Obama Releases Gun Control Plan

President Obama today released his gun control plan.

Obama's plan calls on Congress to renew a prohibition on assault weapons sales that expired in 2004, a requirement for criminal background checks on all gun purchases, including closing a loophole for gun show sales, and a new federal gun trafficking law - long sought by big-city mayors to keep out-of-state guns off their streets.

He also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improvements in the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence, putting more counselors and "resource officers" in schools and better access to mental health services.

Obama also named Todd Jones will be the chief of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, "quietly abandoning Andrew Traver." The cost of Obama's plan: $500 million.

< Zimmerman Defense Receives Trayvon Martin's School Records | Husband of MA AUSA Criticizes Swartz Family Obit on Twitter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How much safer are you with a gun in your home? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:07:33 AM EST
    Kellermann found people turned those guns on themselves and others in the house far more often than on intruders. "In other words, a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense," he says. link

    Wow 43 times (1.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:57:57 PM EST

    Someone with political connections should get this information to President Obama straightway.  The White House no doubt has dozens if not scores of guns putting him, his wife and those two lovely daughters at what must be great statistical risk.



    What a stupid, trolllish comment (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:00:31 PM EST
    You've really outdone yourself.

    It took you 10 hours to get (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    and understand your official NRA talking points enough to post that comment. You should be proud that you were able to accomplish that task in such a short time frame.

    Safer than a bathtub by that metric (none / 0) (#79)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:47:32 AM EST

    A bathtub is about 100 times more likely to be involved in the death of a family member than used in self defense.  

    BTW, unless a firearm is discharged in self defense there is no reliable record keeping of how often that happens.  For example that mother with the two nine year old kids that shot and disabled the perp breaking in with a crowbar recently in Georgia, if the perp saw the gun and ran there would likely be no record of the defensive use of a firearm.



    But is a bathtub... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:19:40 AM EST
    100 times more likely to be involved in the death of a family member than being involved in the bath or shower of a family member?

    So you don't think that even if the (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    so-called perp ran away, there would be any kind of police report?  I mean, I don't know about you, but if I have that kind of encounter, I'm going to report it regardless of whether the would-be criminal sticks around.  

    I don't know what specific information is collected for statistical purposes, but I have to think that if police are called and a report is taken, that somewhere in that report is an indication that the intended victim had a gun, don't you?  Well, unless the intended victim's gun isn't legal, of course.

    The real problem here is that you and others who won't countenance any sensible regulation of guns in this country think that if you can just get people to have a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin style argument, the whole thing will eventually just blow over.

    The issue isn't bathtubs or knives or bombs, it's guns, and I don't think the deflect and deny tactic is working this time.


    That depends on what (none / 0) (#93)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    the woman would choose to share with the police, and what the police chose to record.  Different departments have different policies.

      There is no national database of instances of defensive use of firearms.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    What a prime example of the intelligent debate tactics used by some gun advocates. This exceeds even your normal efforts at any logical thinking process. :o(

    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by sj on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:38:52 AM EST
    Keep up the efforts at learning how to reason.  My suggestion: study logical fallacies. I recommend starting with false equivalence.

    Hey! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:56:35 AM EST

    I did not choose the metric.  Comparing other objects often found in the home using the same metric is reasonable.



    No it is not reasonable (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by sj on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    A bathtub can never be used as a mobile weapon.  Seriously, look up False Equivalence.  That was an embarrassing comment.  I would recommend not doubling down on it.

    Perhaps you don't grasp the point (none / 0) (#99)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:34:55 AM EST

    The point is that 100% of the items you keep in the home are more likely to kill you or a family member  than to be used for self defense. That includes guns, bathtubs, knives, hammers, gasoline cans, lawn mowers, marbles, fish hooks, rope, toasters, etc.



    I think you are maybe one of the (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    last people who should be talking about failure to grasp a point - unless you are speaking of yourself.

    So, how many angels have you counted on the head of that pin?


    You just couldn't stop yourself, could you? (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:44:28 AM EST
    I understand your non-sequitur perfectly.  You just don't understand how very deeply non that sequitur was.  Either that or you think we won't be able to see it.  

    No.  You've been called out on it enough.  Your readers can see easily through this weak attempt at misdirection.  I can only conclude that you are successfully fooling yourself.


    Aside from the non-sequitur of (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    your bathtub statistics, which, by the way, came with no link or other citation, did you by any chance read the link MOBlue included in her comment?

    I'm guessing not.  Since I get tired of doing other people's homework for them, all I'm going to say on the matter is that it's disingenuous beyond belief to cite lack of records to support various conclusions when suppression of information is being actively engaged in and legislated so that people like you can make the we-have-no-records/databases/statistics argument.


    Good for him! (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    It's a great start!

    The cost.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    ...is significantly more in blood and flesh up to this point. Who cares about money, it's a phucking THING we create out of thin air whenever we "need" to, and I would suggest right now that "need" does not belong in quotes, which it always does when humans come up against the inanimate object (or non-object, in the case of fiat currency) of their own creation.  NEED.

    Not a single thing in this would have prevented... (none / 0) (#3)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    Not a single thing in this on the firearms side would have prevented sandy hook, VT or most other mass shooting. Things like universal background checks are really overblown but that's not a problem for gun owners if done fairly.

    The VT shooter shot 170 rounds and used 10 rd mags for most of it (all but 2 to be exact). And he killed more people than in CT. The Army shooting/Nassan used high caps but he didn't kill nearly as many people. It's likely going to come out that the CT shooter emptied very few of the 30 round mags he carried. These firearms restrictions are useless to preventing tragedies and frankly won't lessen tragedies either. Even if they did, is the 11th person's life more important than the 1st?.

    The mental health changes mentioned are weak and has no specifics on process, including protecting people from false accusations/false positives. It's good we begin to take treatment seriously since we deinstitutionalized in the 70s without actually solving the treatment problem for the insane.

    It's a shame but this situation was an opportunity to make actual changes in the security of sensitive places and instead it's been hijacked by politics to to "something" but not anything that would actually save peoples lives or solve the problems. This was a blame to tool exercise.  

    That is Such a Load... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    ...had the right and NRA not saturated America with so many GD guns this kid may not have gotten one, ditto for many others, including every punk on the street.  Acting like because the gun industry has succeeded in saturating the market with their wares is reason enough to do nothing is child like reasoning.

    Less guns = less gun violence, that's not some crazy statistic, or even a hard comprehend to, it's GD physics.

    So right now, yes I would agree that these measures aren't going to do much because there are simply too many guns out there.  But, the people responsible for saturating the market should not be part of the conversation, they have failed us so badly, that there is literally nothing we can do to make any real difference.  

    Keeping guns out of the hands of people they shouldn't be in can't be done because of the shear numbers the right and NRA have allowed manufactures to put into the American market.  But at least some people are trying, while the gun manufacture representatives keep insisting the only solution is more guns and less restriction.


    The UK's gun crime rate continues to climb... (none / 0) (#27)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:39:40 PM EST
    years after they banned guns.  Banning criminals and the insane is the way to reduce violence, not banning tools.

    Go ahead (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    Don't beat around the bush. Give us the total number of gun deaths in the UK last year. Please proceed.

    I am so glad other homicides don't matter to you (1.50 / 2) (#46)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    I am sure all of the people who died of knives, blunt instruments and the like are happy they didn't get killed by guns. Also, their gun homicides actually went up after they banned guns. Even with guns, they had less gun deaths than after they banned them. We also have different drug war policies and I am betting that has way more to do with any delta than does guns.

    And BTW, Britain has 10% the population of ours so compare rates, not raw numbers.


    No they didn't (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    Also, their gun homicides actually went up after they banned guns

    The homicide rate in the UK went up from the mid-90's until 2002.  It's been declining since then, and the rate of homicide in the UK is 1/4 that of the U.S.

    I am so glad other homicides don't matter to you I am sure all of the people who died of knives, blunt instruments and the like are happy they didn't get killed by guns.

    Who said that?  The subject unders discussion was gun control, hence the discussion of gun murders.  But if it makes you feel better, there were 636 confirmed homicides in 2011, less the 58 gun homicides, leaving 578 homicides by other means.  In the US in 2010, there were 14,785 homicides - 9,960 by gun and 4,825 by other means.  So the UK has non-gun homicide rate of just under half of our non-gun murder rate, but the reason their overall murder rate is so much lower than ours is because their gun murder rate is about 1/33 our gun murder rate.

    And BTW - The population of the UK (the area being discussed) is just over 63 million (in 2011).  The population of England is 53 million.  The US population is 311 million (2011).  The UK has just over 20% of the US population.


    Britain != the UK and I was talking about Britain (none / 0) (#60)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    Scotland, Wales, etc all have their own gun laws. Mostly as bad but not always. I underestimated the population of the US. I thought it was closer to 370 million and Britain was a smaller number so a rough 10% estimate but apparently it's closer to 16%. I stand corrected on that part.

    Anyhow, just because we are talking about gun control, doesn't mean we get to ignore other homicides and focus on gun homicides. Because if you focus on gun homicides, you are ignoring the real problem which is violence and homicides. And if so, yes, you are discounting people who die by other means.

    Now, the important part:

    but the reason their overall murder rate is so much lower than ours is because their gun murder rate is about 1/33 our gun murder rate.

    This I disagree with you on but no stat or empirical evidence will sway either side. We prosecute a drug war in this country that no other industrialized nation on earth engages in. It has created a massive and lucrative black market and our country is right next door to the source of the prohibited item. You either believe that this is the source of the disparity or not. No arguing on the internet will sway anyone's mind on this subject.


    It's a FACT (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:32:15 PM EST
    You may choose to point the finger elsewhere in terms of the reason for gun homicides, but the rates are what they are.  The UK's non-gun homicide rate of about 1/2 our rate, but a gun homicide rate of 1/33 our gun homicide rate.

    The fact is that, regardless of why people are committing homicides in either country, in the US there is plenty of easy access to guns all across our country.  In the UK, just the opposite.  Hence, you have a UK non-gun murder rate of 45% of our rate, and a gun murder rate of less than 3% of our rate.

    BTW - It's just over 17%, but you were responding to a post about UK gun violence, not just Britain.


    The homicide rate in the Uk (none / 0) (#78)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:19:25 AM EST

    The homicide rate in the UK was well below that of the US before either country had any gun control.  That the rate has remained low cannot honestly be attributed to some recent policy.

    The UK has in the past and does now consume more bitters per capita than the US. By your apparent reasoning this is due to the more recent UK gun laws. Yikes!



    How cute (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by sj on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    ...I see you're trying to learn how to reason and use logic.  Still have a long way to go, and maybe someday you'll get there.  Maybe some logic classes?

    A standing ovation (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:35:28 AM EST
    That comment is superb.

    Show me a study ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    ... supporting your (straw) bitters argument.  I can show you several studies showing a correlation between the number of firearms and violence with those firearms.



    On a psychological level (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:40:12 PM EST
    guns and the American mythology of guns, suggest violence and aggression the way a convertible suggests "the freedom of the open road"..

    It's disengenuous, or obtuse in the extreme, to suggest either A) that "people aren't that suggestable" or B) that there's no correlation - in this country - between the easy availibility of guns and and gun violence.  


    (Sound of crickets chirping) n/t (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    I don't Know about last year (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:20:47 PM EST
    Your point being ... ??? n/t (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    I'm Sorry Redwolf... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    ...but when compared to the US, the UK can go up for a long time and still be lower than the US.
    So thanks, that was a great point, the UK has banned guns and their gun murder rates are roughly 4% of ours. That means, roughly, per 100,000 people, for every one killed in the UK, 25 are killed here by a gun.

    Increasing you say, but even if they were increase their murder rate by a factor of 10, it would still be less than half ours.

    Seems to me like the UK is doing something right, no ?  I'll take a rate as low as theirs any day of the week, even if it's increasing, as you claim.

    But I suspect you already knew this, certainly the people who fed you that 'crime increasing shtick' knew the UK's murder rate was 4% of ours and still pushed the increasing portion of that statistic.  

    So stop pushing crimes rates when I mention gun violence, stop cherry picking statistics that fit your motive, and quit pretending this isn't true, more guns = more gun violence.

    FYI, here are the countries with higher gun homicide rates than the US:
    Barbados, Belarus, Costa Rica, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Paraguay, Guatemala, Colombia

    So if you want to use examples of failed policies, this is your pool, the rest have done better than the US and therefore can't be pulled out of the closet as examples of failures for any statistical trickery.  Pretty depressing list IMO, the US can't do better than 3rd world countries on murder rates, some of whom still have anti-government rebels running around killing people at will.


    The UK changed the way ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    ... they report crimes, which is large part of the reason for their "increase" in crime.  Moreover, they had 58 gun homicides in 2010/11, as compared to approximately 11,078 in the US.

    You realize the 2A has been around since 1789? (none / 0) (#47)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    The NRA didn't do anything. America has been this way all along.

    What is your point about the date? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:07:03 PM EST
    Really, the readership of this blog is way above average intelligent, it seems.  But none of us, I think, is a mind-reader.

    They were blaming the NRA for US gun ownership (none / 0) (#62)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    Point being, the NRA was largely irrelevant in lobbying for gun ownership until the late 70s. The org didn't exist until the 1880s and a lot of guns and a gun culture existed prior to that. The reason we have guns and a history of gun ownership is the constitution and not some lobby organization.

    To blame the NRA is to regurgitate political talking points meant to demonize the NRA, it's membership and gun owners in general. That's the point.

    PS: The year was a typo. It's 1788 (ratification) and not 1789. I missed the typo.


    Spare Me (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    Do you know how many millions the NRA has receives from the gun industry ?  It's HERE.

    Did you know that:

    -According to a 2012 poll conducted by GOP pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 74 percent of NRA members support mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, a position that the NRA has stridently opposed.

    - The Violence Policy Center study cited an NRA promotional brochure about the corporate partnership drive, noting that LaPierre promised that "this program is geared towards your company's corporate interests."

    -Among the gun industry heavyweights on the 76-seat NRA board are Ronnie Barrett, CEO of Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, which makes a military-style rifle sold with high-capacity magazines. Pete Brownell, who heads Iowa-based Brownells Inc., another maker of high-capacity magazines, also sits on the NRA board.

    - Besides its heavy lobbying for the special legal protections for gunmakers and distributors, the NRA pushed successfully in 2004 to ensure that a 10-year ban on assault weapons, enacted in 1994 over strong NRA objections, wasn't renewed. Since then, annual rifle production by U.S. gunmakers has risen by almost 38 percent, according to federal gun data.

    -The NRA's most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmaster rifle and Glock pistol. These clips increase the lethality of weapons by allowing dozens of shots to be fired before the shooter has to reload. According to its website, Midway has donated about $7.7 million to the NRA through another fundraising program that dates back to 1992. Under this program, customers who buy Midway products are asked to "round up" the price to the next dollar, with the company donating the difference to the NRA.

    And this kicker, "Despite the millions of dollars it has collected from the gun industry, the NRA's website says "it is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition."

    Sorry, but only a fool would think the NRA isn't looking out for corporate interests, they but out a brochure stating they do.  Their board has gun manufacturing titans sitting on it.  They also take views that are in conflict with their members.

    So yes, I think the the NRA is responsible for saturating the US market with firearms and that would not be possible without a lot of support that mainly comes from the right.


    They don't need any help (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:37:39 PM EST
    To blame the NRA is to regurgitate political talking points meant to demonize the NRA, it's membership and gun owners in general. That's the point.

    The NRA manages to do that quite well all by itself ...


    I don't think the NRA is generally blamed (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    for the high rate of U.S. private gun ownership.  It is properly blamed, however, for the consequences of its devilishly successful lobbying against any and all forms of reasonable regulation of private gun ownership.  Even if the Supreme Court is correct that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of gun ownership, and that the 14th Amendment makes that right enforceable against the states as well as against the federal government, no serious student of the Constitution would contend that the right thus protected is absolute. Like all constitutional rights that are expressed in seemingly absolute terms (including First Amendment rights) the "right" of gun ownership would be subject to reasonable Congressional and state-level limitation and regulation. As for the date, March 4, 1789 is when the original Constitution was ratified.  The Bill of Rights, originally consisting of twelve articles, was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and submitted to the States for ratification.  Ten of the twelve were ratified by a sufficient number of states and therefore became effective on December 15, 1791.

    Doesn't this majority opinion by Scalia (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:13:24 PM EST
    in D.C. v Heller indicate that the government can regulate the sale of guns and prohibit them from certain places?

    In fact, Scalia specifically opines in dicta:

    "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    Yes, absolutely it does. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:17:58 PM EST
    I should have made more clear, I guess, when I referred to "serious students of the Constitution," that I did not necessarily mean to exclude Justice Scalia ... if that's what you thought.  Even when he's wrong, he's certainly serious.

    No that is not what I thought (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:58:39 PM EST
    you meant regarding Scalia.

    I just keep reading posts from some gun advocates that the 2nd Amendment gives them unrestricted rights to bear arms. IOW any and all regulations are an infringement of their rights. The quote from Scalia in D.C. v Heller IMO indicates that the government does maintain the right to regulate guns.

    Just wanted to make sure that my understanding was correct and to reiterate that the court did not rule that the 2nd Amendment prohibited regulations on guns.  


    My comment about Justice Scalia (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:08:16 PM EST
    (make-believe attributed to you, MoBlue) was tongue-in-cheek. And no, you are not wrong in the slightest.

    Viewed in that light your (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:23:05 PM EST
    comment was very amusing. My meter is slightly sluggish this time of night. {warm smiles}

    Here is the issue and why these advocates say this (none / 0) (#73)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    Most regulations thus far on guns, especially in Brady approved states, have been terminally brain dead. Any and all further regulations in the coming months will generally be brain dead. Really, so much of the gun regulation in this country is so far out there and so disconnected from reality that it's actually causing more problems, not less.

    Case in point, the new New York law actually limits people to guns which have 7 round capacities or less. These are the exact same guns gang bangers actually seek out and want. Another example is the mental health rules on gun ownership in MA. It actually dissuades people from getting help because the second they get help, they lose their rights and it's near impossible to get them back. So people who may be breaking from reality actually have an incentive to not get help in MA. I could go on.

    So in this vein, you can see why people are basically putting their foot down and saying no more. Meanwhile, background checks and other things are easy and no one really thinks these are evil, but most gun owners are done. And frankly Cuomo just tickled their worst fears by passing the confiscation bill he did. Even Schumer said recently that the anti-gun groups need to stop talking confiscation and banning. Yet what is happening now?

    If you want to curb violence work with gun owners and not against them. Every time we hear people prattle on about RPGs at gun shows, full automatics available at 7-11, teddy bears more regulated than guns, etc it's all just bull crap. Ultimately enough people are happy to see guns disappear off the face of the planet and will support policies that drive that direction. Once you do, you simply create a reverse image on the other side of the issue.


    Straw arguments (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:38:15 AM EST
    Every time we hear people prattle on about RPGs at gun shows, full automatics available at 7-11, teddy bears more regulated than guns, etc it's all just bull crap. Ultimately enough people are happy to see guns disappear off the face of the planet and will support policies that drive that direction. Once you do, you simply create a reverse image on the other side of the issue.

    Much easier to knock down than the real ones, huh?


    PS (none / 0) (#74)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:22:52 PM EST
    I don't think people breaking from reality should be armed. The point is that people who aren't breaking from reality and are not dangerous lose their rights too easily, making it clear to everyone don't get help.

    corrections (none / 0) (#4)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:53:21 PM EST
    "the tool exercise" and when I say that the CT shooter emptied very few of the mags, I don't mean he emptied 4 for a total of 120 rounds. I mean he used close to 10 and used 12 out of each (made up numbers but they may be close). Just to be clear.

    The CT school shooter (none / 0) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    used extended mags. A ban of those clips would have made a difference.  In addition, he wouldn't have assault weapons.

    Actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    Actually, he used normal capacity mags. And if you think it would have been different with cripple mags, explain how the VT shooter killed more with two handguns, one of which is beginners gun, and neither were assault weapons and the VT shooter used 10 rd mags.

    Please provide a link for your information (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    since it contradicts all other reports that I have read regarding the weapon used and the size of the magazine. See linked information below:

    The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines. link

    What does CT state police have to do with... (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    What does CT state police have to do with the Virginia Tech shooting? I was talking about the VT shooting and asking why any of the firearms restrictions  called for today would have made a difference there?

    And your quote is backing up what I said about we will probably find out he did not empty most of the mags the CT shooter used. To fire a hundred rounds with 30 round mags only requires 4. 4 may be numerous, it may not be. Only time will tell.


    Not numerous? (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school and then sprayed the children with bullets, first from a distance and then at close range, hitting some of them as many as 11 times, as he fired a semiautomatic rifle loaded with ammunition designed for maximum damage, officials said Saturday.

    The state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said all of the 20 children and 6 adults gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., had been struck more than once in the fusillade.

    He said their wounds were "all over, all over." link

    Some were shot up to 11 times.


    This exchange is bringing on the urge (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:55:46 PM EST
    to post a couple recipes...if you catch my drift.  I'm pretty sure you could post facts morning, noon and night, and never make a dent in the arguments this person is offering.

    I'm still processing his belief that "banning" the insane would be much more effective in reducing gun violence.


    this isn't dkos (1.40 / 5) (#51)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:12:06 PM EST
    maybe you should go over there if you want to be a troll baiting "heather" this evening? Seriously, how old are you?

    I may be wrong, but the owner of this site herself tends to disagree with your particular POV on this topic.  Perhaps you should try chasing her off the site?


    Get a grip (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:55:36 PM EST
    As if you even have a clue what (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    my point of view is...

    Pretty sure Jeralyn doesn't agree with "banning the insane" or prosecuting people for "reporting" them.

    Good news - only five sentences!  Maybe you can manage to read what I've written and not mangle it like you usually do.

    Not holding my breath.


    Definitely time for a (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    ""Thylvethter'th Thufferin' Thuccotash" recipe. ;o)

    Love it when you ladies (none / 0) (#44)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    go to recipes...I saved both your chicken soup recipes.  Thanx

    I am trying to find where I advocated banning (none / 0) (#48)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:32:48 PM EST
    I am trying to find where I advocated banning the insane. I thought I advocated treating them.

    My apologies...that was redwolf (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    who proposed the banning.  Whatever that means.

    Sooo??? (none / 0) (#24)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:58:04 PM EST
    It doesn't say he didn't reload and even if he didn't reload and the 11th round came from the same magazine, the 9th bullet wasn't going to leave them alive. My point is 1 round is too much. And policies that focus on the 11th round (or 8th round...) while failing to address the first round are a failure before they are ever implemented.

    The first round is the most important and I don't see anything in a AWB or magazine limit that addresses that.

    Gun owners would accept background checks (that didn't restrain trade), an effective mental health screening system (that didn't shift the burden on to the citizen) and all sorts of actually effective measures. But the problem is the other side just wants to ban guns or any gun more modern than a musket and all of the proposals spewing forth from groups like MAIG are geared not towards stopping tragedies but making it harder and more onerous to enjoy free exercise of the 2A. It doesn't help when people call for violence against the NRA and it's members nor does it help treating gun owners in ways similar to pedophiles (see MA).

    So when people like MAIG talk about reasonable restrictions, those restrictions really aren't geared towards helping anyone but the anti-gun cause. Just because people believe these policies make a difference doesn't make it so.


    okay, it took me several comments (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:59:11 PM EST
    of yours to understand the point you were making.  Since I am more likely to agree with your point, in fact I do agree, that most other people here,  I would say you'll have to understand the argument.  You weren't really clear.  But then, I should talk.

    I agree with the universal background check idea.  I don't really care if it interferes with trade.  The 2A is about the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, not gun dealers right to make a profit. I think the idea of studying the mental health aspects of the problem is good.  

    What I do not agree with is the "Assault weapons" ban and the high capacity clip ban.  I think both are meaningless window dressing.  I do not believe that these things are the real offenders when it comes to gun crime in this country.  When we look at the statistics, we would lower the number of gun deaths by doing two things, one the president proposed and one he did not.  One thing is cracking down on interstate gun trafficking.  The other thing law enforcement should be doing is stopping and searching gang members and other people in cities where gun crime is epidemic.  Take the damn guns and send them on their way.  Stop punishing law abiding gun collectors for the behavior of a few crazies.  Because despite these mass shootings that get our national attention.....the real numbers, the real stats are in the daily murders that happen by handguns with five or six bullet clips, in the hands of those who have no right to them, who bought them illegally or stole them from someone.


    You keep proposing this (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:57:56 PM EST
    The other thing law enforcement should be doing is stopping and searching gang members and other people in cities where gun crime is epidemic.  Take the damn guns and send them on their way.

    It's pretty easy for someone who doesn't live in a city to propose illegal searches of others who do live in cities.  Apart the illegality of such searches, you do realize that over 30% of gun homicides are not in cities, but in suburban and rural communities, don't you?


    Arbitrary searches in the cities (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    That does play into stereotypes about cities.

    The easier answer is to track the guns.   National regsitration and background checks....


    Here, here! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    After seeing the NRA's noxiously vile (and incredibly foolish) ad which seeks to use the president's young daughters as political fodder, I'm more convinced than ever that we must seize the moment to take action now to curb this epidemic of violence.

    The late George Carlin had Wayne LaPierre's number. It's high time everyone else did, too.

    Thoughts (none / 0) (#6)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    1. $500 million = 2 days of war in Afghanistan

    2. I don't think any gun fan can realistically look at the proposal as really offensive except the assault weapons ban.  But to me that is the most unlikely part to pass.  All the rest of it seems like common sense stuff that gun owners should be able to support.

    3. Progressives should be pleased with the proposals I think.

    4.  I honestly think Obama is going to lose on the big issues.  Most of this stuff won't get through congress in any real way, but I am very happy he is trying.

    I'd like to see prosecution... (none / 0) (#8)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:25:03 PM EST
    for failing to report insane people.  In both the gifford and batman shooting the shooters we're known to be insane  by law enforcement and the shooter's therapist respectively.  We take insanity way to lightly in this country.

    This is way, way more complicated (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    than what you are suggesting, redwolf.   If you are going to require therapists to "report" every single person that they think may (or may not) be a danger, you are going to wind up with a whole lot of people who will decide not to get therapy, plus wasting resources of law enforcement that could well be better be spent elsewhere.
    Not to mention the fact that it is extremely difficult to decide who might be a danger.  It's not like psychiatry or psychology is an exact science, and it also depends upon your definition of "insane."
    Do you really want therapists to be legally liable for every patient that they did not "report" to the authorities?  I certainly don't.  
    Maybe you are comfortable with a society in which every therapist, doctor, teacher, or whomever, reports everyone who might possibly be mentally outside of the norm.
    That is not a country that I would a want to live in.

    Thank you Zorba. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    In addition, not everyone who decides to become violent with a gun is mentally ill, so I don't like when it is proposed that the only solution to gun violence is more and better mental health access.

    People who have tempers sometimes snap and kill with guns.

    People who feel alienated kill with guns sometimes.

    People who are jealous kill with guns sometimes.

    People who romanticize macho cowboy culture kill with guns sometimes.

    People with power issues kill with guns sometimes.

    People who are inured to violence because they live in violence....


    All these people are not by definition mentally ill.

    Less guns and stricter laws help, in addition to better mental health treatment, and myriad other things.


    You missed the biggest kill of them all. (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    Governments who don't like a particular group of people murder far more people than any other group.

    How about we disarm the government first?  Then if everything works out lets disarm everyone else.


    um.... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    ...what are you talking about?

    Most people have long since gotten hip to the paranoidandorcynical-government-takeover-fantasies of the gun fetishist crowd, if that's what you're worrying about.


    War, perhaps? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:20:02 PM EST
    Police shootings? Mass incarceration? Inadequate public health programs? Just guessing.

    What are you talking about? Ask the Iraqis (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    - nice job of completely missing his point, Doc.

    Not really Natural. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    If his point was that the government also kills people with guns, then it has nothing to do with my comment that he replied to, but is instead an overused and all too familiar deflection by now.

    I didn't miss his point, I just find it hard to believe that people still try that nonsense.


    I suspect Redwolf (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    was being facetious and is not really interested in prosecuting anyone.

    I would hope so, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    but it is impossible to tell, vcndabox.   Perhaps a snark tag or something would have helped, if this is the case.

    You're quite wrong. (none / 0) (#35)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    When people are given a position of authority, they need to care enough about their community and the mentally ill to act before the mentally ill do something horrible that causes great harm to their and the larger communities lives.  When they fail in their duties to protect the mentally ill from themselves and the larger community a price must be paid for their intransigence.  We've forgotten the concept that people are responsible for those they have charge of.  

    There was recently a case where the Chicago PD arrested a bipolar women in the airport for acting a bit nuts(She'd gone off her meds). Instead of taking her to get mental health care, they tossed her in jail for a couple of days and then dropped her off in the middle of the ghetto(Reason they did so is unclear).  She was then gang rapped and ended up jumping from a 7th story apartment to escape. None of those cops have been charged with anything.  People need to be held responsible for not taking proper care of the mentally ill they are in charge of.


    Not to Mention... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    ...who is going to fund this, the right is the party, namely Reagan, that decided crazies are better off on the streets than getting the help they need.

    Now all of sudden they are interested in helping people with mental problems, yeah suuuuure they are.  And they will pass legislation to fund it as soon as humanly possible...


    The right and the left decided that one together.. (1.50 / 2) (#37)
    by redwolf on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    The left felt that crazy people should be free to roam around and the right felt that it was a waste of money.  The result was a lot more mass killings and a lot of homeless people who can't cope with normal life. Both the mentally ill and the rest of us are much worse off for it.

    I can only hope (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:25:06 PM EST
    that you do not have any loved ones who are, shall I say, " off the grid" of what is considered to be "normal" behavior.  I am not saying that it was an excellent idea to close all the mental institutions way back then, without having a plan to care for those patients who were released.  But you also should realize that many of those institutions were, basically, hell-holes.  Many of them delivered sub-standard care, and way, way too many of them mistreated their patients.
    The huge failing of that decision involved not having any d@mned plan to treat those patients at the community level.  It did not involve closing those institutions.  I worked with some people who had been released from them, and they were more messed up than they were before they went in.
    This country is not willing to spend the resources that are necessary to address this problem in any meaningful, humanitarian way.

    BS - The "left" ... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    ... did no such thing.  Reagan directed the SSA to cut SSI and SSDI rolls, the slashed funding for mental health institutions with the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, which repealed the provisions of the National Mental Health Systems Act, cut federal mental health and substance abuse allocations by twenty-five percent, and converted them to block grants disbursed with few strings attached.

    Who on the left decided that "crazy people should be free to roam around"?

    What a crock.


    The civil libertarians who sued to ensure (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    due process in the civil commitment laws and to free the incarcerated mentally ill who were not dangerous, back in the '70s and '80s, are not the ones who decided to devote none of the resulting public savings to community mental health treatment.  To the contrary, they advocated for such programs (which could not have been ordered in the lawsuits themselves) and were ignored.

    Actually, the drive (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    for the deinstitutionalization of our mentally ill began in the early 60's and gained a tremendous boost after Geraldo Rivera's expose of the conditions at Willowbrook State School in, I think, 1972. That era closely coincided with Nelsen Rockefeller's tenure as New York's Governor (1958-1972.) Fiscally conservative, Republican Gov. Rockefeller was a strong proponent of this movement. And, as Governor of the great State of NY, his voice carried tremendous influence.

    The movement, however, was nonpartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for it while differing, perhaps, in motivation. The point I would like to make is that the result of this bipartisan action is a good example of the notion, "be careful what you wish for." The goal having been twofold, saving money, and providing better conditions for the mentally ill, was only 50% successful. The 1'st. goal, saving money, was a tremendous success. NYS saved billions in health care costs for the mentally ill. Unfortunately, the savings were directed into the general fund, not to improving the care of those who needed it. The results for the other goal had a different result, thousands of critically ill patients were dumped into the streets and into our prisons because the "community homes"  that were their intended destinations were not funded and thus non-existent.

    I think this story is important to keep in mind today because we're having an eerily similar discussion as it relates to "fixing, improving, and/or strengthening" our  social programs.

    As it was sage advice several decades ago, so it is today, "be careful what you wish for,"  


    An important case that had a huge effect (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    An important case that had a huge effect on deinstitutionalization was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967. "It passed in both Houses without a single dissenting vote" (Republicans saw a way to save money and Democrats saw a way to expand civil rights) and it restricted the grounds for involuntary hospitalization and its length (Isaac & Armat, 1990). So in effect, civil liberty lawyers could also be held responsible to a degree for the acceleration of deinstitutionalization.

    Advocating for better mental health ... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    ... care for the truly mentally ill while fighting unjust, involuntary civil commitments does not equal deciding that "crazy people should be free to roam around".

    Reagan did not vote for the (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:01:58 AM EST
    Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967 which had a huge effect on deinstitutionalization. Every Dem in congress did vote for it. Like I said in another comment:  Reagan certainly didn't help, but he's far from the only "actor" in this story.

    A small caveat, sarc (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:11:37 AM EST
    Reagan could not have voted for the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967 because he was Governor of California in 1967.
    He was never in Congress.    ;-)

    he would have voted for it just like every single other congressperson did.

    Would Those 1967 Democrats... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    ...be Dixiecrats that in this day and age we would call Republicans ?  Same group who liked segregation, championed states rights, and though Jim Crow laws were A-OKay and who later migrated into Reaganville ?

    Doesn't seem like party affiliation is relevant nearly 50 years ago, surely not as relevant as you are making it out to be.


    that I posted? What does that tell you about the Dems? Regardless, while Reagan certainly didn't help, he's far from the only "actor" in this story.

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    ...a supporting cast of budget cutting republican types were needed, maybe they had a D behind their name in '67.  But arguing D's like to cut and slash public health funding is ridiculous on so many levels, like me arguing R's cut military funding and using votes from the 60's to make that claim.

    My entire point was the right is now deflecting 'gun control' to 'crazy people' control and my point was it's rather funny when you consider just how much of that area they have either cut or want to cut.  But now, they want to throw money at the problem, pleaze, la-weaze.  

    It's all talk to get the heat off guns, no one on either side really thinks they are serious about helping people with mental heath issues.  And they certainly aren't going to fund what would be necessary to make a difference in regards this discussion, decreasing gun violence.


    I don't think I ever argued that: (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    arguing D's like to cut and slash public health funding is ridiculous on so many levels,
    I'm merely pointing out in this and several other comments on this thread, that Reagan is far from the only person responsible for deinstitutionalization.

    As most, if not all, of the recent activity regarding gun control has been spurred by the actions of, as you say, 'crazy people,' it should not be any surprise that 'crazy people' is a large part of the conversation.

    My input on the 'crazy people' is that it's not at all all Reagan's fault, despite the repetitive claim that it is.


    No - it was only a California law (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    No idea what the situation was in California psychiatric hospitals at the time, but "every Democrat in Congress" did not vote for it.

    No one said he was (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    Reagan did not vote for the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967 which had a huge effect on deinstitutionalization. Every Dem in congress did vote for it. Like I said in another comment:  Reagan certainly didn't help, but he's far from the only "actor" in this story.

    How did "every Democrat in Congress" manage to vote for a California bill (signed by Governor Reagan)?


    Well, no, Scott (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    They do not seem to be interested in actually helping people.  They do seem to be interested, however, in incarcerating everyone they can.  

    Well, while Reagan certainly didn't help, (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:26:56 PM EST
    he's far from the only "actor" in this story:
    ''We knew that there were not enough resources in the community to do the whole job, so that some people would be in the streets facing society head on and questions would be raised about the necessity to send them back to the state hospitals,'' Dr. Brown said.

    But, he continued, ''It happened much faster than we foresaw.'' The discharge of mental patients was accelerated in the late 1960's and early 1970's in some states as a result of a series of court decisions that limited the commitment powers of state and local officials.

    Mid 1960's-1970's: Academic attacks on mental health and psychiatry proliferated. Laing, Szasz, Scheff, and others were critical of psychiatry and mental institutions. Their view gained wide acceptance and shaped popular perceptions of the mental health system.
    Late 1960's-1970's: State and federal courts ruled that the mentally ill had the legal right to refuse treatment and could [not] be involuntarily committed to mental institutions unless they posed a clear and present danger to themselves or others. Other court rulings forced New York State and other states to improve the quality of care in the institutions they operated.
    Late 1960's-1970's: The definition of mental illness expanded to include minor mental disorders and difficulty in coping with life crises. This expansion reflected increasing involvement of psychologists, social workers and other non-psychiatric personnel in treating mental illness.
    Late 1960's-1970's: The mass political movements of the era were often hostile to the concept of mental health.
    Late 1960's-1970's: The problems associated with the policy of mass discharges (deinstitutionalization) from state hospitals became increasingly evident: lack of continuity of care and failure to meet the needs of the seriously mentally ill.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    They had absolutely no plans or resources to treat those who were deinstitutionalized.  
    Not that I disagree with the idea of deinstitutionalizing itself, given the fact that, as I said, many of those institutions were hell-holes which not only did not provide decent care, but which abused patients.
    Buy waving a "magic wand" and declaring, close them all, without providing a plan, or the money, for that matter, to help them once they were released, was not only stupid, but egregiously unethical, not mention, in my opinion, immoral.

    Please define insanity. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    I'm all for better mental health care and treatment in this country - we are appallingly bad at getting people the help they need - but flinging around words like "insane" isn't going to get us there.

    How about people who may not be receiving (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    treatment but announce their violent intentions. Examples:

    The Tennessee CEO who said in a YouTube video earlier this week that he would "start killing people" if current gun control efforts went "one inch further"

    rarestia, whose tagline is "It's Time to Water the Tree of Liberty":

    Military-grade psyops! There's NO WAY LEOs are going to be in on something like this. If they are, we have a serious, SERIOUS problem at all levels of government in this nation. To the point that an armed rebellion and reinstitution of the basic tenets of the Constitution would be necessary.

    This is live-action, real-deal theater being orchestrated by Obama and his minions. I really cannot wait for it all to come to a head. I want to either get the shooting started or die at the hands of Obama's stormtroopers.



    Not the brightest dirtbag in the dump. Now torture him for information on who put him up to it.

    You are suggesting opening a very dangerous is a Pandora's box.

    Should read (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    You are suggesting opening a very dangerous Pandora's box.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#11)
    by terraformer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    In Aurora, the school wiped their hands of him because he dropped out. In Giffords case, he was well known to the cops but they did nothing either because his mother was employed by the county or incompetence. The problem here is we don't have a good "something" to do on mental health. There is nothing in between same and "criminally insane" (ie; they have already acted dangerously and harmed someone or themselves) in most mental health care regimes. We need a lot more leadership in this area but all we are getting is political grandstanding or heads shoved in the sand. We need more on this issue.

    I like 7 & 15, especially, (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    of the 23 exec actions presuming they result in more responsible gun ownership.
    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

    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.

    Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    I see those as primarily window dressing.  The kind of relatively ineffectual thing that make "pro" gun folks happy because 1) they aren't affected in the slightest, and 2) maybe they can net a few newbies.

    Don't get me wrong -- I don't think they're worthless.  Just ... meh.  

    Just my opinion.


    From mine, anything that increases gun owners training in safety, etc., is a good thing.

    fair enough (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    More safety is definitely not a bad thing.  I'm frankly not sure what the ROI is on that so I can't speak to effectiveness.

    Yup, I agree, I'm not sure either, (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:52:25 PM EST
    which is why I said "presuming they result in more responsible gun ownership." People will own guns, if there are programs developed that can/will improve gun owner responsibly that would be a good thing.

    How could the NRA or Republicans object? (none / 0) (#65)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    If I was either I would've been standing with the President when he signed them today. There's nothing in these Executive Orders that seems to come close to restricting anyones 2nd Ammendment rights.
    The only one that I have a little concern with is #13,
    13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

    Seems a bit vague to me.

    The whole thing looked like (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:10:20 AM EST
    an excuse to get money to his favorite groups... In the meantime, the murders by gun keep going down..


    According to a recent Mother Jones article (none / 0) (#95)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    the drop correlates with the decrease in environmental lead exposure.

    I saw that... (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    ... a few days ago (h/t Avendon Carol) but admit to a shameful lack of faith in some commenters.  I thought it would be worthless to link to something that would never be read by those who would benefit the most.

    Thanks for highlighting the information.  It is most interesting, isn't it?  And the use of long-term data correlations instead an apparent cause and effect "club" was also most interesting.


    The rooster crowed this morning (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:14:16 AM EST
    and the sun came up...

    We better take care of that rooster!

    Correlation is not causation.


    No fair, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    I've been using that rooster example on you for years, and now you suddenly develop an appreciation for causation.

    Funny how you don't apply the same standard to your silly theory of how Bush magically caused gas prices to fall, as opposed to a drop in demand caused by a massive, world-wide recession.


    In the meantime,... (none / 0) (#112)
    by unitron on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    ...the murders by gun keep going down.."

    Except in Newtown, where there was a sharp rise late last year.


    Uhmmmm, ... ALL murders have been ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:08:24 PM EST
    ... "going down".  Only 8,583 murders by gun last year (more than 5X the next-highest category - Knives or cutting instruments)!

    Woo Hoo!