Obama on gun control

[J_McLeod]

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

With all the things going on today, the most useful thing he can think of to do is write articles and rehash something from two months ago for political gain.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

"But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech."

How many others do we lose to drunk driving accidents and or stabbings? I'd also like to see where these supposed 2000 victims lived and the crime rate of those areas. And then on top of that... how many were due to illegal gun owners that these magical laws somehow didn't stop.

Funny he didn't mention the ATF Gunrunner scandal.

 

[Dean1818]

What no one wants to add is two things.

1) Death by gunshot is dropping dramatically over the past few years

2) A missused Child murders stats are very highly tilted toward gang
shootings (almost all 100% illegal guns)

An "amazing" trend

Its seems the more legal gun ownership, the less crime occurs.......................

Certain folks wish to hide these facts

 

[hso]

Words of a politician, but are they actually from POTUS or just a poseur? I'm skeptical that the President of the United States would spontaneously put this out in a state news paper this way.

Ignoring the source for a moment and personal opinions of the individual, how do we respond to the presented piece if someone asks, "What reasonable things can be done to keep people like the two deeply disturbed young men who perpetrated these mass murders in VA and AZ from purchasing firearms?".

What's the response?

 

[J_McLeod]

I think Obama's three points were good. The problem is that I don't trust him or anyone in his administration to implement them without adding more than what he just said.

 

[merlinfire]

to implement them without adding more than what he just said

It's all in the execution. It would be nice if the ATF didn't make the rules, and merely enforced them. Let Congress make the rules. My two cents

 

[Peter_S]

hso - my response: absolutely nothing!

We can make gun laws as restrictive as you like, these disturbed individuals will always find a way to obtain and misuse firearms...IMHO!

 

[hogshead]

+1 Peter S if they cant get guns they will use something else you cant fix crazy.

 

[thorn726]

Obama-reasonable approach against gun problems?

Amazing! Obama proposes - get this - enforcing laws already on the books!! finally, some one gets it- there are more than enough gun laws, too many im sure most here would agree- Simple enforcement of existing laws is what is needed, not more restrictions!! article link

I know , i know- most here are unable to speak anything but extreme ill against O, but when you look at what has happened towards guns during his time in office, (removal of restrictions, some put in place by W, not adding more restrictions) he's nothing he was made out to be, and has done more for guns than against. With the typical knee-jerk response to most of the recent maniac-shooters, this is a very positive step./ He mentions seeking to find common ground with gun owners, it is not unreasonable to try and find reasonable solutions to unstable maniacs who should probably be in a mental hospital making the rest of the gun owners look bad
(ironically, look into why mental illness is so poorly cared for in the US)

 

[Peter_S]

hogshead - after I posted I remembered that crazy at the China olympics who stabbed a bunch of people. Yep, you don't need guns to cause mayhem, but an armed citizenry seems to create such anxiety among some politicians...one wonders why.

 

[TexasRifleman]

OK folks here's the thing. Politics is an off topic subject here at THR, but gun control and Activism is not. That sometimes seems like a conflict but it really isn't.

Let's discuss the content of the op-ed piece by the President in terms of what gun control measures might be proposed here and what we might do about them.

Party politics or anything remotely resembling that will be gone. Please, this is important to discuss, he is the President and what he says matters. Don't get this closed by making it about party politics.

Thanks.

 

[ants]

What's the response?

Lock up criminals.

and

Get help for the mentally ill.




This ain't a gun problem.
It's a crime problem.
And a health problem.



For the sake of love and humanity, they need to stop thinking that the gun caused it all.

 

[ants]

TX Rifleman, my friend, I thoroughly appreciate your call to respond to the Gun Control question.
But I really believe that this isn't a gun control issue.

The president references mental illness.
And he references crime.
Those are the issues.

Not 'Reasonable Gun Control'.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I thought it was rather lacking in actual content. A whole lot of smooth talking, without saying specifically what he's getting at. That said, I can't find anything he said that stands out to me as objectionable. It's what was left unsaid. HOW are you going to go about keeping guns out of the hands of those that would use them inappropriately. It's tough to argue about what was left unsaid, and I suspect that's why he didn't say it.

 

[thorn726]

posted similar in legal ,(thought this was more legal)
Amazing the different take you all got- enforce existing laws was the main theme of what i saw. NOT "we need more laws, more restrictions, less guns" Simply - enforce what we have. ALSO O quoted along the lines of "finding common ground" not "get rid of all the guns"
You can be paranoid, be absolutely certain everything not REpublican is aimed at taking your guns, but better to look at the reality here- in the face of a large incident, O calls for basically - nothing!
You want to be angry, figure out who flushed all America's funding for mental illness some years ago and increased the crazies that cause all these problems...(clue, it wasnt a Dem)

 

[TexasRifleman]

TX Rifleman, my friend, I thoroughly appreciate your call to respond to the Gun Control question.
But I really believe that this isn't a gun control issue.

I completely agree but this will be discussed whether we think it's a gun control issue or not. We know the anti's want to make EVERYTHING a gun control issue.

They would blame the Tsunami in Japan on the 100th birthday of the 1911 if they could figure out a decent story.

 

[armoredman]

"What reasonable things can be done to keep people like the two deeply disturbed young men who perpetrated these mass murders in VA and AZ from purchasing firearms?".

What's the response?

If they have violated no laws prior to purchase to become disqualified under current statutes, the answer is - nothing. With liberty is inherent risk, and I chose to accept the risk. Curbing or eliminating liberties will not reduce the risk by the same level. If this was true, prisons would be the safest places on earth.

 

[hso]

We can make gun laws as restrictive as you like, these disturbed individuals will always find a way to obtain and misuse firearms...IMHO!

That's not quite correct. If the judge for Cho had met his responsibility and committed him instead of insisting that he voluntarily commit himself Cho wouldn't have passed the background check at the shop. Also, if VA had a reporting system equal to most other states, and that they now have, Cho would have failed the background check. We know that the state of VA failed us and the students of Va Tech by stacking the deck to favor a deeply disturbed violent young man's privacy over our safety.

 

[jfrey]

He talks about common ground - that is political speak for "we gun owners give in and they take" as usual. There's a hidden agenda in everything he does. If you buy a gun legally and turn out to be an unstable person later, you still bought it legally under our current guvmint system. No one can stop that.

Just remember the old saying about the leopard and his spots.

 

[Black Knight]

I'm going to try to keep this from going political and getting tossed out. You say there has been a removal of some restrictions since he has been in office. What restrictions is he responsible for removing? The ban in DC? That was the Supreme Court. The ban in Chicago? That was based on the DC case. I can't think of one restriction that has been removed because of him. Please educate me, maybe I missed something. I do agree enforcing existing laws is a step in the right direction but his actions speak louder than his words.

 

[hogshead]

Yea I bet if you were from Ill. you would'nt belive anything he said,he voted for handgun ban, wanted semiauto rifles banned, on and on. I think he speaks with forked tongue.

 

[Peter_S]

hso - surely you aren't suggesting mass involuntary committment of people that MIGHT pose a threat to your safety. I think our (privacy) rights have enough problems being defended from the continuous onslaught of politicians. But maybe that's just me. (Oh, and Ben Franklin.)

 

[TexasRifleman]

If the judge for Cho had met his responsibility and committed him instead of insisting that he voluntarily commit himself Chow wouldn't have passed the background check at the shop.

I respectfully submit that that's a dangerous line of thinking. It's rational and that's the problem. The other side is not. "He could have easily taken advantage of the gun show loophole or made a private sale after his release" is the response from the other side.

"Clearly those things need to be illegal in order to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns right? You've already agreed with us that more controls are needed, it's just common sense"

It's always a slippery slope and creeping incrementalism. The Cho situation is difficult of course. The only answer that works is allowing citizens to fight back and defend themselves. It's a dangerous world and you can't legislate it safe.

There have always been crazy people who want to harm others. Cain and Able couldn't even get along...

 

[elkdomBC]

Canada's "fiasco-Long-Gun-Registry",, 20 years and over a BILLION $$$,,,,,

RESULTS ? NOT MUCH!
,
gangbangers and druggies using UNLAWFULLY Acquired PROHIBITED Weapons in alarming numbers, Police Forces out-gunned,

for criminals using firearms in commission of crime ??,the Courts dispense minimal and un-punishing sentences,

BUT on the side of "The Law Abiding" shooter/hunter/firearms collector ? Government background checks,ridiculous storage and transportation laws,search and seizure without formal charges, destruction of lawfully owned property without compensation, the list is TOO long to type !

more STRINGENT GUN LAWS have done NOTHING to curb GUN crime in this (CANADA) experiment !, with more unenforceable GUN laws aimed at criminals, BUT doing a LOT to disarm the law abiding citizens,

 

[thorn726]

So tell us of these reasonable solutions to prevent people from murdering each other.

HSO put it pretty well. I see nothing further than existing laws other than possibly when an obviously unstable person is before a judge, commit them. It's good to start a flame war rather than offer something productive, but the inference was we HAVE more than enough laws that would keep guns from inherently dangerous people IF we enforced them, and properly funded care for mentally ill people. judges unfortunately on occasion take into account how many beds are available in the nuthouse before committing people, or simply decide to give people a break they shouldn't because the tax dollars for a 5150 don't seem worth it. I'm not sure i agree with the idea that one episode denys you arms for life, BUT getting mentally ill people into some kind of treatment and in some cases off the street would solve most of the rampage problems.

I see you are from Berkley.

yeah, and? i also THOUGHT i was on thehighroad. Im actually in berkelEy, not berkely but anyway, IRRELEVANT.


I see for added confusion my other thread was merged with this. good, but id have been fine with deletion of mine, this one was first after all// oh well