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

[PepperElf]

I think you're jumping to conclusions that Federal agencies means every federal agency. It means federal law enforcement primarily. It's not about who owns what guns. It's about what gun crimes are committed by whom, and is that information being accessed to do background checks.

I haven't seen proof of this limitation you claim is there yet. This is about control, after all. So I do want to know EXACTLY what agencies get access. We all deserve to know exactly who can and cannot see this data.

Mental health professions are currently caught in a bind when it comes to reporting patients to systems to keep them from buying guns. HIPAA actually allows them to make these reports. The EO simply clarifies what the law already says. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of confusion on that issue, and the mental health professionals are erring on the side of NOT reporting, to avoid violating confidentiality laws.

To me that's a bit like clarifying that yes you have to stop at stop signs. After all, we both agree the law exists - the problem of course is whether or not people FOLLOW it.

I mean seriously, it's their job to know this, no?

The states are usually happy to take this kind of money. It's why the legal drinking age is 21: states with drinking ages of under 21 lose federal highway money. But no one really complains because the laws are good ones.

All Obama wants the states to do is share information so the next mass killer doesn't just skip a state line to buy his guns. What's wrong with that?

"skip a state line to buy his guns".
Do you actually know what the laws are?

1) Firearms CANNOT be purchased at stores without NICS checks. Even skipping a state line does not change this. (Now granted I DID think that shotguns, rifles etc didn't get NICS checks but I've been corrected on this by someone who owns rifles).

2) Handguns in particular CANNOT be purchased directly if you're not a resident (except for a couple of states that allow for "non-resident CCW" permits - but in those cases the CCW application process includes the background check ). The ONLY way you can purchase a handgun via this method is to have an "FFL to FFL transfer" (the store ships the firearm to a store local to you - after VERIFYING that the store has a valid FFL). Your local FFL will do the background check (or check your CCW permit) & charges you an additional fee (25-50) on top of the price of the gun.

3) NICS is a federal database. Regardless of what state you're in the data would be the same.

The ONLY difference is that some states allow RESIDENT felons* to purchase firearms 20 years after (after they get out of prison I think). So skipping a state line wouldn't work in this case either.

*only some felons though - it does depend on the crime committed etc.

To be classified as mentally ill, you have to have seen a mental health professional who makes a determination the person should not own guns and reports it to the appropriate system.

Yes. Assuming they're actually reporting like they're suppose to be.

However I think you missed my point. My tin hat is suggesting that this will not be about true mental illness but about politics influencing medical decisions. Say, attempting to suggest that "preppers are insane! we need to ban their gun rights" etc.

As for the government not needing to take away the guns, I disagree. This IS in my opinion, an attempt to *control* law-abiding citizens.

Yes, you would. I don't see a problem with this. The cops don't know who you are.

Um. Wait if the cops can't figure out who I am from their current systems, how will a background check change things?

I'm well aware that you don't get your gun back immediately. They need to investigate first. However requiring a new background check on top of this is just more paperwork. In my opinion it's just about more control. and a touch of punishment against citizens for daring to use firearms.

But private sellers don't.

They don't have to either. I for one don't think they should have to.

After all - this only targets law-abiding gun owners etc. People going to black markets to sell guns aren't going to give a flying fuck who they sell to.

Nor will they suddenly stop if someone writes a "private sales too" law.

Really the only results are going to be
- more paperwork for people already following the law
- government taxes, cos i'm sure many states will want their "cut" from the sales. (my state doesn't tax but the one below me does)

No one has suggested a campaign to discourage gun ownership

I will refrain from praising his "plan" until it has been officially released. Although I WILL look at it with a very critical eye.

I'd also like to know which expert they're hiring for this plan.

It is not "paranoid" to not blindly trust the government.

Why is it so bad to have standards

Why are you implying that I'm saying it's bad to have standards. What it really is - besides more control - is just an attempt to force people to only pick what they're being told to pick.

All safes can be broken into. All of them. Safes are usually rated by how long it takes.

So even if you have government-sanction safe it can still be broken into. All the criminal has to do is get it out of your home and then work on it at their leisure.

Plus, I'm sure this may be addressed below but… it's a misconception that "responsible" gun owners keep their guns locked to high heaven. Mine's easy for me to get to. It's in a nano vault. in my opinion this "safe standard" thing with proposed fines etc… is just an attempt to force people to not have reasonable access to their own firearms.

This isn't what Obama is getting at with this. He's talking about tracking guns back to the straw buyers who buy them legally, then sell them to criminals.

And laws won't stop this anyway.

Actually, the information is NOT available. Congress has restricted funding for these kinds of studies. Credible, scientific research in this area is something policymakers need to see.

IIRC I was actually thinking about the NICS data and medical people doing their jobs correctly. but it's been a while since i penned it.

But using that as an excuse to do nothing over the problems of guns, or to appoint an effective ATF director is a crock.

The only crock is the fact that they are pushing the concept that "you will be responsible if your gun is stolen and used in a crime" while the ATF themselves ALLOWED the same shit to happen and then Obama gave Holder a free pass on it.

I am against double standards.

You really seem determined to believe the worst. Again, this is just support for small communities who want to deal with gun violence in their areas.

Yes yes. I know … I'm "paranoid" for not trusting everything they say.

Nothing wrong with that either.

Florida has a law prohibiting doctors from asking parents if a gun is in the home. This is just insane.

No it's not. What's insane is thinking "gun owner" is anyone else's business. Even a doctor's.

I mean do you tell your doctor if you have kitchen knives or fertilizer in the house? Do you tell your doctor if you have a fireplace? or cars.

All of those can be deadly too. But people only want to pick "guns". My opinion is that it's part of the bias that "guns are bad".

NO! They will be researching gun injuries and the circumstances that lead to them, so that the right kinds of efforts can be made to educate gun owners on how to safely use or secure their weapons, and identify the right risk factors that make gun ownership an unacceptable risk for some people.

So you claim. I do not inherently trust them.

and i see "identify the right risk factors that make gun ownership an unacceptable risk for some people." … that's actually what I think they'll do to. However I think their list may include more people than we expect.

Why should people have to work to look for it?

Because if you wait for the government to spoon feed it to you then you only know what the person who wrote it up wants you to know.

I mean why NOT look for it? That way you can compare what you learn on your own with what others try telling you.

There's always a risk vs benefit issue with regulation. Personally I'd rather have technology that keeps not only criminals, but kids from getting into guns.

yep "it's for the kids!" *O_o*

Personally I'd rather teach kids the truth about gun safety.

To be honest all of gun safety boils down to just 4 words: Treat, Never, Keep, Keep.

Treat every gun like it is loaded (until you verify that it is clear).
Never aim the gun at anything you don't want to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Keep aware of what's around you and what's behind your target.

(and rule #5 for at the range - obey the range master)

Follow those rules like they're engraved on your heart and you'll avoid 99% of any "accident".

Because it's a legitimate health issue.

No it's not.

Again doctors don't ask you about kitchen knives, ropes, buckets, or any other danger in the house. So hyping guns up as the most important danger speaks of bias.

There's PLENTY of other dangers than just firearms. If doctors aren't asking parents about any of the other dangers ... then to me it's a bit of "hyper focus". As in being too focused on one thing at the exclusion of all else.

NO! No one is "reclassifying" what's mentally ill,

Yes, you're quite sure of that. You will understand that I do not blindly trust the government.

No, it does NOT. HIPAA already clearly states that information …

You're assuming of course that the federal agencies that have access to this information are the ones you think will have access.

I'd rather see the list of who has access first.

Plus I do still think this may influence who gets and doesn't get care.

It will let health care providers report people who they believe are dangerous to background check systems so they can't buy guns. It will let researchers do research on gun injuries and violence so lawmakers can make better policy decisions.

Actually you said what I just said… only you don't think that they'll use it against you for political gain and I am thinking that it's a possibility.

Mental health professionals really have been in a bind on this with unclear regulations that put them at risk no matter what they do.

I'll answer this with your own words: HIPAA actually allows them to make these reports.

I don't understand why you'd be neutral on plans to help schools, hospitals, and churches develop safety plans. But the "don't fuck it up" isn't very neutral.

Meaning I don't have anything against it, provided they give the RIGHT information and not biased information.

Personally I really do hope they hire an expert like Massad Ayoob to give this info. Seriously we already have outstanding gun experts giving this information out already. Perhaps we should start listening to them? It would make their job much easier than trying to reinvent the wheel.

What state arms teachers? I don't think even Texas actually arms its teachers, and its' a stupid idea on its face.

Utah.

And "stupid"? REALLY? When it's already been PROVEN that armed response to shooting sprees works?

Pepper, you WHOLE line of argument in this post has been using rampant paranoia, mistrust of government, ie emotion to support your arguments.

It would be a lot easier to have a rational debate

I agree this has to be rational.
The problem I've seen is that there's a lot of anti-gun bias we have to work with first.

The best way for any "rational" debate is to actually learn about gun laws and safety first.

and to understand that it's not "paranoia!" to be skeptical about the government's plan on this. Now I may end up mistaken about my misgivings but that's yet to be seen.

However in my opinion lumping it up as all "paranoia! emotion!" is just an attempt to marginalize differing views. It's easier to ignore a different opinion if you make decisions/assumptions about the other person's "paranoia" etc.


To be honest, you're somewhat misinterpreting my "emotional state". It doesn't come across well in text perhaps but ... what you see is "skepticism mixed with sarcasm".

And this is mixed with "incredulity" that people don't seem to be aware of the WEALTH of knowledge that's already available in gun safety.

Perhaps the trick to this is actually... reading the information on what's available. We don't have to wait for the government to 'research' anything to start learning the truth about safety.

I want to be protected by someone who actually knows what he is doing, who knows how to keep his guns out of the wrong hands, and not some yahoo who wants to own a gun to flash at people to look "cool."

And how many gun owners do you know who actually act like that?

Rights have to be balanced by responsibility. The NRA fights every effort to inject responsibility into the discussion. That's a big problem.

This is part of the problem. Many people assume the NRA is against responsibility. It's easier to ignore their statements this way perhaps.

Actually the previously posted article addresses this very issue-and it's not "stupid"

Indeed. That author was VERY smart. It's also a good point that he made… not all teachers in Utah are armed - ONLY the ones who wanted to be.


The only problem with his essay is that it's a bit TLDR for anyone who wants to hold on to bias against firearms. I suspect there's some who never even got past his paragraphs on his credentials and on to some of the facts he gave.


Although, about those credentials... I have to personally admire him for giving away what, over $20,000 in FREE safety classes.



As I said before - information is already out there.

[s_stabeler]

just one thing: by my read, the information sharing is federal agencies to NICS, not vice-versa. the idea, if my read is correct, is to prevent the situation which sometimes occurs now where some relevant offences never get reported to NICS.

[Tanasi]

As I've stated in previous posts I think it needs to be easier to report the MCs in question to NICS or whatever DB your state uses. In my state we use both the NICS and TICS. I also think there should be an appeals process so the MCs can have their day in court (so to speak.)
Selling personal firearms is something I very rarely do because I usually don't buy things I don't intend to keep, but in those rare instances I've only sold to folks I know or folks that were vouched for by folks I know. I certainly don't want something I previously owned to be used illegally. That being said I don't think it's anyone's business what you own and under current laws and rules it's difficult and somewhat expensive for me to check the background of potential buyers.
Currently when a dealer calls in for a check and the buyer is approved the dealer is given a approval code that is entered on the 4473 form to prove that there was an approval issued for the buyer on the form. What I'd like to see is a voluntary means that I can use to get an approval that doesn't cost the seller or buyer and if approved the seller is absolved in all levels of criminal and civil courts of any responsibility for that firearm. (That's the carrot and now here's the stick.) If you do not utilize this then you are still wide open to whatever criminal and civil suits that might come along.
I also think a similar means should be available for buyers to check the official status of a firearm. That means you the buyer can enter the brand, model and serial number for the firearm to see if that firearm is stolen or wanted. If not then a code would be issued to the buyer that absolves the buyer from criminal and civil suits should that firearm later turn up wanted.
I also think the DOJ should aggressively pursue straw buyers those that attempt to buy but know that they are not allowed to own. My question is why hasn't this been done the whole time???
At this time I don't think Feinstein's bill will pass the senate much less the house and I think she knew that when she presented it. I also think the magazine limitation won't pass the house. I do think some sort of back-ground check on private sales will be introduced and in usual US Congress fashion it will be useless, expensive and burdensome.
I think House Amendment 777 to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act should be recalled and overturned. Since 1934 only one registered Class 3 firearm has been used in commission of a crime and that owner was a police officer. As a whole the C3 community has shown themselves to be more responsible that the vast vast majority of other groups. And there was also some political hokey pokey done with that vote.

[Hyena Dandy]

To be honest all of gun safety boils down to just 4 words: Treat, Never, Keep, Keep.

Treat every gun like it is loaded (until you verify that it is clear).
Never aim the gun at anything you don't want to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Keep aware of what's around you and what's behind your target.

(and rule #5 for at the range - obey the range master)

Follow those rules like they're engraved on your heart and you'll avoid 99% of any "accident".

Then is there some way that we can ensure people who buy guns know these rules?

Because I agree with the idea that, with proper training, guns can be safe. However, that argument doesn't really mean much, unless you actually do something to ensure that people who have guns are properly trained.

[PepperElf]

Then is there some way that we can ensure people who buy guns know these rules?

Because I agree with the idea that, with proper training, guns can be safe. However, that argument doesn't really mean much, unless you actually do something to ensure that people who have guns are properly trained.

The problem is - this won't fix anything. It'd just be another "feel good" legislation that does nothing to actually fix the real issue.


Increasing controls on law-abiding citizens does not guarantee better behavior in criminals.

At this time I don't think Feinstein's bill will pass the senate much less the house and I think she knew that when she presented it. I also think the magazine limitation won't pass the house. I do think some sort of back-ground check on private sales will be introduced and in usual US Congress fashion it will be useless, expensive and burdensome.

I personally felt she knew that too. I think this was just her attempt to convince everyone to just 'settle' for the universal background checks.

Kinda like wanting a bike but knowing Mommy & Daddy will say "no". So instead of asking for a bike, you ask for an expensive motorbike and wear them down. So then when you finally say "well can I have a bike instead?" they'll be more likely to give in.

That's what I think her plan was all along.


To me - UBC is just an attempt to control the people.

[Tanasi]

IMO they (Feinstein and crew) wasted a lot of time and OPM for something they knew they were going to loose on. During one of the hearings Wayne LaPierre was show a picture of a Remington 742 deer rifle and a picture of an AR-15 rifle. He was asked what is the difference in functionality between the rifles. He said none (that is true) as both are semi-auto rifles that use nearly the same method of reloading. So why is the AR considered more dangerous and is on the ban list where the 742 is on the approved list??? Also in reality the 742 was most likely chambered for a much more powerful round than the AR.

UBC won't work unless there's registration and if you Feinstein's bill raised a big stink then registration will make that one disappear. Personally I don't think it's anyone's business what anyone else own's. That being said if they want to get a toe in the door and offer a voluntary and free means of conducting a background check that absolves the seller (of civil and crimnal suites) if the buyer passes the check and no information regarding the firearm is retained. Maybe also offer a federal version of the FOID that the buyer can present to the seller. The seller then can called a free hot-line to check the status of buyer and if the buyer is still in good standing they they exchange money and off they go. Personally I would both and especially the FOID just to save time at check-out.

[PepperElf]

So why is the AR considered more dangerous and is on the ban list where the 742 is on the approved list??? Also in reality the 742 was most likely chambered for a much more powerful round than the AR.

Cos the Armalite designed rifle is usually painted black - that makes it dangerous.

But I don't think they can make UBC free cos each state has their own rules on the fees for the NICS call. Some states do not charge for NICS but some states do. So in order to make it free, it would have to be another case of "states rights vs federal law".

Although I'm personally against UBC because I don't feel the government has a right to know what each citizen owns.

And part of me also thinks that … knowing what we own will make it easier to disarm us, cos they'd know where they are etc.

[s_stabeler]

um, isn't UBC Universal Background Checks- specifically, running a background check to be sure the person buying a firearm is not a felon or mentally ill? I can't see the problem, assuming the list of mental illnesses that disqualify you from owning a firearm is limited.

[Eddie the 'Ead]

um, isn't UBC Universal Background Checks- specifically, running a background check to be sure the person buying a firearm is not a felon or mentally ill? I can't see the problem, assuming the list of mental illnesses that disqualify you from owning a firearm is limited.

This. So much this.

[crashhelmet]

um, isn't UBC Universal Background Checks- specifically, running a background check to be sure the person buying a firearm is not a felon or mentally ill? I can't see the problem, assuming the list of mental illnesses that disqualify you from owning a firearm is limited.

They're afraid the information used for the background checks will be used to create a database of gun owners and what guns they own. Which would obviously only be used to target gun owners so that when martial law is enacted, they can goto them first and pry their guns from their cold, dead hands.

[Gravekeeper]

The thing thats gets me about all this is the people ranting about the guberment knowing who they are and what they own probably have a driver's license in their wallet.

[ParkingWitch]

Damn GK there you go using logic again. Most of these nutbars can't spell it let let alone use it.

[PepperElf]

Damn GK there you go using logic again. Most of these nutbars can't spell it let let alone use it.

nutbars? really?

Bit ironic there, using name-calling and then claiming to be on the side of "logic".


Some of the reasons I'm against UBC
1) First off I'm against the notion that "if you're responsible you'll let the government see what you have". To me that's a slippery slope. One that affects both the 2d and the 4th.

2) Yes I do think it will edge towards trying to establish confiscation or try to establish more gun restrictions.

It's happened in other countries. It's not "illogical" to pay attention to history.



However I also feel a lot of the gun-control movement is failing, because of one simple tactic... People are resting the control of language.

It's a tactic often used in politics - if you control the language of a topic, you often can control the outcome. In a nutshell it's the practice of flooding a topic with "buzzwords" in order to get people to use those words and reshape how a topic is viewed. Even if the buzzwords aren't exactly accurate.

In the case of gun-control, for example, the word "assault rifle" is one that was tossed around a lot, even though it really wasn't a true description of a rifle. I'm betting, for example, there's a lot of people who thought "AR" actually stood for that phrase. I myself did until I found out that AR actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company that designed the "AR-15".

Thing is ... just that. People are resisting this. And that's why many groups are trying to push the campaign down our throats. Tell people that "everyone wants this" enough times and they start to believe.... Except this time it's not working.

Thus, they're trying to push it more. Trying to convince people that "responsible" gun owners accept the lack of privacy, and that somehow all of these controls on law-abiding citizens will somehow stop criminal behavior.


You see, that's another language tactic. Try to convince people that "responsible" means willing to accept more controls. And that those who don't want to accept it are just "nutbars".

... perhaps that kind of attitude is also laced with a touch of, dare I say, condensation? a bit of "I'm better than you are cos you're one of those psychos who thinks it's OK to have a gun" kind of attitude? Which of course is defiantly NOT a logical attitude.

[Tanasi]

nutbars? really?

Bit ironic there, using name-calling and then claiming to be on the side of "logic".


Some of the reasons I'm against UBC
1) First off I'm against the notion that "if you're responsible you'll let the government see what you have". To me that's a slippery slope. One that affects both the 2d and the 4th.

2) Yes I do think it will edge towards trying to establish confiscation or try to establish more gun restrictions.

It's happened in other countries. It's not "illogical" to pay attention to history.



However I also feel a lot of the gun-control movement is failing, because of one simple tactic... People are resting the control of language.

It's a tactic often used in politics - if you control the language of a topic, you often can control the outcome. In a nutshell it's the practice of flooding a topic with "buzzwords" in order to get people to use those words and reshape how a topic is viewed. Even if the buzzwords aren't exactly accurate.

In the case of gun-control, for example, the word "assault rifle" is one that was tossed around a lot, even though it really wasn't a true description of a rifle. I'm betting, for example, there's a lot of people who thought "AR" actually stood for that phrase. I myself did until I found out that AR actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company that designed the "AR-15".

Thing is ... just that. People are resisting this. And that's why many groups are trying to push the campaign down our throats. Tell people that "everyone wants this" enough times and they start to believe.... Except this time it's not working.

Thus, they're trying to push it more. Trying to convince people that "responsible" gun owners accept the lack of privacy, and that somehow all of these controls on law-abiding citizens will somehow stop criminal behavior.


You see, that's another language tactic. Try to convince people that "responsible" means willing to accept more controls. And that those who don't want to accept it are just "nutbars".

... perhaps that kind of attitude is also laced with a touch of, dare I say, condensation? a bit of "I'm better than you are cos you're one of those psychos who thinks it's OK to have a gun" kind of attitude? Which of course is defiantly NOT a logical attitude.

I maintain that until I've done something that warrents being tracked then leave me alone. What I do within the law is my business and no one else's. I believe that for myself and for all others.
Gun registrations in this country has already led to confiscation or being forced out of state. When CA re-opened the books to allow a second round of "Assault Rifle" registration for those that hadn't previously registered in order to comply with the law. Some did only later to have those rifles confiscated or had to move them out of state. What happened was some anti-gunners brought suit against the state DOJ or whomever admins the list saying the reopening was unconstitutional under the state constitution. The state SC agreed. Folks got a we're sorry letter turn them in or get rid of them. And if I'm not badly mistaken NYC way back when used their registration list to confiscate some guns. The only reasons for registration is taxing and confiscation.

[Gravekeeper]

Some of the reasons I'm against UBC

1) First off I'm against the notion that "if you're responsible you'll let the government see what you have". To me that's a slippery slope. One that affects both the 2d and the 4th.

2) Yes I do think it will edge towards trying to establish confiscation or try to establish more gun restrictions.

It's happened in other countries. It's not "illogical" to pay attention to history.

But again, you're perfectly fine with all of this if you own a car? This is where the cognitive dissoance gets me on this subject. Why is it acceptable in the case of a vehicle, but not in the case of something potentially more dangerous? You have the right to bear arms, but no obligation to the responsibility to bear them?

There is no one alive today that has experienced even the potential for the kind of situation that inspired the second amendment to begin with. Regardless of how many have convinced themselves the government is coming to take their gunz and put them in a FEMA camp.

Don't even get me started on paying attention to "history". History says the second amendment is obsolete and was never intended for the type of weaponry available in this day and age.

It seems to be the basis for the opposition to gun legislation is paranoia and the result is that any gun legislation that even manages to pass will be so toothless as to only make the situation worse rather than better. As is the system that IS in place has been so completely kneecapped and interfered with by this bullshit as is that it barely functions at all.

But you can't even have a conversation about making the existing system function without this bullshit occuring.