; it's the nut jobs who get a hold of them with the intent of killing as many people as possible and usually in a place where there will be little to no resistance. Asking people in the Pscyh profession to report those they think might be a threat will probably do little or nothing as knowing that to be the case most patients will clam up. If friends and family had reported the odd behavior of some of these mass murderers to the authorities maybe one or more could have been stopped. It's sad to think that we want armed guards in schools or even having teachers' arm themselves to try to stop anything like this. So I don't have an answer either, except that more people should carry, maybe even the teachers with proper training. There was a town once that passed a law that required everyone to be armed. I bet they didn't have any crimes committed with guns either.

 

[fskimospy]

Columbine
VT
Aurora
Newtown


All of the above shootings occurred in gun free zones.

Columbine and VT also occurred at places with armed guards.

Whoops.