Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[wolfie]

Bows for a time were the greatest weapon, because they had the range on handheld weapons. When firearms came along, the use of bows lessened, because even as dangerous as they were to the person using them (at the time) they were still more effective and more deadly then bows..and required a lot less training.

Actually, it was only in the 1800s, with rifles superceding smoothbores, that firearms surpassed the longbow in even ONE of the following measures - effective lethal range for massed (volley) fire, effective lethal range for aimed fire at a single target, and rate of fire. The reason the military switched from bows to guns was that it only took a couple weeks before a raw recruit was sufficiently skilled with a gun to be able to take his place in the firing line, while for a bow it would take years. There's a reason that in England during the middle ages it was illegal to play golf on Sundays - not a "blue law", but the fact that it took time away from archery practice.

England was an aberration - the peasants were more free than on the continent, and could therefore be trusted to handle weapons effective against knights in armour when they weren't actually serving in the military. That's why their infantry used longbows (rapid fire, but took a lot of training), while continental armies used crossbows (much slower rate of fire, but significantly less training needed).

[Mytical]

Of course it is. But my point still stands. If I can sneak up on someone and slam the bat into the back of their head, they aren't going to ever get up if I choose to not let them.

If I sneak up on somebody with a gun..don't you think they would be just as dead? Moot point there. Yes in SOME cases a melee weapon is just as dangerous as a firearm. Just as in some cases a needle is just as dangerous as a sword. Still would rather have the sword then a needle in a fight.

If melee weapons were as effective as some suggest, the worlds army's would still be using them pretty much exclusively. Yet, that is not the case. Simply because firearms ARE more dangerous then any melee weapon. You do not have to as near to your target, rely on surprise or specific certain circumstances.

[Duelist925]

Wow. So there's no practice required to actually hit someone? You just point and pull?

If you want to hit someone with a handgun from more than a handful of yards, you need to practice. Far more than you would with a bat or other blunt object such as, say, a tire iron. A rifle can be shot cold from a bit further away, but needs probably at least as much sneaking (unless your target is completely isolated) as a bat.

Even though a gun is a ranged weapon, if you don't have the hours of practice and training put in (which most people, even most gun owners, don't) it doesn't extend your range nearly as much as a lot of people want to suggest.

^-.-^

And if you don't have hours of practice with using a blunt object as a weapon, the most you can do is swing it around like an idiot imitating a baseball player. To use it effectively, you need practice. Yes you can take someone down with a good swing, but you're just as likely to give them a bad bruise, or a broken bone, something they can still walk or run away with, than kill them.

And at that, unless you get damn lucky or are damn good, it takes time to kill someone with a bat, if you want to make sure their dead. You have to take the time to either cave the skull in completely, or make sure you've caused enough damage that they'll hemorrhage before medical help can be had.


Furthermore, ANY extension of range past five feet or so is a serious advantage in any fight. If you can hit someone with a debilitating injury before they even have the option of laying hands on you, it ends the fight with little to no risk for yourself.

This is the reason the polearms and missile weapons were invented in the first place.

Of course it is. But my point still stands. If I can sneak up on someone and slam the bat into the back of their head, they aren't going to ever get up if I choose to not let them.

Or you could drive past in an unmarked car and spray & pray.

Or, hell, walk up, laugh, and plug them from twenty feet away.

Further issues with your arguement, both here and previously:

A bat takes MORE training to kill someone with, not less. Yes, the average baseball swing can do damage. It also telegraphs itself like a runway controller, giving ample time for fight/flight to kick in and respond, and anything short of that will lack the power to put someone down in less than a few hits. And even once their down, their not DEAD until you put some effort into it. After all, theres muscle, fat, bone, tissue that soaks up damage before it can reach a major organ. Broken ribs don't equal death. A cracked skull isn't a hundred percent death sentence. You. Have. To. Work. For. It.

So TIMES a factor to. it takes time to beat someone to death with a bat--far longer than to just put two in the head, or even a drive by. Time that gives chances for witness's, people to call the cops, a do gooder to attack YOU in retaliation, etc. It also gives the victim time to run or fight back--if you don't put them down in one, maybe two swings, they are going to either run like fuck, or jump on you with all the strength adrenaline can give. And wether or not they can take you, that adds to the TIME factor. Oh, and its hard to do serious damage with a bat when someones that close.

Oh, and all that time? Means killing someone with a bat is physically exhausting. Constantly straining your muscles, tensed up, slamming metal or wood into flesh over and over--works up a serious sweat.Pulling a trigger? Not so much.

And finally: Distance. Both physical, and emotional. To kill someone with a bat, you have to get your hands dirty--quite literally. Blood will spray. The victim may vomit or void themselves. You have to listen to them cry, and scream, and groan, and beg, and sob, and pray. Even if your killing a mute, you hear the thunk of the bat into flesh, and get to see, in up close and personal detail, various fluids leaking out of them, and how bady it effects the flesh. It is not for someone weak of stomach. It's a vicious, animalistic way to kill someone.

Guns? Like comparing a handwritten letter to a leet speak text message. You can kill them from a distance--figuratively speaking. Ten feet away, twenty, thirty, might as well be a mile. And its over so quick--if you don't want it, theres no crying, no whimpering, no begging. Just a controlled minor explosion in your hand, then bam, the thud of a body hitting the ground. Over in a second. Cold.

Physically? Bat is up close and personal. Pointing out various issues with that earlier in the post, but heres one more: You can't really hide a bat. So unless you are, as you say, sneaking up on them (forcing you to expend more time to plan and execute the action, and presuming they don't see you, which is possible) they have time to react, get a weapon for themselves, call the cops, call backup.

A gun? Not so much. Again--distance.

[Andara Bledin]

This whole "guns vs melee" should really be hashed out in another thread. Lord knows we have enough "OMG Guns" threads on here as it is.

This one is supposed to be about Obama's proposals, according to the title. While a few of us have gone into them, noting that most of them, provided they were written well, are good ideas, while a few of them are trampling tired ground that hasn't done any good in the past and won't do any good in the immediate future, either, a good number of commenters haven't even indicated that they've read them, much less expressed how they feel.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

So TIMES a factor to. it takes time to beat someone to death with a bat--far longer than to just put two in the head, or even a drive by. <snip>And its over so quick--if you don't want it, theres no crying, no whimpering, no begging. Just a controlled minor explosion in your hand, then bam, the thud of a body hitting the ground. Over in a second. Cold.

Which is of course why the police and military always take head shots and not go for center body mass to cause wounding and bleeding out /sarcasm

The quoted statement above, makes it probable that your "knowledge" of firearms is limited to what hollywood tells you, which is not at all realistic.

as a matter of fact, your scenerio is the trope "instant death bullet"

as a matter of fact several things said in this thread are in these articles:
5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)
6 Stupid Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)


seriously, almost no one but a trained sniper with a scope can make a head shot(and contrary to what hollywood shows*, they generally don't take head shots, too risky)-target is too small, and a human skull is quite resistant.

Don't believe me-ask the FBI

Seriously there are several "tv tropes" on this very subject
Boom-headshot
Sniper index
Guns and gunplay

Yes I own a firearm, and train for about an hour a month, my primary defensive weapons however are a tactical pen, and a simple pocket knife. The handgun stays at home, as I consider it to be too unreliable for anything other than home defense(standard rule of firearm safety-know your target and what's beyond, only place I actually know that is in my home).

[lordlundar]

Most of these are simply enforcement of currently standing laws which is sorely needed. Those particular proposals in the past have been at best "passed and forgotten".

The problem is there are provisions in there which are getting a variety of feathers ruffled such as the military grade and magazine ban which is pissing off the NRA to no end. Another one is the demand for research into violent media as a source which is getting mixed reactions at best. Both of those are pretty much going to guarantee that it will not pass the house or senate, let alone survive a constitutional challenge.

The good news is that the enforcement provisions don't need new bills to pass so he can simply do an end run around congress on those.

[Nekojin]

..the demand for research into violent media as a source...

Which is an utter crock. There have been a number of studies in the past decade attempting to find a link between violent media and actual violence, and the closest any of them have been able to find is a short-term tendency toward increased aggressiveness after watching violent media. There have only been two studies (that I'm aware of) that claimed a definite link between violent media and violent behavior, and they were torn to shreds by their peers for grossly bad methodology. All of the studies that have held up to peer review have shown little, if any, relation, and no chance of an actual causal link.

The closest we're likely to find is that violent-minded individuals tend to enjoy violent media, not that violent media makes otherwise-nonviolent individuals behave violently.

[protege]

I find it interesting that you can show people getting their brains splattered against a wall...but heaven forbid if someone says "fuck" or a nipple gets shown on TV

[Hyena Dandy]

This debate is starting to make my head spin. Guns are incredibly useful and powerful when we talk about defending ourselves, but they are next to useless when we talk about attacking someone. I cannot debate under these conditions, it's far too confusing!

[Nekojin]

I don't think that anyone has characterized guns as "next to useless." You might want to reread some of the posts, if that's the impression you've taken away from anyone's posts.

[Panacea]

If fully automatic weapons are your concern, then mission accomplished - they're already illegal to own without a very difficult-to-acquire federal license (hint: federal security clearance is easier to get). So are select-fire weapons.

Well, here's the thing. It's ridiculously easy to turn a semi auto rifle into full auto with a simple kit available at gun shows. These kits, as long as they don't permanently alter the mechanism, just hit a "sweet" spot on the normal function of the semi auto rifle that can make it fire full auto.

These kits work. A friend of mine used one to turn a semi auto Mac 90 (Chinese version of the AK 47) into full auto. We once used it and a 75 round drum to cut down a sapling on my ex husband's family farm. And this was post 1994. And it was perfectly legal.

But they aren't really executive orders, they are more like executive memos from what I've read.

No, they're executive orders. They have the full force of law, because they are based on laws already on the books. The President's job as Chief Executive is to enforce the laws Congress passes. So everything Obama ordered is completely legal because he's just enforcing existing law more stringently.

They can be reversed by him, or a subsequent President. This happens all the time as administration policies and priorities change.

Considering that the locked door was made of glass, I suspect that a bat would have been equally as effective in gaining entrance, particularly in the hands of an individual as reportedly angry as he was said to be. Plus, he wasn't confronted until after he had already gained entrance.

That glass is a tough, thick glass, with a metal mesh. It is designed not to be broken. I doubt a bat would do the job.

Also, even if he had been stopped at the school, that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have gone elsewhere and committed similar mayhem.

He picked a school for a reason: easy kills, lots of attention. Had he been stopped at the school, he would have been in jail and thus neutralized.

So many of these gun control arguments argue as though the events occur in a vacuum and that if they didn't have guns and/or couldn't get to the targets they ended up attacking that they would just give up and go away, which is not only wrong, but a dangerous way of thinking.

Agreed. There have been attacks like this in China, in schools, where gun control is MUCH more stringent . . . with knives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...2%80%932012%29

Mass killers like this will use whatever weapon they can get a hold of to commit these crimes. With the meticulous planning that goes into these crimes, the only way to stop them is to uncover them before they happen.

I honestly think we should model after England, Australia, and Japan as far as gun control goes.

We have a bad situation that keeps happening, proving that the way things are being handled now is NOT WORKING.

I agree, we have a big mental health problem in this country. You can thank Reagan for that.

Modeling after other countries won't work. They don't have the 2nd Amendment, we do. It will take a major constitutional change to have the kind of gun control other countries have, and it won't solve the problem of the guns that are out there now.

I agree that previous attempts to solve the problem of mass shootings have not worked. The real issue is a major change in how we approach mental health, but it will take years and be very expensive. We have to remove the stigma against seeking help. We have to remove the barriers to getting help; how often to people do things like this and the family says they have tried without success to get help for the person?

Reagan saved a lot of money by closing mental hospitals. And they were not well run; Nurse Ratchett was very real in early mental health care. But the outpatient care we were promised has never materialized. There are some people who need long term in patient care, and they aren't able to get it. And that's a problem.

Personally, I don't think a gun ban will be particularly effective given the large amount of weapons already out there.

Rather, I think universal gun checks, and closing the loopholes about background checks at gun shows and private sales needs to be closed.

But of greater importance, it's time we required gun owners to apply for and get a state license to own firearms, much like a driver's license. There's a precedent; you have to have a permit to conceal carry. I'm not saying register weapons. I'm saying a permit to own them, one that requires training in safe use and operation.

Part of the entire second amendment is the ability to possess firearms to protect ourselves from dangerous people and dangerous governments. We would not be able to do that if the government bans everything but peashooters

Let's get real about that. Even if we could own full auto rifles, the idea that people could overthrow the government is long past its time. If the Civil War wasn't enough to prove that to people, then let's think about this:

The US government will always have more firepower than the people. They have RPGs, rocket launchers, mortars, tanks, fighter planes, and nuclear weapons. Now look at what's been going in Syria. 3 years of bloody civil war that is not much closer to resolution than when it started . . . and they have less of a military than we do.

No armed insurrection in this country since the American Revolution has been successful. Another armed insurrection simply isn't going to be successful. Thinking anything else is just wishful thinking.

Begging your pardon, but missile launchers ARE valid self-defense tools. I say you look on too small a scale.

Self defense from what? Are you thinking a criminal is going to break into your house with a tank?

I know people who have died as of the result of one single punch to the head. It wouldn't be hard at all to do the same with a bat.

Depends on how you hit them. Though you are more likely to fracture a skull with a bat than with a fist.

The worst school killings of all time in America didn't involve anyone being shot. So thanks for proving a point for firearms?

What school killing are you referring to? When and where?

Wow. So there's no practice required to actually hit someone? You just point and pull?

Even though a gun is a ranged weapon, if you don't have the hours of practice and training put in (which most people, even most gun owners, don't) it doesn't extend your range nearly as much as a lot of people want to suggest.

^-.-^

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, I've seen far too many gunshot wounds caused by people who didn't know the first thing about what they were doing other than point and shoot.

England was an aberration - the peasants were more free than on the continent, and could therefore be trusted to handle weapons effective against knights in armour when they weren't actually serving in the military. That's why their infantry used longbows (rapid fire, but took a lot of training), while continental armies used crossbows (much slower rate of fire, but significantly less training needed).

Yes and no. Serfs in England still could not own weapons, but there weren't' as many serfs in England than in other countries in Europe. And the Normans didn't completely eradicate the Anglo Saxon traditions of local militia. When the longbow came into vogue, those traditions made for a convenient source of ready troops whenever the King needed to raise an army. It gave the English a distinct advantage that continental nations were not willing to duplicate due to entrenched ideas.

[Andara Bledin]

He picked a school for a reason: easy kills, lots of attention. Had he been stopped at the school, he would have been in jail and thus neutralized.

Quite possibly. Then again, he could have run off and come back to try another entrance on another day. We've got way too many stories of people who have been reported to police, found, and released who later murder people in sleepy middle-class towns to declare that he would have been picked up and held. And those are transients while he was a member of the community, making it even more unlikely that he would have been held for more than a fine and some probation.

Self defense from what? Are you thinking a criminal is going to break into your house with a tank?

Pretty sure he was being facetious, here.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, I've seen far too many gunshot wounds caused by people who didn't know the first thing about what they were doing other than point and shoot.

And how close were they to the victim?

My commentary was directed at the idea that a gun, by it's very presence, gave a person the ability to kill anyone that they could see, which belies either a notable lack of familiarity with guns and their capabilities or is outrageous hyperbole.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

Well, here's the thing. It's ridiculously easy to turn a semi auto rifle into full auto with a simple kit available at gun shows. These kits, as long as they don't permanently alter the mechanism, just hit a "sweet" spot on the normal function of the semi auto rifle that can make it fire full auto.

These kits work. A friend of mine used one to turn a semi auto Mac 90 (Chinese version of the AK 47) into full auto. We once used it and a 75 round drum to cut down a sapling on my ex husband's family farm. And this was post 1994. And it was perfectly legal.

actually those kits are HIGHLY ILLEGAL(and have been since 2006), not to mention dangerous. even owning one is a felony with some serious prison time(the device itself, not being attached to anything is classified as a machine gun{the ATF is wonky like that*}, which are illegal to manufactre, and without the BATFE form 4 with tax stamp illegal to own). Also a full auto Mac 90, would go through a 75 round drum in 7 seconds(firing rate of 800 rounds/minute)

The Myth of the "easy machine gun"

ATF Rul. 2006-2

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been asked by several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm. These devices, when attached to a firearm, result in the firearm discharging more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. ATF has been asked whether these devices fall within the definition of machinegun under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As explained herein, these devices, once activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiate an automatic firing cycle which continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. Accordingly, these devices are properly classified as a part “designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun” and therefore machineguns under the NFA and GCA.

You must have a BATFE Form 4 with tax stamp to legally own a machine gun-my cousin has one, as he writes books on them.

What school killing are you referring to? When and where?.

That would be the Bath school Massacre, Bath Michigan, 1927

*the actual reason for the classification of the kit BY ITSEF, as a "machine gun" is to make it illegal to sell. Heck one person had a rifle malfunction(hammer follow malfunction), so it fired two shots with a single trigger pull,(ATF confimed it was a malfunction) he was facing 10 years, he served 30 months.

[Duelist925]

Which is of course why the police and military always take head shots and not go for center body mass to cause wounding and bleeding out /sarcasm

The quoted statement above, makes it probable that your "knowledge" of firearms is limited to what hollywood tells you, which is not at all realistic.

as a matter of fact, your scenerio is the trope "instant death bullet"

as a matter of fact several things said in this thread are in these articles:
5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)
6 Stupid Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)


seriously, almost no one but a trained sniper with a scope can make a head shot(and contrary to what hollywood shows*, they generally don't take head shots, too risky)-target is too small, and a human skull is quite resistant.

Don't believe me-ask the FBI

Seriously there are several "tv tropes" on this very subject
Boom-headshot
Sniper index
Guns and gunplay

Yes I own a firearm, and train for about an hour a month, my primary defensive weapons however are a tactical pen, and a simple pocket knife. The handgun stays at home, as I consider it to be too unreliable for anything other than home defense(standard rule of firearm safety-know your target and what's beyond, only place I actually know that is in my home).

This is a good point--Im afraid I let my arguement get away from myself. That particular debate tactic regarding gun control (that melee weapons are just as, if not more dangerous, than guns) Is simply one that gets to me a bit too easily. As an avid troper and someone whose read just about everything you listed already, I really should know better. My apologies.

[PepperElf]

Well, here's the thing. It's ridiculously easy to turn a semi auto rifle into full auto with a simple kit available at gun shows. These kits, as long as they don't permanently alter the mechanism, just hit a "sweet" spot on the normal function of the semi auto rifle that can make it fire full auto.

You are referring to a "bump" and you are incorrect. The firearm STILL only shoots one round per trigger pull and is therefore not a full-auto weapon or a machine gun.

Now sure it does it faster than your finger can but that's a horse of a different color.



now since I haven't seen anyone post the list of "executive actions" exactly... I'm going to post the list and what I disagree with.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...-gun-violence/

you can find the same list on several sources of course.

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

Me: I distrust this. "Federal agencies" - which ones? Does the IRS need to know what guns I own for example? This sounds too generic for my tastes.

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.

Me: Um, correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have laws in place requiring this information be made available to NICS? Isn't the issue that medical agencies AREN'T reporting it when they're suppose to? Do we really need more laws to make people follow the ones already on the books?

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

Me: So free money if they agree to follow this Information Plan? Plus, remember my reservations about item 1 - which federal agencies get access. This makes me wonder if they're trying to ram it down the state's throats.

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.

Me: ... This one sets of warning bells. "Review categories" ... so people who are legally mentally healthy right now may get reclassified as unhealthy? And just what criteria will decide this? I know, I know... some will say "tin hat!" but this needs to be CLOSELY watched to make sure no one uses it for political gain/power.

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

Me: holy mother of fuck. So if I have to defend myself with my gun, I'd have to pay for a background check ($$$) just to get my gun back? And likely I won't be able to afford the check so... yeah gun remains confiscated, and maybe end up in someone else's hands. (guns in police custody don't always remain so indefinitely)

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

Me: FFLs already know how to run background checks. They are prohibited from selling WITHOUT running a NICS check - with the exception of CCW cards since the CCW card carries proof that you've already been vetted.

As for private sellers - I don't agree with this. This, in my opinion, stems from the myth about 'gun shows' where people think millions of guns are being sold without background checks.

And the truth is, most sellers at gun shows are FFLs. The 'private sellers' are just individuals with a small handful of items to sell.

I bought mine at a gun show and ... yeah I had the NICS check. actually it took me longer to fill out the paperwork than it did for them to check me. (I was very careful with my handwriting)

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

Me: Um... maybe. Believe me I'm all for gun safety. However I'd like to know what is going into it first.

Say if they're hiring Massad Ayoob - or someone as knowledgeable as him - to run the campaign I'd be all for it. However if it's a safety campaign that promotes "guns are icky" then no.

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

Me: hmm... so we can be like California and if your gun is stolen from a safe that's not government-approved you get fucked over?

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

Me: combine this with 8 and you'll see what I'm getting at. Plus remember what I said about #5? Yeah, sometimes if your gun is confiscated by the authorities... it does end up in someone's hands.

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

Me: eh, kinda neutral really. Although to be honest this info is already available if you know what you're doing. why do they need to reinvent the wheel?

11. Nominate an ATF director.

Me: Preferably one who won't let guns "walk" to across the border. After all how many of those guns ended up used in crimes? ... bit hypocritical to yell at us for stolen guns being used in crimes when the ATF's hands are dirtier than ours.

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

Me: Kinda neutral, although I find it interesting that they have to train law enforcement? Perhaps the fact that many cops show up after the fact (rather than engage the criminal) is a factor.

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

Me: Neutral...ish. I'm just wondering how much of this "enforcement" is going to be "guns are icky" campaigns.

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

Me: A disease now? Maybe it's me but isn't the CDC suppose to take care of medical issues such as spreading illness?

Now their job's going to be researching guns? .... Maybe it's me but, it may tie in with #4 - reclassifying what is mental illness.

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.

Me: kinda neutral again. there's already a lot of stuff out there. if you look for it.

gun safety technology has always been a trade off - balancing what's easy for the gun-owner to use, but hard for the criminals to break into. This makes me wonder if they're aiming to push for making it harder for criminals to get into... even if it means at the cost of making it harder for the owners to access.

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

Me: WHAT THE FUCK? Why the FUCK is it my doctor's business? Why the hell should this even be in my medical records?

Is this part of #4 - reclassifying what's mentally ill? Will this determine my coverage, or opt me out from certain forms of care?

Better yet... With #2 and the freedom of information with the federal agencies - doesn't this cross HIPAA boundaries? That's some of the tough questions we need to look at before accepting this plan.

What will this information be used for?

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

Me: so we have an executive action telling people to ... obey laws that are already in place.

Might as well make an EA telling people to stop at stop signs too.

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

me: Maybe. Since these are officially officers they can carry, right?

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

Me: Neutral. Just don't fuck it up.

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.

Me: ... maybe neutral. but after #s 4 & 16 my distrust levels are high. I want to be sure the government isn't going to use medical data to restrict my rights as a gun owner. or reclassify healthy people just to remove their rights.


So what do I propose?

I propose the following

1) Follow the laws that were already in place. Including the laws requiring medical personnel to report data. I propose if they had done this in the first place then there'd be less trouble.

2) Reconsider "gun free zones". Except for Gabby, most recent gun-violence sprees involving more than 4 deaths have all been in gun-free zones. In the gun-allowed zones the sprees were cut short by armed citizens. (IIRC in one case as soon as the active shooter saw another armed citizen he went off and ended himself) These don't make as many headlines however.

Some states already have armed teachers even. Perhaps we should look to those schools to see how they've functioned and what their plans of action are.

3) Stop using emotion to fuel debates. This detracts from actual facts about firearms. Meaning no more lining kids up while you push a gun-debate for the emotion factor.

This is a serious endeavor. What we decide on WILL affect our rights in years to come - and the rights of our children.



and on a personal note, if one citizen is worthy of being protected by firearms (be it their own, or an armed guard) then all citizens are worthy of it. we are all suppose to be equal, no?

I for one, am a bit tired of being "preached at" by politicians, hollywood actors, higher ups in the entertainment business and other armed/protected citizens about my gun rights.