America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?

[nyquillyn]

Obama's pissed off little press conference on the rejection of the bill would have been a lot more powerful to me if he wasn't promoting drone war. How can I take him seriously on this issue?

[broken iris]

If I could trust them to actually destroy the records and not expand this at a later date it would be more palatable. Oh, and its total lack of relevance to any of the recent tragedies makes it questionable. If you live in a blue state this failure won't affect your fellow citizens anyhow, so you can sleep soundly, BI.

I can assure you with 100% certainty that the information that would be derived from the background checks is already tracked and stored by the federal government.

[Electromatic]

I'm not sure why I should be upset that a group of people did not get together and put more limitations on liberties.

[simple schoolboy]

If I could trust them to actually destroy the records and not expand this at a later date it would be more palatable. Oh, and its total lack of relevance to any of the recent tragedies makes it questionable. If you live in a blue state this failure won't affect your fellow citizens anyhow, so you can sleep soundly, BI.

I can assure you with 100% certainty that the information that would be derived from the background checks is already tracked and stored by the federal government.

I don't doubt it but the FBI is supposed to destroy the identifying information of background checks within something like 1 business day after it has been approved. They already have the means of making a national gun registry if they just hold on to those documents, as you suggest.

[WtOB?]

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/ ... 2i9rh.html

[WtOB?]

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/ ... 2i9rh.html

Woah, that's pwnt.

[Birds in Hell]

That made me chuckle today.

(I think it's a great deal too simplistic to think that gun control would work as successfully in the USA as it did here, however. I've been guilty of making that argument before.)

[WtOB?]

That's a good point, but there is a pretty glaringly obvious problem over there that needs SOME kind of solution. It still seems like not enough is being done. Better to try a potential solution and fail than to just sit by and watch it happen.

This is from an outsider's perspective and I understand that I don't live there and my opinion probably isn't as valid as some others here but that's just my feeling towards this.

[broken iris]

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/ ... 2i9rh.html

Woah, that's pwnt.

Yeah, that was pretty good. Thing is though, they are kind talking about two different things. Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings. They will do little about the thousands of other gun deaths every year. Poverty appears to be the largest driver for gun violence (distinct from mass shootings) so that's what needs to be addressed to get the results AUS saw with their ban... which wasn't that accompanied by everyone turning in their guns?

From a pro-gun sight, so take with caution:

[elliseamos]

Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.

this is sorta the point, b.i.

[simple schoolboy]

Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.

this is sorta the point, b.i.

I thought the point was arresting people for having the tenacity for bringing their (registered in their home state) handgun into New York. http://online.wsj.com/article/APe23c8dd ... 7c46d.html

[elliseamos]

Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.

this is sorta the point, b.i.

I thought the point was arresting people for having the tenacity for bringing their (registered in their home state) handgun into New York. http://online.wsj.com/article/APe23c8dd ... 7c46d.html

what? I was referring to the point of the jon oliver/jon howard segment being discussed.

that story is just seems odd to me. if the gun was unloaded and he had no ammunition, what did he need the gun for?

[simple schoolboy]

Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.

this is sorta the point, b.i.

I thought the point was arresting people for having the tenacity for bringing their (registered in their home state) handgun into New York. http://online.wsj.com/article/APe23c8dd ... 7c46d.html

what? I was referring to the point of the jon oliver/jon howard segment being discussed.

that story is just seems odd to me. if the gun was unloaded and he had no ammunition, what did he need the gun for?

He was trying to check it as baggage at the airport for passenger air travel. For this he gets arrested, thanks to the strict gun control New York would like to export to the rest of the country. The point is, the proposals so far would have very little, possibly no impact on the rare but spectacular mass shootings. What these proposals (and resultant laws) are good for is making felons* out of otherwise law-abiding individuals.

*or just misdemeanor level criminals, depending the severity

Edit:apparently you can check most ammunition in baggage but it must be in an approved container. Also, my understandin is that he was bringing it as a prop for an interview or something of that nature.

[elliseamos]

these are all from that pro-gun site that broken iris referenced earlier:







does anybody see something in common? possibly a specific year in which all of these select states/cities experience a stark decline in "homicides and non-negligent manslaughters per 100,000 people"? what could possibly cause such a sweeping trend?

Spoiler: show

Thank Joe Biden

[elliseamos]

He was trying to check it as baggage at the airport for passenger air travel. For this he gets arrested, thanks to the strict gun control New York would like to export to the rest of the country.

i understand what he was trying to do, i don't understand why it's New York's fault that he's an idiot.

The point is, the proposals so far would have very little, possibly no impact on the rare but spectacular mass shootings. What these proposals (and resultant laws) are good for is making felons* out of otherwise law-abiding individuals.

*or just misdemeanor level criminals, depending the severity

since when is it acceptable to throw our hands up and quit before we even try to solve a problem?

Edit:apparently you can check most ammunition in baggage but it must be in an approved container. Also, my understandin is that he was bringing it as a prop for an interview or something of that nature.

like i said above, why is it New York's fault that he's an idiot?

[simple schoolboy]

He was trying to check it as baggage at the airport for passenger air travel. For this he gets arrested, thanks to the strict gun control New York would like to export to the rest of the country.

i understand what he was trying to do, i don't understand why it's New York's fault that he's an idiot.

The point is, the proposals so far would have very little, possibly no impact on the rare but spectacular mass shootings. What these proposals (and resultant laws) are good for is making felons* out of otherwise law-abiding individuals.

*or just misdemeanor level criminals, depending the severity

since when is it acceptable to throw our hands up and quit before we even try to solve a problem?

Edit:apparently you can check most ammunition in baggage but it must be in an approved container. Also, my understandin is that he was bringing it as a prop for an interview or something of that nature.

like i said above, why is it New York's fault that he's an idiot?

He comes from California, which has fairly restrictive gun laws. Is he an idiot for assuming that New York isn't more so? In the majority of states, what he did was a matter of course, not a crime. Are you familiar with the entirety of the New York criminal statue?

I'd agree with you that he was an idiot if he were to say, carry a loaded gun around New York without researching the laws, but a locked up, unloaded gun (with no ammunition readily accessible) is hardly a threat to anyone. Punishing this 'crime' is akin to punishing those who posess a small quanitity of marijuana, and at least those folks have probably funded Mexican cartels.

[Norah]

and at least those folks have probably funded Mexican cartels.

pfft, only if they're buying shitty mexican brick weed

[elliseamos]

and at least those folks have probably funded Mexican cartels.

pfft, only if they're buying shitty mexican brick weed

right. not to mention one's carrying a small quantity of mary jane will never result in someone dying.

as for your asking if i know all of new york's laws, i don't need to since i have no intention of carrying a gun across state lines.

[broken iris]

Stricter guns laws might reduce mass shootings.

this is sorta the point, b.i.

Ah, true, that was a poorly written statement like most of the garbage I post here. Stricter laws will be effective only if the laws are able to block the acquisition of the weapons and that's what those charts were suppose to illustrate. Banning them may stop or delay the very few "go buy a gun and shoot up a school" types, but will not have the overall desired effect if the existing stock is not also turned in to authorities and promptly destroyed which, IIRC, is what made the AUS ban presumably effective. Though it's important to note that the starting point for the Aussie law and any future US laws are different.

From snopes.com

"... believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a Buy-Back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms; even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law."

I am not arguing against a ban on high powered weapons, I don't know enough about the distinctions between those and other guns, nor do I believe that any rules will stop the 3D printer revolution from allowing homemade weapons to be produced that are as effective as the weapons being discussed, but I do not think that taking away an AR-15 means a determined killed will be stopped if they can use multiple shotguns or handguns, or Allah forbid, start using bombs to commit their crimes. Again, not against limits to private ownership or putting large barriers to ownership in place at the federal level, but we need to be realistic about what the effects will be and maybe separate new laws and regulations that address causes (mental health, poverty, bullying, etc.) from the laws that will elicit Pavlovian responses from the NRA-crowd so something can actually get passed.

[Birds in Hell]

...it's important to note that the starting point for the Aussie law and any future US laws are different.

From snopes.com

Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms; even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors.

Agreed, these are two key reasons why I think the comparison fails: Australia lacks the legal and historical ties to gun ownership that exist in the United States and we always had far, far fewer guns in circulation (even illegally) before the buyback. Gun regulation has unarguably resulted in a marked reduction in mass shootings in Australia, but I think it's folly to think instituting similar schemes in other jurisdictions would result in the same outcome. I presume Australia's geographic isolation plays a role in why gun regulation has been so effective here too.