Obama to Consider Executive Actions on Gun Violence

[UglyCasanova]

I would agree with most of the posters so far that gun control (whatever form it takes) won't really do anything. And what is it that we are trying to do anyways? Prevent homicides? Suicides? Mass shootings?

I think that the US has a culture problem, and that is not something that can be addressed legislatively. Passing laws to restrict gun rights isn't going to solve that problem.

 

[Subyman]

I would be very much in favor of increased restrictions on gun ownership, but it will be hard to implement any valuable ones without legislation.

Statistically, owning a gun is generally a foolish idea if your personal safety is of primary consideration. Until we change how our laws are structured though, people have the right to make that dumb decision.

Of course owning something that could be dangerous will statistically be detrimental to a large sample size. We could look at other statistics and come to the same conclusion with many household items. We weigh risks throughout our lives and for many, many people gun ownership, when handled responsibly, is a safe practice.

With that said, I think guns need to be treated more along the lines that we treat cars. I know the mere mention of that gets people's heads spinning, but I think it is a step in the right direction. IL already has a FOID card (firearm owners ID.) IMO we should have a federal license that requires coursework and written and hands-on testing.

Accidental gun deaths do not compare to the number of gun related homicides, but we not only educate people about guns we would also be administering the universal background checks during the licensure process.

Something I think universal background checks will do is create a large black market. I see us doing a War on Guns in the next 20 years...

 

[Subyman]

I would agree with most of the posters so far that gun control (whatever form it takes) won't really do anything. And what is it that we are trying to do anyways? Prevent homicides? Suicides? Mass shootings?

I think that the US has a culture problem, and that is not something that can be addressed legislatively. Passing laws to restrict gun rights isn't going to solve that problem.

I think mass shootings are stopped only on a case by case basis. Making guns marginally harder to obtain likely won't have an affect on mass shootings. Suicides shouldn't be a gun statistic IMO. People that are highly depressed and want to die will find a way. A gun is the most convenient.

 

[shady28]

With that said, I think guns need to be treated more along the lines that we treat cars. I know the mere mention of that gets people's heads spinning, but I think it is a step in the right direction. IL already has a FOID card (firearm owners ID.) IMO we should have a federal license that requires coursework and written and hands-on testing.
...

The problem with this is the many, many continued examples of slippery slopes.

Before Australia conducted their gun confiscation program, they implemented mass registration. In Britain, some retailers require a purchaser to produce proof of age to purchase a knife (because knife incidents spiked after guns were removed). There's a movement there to collect / ban all 'pointy' knives.

The most logical way to compromise would be to both strengthen the right to purchase and own firearms, while simultaneously requiring registration and proof of ability to safely operate that firearm. It would really need an amendment to the constitution, clarifying both the rights and the power to license and require training. Unlike cars, weapons are a constitutional right in this country.

But that is not the objective of organizations trying to place laws on gun ownership. I've read many left-side articles which essentially state a tactic of 'do what we can, when we can, until we can eventually get a ban' (that's a link to such an article).

In the face of those manipulative tactics and stated intent to follow the slippery slope path, there should be no question as to why gun advocates / supporters / lobbyists don't bend and fight every and all moves on gun control.

 

[Subyman]

The problem with this is the many, many continued examples of slippery slopes.

Before Australia conducted their gun confiscation program, they implemented mass registration. In Britain, some retailers require a purchaser to produce proof of age to purchase a knife (because knife incidents spiked after guns were removed). There's a movement there to collect / ban all 'pointy' knives.

The most logical way to compromise would be to both strengthen the right to purchase and own firearms, while simultaneously requiring registration and proof of ability to safely operate that firearm. It would really need an amendment to the constitution, clarifying both the rights and the power to license and require training. Unlike cars, weapons are a constitutional right in this country.

But that is not the objective of organizations trying to place laws on gun ownership. I've read many left-side articles which essentially state a tactic of 'do what we can, when we can, until we can eventually get a ban' (that's a link to such an article).

In the face of those manipulative tactics and stated intent to follow the slippery slope path, there should be no question as to why gun advocates / supporters / lobbyists don't bend and fight every and all moves on gun control.

I understand the worry of slippery slope. I think the best way to implement this would be to grandfather it in over a generation. Any NEW purchase would need the license and any time gun ownership changes hands, you'd need a license. So grand pappy's gun going to his grand son would need the grand son to be licensed. They wouldn't go around collecting guns from people who are not registered or choose not to be registered.

Getting licensed is a huge step away from taking guns away.

 

[Sonikku]

Gun violence isn't a statistically significant problem for law abiding citizens. It is mostly a problem for suicide victims, gang members ,and other criminals. You can solve far more problems with a stroke of a pen than gun control against law abiding citizens.

This was basically my point. Laws aren't going to fix anything as the people obeying gun laws are pretty much not the type of people breaking the law with homicides. The issue with gun violence is with criminals, but those are the group that will be largely unaffected by more laws. We basically have to resign ourselves to the reality that widespread gun violence in this country is a fact of life as nothing we do can really fix the problem. Only inconvenience legitimate users.

 

[michal1980]

So what are the libs going to give up for more gun control? isn't that how comprise works?

 

[ultimatebob]

Just another ploy to increase gun sales/improve the economy. Gun sales have been very brisk this holiday season (record sales on black Friday). I bet many are being sold today and will continue to be bought in record numbers until whatever feel good, do nothing executive order is put forth this time.

He's right, you know. If you bought $1,000 of Cabela's stock in early 2009 when Obama took office it would be worth $10,000 now. Obama probably did more to stimulate the gun industry simply be being elected than he did with any other business sector.

 

[highland145]

So what are the libs going to give up for more gun control? isn't that how comprise works?

Eff no. The republitards will agree to the worst deal that they can get. I hate all of them.

 

[Zodiark1593]

This was basically my point. Laws aren't going to fix anything as the people obeying gun laws are pretty much not the type of people breaking the law with homicides. The issue with gun violence is with criminals, but those are the group that will be largely unaffected by more laws. We basically have to resign ourselves to the reality that widespread gun violence in this country is a fact of life as nothing we do can really fix the problem. Only inconvenience legitimate users.

Agreed. Kinda like Pandora's box, guns are here to stay, for better or worse.

 

[Kwatt]

He's right, you know. If you bought $1,000 of Cabela's stock in early 2009 when Obama was elected, it would be worth $10,000 now. Obama probably did more to stimulate the gun industry simply be being elected than he did with any other business sector.

Gives me an idea!
I may go to Cabela's and see what they got. If I make a purchase it will improve the economy and make one less firearm available to somebody who is up to no good. Win-Win. Find one made in the US and its a Win-Win-Win.

.

 

[highland145]

This was basically my point. Laws aren't going to fix anything as the people obeying gun laws are pretty much not the type of people breaking the law with homicides. The issue with gun violence is with criminals, but those are the group that will be largely unaffected by more laws. We basically have to resign ourselves to the reality that widespread gun violence in this country is a fact of life as nothing we do can really fix the problem. Only inconvenience legitimate users.

Good post other than executing offenders....:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

So what are the libs going to give up for more gun control? isn't that how comprise works?

They will give up our rights.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So what are the measures gun control advocates want to take, what is the objective? Just registration or what else? And what does it even achieve?

To me it just seems like laws for the sake of laws, but won't do anything to curtail violence since guns aren't actually the problem but merely a tool used to achieve violence.

 

[yh125d]

So what are the libs going to give up for more gun control? isn't that how comprise works?

Not when you're convinced that you have the moral high ground and that's that. No other opinions matter.

And that isn't a dig at the left - the right, middle, and everywhere is just the same, just on different stuff.

 

[Subyman]

So what are the measures gun control advocates want to take, what is the objective? Just registration or what else? And what does it even achieve?

To me it just seems like laws for the sake of laws, but won't do anything to curtail violence since guns aren't actually the problem but merely a tool used to achieve violence.

I see the issue though. That tool to achieve violence makes it exceptionally easy to cause a lot of violence. Every country has people that get angry or disenfranchised or depressed. Their access to easily obtainable weapons is limited though, so the amount of violence they can cause during their moment of weakness is lower.

As for real results, it will take a long time. Systems we put in place today can help us 10-30 years down the line. We can begin to bring some order to gun ownership.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course owning something that could be dangerous will statistically be detrimental to a large sample size. We could look at other statistics and come to the same conclusion with many household items. We weigh risks throughout our lives and for many, many people gun ownership, when handled responsibly, is a safe practice.

With that said, I think guns need to be treated more along the lines that we treat cars. I know the mere mention of that gets people's heads spinning, but I think it is a step in the right direction. IL already has a FOID card (firearm owners ID.) IMO we should have a federal license that requires coursework and written and hands-on testing.

Accidental gun deaths do not compare to the number of gun related homicides, but we not only educate people about guns we would also be administering the universal background checks during the licensure process.

Something I think universal background checks will do is create a large black market. I see us doing a War on Guns in the next 20 years...

Right, but the primary reason mentioned for gun ownership is self defense. I find it ironic that purchasing something for self defense makes you less safe.

Like I said, it's a dumb decision for most people to make, but we have the right to be dumb. I imagine gun ownership is mostly emotion based for the average owner anyway and even more education would not be effective.

 

[soulcougher73]

why?

because it'll make you feel good? because you are 'doing something'?

Worried you'll never be able to buy a gun again? Lol

 

[LegendKiller]

Right, but the primary reason mentioned for gun ownership is self defense. I find it ironic that purchasing something for self defense makes you less safe.

Like I said, it's a dumb decision for most people to make, but we have the right to be dumb. I imagine gun ownership is mostly emotion based for the average owner anyway and even more education would not be effective.

https://reason.com/blog/2014/01/21/does-the-latest-study-finally-show-that

 

[fskimospy]

https://reason.com/blog/2014/01/21/does-the-latest-study-finally-show-that

That was a very long winded way to say 'correlation does not equal causation', which is the go-to response basically any time someone doesn't have any counter argument.

Although I can't believe this still has to be explained, of course correlation doesn't equal causation. Technically cigarettes are only correlated with higher lung cancer risk. That being said, highly significant correlations are sure as shit good evidence for causation.

So yeah, try again.

 

[LegendKiller]

That was a very long winded way to say 'correlation does not equal causation', which is the go-to response basically any time someone doesn't have any counter argument.

Although I can't believe this still has to be explained, of course correlation doesn't equal causation. Technically cigarettes are only correlated with higher lung cancer risk. That being said, highly significant correlations are sure as shit good evidence for causation.

So yeah, try again.

So pretty much you can take any meta data study that does not control for a lot of variables, and not get down to whether normal law abiding citizens are safe or not and just conclude they aren't. Gotcha.

 

[HTFOff]

At this point, the notion that the president is secretly in cahoots with firearms manufacturers to stoke fear in to the populace via restrictions in order to raise gun sales is a more plausible reality than feel good scribble of a lame duck president actually saving lives.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Lol, hundreds?

The per capita gun violence figure is about 10x higher.

 

[LegendKiller]

The per capita gun violence figure is about 10x higher.

What about when controlled for gang and drug crime?

What about when controlled for overall violent crime?

What about when controlled for demographics? Many of those counties are relatively homogeneous.

When you control for all of those you see a much clearer picture. People want to restrict gun rights of 99% of the population because 1% is doing it wrong.

The remainder are criminals being criminals.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

What about when controlled for gang and drug crime?

What about when controlled for overall violent crime?

What about when controlled for demographics? Many of those counties are relatively homogeneous.

Huh.. how do you figure those instances need to be erased from consideration.

Sounds like you just want to blame black people, and declare them all outliers? It doesn't work like that, they are Americans too.