Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-09-28 10:36pm

Lonestar wrote:
2019-09-28 08:03pm
I said in the same thing you quote that Continual improvement is needed for NICS, you dummy.
You started out with

on the other hand, if you could do a UBC that addresses registration concerns

before seguing into "continual improvement to NICS" -- which means more people get jammed up -- there's a lawsuit involving an active duty USN sailor now in Florida over New York state placing a mental block in NICS for someone with his name, and NYS refusing to provide more information -- so Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is refusing to clear it for him.

Did you know that right now, hospitals in NY State are currently forwarding ALL 9.41 evaluations to Albany for inclusion to NICS?

Basically, 9.41 is the code for "involuntary mental evaluation ordered by police".

The hospitals are supposed to go through the 9.41 cases, and screen them; only sending to Albany those cases which were evaluated and found to be credible.

In reality, they're just cc'ing everything to Albany since none of them want to be on the hook for liability.

Elsewhere, there's an ongoing civil suit (Umbert v United States) over NICS denials -- most over people being found guilty of marijuana possession, and later having the charges expunged or withdrawn; but the FBI ignores them (their position is no appeals for NFA items).

PS: Do you think that UBCs will be the talisman that makes the anti gunners go away?
I also said I wanted violent misdemeanors added to the prohibited person list.
It's now SOP for divorce lawyers to direct the woman to file Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (“DVROs”) as a strategic manuver to drain the opposing party's finances and get them out of the house/etc ; so nah.
Your jerk off "WELL IT WON'T DO 100% SO NOT WORTH IT" is why we are where we are.
The only mass shooting that UBCs would have made a chance at preventing was Columbine; where they obtained their guns through private sales:

The TEC-9 was sold to them by a former columbine student -- the guy knew they were under 21 and still sold them the pistol; while the shotguns and carbine were bought by one of the perps' prom date at a gun show because she was 18 (they were still 17).

She stated that the perps at the gun show kept asking people if they were private or FFL dealers, and later in congressional hearings or somesuch, she stated she wouldn't have purchased the guns if she'd been requried to fill out a 4473 (the whole "I am buying this for myself" checkbox).

There may be one or two others; but out of approximately 20 mass shootings; this works out to an actual "success" rate of only 5%.

That recent (last year) Madden Game Tournament Mass Shooting in Jacksonville, FL was conducted by a resident of Baltimore, MD who had travelled there for the Tournament.

Maryland has everything you want (UBCs) and even more (Fingerprinting, handgun license, one gun a month law, 7 day waiting period, 100% handgun registration with State police) and yet all that didn't do shit and he still shot up that Tournament.

Finally, UBCs also discriminate against women and minorities -- making them more likely to be the victim of violence.

Case in point, your girlfriend or friend lives in a bad neighborhood. They don't own a gun. Something bad happens in the parking lot of their apartment or whatever.

It's Saturday night, so you drive over and give them a cheap Ruger LCP in .380 so that if something happens, they'll at least have it for self protection.

NOTE: Saturday night is crucial, because at that point, all gun stores are closed; and most will remain closed until Tuesday morning; so your friend can't just go to the store and get their own handgun (at least for several days).
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Kamakazie Sith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7536
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Kamakazie Sith » 2019-09-28 10:46pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
2019-09-28 09:46pm
Articulation is required in FL, but the standard is Either/Or not And if I remember correctly.

Here is the statute.

316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.—
(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;
(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or
(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

There is no lower limit, mere articulation is legally sufficient, and while in practice it might be better for their case to secure some positive test or another, a single beer (effectively a BAC or .02 or .015) won't cause meaningful impairment in just about anyone, but it would still be sufficient to convict, and depending on the sensitivity of the test, they could detect even lower than that from naturally produced alcohol in the body and it would be sufficient to convict. And they don't even require that by statute.
Yes, it would be sufficient to convict if you had articulation of impairment which is not just "ran a red light". When it is just an impairment DUI your articulation needs to be around the level of "got in accident" along along with those observations of intoxication such as odor, slurred speech, etc. Basically, impairment is defined as operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner and not committed a typical traffic violation. A chemical test results would need to have a published result. Which again they won't do when it is just natural body alcohol unless there is a disorder or something else going on which is very rare. Hell, modern intoxilyzer are able to detect the difference between acetone and ethyl alcohol.
That isn't how chemical tests like that work. It can't differentiate between what is produced in the body and what isn't. Ethanol is Ethanol. Acetaldehyde is Acetaldehyde. They're designed to not be sensitive enough to detect alcohol below a certain concentration. Given the Either/Or nature of Florida's statute, that's a problem.
The intoxilyzer is able to detect between acetone and ethyl alcohol.

Allow me to clarify because I'm not talking about it being able to tell what is natural alcohol and what is not. The test may detect it but it is not published on the result. Again, I've had both done or observed both. The breath test that I took read .000% and the blood test on a suspect was negative for alcohol but positive for a controlled narcotic which is why he was driving around with three foot high flames coming out of his engine and had no idea about it.
Now, maybe that's not a problem in practice? I can't exactly look up the procedures of every PD in Florida. However, we can probably get a good proxy based on what the defense attorneys talk about in their various websites. It turns out yes. It does occur.
The testing is suppose to be standardized. That was the goal behind NHTSA studies and developing the DUI procedure process.
https://klgdefense.com/dui-surprising-r ... n-florida/

Police Officer Observations
Even if a police officer administers a breathalyzer test to a driver, and the result shows a BAC of below 0.08 percent, the officer may still be able to arrest the driver. Moreover, a prosecutor may still be able to charge the driver with DUI. In this instance, the prosecutor will rely heavily on police officer evidence and observations to show that the driver was impaired at the time of the traffic stop. Driver impairment may include any or all of the following:

Defects in motor skills
Blurred vision
Slurred speech
Poor balance
Yes. I can see it talks about a result below .08. It does not specify how low they've seen nor does it say that people have been arrested for negative results. Again, I'm not talking about misconduct.
They can in fact still do it. A prosecutor might not bother very often, but the problem isn't the trial. It's everything that happens before the trial. It doesn't even need to be officer misconduct. Field sobriety tests are ridiculously inaccurate, with false positive rates in the 30-40% range. Hell, I almost got DUI'd once (without a drop of booze) in AZ because I was driving the posted speed limit (4th of July, the posted speed limit was 50. I was doing 50, but the officer thought the limit had been changed back to 65) and my car (you know the one) had a slight rightward drift since I bought that I had to continuously correct (no matter how many times I had the alignment checked and supposedly fixed). If he'd administered a sobriety test, I likely would have failed because I have the dexterity of a god damned corpse, have a certain amount of nystagmus in my right eye (that's the reason I keep it closed much of the time, you've seen this) and tend to want to say the alphabet in german and would get confused trying to do it backwards.
A DUI investigation is about the totality. It's not just the field sobriety tests. It's the observations before the stop. Then the observations during the stop, including the SFSTs, and then finally the chemical test. Of course, because this test is conducted by humans and out in the field without the benefit of instruments so it will have a false positive rate that will seem kind of high which is why the chemical test is important.

In my opinion you did not almost get DUI'd once. Your understanding of these investigations is either out of date or based off inaccurate material which is why you think this. For example, saying the alphabet backwards has never been part of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. Ever. An officer should look for the clue in both eyes and the officer is suppose to ask if there are any eye problems before the test. So, he would ask do you have any problems with your eyes and you would say "I have nystagmus in my right eye" but even if you forgot to say that a properly trained officer would be alerted to nystagmus being visible in only one eye. Though worse case scenario is he counts those clues against you which means you score 3/6. 4 clues are needed for the HGN to be considered failed.

The testing is composed of three tests with different parts. Here is paperwork that is used mostly for documentation.

https://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/downloads/SF ... edures.pdf

If you want I can go into more detail about the procedure and how it would look.
I would have been acquitted(probably), but I'd still be fucked by the whole legal process.
In my professional opinion you would not have been arrested. Especially considering there was zero articulation to initiate a DUI investigation. Driving pattern is part of it for sure but people can just be bad or distracted drivers. That alone does not give reason to extend the scope of the traffic stop into a DUI investigation.
Milites Astrum Exterminans

User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10587
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Beowulf » 2019-09-29 04:27am

MKSheppard wrote:
2019-09-28 10:36pm

on the other hand, if you could do a UBC that addresses registration concerns

before seguing into "continual improvement to NICS" -- which means more people get jammed up -- there's a lawsuit involving an active duty USN sailor now in Florida over New York state placing a mental block in NICS for someone with his name, and NYS refusing to provide more information -- so Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is refusing to clear it for him.

Did you know that right now, hospitals in NY State are currently forwarding ALL 9.41 evaluations to Albany for inclusion to NICS?

Basically, 9.41 is the code for "involuntary mental evaluation ordered by police".

The hospitals are supposed to go through the 9.41 cases, and screen them; only sending to Albany those cases which were evaluated and found to be credible.

In reality, they're just cc'ing everything to Albany since none of them want to be on the hook for liability.
So we put them on the hook for liability for not forwarding only cases found credible. And require a NICS appeal to result in all pertinent information be sent to the appellant.

Elsewhere, there's an ongoing civil suit (Umbert v United States) over NICS denials -- most over people being found guilty of marijuana possession, and later having the charges expunged or withdrawn; but the FBI ignores them (their position is no appeals for NFA items).

PS: Do you think that UBCs will be the talisman that makes the anti gunners go away?
I don't, because it's not going to make a material difference in the crime rate.
I also said I wanted violent misdemeanors added to the prohibited person list.
It's now SOP for divorce lawyers to direct the woman to file Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (“DVROs”) as a strategic manuver to drain the opposing party's finances and get them out of the house/etc ; so nah.
Require perjury penalties, and actually enforce them (or allow private prosecutions for same)
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan

User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 331
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-10-02 04:19am

Then they would be considered insurrectionists and be hunted down like dogs. The gulf between nation-state and militia (not supported by a major power) is just that great.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-02 05:44pm

Beowulf wrote:
2019-09-29 04:27am
So we put them [NY State] on the hook for liability for not forwarding only cases found credible. And require a NICS appeal to result in all pertinent information be sent to the appellant.
...
Require perjury penalties [for DVROs], and actually enforce them (or allow private prosecutions for same)
You have a lot more faith in judges than I do, Beo.

Anyway; sleepy Joe Biden just jumped in with his own ideas:

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Joe Biden knows that gun violence is a public health epidemic. Almost 40,000 people die as a result of firearm injuries every year in the United States, and many more are wounded. Some of these deaths and injuries are the result of mass shootings that make national headlines. Others are the result of daily acts of gun violence or suicides that may not make national headlines, but are just as devastating to the families and communities left behind.

Joe Biden has taken on the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the national stage and won – twice. In 1993, he shepherded through Congress the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established the background check system that has since kept more than 3 million firearms out of dangerous hands. In 1994, Biden – along with Senator Dianne Feinstein – secured the passage of 10-year bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again.

Joe Biden also knows how to make progress on reducing gun violence using executive action. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, President Obama tasked Vice President Biden with developing both legislative proposals and executive actions to make our communities safer. As a result of this effort, the Obama-Biden Administration took more than two dozen actions, including narrowing the so-called “gun show loophole,” increasing the number of records in the background check system, and expanding funding for mental health services.

It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies. Biden will:

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.

Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will:

Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.

Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.

Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.

Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal background check system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is one of the best tools we have to prevent gun violence, but it’s only effective when it’s used. Biden will enact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases. Specifically, he will:

Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone.

Close other loopholes in the federal background check system. In addition to closing the “boyfriend loophole” highlighted below, Biden will:
Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.

Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days. Biden will also direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to put on his desk within his first 100 days as president a report detailing the cases in which background checks are not completed within 10 business days and steps the federal government can take to reduce or eliminate this occurrence.

Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration. Because of actions by the Trump Administration, records of almost 500,000 fugitives from justice who are prohibited from purchasing firearms were deleted from the background check system. The Biden Administration will restore these records, and enact legislation to make clear that people facing arrest warrants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.

End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.
Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. Federal law defines categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and the federal background check system is an effective tool for ensuring prohibited persons cannot purchase firearms. But we lack any serious tool to ensure that when someone becomes newly prohibited – for example, because they commit a violent crime – they relinquish possession of their firearms. There are some promising models for how this could be enforced. For example, California has a mandatory process for ensuring relinquishment by any individual newly subject to a domestic violence restraining order. As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own.

Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law.

Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs.Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.

Adequately fund the background check system. President Obama and Vice President Biden expanded incentives for states to submit records of prohibited persons into the background checks system. As president, Biden will continue to prioritize that funding and ensure that the FBI is adequately funded to accurately and efficiently handle the NICS system.

ADDRESSING THE DEADLY COMBINATION OF GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The statistics tell a devastating and overwhelming story. The likelihood that a woman in a domestic violence situation will be killed increases by a factor of five if a gun is nearby. Half of mass shootings involve an individual shooting a family member or former intimate partner. This deadly connection tragically impacts children as well: 86% of children killed in shootings with four or more victims were involved in domestic or family violence.

Biden recognizes that the gun violence and domestic violence epidemics are linked and cannot be solved in isolation. Addressing the interconnectedness of these challenges will be a core focus of Biden’s anti-violence work as president.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, which Leader McConnell refuses to bring to the floor for a vote, includes a number of reforms to keep firearms out of the hands of abusers. Senator McConnell should ensure this legislation gets passed long before President Biden would take the oath of office. But if McConnell refuses to act, Biden will enact legislation to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and “stalking loophole” by prohibiting all individuals convicted of assault, battery, or stalking from purchasing or possessing firearms, regardless of their connection to the victim. This proposal is modeled after existing laws in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania. Biden also supports enacting the proposal to prohibit anyone under a temporary restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm before their hearing.

In addition, President Biden will:

Establish a new Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse to focus on the connection between mass shootings, online harassment, extremism, and violence against women. As President, Joe Biden will convene a national Task Force with federal agencies, state leaders, advocates, law enforcement, and technology experts to study rampant online sexual harassment, stalking, and threats, including revenge porn and deepfakes — and the connection between this harassment, mass shootings, extremism and violence against women. The Task Force will be charged with developing cutting-edge strategies and recommendations for how federal and state governments, social media companies, schools, and other public and private entities can tackle this unique challenge. The Task Force will consider platform accountability, transparent reporting requirements for incidents of harassment and response, and best practices.

Expand the use of evidence-based lethality assessments by law enforcement in cases of domestic violence. Lethality assessments, sometimes called “risk” or “danger” assessments, are a proven strategy to help law enforcement officers identify domestic violence survivors who are at high risk of being killed by their abusers. These survivors are then connected with social service programs that can offer services and safety planning. An evaluation of the Lethality Assessment Program (LEP) created by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence showed promising results. Increased federal funding will incentivize jurisdictions to take advantage of implementing these programs more widely.
Make sure firearm owners take on the responsibility of ensuring their weapons are used safely.

Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns. But, right now the NRA and gun manufacturers are bullying firearms dealers who try to sell these guns. Biden will stand up against these bullying tactics and issue a call to action for gun manufacturers, dealers, and other public and private entities to take steps to accelerate our transition to smart guns.

Hold adults accountable for giving minors access to firearms. Biden supports legislation holding adults criminally and civilly liable for directly or negligently giving a minor access to a firearm, regardless of whether the minor actually gains possession of the firearm.

Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes.
Empower law enforcement to effectively enforce our gun laws.

Prioritize prosecution of straw purchasers. “Straw purchasers” buy a firearm on behalf of an individual who cannot pass a background check. Biden will end those loopholes by enacting a law to make all straw purchases a serious federal crime and ensure the U.S. Justice Department has sufficient resources to prioritize their prosecution.

Notify law enforcement when a potential firearms purchaser fails a background check. Too often, when prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm fail a background check, state and local law enforcement is never informed of the attempt. As president, Biden will direct the FBI to set up a process to ensure timely notification of denials to state and local law enforcement, and he’ll support legislation to codify this process. This empowers law enforcement to follow up and ensure prohibited persons do not attempt to acquire firearms through other means.
Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen. Responsible gun owners have a responsibility to inform law enforcement if their weapon is lost or stolen. Biden will enact legislation to make this the law of the land.

Stop “ghost guns.” One way people who cannot legally obtain a gun may gain access to a weapon is by assembling a one on their own, either by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts or 3D printing a working firearm. Biden will stop the proliferation of these so-called “ghost guns” by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check. Additionally, Biden will ensure that the authority for firearms exports stays with the State Department, and if needed reverse a proposed rule by President Trump. This will ensure the State Department continues to block the code used to 3D print firearms from being made available on the Internet.

Reform, fund, and empower the U.S. Justice Department to enforce our gun laws. Biden will direct his Attorney General to deliver to him within his first 100 days a set of recommendations for restructuring the ATF and related Justice Department agencies to most effectively enforce our gun laws. Biden will then work to secure sufficient funds for the Justice Department to effectively enforce our existing gun laws, increase the frequency of inspections of firearms dealers, and repeal riders that get in the way of that work.

Direct the ATF to issue an annual report on firearms trafficking. This report will provide officials with critical information to better identify strategies for curbing firearms trafficking.

TACKLE URBAN GUN VIOLENCE WITH TARGETED, EVIDENCE-BASED COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS

Daily acts of gun violence in our communities may not make national headlines, but are just as devastating to survivors and victims’ families as gun violence that does make the front page. And, these daily acts of gun violence disproportionately impact communities of color. But there is reason to be optimistic. There are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities without turning to incarceration. For example, Group Violence Intervention organizes community leaders to work with individuals most likely to commit acts of gun violence, express the community’s demand that the gun violence stop, and connect individuals who may be likely perpetrators with social and economic support services that may deter violent behavior. These types of interventions have reduced homicides by as much as 60%. Hospital-Based Violence Intervention engages young people who have been injured by gun violence while they are still in the hospital, connecting them to social and economic services that may decrease the likelihood they engage in or are victims of gun violence in the future. Biden will create a $900 million, eight-year initiative to fund these and other types of evidence-based interventions in 40 cities across the country – the 20 cities with the highest number of homicides, and 20 cities with the highest number of homicides per capita. This proposal is estimated to save more than 12,000 lives over the eight-year program.

Dedicate the brightest scientific minds to solving the gun violence public health epidemic. In 2013, President Obama issued a memorandum clarifying that a longstanding appropriations rider that prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal scientific agencies from using federal dollars to “advocate or promote gun control” does not prohibit those agencies from researching the causes and prevention of gun violence. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) subsequently embarked on funding some of this research, though Republican leadership in Congress refused to appropriate any funds to the CDC for this work. Biden will call for Congress to appropriate $50 million to accelerate this research at the CDC and NIH.

Prohibit the use of federal funds to arm or train educators to discharge firearms. We should be passing rational gun laws, not requiring educators who already have too much on their plates to also protect the safety of their students. Biden supports barring states from using federal dollars to arm or train educators to discharge firearms.

Address the epidemic of suicides by firearms. Biden believes any plan to address the gun violence epidemic must address suicides by firearms, which account for 6 in 10 gun-related deaths but are often left out of the conversation. Many of the policies noted above – including safe storage requirements and extreme risk protection orders – will have a serious impact on efforts to reduce gun violence. But there’s so much more we need to do to support people experiencing suicidal ideation. In the months ahead, Biden will put forward a comprehensive plan to improve access to mental health services.

SUPPORTING SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

Violence causes ripples of trauma throughout our communities, impacting not just the victims of violence but also their communities and first responders. Fear of school shootings is having a noticeable impact on the mental health of Gen Z. Intimate partner violence is linked to depression, post-traumatic stress, and other mental health challenges among survivors. And, this trauma can be intergenerational. Science now shows that young children who witness violence – including in their home – literally alters the parts of their brains that affect “reasoning, planning, and behavioral control.”

We need to reduce violence to prevent trauma from happening in the first place. But we also must treat the resulting trauma as a serious crisis in its own right.

As president, Biden will:

Make federal programs more trauma-informed. During his first 100 days, Biden will direct his Cabinet to conduct a review of all federal programs that directly serve communities likely to experience violence and identify reforms to make sure those programs effectively address resulting trauma. Biden will then invest significant federal funds in expanding and improving the federal government’s support for trauma-informed and culturally responsive care.

Create a network of trauma care centers. Biden will bring together offices within the federal government to establish specialized trauma care centers for survivors of violence, with a special focus on survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Domestic violence services are focused on meeting the emergency needs of survivors, including safety planning and crisis intervention. As a result, frontline providers lack the resources they need to offer therapeutic services to help survivors heal from trauma. These trauma care centers will be flexible in meeting the needs of communities, and could be housed at rape crisis centers, domestic violence programs, universities, and existing mental health centers.

Train health care and other service providers in trauma-centered care. To prevent revictimization and secondary trauma, Biden will align training efforts throughout relevant federal programs to include a focus on understanding the traumatic effects of violence, providing appropriate care to avoid furthering the trauma, linking survivors with evidence-based trauma therapies, and reducing myths about domestic and sexual violence. This will be accomplished through agency directives, policy guidance, and special conditions for grantees and contractors.
Who all wants to register their semi automatics for $200 and wait a year under the NFA?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-02 05:44pm

double tap
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-02 06:20pm

Well now.

Some lunatic went and did it. A 3D printed autosear has been developed that lasts for "hundreds" of rounds

https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/ ... egradable/

From the original poster (ivanthetroll) in the reddit thread:
Before the glowies show up, this video is provided by an FFL with proper authority to manufacture machineguns. The FFL has requested they not be named but has approved release of this video.

This is an autosear that functions like a swift link (disconnector manipulation). It is printed in PLA, and was deisgned by FreeMenDontAsk, the same fellow who has done many different printable pistol frames as many are familiar with.

This sear worked issue free for 200 rounds and counting, but is showing signs of wear.
It will be shared for educational reference on Deterrence Dispensed various distribution channels once testing is done.
If 3D chess was real, we'd want this to spark a call to ban AR15s because they can be easily converted, then have SCOTUS rule that easily convertible and MGs in general are protected under 2a.
At least 200 rounds without issue. Print in PLA or Nylon it doesn't flex enough to yield, so it should have a near infinite fatigue life.

What kills it is the bolt carrier sliding across the top of it. PLA probably won't work much past 200 rounds, but nylon has excellent wear resistance.
$0.50? That's like $0.05, maybe $0.10.

You're correct. That 50 cent pricing is based off of a shapeways quote
Basically, in a few weeks it would be possible to download a file, and print out a plastic insert that turns your AR15 into a full auto machine gun for $0.10 cents in PLA material costs. :shock:
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4841
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by LaCroix » 2019-10-03 11:38am

Looking at the issue, I start thinking the US doesn't need gun regulations.

They need ammo regulation.

After all, without ammo, even the most kitted out Tacticool gun is nothing but an expensive club or unwieldy spear.

Just classify it as an explosive and handle it accordingly (as it is done here, to some degree) You can have any gun you want, but you need a license to buy ammo, and there needs to be bookkeeping about your use, with empty brass returned on bought ammo. Prohibit stockpiling of rounds - if you do not return used brass, you can't buy more. This will remove the ready available ammunition, and thus reduce the use of guns.

Reloading is prohibited unless you get a very special license, with maybe periodical checks on their stock.
TBH, reloading is the smallest issue - with most kit needed being quite expensive, it's not that common. You can get some kit cheap, but that's why you need to regulate loose powder. And of course, the manufacture of powder - people will always try to be clever. Most importantly, keep checks on primers - if they are controlled tightly, unregulated reloading becomes near impossible.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3820
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Formless » 2019-10-03 03:23pm

LaCroix wrote:
2019-10-03 11:38am
Looking at the issue, I start thinking the US doesn't need gun regulations.

They need ammo regulation.
They are exactly the same, and run into exactly the same problems. American gun owners aren't morons, and know full well that any ammo ban is a de-facto gun ban. That includes a ban on stockpiling, which would almost certainly be found in violation of the 2'nd amendment anyway. Hate on that all you want, its still constitutional law in this country. It isn't tried because it would run into the same constitutionality problems, the same political problems, the same issue that a black market would start up as bullets are even easier to sneak through the border than guns themselves are (bullets are small), the problem that its not so simple to ban handloading as it sounds when the equipment, re-loadable brass and knowledge is already out there just like the guns themselves, and the fact that every time a gun ban comes up the sales and prices of ammunition soar through the roof precisely because people are afraid that the state and federal governments will target ammo next. Hell, the industry counts on it. In a way, they love gun control, because its a perennial boost to their profits. Consequence: there is a shitload of old and new ammo out there that shoots just fine, just as there is a shitload of guns that will shoot it. Going after ammo in lieu of going after the guns won't solve anything in the short or long term. It will just stir up shit, and fill the coffers of the gun industry even more.

And that's not mentioning that the industry doesn't want it (they like the discussion of it because it creates fear and impulse buys) because it effects ALL guns (hence the 2n'd amendment issue), whereas something like the old AWB only effected weapons that looked a certain way. Don't discount the power of their lobby just because the NRA is unpopular with some people. This is just yet another uninformed suggestion that could only be made by someone from outside this country where gun control is already a "solved" problem. And that isn't an insult so much as an observation of fact. The suggestion comes up in every gun control discussion I've seen on this board, and its about time people realize that its a non-starter.

And finally, as a liberal and a Marxist I must repeat a certain quote by the man himself: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." Even Marx knew full well that the guns and the ammo were synonymous. They must be.
Just classify it as an explosive and handle it accordingly (as it is done here, to some degree)
Black powder is already classified as an explosive, as are primers IIRC. It hasn't changed anything. Handloading and reloading aren't effected, and the community gets really upset anytime it gets attacked because it is seen as primarily a craft and a hobby, only worthwhile if you either enjoy the craft or you shoot so often it actually becomes cheaper to make your own bullets than to buy factory ammo. Criminals don't use them (usually) because its vastly more convenient to buy ammo someone else made for them. Black powder bans don't mean anything because there are substitute compositions that can't be used to make bombs, so they aren't effected by existing laws even in other countries, let alone the US. It shoots just fine out of most black powder guns, though some people prefer the smell of the real deal. And if existing law was going to effect smokeless powder found in all modern cartridges, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. That should tell you right off the bat that this suggestion is a non-starter.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-10-03 04:19pm

The problem also becomes "what is stockpiling?" and when is it bad? The recent coast guard guy who got busted (which started due to his search history on govt. Internet, mind you) had "stockpiled 1,000 rounds of ammo." I have 1,000 rounds of ammo, easy. For the record, 1,000 rounds of 9mm will set you back maybe $150. And 50 rounds (as they are usually sold) can last me 2.5 magazines, blown through in 5 minutes.

Even 6 rounds of .38 special in a revolver is potentially 6 dead bodies. The "stockpile" aversion is only relevant if your goal is to (possibly) reduce body counts rather than stop the murder-spree completely.

It isn't WHAT you have, but WHO has it. You're fighting a problem by attacking 100% of the people when 0.001% (if even) is the problem. If that were the only option, I would have a hard time arguing against it. But it's not. There's other options we should be "wasting" money on, not billions trying to regulate an established industry in a way that will create hassle for even casual shooters. Options that have broad public support (that you can harangue detractors for fighting) and are seemingly more effective at combating the problem.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15505
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Gandalf » 2019-10-03 09:32pm

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-10-02 04:19am
Then they would be considered insurrectionists and be hunted down like dogs. The gulf between nation-state and militia (not supported by a major power) is just that great.
Sure, they've got that power, but Iraq showed that they're not great at using it in that sort of setting.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3736
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TimothyC » 2019-10-04 12:10am

We have the 2018 FBI Data for homicides

In 2018, according to the FBI, there were 14123 homicides in the US. Of those, 10265 were attributed to firearms. Of those, 297 were due to rifles and 2963 were "Were type not stated." Of the reported type, about 2.9% were due to rifles, and if we apply that same rate to the type note stated numbers, we find an additional 86 deaths from rifles, bringing the total to 383. Of the 14123, there were 900 homicides that were listed under "Other weapons or weapons not stated." if we presume that these 900 had the same breakdown as the 13223 that is stated for, we have to add an additional 26 deaths from rifles (383 out of 13223 is about 2.9%), bringing the total homicides by rifle to 409.

I would note that this is a lower rate than homicides from blunt objects (443 reported) or personal weapons [hands, fists, feet, shoving, ect] (672 reported), much less knives or cutting instruments (1515 reported) or handguns (6603 reported).
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13302
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Lonestar » 2019-10-04 07:43am

TheFeniX wrote:
2019-10-03 04:19pm
The problem also becomes "what is stockpiling?" and when is it bad? The recent coast guard guy who got busted (which started due to his search history on govt. Internet, mind you) had "stockpiled 1,000 rounds of ammo." I have 1,000 rounds of ammo, easy. For the record, 1,000 rounds of 9mm will set you back maybe $150. And 50 rounds (as they are usually sold) can last me 2.5 magazines, blown through in 5 minutes.
Seriously I got two gallon buckets that have over a thousand .22lr rounds in them each. Siran Siran killed RFK with three of those to the face. i have a lot of centerfire ammo as well.

After the 2013 meltdown I shifted hard from "buying as needed" to "stockpiling". I know a lot of others who did as well.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13302
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Lonestar » 2019-10-04 07:50am

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-10-02 04:19am
Then they would be considered insurrectionists and be hunted down like dogs. The gulf between nation-state and militia (not supported by a major power) is just that great.
You are operating under the assumption that a nation state that gets to this point is firing on all cylinders. Suppose the economy tanks, right as Bad Things with climate change really take off, and you got protests in urban areas while people in rural areas start blowing up water pumps or some shit.

Syria was safe enough 10 years ago that friggin' Top gear did a special there.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4799
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-10-04 01:09pm

Lonestar wrote:
2019-10-04 07:43am
Seriously I got two gallon buckets that have over a thousand .22lr rounds in them each. Siran Siran killed RFK with three of those to the face. i have a lot of centerfire ammo as well.

After the 2013 meltdown I shifted hard from "buying as needed" to "stockpiling". I know a lot of others who did as well.
And this is where Gun Control advocates really hurt themselves. Going back to my original gripe in this thread: "Beto O’Rourke proposed a modest solution to the relentless tide of mass shootings: a mandatory buyback program for every AR-15 in the country." That someone could call a buyback program on the most popular rifle in the country "modest" shows how little they know about just the ECONOMICS of guns in this country, not to mention the social and political impacts. Ignoring everything else, it's like saying "Car deaths are up, let's buyback every Honda Civic/Accord. This is a modest idea, this is reasonable."

So, when someone who is in favor of gun control, but maybe owns a few guns and/or shoots with a buddy who does, sees "1,000 rounds" equated with "stockpiling" it gives a huge "WTF?" And then they ask "can I trust this person to write intelligent legislation on the topic?"

Gun Control advocates need to just.... do pretty much anything else. Hire some nerds in the middle who are informed about guns, but not emotionally invested in the debate (or whatever) and listen to what they say and stump for (actual) modest gun control solutions, try and get a few wins under their belt, THEN move onto stealing everyone's guns.

Because what Democrats have been doing on Gun Control for the past.... 20? years, has me convinced they don't actually WANT to make progress on thie issues, merely stump for liberals.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-04 09:22pm

LaCroix wrote:
2019-10-03 11:38am
Looking at the issue, I start thinking the US doesn't need gun regulations.

They need ammo regulation.

After all, without ammo, even the most kitted out Tacticool gun is nothing but an expensive club or unwieldy spear.

Just classify it as an explosive and handle it accordingly (as it is done here, to some degree)
This won't do anything.

For common gangland slayings and criminals being criminals; the majority of murders are done with only a few shots fired. Even if it costs $2.00 per bullet (compared to $0.19 for 9mm generally now), a 21 round magazine would cost $42 to fill up; which is still a high profit/margin ratio for investment against potential return from criminal activity; all the more so that you'd only be firing 1 to 3 rounds; and you'd be able to resell your unspent ammunition on the street to recoup your investment.

For mass shootings -- mass shooters tend to be methodical and take quite a while to build up their stockpiles. 100 rounds at $2 a round costs only $200 bucks. People spend about $180 to $260 per case of 1,000 rounds at gun shows (depending on caliber for final price).

Second; we already had bookkeeping on ammunition from 1968 onwards to 1986.

Basically, if you bought ammo, the dealer had to write down your name, the caliber sold, quantity, and date in a bound book.

It only applied to rifle ammo for a few years (1968 to maybe 1972); but handgun ammo lasted until 1986.

In order to get rid of the handgun ammo bound book requirement, we gave up brand new machine guns.

Do you understand why, now so many are "no more compromises?"

I guess we'll see how things go with California, since they instituted ammo background checks; all but killing the online ammo sales market (again this impacts minorities disproportionately and the poor; since the poors cant afford to drive to gunshows to get cheap ammo; and have to rely local gun stores, which mark up prices $$$$).
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-04 09:29pm

Formless wrote:
2019-10-03 03:23pm
Black powder is already classified as an explosive, as are primers IIRC. It hasn't changed anything. Handloading and reloading aren't effected, and the community gets really upset anytime it gets attacked because it is seen as primarily a craft and a hobby, only worthwhile if you either enjoy the craft or you shoot so often it actually becomes cheaper to make your own bullets than to buy factory ammo. Criminals don't use them (usually) because its vastly more convenient to buy ammo someone else made for them. Black powder bans don't mean anything because there are substitute compositions that can't be used to make bombs, so they aren't effected by existing laws even in other countries, let alone the US. It shoots just fine out of most black powder guns, though some people prefer the smell of the real deal. And if existing law was going to effect smokeless powder found in all modern cartridges, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. That should tell you right off the bat that this suggestion is a non-starter.
Blackpowder had restrictions placed on it from 1970 to around the mid 1970s; namely a "five pound" limit on blackpowder possession in the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (PL 91-452).

This was because of all the bombings in the 1960s.

The 5 pound limit was repealed sometime in the 1970s. (around 1974 or so).
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-04 09:39pm

TheFeniX wrote:
2019-10-04 01:09pm
Gun Control advocates need to just.... do pretty much anything else.
How about gun control advocates just go away and never come back?

Look at what Joe Biden just said in his policy statement:

Joe Biden knows that gun violence is a public health epidemic. Almost 40,000 people die as a result of firearm injuries every year in the United States, and many more are wounded.

https://gunsandamerica.org/story/19/10/ ... s-know-it/
Mass shootings may grab the headlines, but suicides are by far the leading category of gun death in America. However, most Americans don’t know this, according to a new national poll from APM Research Lab, Call To Mind and Guns & America.

Experts say this misperception is handcuffing suicide prevention efforts.

The poll asked more than 1,000 Americans what they think the leading cause of gun deaths is.

Thirty-three percent of respondents chose homicides outside of mass shootings, while 25% thought that mass shootings caused the most gun deaths. Only 23% correctly guessed that suicides are the leading cause. The remaining respondents chose accidental shootings or said they didn’t know.

Jennifer Stuber, a professor of social work at University of Washington and founder of Forefront Suicide Prevention, said the findings are unsurprising given the intense media coverage of events like mass shootings.

“What I think drives it is the way in which we cover the issues of firearms fatalities in the news and popular culture, whether that’s TV, movies, etc.,” she said.

In reality, fully 60% of gun deaths in the U.S. every year are suicides.

Horrific as they are, mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of gun deaths in America. They account for a few hundred deaths every year, as compared to an average of roughly 19,000 gun suicide deaths. There were 23,854 suicides by firearm in 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There's a lot more; but basically even if you eliminated all guns; it wouldn't really stop suicides; because:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... y-country/

Basically suicide rates are:

Japan has 18.5 per 100K
France has 17.7 per 100K
US has 15.3 per 100K
Germany: 13.6 per 100K
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-04 10:05pm

Fun fact -- Maryland was Constitutional Carry (outside of some areas) until 1972 for handguns.

What changed it?

On 23 November 1971, Raymond D. Ferrell-el, a 30 year old military veteran showed up in the shipping department of the PPG Paintbrush factory in Baltimore, wearing camouflage fatigues, carrying two rifles:

"a .30-30 semi-automatic hunting rifle" and a M1 Carbine.

He killed five and wounded one; but one of his rifles was broken in a struggle with another employee. He left the factory and was shooting randomly into it when the police arrived. One officer was wounded before the shooter was shot down.

This, BTW would qualify as a "mass shooting" under IIRC FBI rules of minimum of four dead or more.

It was part of a spate of killings in Baltimore around that time -- one night had four people shot dead in a single night -- but the PPG massacre caused the then-Governor of Maryland, Marvin Mandel to turn to his press secretary and say:

"Damn it. Frank, I'm going to do something about guns this year."

His press secretary later said that even though the mass shooting at PPG was done with rifles; that incident, coupled with several shootings that occurred in Baltimore's public schools, the confiscation of more than 100 handguns in the schools this semester and the rash of killings in Baltimore left the governor uncharacteristically outraged.

Basically, Mandel's bill passed a year later in March 1972; and took effect immediately as it was an "emergency measure", passed by a three-fifths vote of both the House of Delegates and the Senate.

It:

• Required persons to obtain a permit from the state police superintendent allowing them to carry handguns on their persons or in their vehicles.

• Allowed a police officer to "stop and frisk" persons without first obtaining a search warrant if the officer has a "reasonable belief" that the person is armed and dangerous.

There's more; but those were the key things.

The bill, particularly the stop and frisk provisions -- caused much hue and cry -- Civil libertarians denounced the provision, saying it would enable the police to harass blacks and other minority groups.

Del. Walter R. Dean Jr. (D-Baltimore), a black delegate who voted against the bill, said, "This bill, from the point of view of the black community is a racist bill designed to increase and maintain police surveillance of the black community."

Nearly 30 years later; the "stop and frisk" provisions were once again passed again into law following a legislative cleanup bill:

http://mdarchives.us/megafile/msa/specc ... --197.html
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMa ... hb0011.htm

Roll Call Votes (Legislative dates are shown):
House-- February 15, 2002: Third Reading Passed (133-3)
Senate -- March 31, 2002: Third Reading Passed (47-0)

So why is this important?

Why am I harping on Stop and Frisk Provisions?

In 2016, the US Department of Justice released a report on the Baltimore Police:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- ... department
We find that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of making stops, searches, and arrests in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Section 14141. BPD frequently makes investigative stops without reasonable suspicion of people who are lawfully present on Baltimore streets. During stops, officers commonly conduct weapons frisks—or more invasive searches— despite lacking reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search is armed. These practices escalate street encounters and contribute to officers making arrests without probable cause,36 often for discretionary misdemeanor offenses like disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, loitering, trespassing, and failure to obey. Indeed, BPD’s own supervisors at Central Booking and prosecutors in the State’s Attorney’s Office declined to charge more than 11,000 arrests made by BPD officers since 2010.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-04 10:10pm

TimothyC wrote:
2019-10-04 12:10am
bringing the total homicides by rifle to 409. I would note that this is a lower rate than homicides from blunt objects (443 reported) or personal weapons [hands, fists, feet, shoving, ect] (672 reported), much less knives or cutting instruments (1515 reported) or handguns (6603 reported).
Image
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-04 10:16pm

MKSheppard wrote:
2019-10-02 06:20pm
Well now.

Some lunatic went and did it. A 3D printed autosear has been developed that lasts for "hundreds" of rounds
Updating on this.

A Type 07 SOT (which is legally authorized to manufacture machine guns); decided to grab a random autosear disconnector 3d model/print that was floating around shapeways or whatever (not IvanTheTroll's design) and print it out on their $400 3D printer to see what happened.

It took about 25 minutes of print time; worked the first time, and held up to about 90 rounds of automatic fire with only minor wear to the device.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-15 04:24pm

Vox lays it out in an article from July, updated a few days ago in October
Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change that.
There should be a Medicare-for-all or Green New Deal for ending gun violence.

By German Lopez
Updated Oct 2, 2019, 12:00pm EDT

The Democratic debates have crystallized how far Democrats have moved to the left on all sorts of issues over the past few years. Candidates for the presidency advocated for single-payer health care, a Green New Deal, free college, 70 percent taxes on the ultrawealthy, decriminalizing crossing the border without papers, and upholding “reproductive justice.”

But there’s one issue, even as it’s gotten more attention, where major Democratic politicians haven’t moved much: guns. At the debates, most candidates raised the same ideas they’ve had for decades: universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and keeping guns away from dangerous people. Only a few were active in calls to push further, such as Cory Booker’s support for requiring a license to buy and own a gun — which some candidates have joined in — and Beto O’Rourke’s promise that “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

If you want to make a serious dent in gun violence in the US, this should worry you. Just imagine a world where Democrats get everything leading candidates typically say they want on guns. Congress passes and President Elizabeth Warren signs a comprehensive bill that includes universal background checks, bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and a red-flag law that lets law enforcement take away guns from dangerous people.

It would be, to be sure, a massive political and policy victory — the culmination of decades of work by gun control advocates. The media would characterize it as a sea change in gun politics. The National Rifle Association and its Republican allies would be livid.

Yet it almost certainly would not be enough. We would still likely see mass shootings, like the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, on a regular basis, in addition to the incidents of suicides, urban violence, and domestic abuse that are tragically even more common.

That’s because America would still have the weakest gun laws among developed nations, and it would still have the most firearms out of any country in the world — and the research has consistently found that places with more guns have more gun deaths.

The problem is dire: The US, with its enormous civilian-owned arsenal of guns, leads the developed world in gun violence. A 2018 study in JAMA found that the US’s civilian gun death rate is nearly four times that of Switzerland, five times that of Canada, 35 times that of the United Kingdom, and 53 times that of Japan. There are, on average, more than 100 gun deaths in the US per day.

The typical proposals on guns pick at this problem but come nowhere close to solving it. Background checks can screen out some people from getting a gun, but recent studies suggest even universal background checks, on their own, don’t have a big impact on gun deaths. An assault weapons ban could make some mass shootings less deadly but wouldn’t address the 70-plus percent of firearm homicides that involve a handgun. A red flag law could help law enforcement take guns away from dangerous people but, by definition, these laws only work after red flags arise, which is often too late.

Gun control policies that don’t confront the core issue — that America simply has too many guns — are doomed to merely nibble around the edges. Everywhere in the world, people get into arguments. Every country has residents who are dangerous to themselves or others because of mental illness. Every country has bigots and extremists. But here, it’s uniquely easy for a person to obtain a gun, letting otherwise tense but nonlethal conflicts escalate into deadly violence.

To change the status quo, Democrats should go big. They need to focus on the abundance of guns in the US and develop a suite of policies that directly tackle that issue, from licensing to confiscation to more aggressive bans of certain kinds of firearms (including, perhaps, all semiautomatic weapons or at least some types of handguns).

I am not naive. I don’t think that this would lead to sweeping Australian- or UK-style gun control legislation passing in 2021. But this broader conversation has to start somewhere.

The time is now. The NRA is in chaos, as its leadership is caught in a civil war. The Parkland, Florida, activists have forced guns into the spotlight. Recent polls found Democratic voters put gun violence and policy at the top or near the top of issues they want to hear about in the debates.

Just like Bernie Sanders helped launch discussions about single-payer health care and free college in 2016, a push in 2020 could help get the party to where it needs to be on this issue if it really wants to address America’s gun problem.

The gun problem in the United States is twofold.

First, the US makes it incredibly easy for people to get guns. Other developed nations at least require one or more background checks but usually much more rigorous hurdles. In the US, even a background check isn’t an absolute requirement; the current federal law is riddled with loopholes and kneecapped by poor enforcement.

Second, America has far more guns than any other country. The number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was estimated for 2017 at 120.5 guns per 100 residents, meaning there were more firearms than people. Yemen, a quasi-failed state torn by civil war, ranked second, with 52.8 guns per 100 residents, according to an analysis from the Small Arms Survey.

Congress has tried to address the first problem. In 1993, it enacted federal background checks. A year later, it passed a 10-year assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

In the quarter-century since, elected Democrats have continued advocating for expanded background checks and a renewed assault weapons ban. But a growing body of research has shown that these measures might not be enough — that the guns are the problem.

A breakthrough analysis by UC Berkeley’s Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins in the 1990s found the US doesn’t actually have more crime than other developed nations, but instead has more lethal crime — and access to guns is one reason why. “A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery,” they wrote, “make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London.”

Research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center backs this up: After controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths — not just homicides but also suicides, domestic violence, violence against police, and mass shootings.

Stronger gun laws can help. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

But the types of gun control laws matter. To that end, several studies from researchers at UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and Johns Hopkins have called into question whether universal background checks, compared to non-universal background checks, reduce gun deaths at all. Studies suggest the original assault weapons ban also had limited to no impact, in large part because the great majority of gun violence is carried out with handguns.

The problem is these approaches are just too narrow, failing to seriously address the core problem that the US simply has too many guns. Universal background checks only target a small number of people who have clear, bad histories, and an assault weapons ban targets a kind of weapon used in a small minority of shootings. To the extent that either approach works to reduce the number of gun owners and firearms, it would take generations to see results.

A better, more immediate goal, then, is to make it harder for literally anyone to buy a firearm and reduce the number of guns not just over time but right now. That’s the only reliable way to reduce incidents of gun violence through gun control quickly.

But gun policy has been an outlier in Democratic politicians’ shift leftward. There has been some movement at the margins — demonstrated by some candidates’ support for licensing and even fewer’s call for confiscating assault weapons, as well as centrist Democrats and those representing rural areas, including Bernie Sanders, shifting somewhat on this issue. But by and large, the party has remained in the same place it was in 25 years ago, focused on background checks and, to a lesser extent, an assault weapons ban.

There are some good reasons for that. Democratic perennials like universal background checks, targeting firearm prohibitions at people deemed dangerous, and even an assault weapons ban all poll fairly well, including among Republicans, based on Pew surveys.

A chart shows high support for gun control measures.
Elected Democrats also a fear a political backlash if they push for more stringent measures. After the 1994 midterm elections, many Democrats blamed historic losses in the House and Senate on their approval of stricter gun laws.

Then there’s what experts call the “intensity gap.” In short, defenders of gun rights are, in general, more motivated than proponents of gun control. As Republican strategist Grover Norquist said in 2000, this helps explain why popular support for stricter gun laws doesn’t lead to action in Congress: “The question is intensity versus preference. You can always get a certain percentage to say they are in favor of some gun controls. But are they going to vote on their ‘control’ position?” Probably not, he suggested, “but for that 4-5 percent who care about guns, they will vote on this.”


All of this plays into the broader questions about whether certain gun policies could get through Congress or the Supreme Court. Until the public buys into these policies, chances are other institutions won’t either. So Democrats have by and large played it safe.

With Democratic voters now more liberal in general and paying more attention to gun violence as mass shootings regularly make the news and student activists march and protest for action, there’s less need to play it safe. Democrats, both elites and supporters, have a clear opportunity here to show that there are bolder, evidence-based policy ideas to seriously tackle the US’s gun problem. They can start that push with 2020.

Democrats need to shift the conversation
Igor Volsky, the executive director of the advocacy group Guns Down America, pointed to the fight for marriage equality in his recent book, Guns Down: How to Defeat the NRA and Build a Safer Future With Fewer Guns, as one example of how this fight could go.

According to Volsky, the marriage equality movement didn’t ever give up on incremental gains, but it was always focused on its ultimate goal. So it was okay when some Democrats, for example, accepted “civil unions” over marriage as a step forward in the early 2000s, but the movement continued to push for marriage equality at the same time. By focusing on this goal and deploying different strategies fixated on the one acceptable outcome for the movement, it slowly built a shift in public opinion, even if the gains seemed small here and there.

By focusing on a goal of fewer guns, Volsky wrote, activists could push the country to the left on guns. That would involve accepting the incremental wins — including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban — but also staying focused on the goal of reducing the number of guns in the US overall.

And the 2020 campaign, he argued, is a good time to start that push.

“You have progressives who are running for president talking about single-payer, talking about the Green New Deal, talking about breaking up large tech companies, talking about a super surcharge on multi-multimillionaires,” Volsky told me. “On an issue that is so important to so many Americans — the issue of guns — it’s unconscionable to me that the solutions we’re hearing from the folks running for president are focused on incremental reforms that they’ve been selling for the last 20 years.”

Another potential parallel comes through what Matt Yglesias has described for Vox as the “Great Awokening.” Since 2014, he wrote, “white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter.” That happened in part because of the Black Lives Matter movement that took off after the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri, protests, but also because “Democratic elites were beginning to signal to the rank and file that they should take systemic racism concerns more seriously” — such as when President Barack Obama remarked that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon [Martin].”

Similarly, American progressives are increasingly fed up with mass shooting after mass shooting — hence the rise of the March for Our Lives movement last year. If Democratic elites tap into that anger and signal that bolder gun policies are necessary, much of the public could follow along.

History shows that on gun policy, it’s possible to move positions that once seemed radical into the mainstream. Consider just how much the National Rifle Association has changed the conversation about guns in just a few decades: After the NRA went through an internal revolt in the late 1970s, the group began to push against all restrictions on firearms — under the logic that giving even a little on this issue could eventually lead to a sweeping confiscation of everyone’s guns. The organization hammered that message to the public, politicians, legal scholars, and everyone else it could reach.


One clear effect the NRA had was changing the way some politicians and legal experts looked at the Second Amendment. For most of US history, the amendment was viewed by courts and legal experts as only protecting a collective right to own guns, insofar as able-bodied men needed the weapons to help defend their state and country through, for example, a militia. Then the NRA began pushing a different interpretation that the Second Amendment actually protected an individual right — even getting scholars to publish work in law journals making the case.

Carl T. Bogus, a researcher at the Roger Williams University School of Law, noted in a 2000 law review article that the number of law review articles endorsing an individual rights view was for most of US history dwarfed by the number backing a collective rights framework — until the 1990s, when the great majority (58 of 87 relevant articles) supported an individual rights interpretation.

Republican elites, too, got in on the action. In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), issued a report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” The report from the Republican-majority subcommittee argued, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long lost — proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”

The results can be seen in the Supreme Court. In 1939’s United States v. Miller, Justice James McReynolds ruled that Congress can ban sawed-off shotguns because that weapon has no “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia ruled, to the contrary, that “the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

There was also an accompanying shift in public opinion. In 1959, when Gallup asked if the law should ban handguns except for the police and other authorized persons, 60 percent of Americans said yes. By 1980, that dropped to 38 percent. As of the latest survey, in 2018, it was 28 percent.

The NRA and Republicans helped shift public opinion and even the Supreme Court over decades. A similar political movement could reverse that.

Like the NRA’s efforts, a new movement could require a generations-long project. That should only make the issue more urgent, though — because the longer America waits, the longer it will be before real measures are in to properly reduce gun violence.

What a bold gun policy would actually look like
It’s not that there’s a lack of ideas to confront gun violence. With the right goal — reducing the number of guns in the US — and a serious commitment to it, there are plenty of evidence-based policies, tried in cities, states, and other countries, that could work.

One way to start addressing the issue would be requiring a license to buy and own a gun. On its face, this might seem like an extension of the background check model, since the idea is still to filter between qualified and unqualified people.

But a licensing process can go way further: While a background check is more often than not quick and hassle-free, gun licensing in, for example, Massachusetts is a weeks- or months-long process that requires submitting a photograph and fingerprints, passing a training course, and going through one or more interviews, all involving law enforcement. That adds significant barriers for even a would-be gun owner who has no ill intent or bad history.

“The end impact is you decrease gun ownership overall,” Cassandra Crifasi, a researcher (and gun owner) at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, previously told me, discussing Massachusetts’s laws. “Lots of folks think, ‘Well, it’s probably not worth going through all these hoops to buy firearms, so I’m not going to buy one.’ And then you have fewer firearms around, and less exposure.”

Licensing works. It’s one reason, experts say, Massachusetts has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the US. A Johns Hopkins study on several gun control approaches, including universal background checks, found that licensing systems were the one policy associated with fewer firearm homicides. Other studies have linked licensing to significantly fewer gun homicides and suicides in Connecticut and Missouri.

This, however, could only be a start — the kind of thing that ensures fewer people get guns now and in the future. But in a country that already has so many firearms, something also needs to be done to take out a lot of guns more quickly.

That could require rethinking the Second Amendment, whether by appointing judges who interpret it differently in a reverse version of the NRA’s campaign to portray gun ownership as an individual right. It might even mean beginning an effort to repeal it — a project that could admittedly take decades but has gotten less serious consideration and support than packing the Supreme Court or even abolishing the Senate.

Significant change could involve imposing bigger hurdles to owning a gun: requiring that people provide a stronger justification, besides self-defense or recreation, to get a license.

It could mean banning more types of guns — perhaps all semiautomatic weapons or all handguns — and coupling that with an Australian-style mandatory buyback program, which the research supports. If the key difference between America and other countries is how many more guns the US has, then something has to be done to quickly reduce the number of firearms here.

Here, an assault weapons ban is simply far too little. Shootings with rifles, including assault rifles, make up less than 3 percent of gun homicides in the US. More than 70 percent of gun homicides are instead carried out with handguns, which would be largely neglected by a plan to ban and confiscate only assault weapons. So perhaps bans on other guns, besides assault weapons, should be considered.

There has been some movement in the Democratic field. Booker was early in his call for a gun licensing requirement, and he’s since been joined by candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg. A few candidates have called for the confiscation of assault weapons as well.

But the field has shied away from significantly stronger proposals, and the candidates have strayed from saying that the ultimate goal should be to reduce the number of guns in the US. To the contrary, Eric Swalwell, while still a candidate for president, said on CNN in April, as he called for a mandatory buyback for assault weapons: “Keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns. I want the most dangerous weapons — these weapons of war — out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”

So the majority of the Democratic conversation remains focused on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban. Based on the research, this milquetoast approach just won’t be enough. If nothing else, the 2020 primary should force Democrats to explain why they should merely continue as they have for decades with little to show for it.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 6954
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Raw Shark » 2019-10-16 08:17pm

Fuck, this one got away from me quick. I'mma just go clean my gun.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29498
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by MKSheppard » 2019-10-16 08:59pm

Did anyone watch the recent Democrat debate?

Link to transcript

Lots of fun stuff there.
COOPER: We want to turn back to domestic issues and the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We're less than 100 miles from Dayton, Ohio, where two months ago a gunman killed nine people using an AR-15-style weapon with a high-capacity magazine.

Congressman O'Rourke, in the last debate, you said, quote, "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," but when you were asked how you'd enforce a mandatory buyback, you said police wouldn't be going door to door. So how exactly are you going to force people to give up their weapons? You don't even know who has those weapons.

O'ROURKE: Look, we're going to make sure that the priority is saving the lives of our fellow Americans. I think almost everyone on this stage agrees that it's not right and as president would seek to ban the sale of AR-15s and AK-47s.

Those are weapons of war. They were designed to kill people effectively, efficiently on a battlefield. You mentioned the massacre in Dayton. Nine people killed in under 40 seconds. In El Paso, Texas, 22 were killed in under three minutes. And the list goes on throughout the country.

So if the logic begins with those weapons being too dangerous to sell, then it must continue by acknowledging, with 16 million AR-15s and AK-47s out there, they are also too dangerous to own. Every single one of them is a potential instrument of terror.

Just ask Hispanics in Texas. Univision surveyed them. More than 80 percent feared that they would be a victim of a mass terror attack like the one in El Paso that was targeted at Mexican Americans and immigrants, inspired in part by this president's racism and hatred that he's directed at communities like mine in El Paso.

COOPER: Congressman...

O'ROURKE: So I expect my fellow Americans to follow the law, the same way that we enforce any provision, any law that we have right now.

COOPER: OK.

O'ROURKE: We don't go door to door to do anything in this country to enforce the law. I expect Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, non-gun-owners alike to respect and follow the law.

COOPER: Congressman, let me follow up. Just to follow up, your expectations aside, your website says you will fine people who don't give up their weapons. That doesn't take those weapons off the street. So to be clear, exactly how are you going to take away weapons from people who do not want to give them up and you don't know where they are?

O'ROURKE: If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war, or brings it out in public and brandishes it in an attempt to intimidate, as we saw when we were at Kent State recently, then that weapon will be taken from them. If they persist, they will be other consequences from law enforcement.

But the expectation is that Americans will follow the law. I believe in this country. I believe in my fellow Americans. I believe that they will do the right thing.

COOPER: Thank you. Mayor Buttigieg, just yesterday, you referred to mandatory buybacks as confiscation and said that Congressman O'Rourke has been picking a fight to try to stay relevant. Your response on guns?

BUTTIGIEG: Look, Congressman, you just made it clear that you don't know how this is actually going to take weapons off the streets. If you can develop the plan further, I think we can have a debate about it. But we can't wait. People are dying in the streets right now.

We can't wait for universal background checks that we finally have a shot to actually get through. We can't wait to ban the sale of new weapons and high-capacity magazines so we don't wind up with millions more of these things on the street. We can't wait for red flag laws that are going to disarm domestic abusers and prevent suicides, which are not being talked about nearly enough as a huge part of the gun violence epidemic in this country. We cannot wait for purity tests. We have to just get something done.

COOPER: Congressman O'Rourke, your response.

O'ROURKE: This is not a purity test. This is a country that loses 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year to gun violence. This is a crisis. We've got to do something about it.

And those challenges that you described are not mutually exclusive to the challenges that I'm describing. I want to make sure we have universal background checks and red flag laws and that we end the sale of these weapons of war, but to use the analogy of health care, it would be as though we said, look, we're for primary care, but let's not talk about mental health care because that's a bridge too far. People need that primary care now, so let's save that for another day.

No, let's decide what we are going to believe in, what we're going to achieve. And then let's bring this country together in order to do that. Listening to my fellow Americans, to those moms who demand action, to those students who march for our lives, who, in fact, came up with this extraordinary bold peace plan...

COOPER: Thank you, Congressman.

O'ROURKE: ... that calls for mandatory buybacks, let's follow their inspiration and lead and not be limited by the polls and the consultants and the focus groups. Let's do what's right...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Mayor Buttigieg, your response? Mayor Buttigieg?

BUTTIGIEG: The problem isn't the polls. The problems is the policy. And I don't need lessons from you on courage, political or personal. Everyone on this stage is determined to get something done. Everyone on this stage recognizes, or at least I thought we did, that the problem is not other Democrats who don't agree with your particular idea of how to handle this.

The problem is the National Rifle Association and their enablers in Congress, and we should be united in taking the fight to them.

(APPLAUSE)

O'ROURKE: That's a mischaracterization. Anderson, I've got to answer this. Never took you or anyone else on who disagrees with me on this issue. But when you, Mayor Buttigieg, described this policy as a shiny object, I don't care what that meant to me or my candidacy, but to those who have survived gun violence, those who've lost a loved one to an AR-15, an AK-47, marched for our lives, formed in the courage of students willing to stand up to the NRA and conventional politics and poll-tested politicians, that was a slap in the fact to every single one of those groups and every single survivor of a mass casualty assault with an AR-15 and an AK-47.

COOPER: Thank you.

O'ROURKE: We must buy them back.

COOPER: Congressman...

BUTTIGIEG: What we owe to those survivors is to actually deliver a solution. I'm glad you offered up that analogy to health care, because this is really important. We are at the cusp of building a new American majority to actually do things that congressmen and senators have been talking about with almost no impact for my entire adult life.

COOPER: Thank you, Mayor.

BUTTIGIEG: No, this is really important, OK? On guns, we are this close to an assault weapons ban. That would be huge. And we're going to get wrapped around the axle in a debate over whether it's "hell, yes, we're going to take your guns"? We have an opportunity...

COOPER: Thank you, Mayor. Your time is up.

BUTTIGIEG: ... to deliver health care to everybody, and some on this stage are saying it doesn't count unless we obliterate...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I want to give somebody -- I want to give other -- I want to give other candidates a chance. Senator Booker, what's your response to Mayor Buttigieg?

BOOKER: Well, look, I again, worry about how we talk to each other and about each other and what this last week has shown. There was a young man in my neighborhood, I watched him grow up. I lived in some high-rise projects with him named Shahad, and he was murdered on my block last year with an assault rifle.
I'm living with a sense of urgency on this problem, because when I go home to my community, like millions of Americans, we live in communities where these weapons, where these gun shots are real every single day.

And I know where the American public is. This is not about leadership. This is why when I talk about things like gun licensing and point out the differences between us, I'm not attacking people or their character or their courage on these issues. We all have courage.

But it’s frustrating that when the American people, 77 percent of Americans agree on licensing, we don’t need leadership right now. We just need folks that are going to stand up and follow where the people already are, because there are millions of Americans where this is a daily nightmare, where we’re surrendering our freedoms...

COOPER: Thank you.

BOOKER: ... to fear in this country. This is the first time in American history, this fall, where we have sent our children to school, the strongest nation on the Planet Earth, and said to them, "We can't protect you"...

COOPER: Thank you, Senator.

BOOKER: ... "so in school, we're going to teach you how to hide." There are more duck-and-cover drills and shelter-in-place drills in America now than fire drills.

COOPER: Thank you, Senator.

BOOKER: If I'm president of the United States, I will bring an urgency to this issue and make sure that we end the scourge of mass violence in our country.

COOPER: Senator Klobuchar -- Senator Klobuchar, Senator Warren -- Senator Warren supports a voluntary -- excuse me, Senator Klobuchar, you support a voluntary buyback, if I'm correct, right. What is wrong with a mandatory buyback?
Your response.

KLOBUCHAR: I just keep thinking of how close we are to finally getting something done on this. I'm looking at the mayor of Dayton. I met one of the survivors from that shooting, 30 seconds, nine people killed.

The public is with us on this in a big way. The majority of Trump voters want to see universal background checks right now. The majority of hunters want to see us move forward with gun safety legislation. There are three bills right now on Mitch McConnell's desk, the background check bill, my bill to close the boyfriend loophole so domestic abusers don't get guns, the bill to make it easier for police to vet people before they get a gun. That's what we should be focusing on.

And I just don't want to screw this up. When I'm president, I do want to bring in an assault weapon ban and I do want to put a limitation on magazines so what happened in Dayton, Ohio, will never happen again. But let's not mess this up with this fight.

COOPER: Senator Warren, you support a voluntary gun buyback of assault-style weapons, as well. Why not a mandatory one?

WARREN: So, look, I want to get what works done. I want to use the method we used, for example, with machine guns. We registered them, we put in a huge penalty if you didn't register them, and a huge tax on them, and then let people turn them in, and it got machine guns out of the hands of people.

But the problem here that we need to focus on is, first, how widespread gun violence is. As you’ve rightly identified, it’s not just about mass shootings. It’s what happens in neighborhoods all across this country. It is about suicide, and it is about domestic violence.

This is not going to be a one and done, that we do one thing or two things or three things and then we're done. We have to reduce gun violence overall. And the question we have to ask is, why hasn't it happened?

You say we're so close. We have been so close. I stood in the United States Senate in 2013...

COOPER: Thank you.

WARREN: ... when 54 senators voted in favor of gun legislation and it didn't pass because of the filibuster.

COOPER: Thank you, Senator. Senator...

WARREN: We have got to attack the corruption and repeal the filibuster or the gun industry will always have a veto over what happens.

COOPER: Senator Harris? Senator Harris, you disagree with Senator Warren. You think the buyback should be mandatory. Please respond.

HARRIS: Five million assault weapons are on the streets of America today. During the course of this debate, eight people will die from gun violence. The leading cause of death of young black men in America is gun violence, more than the top other six reasons total.

This is a serious matter. I have personally hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. I have looked at more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I'm done. And we need action.

And Congress has had years to act and failed because they do not have the courage. When I'm elected, I'll give them 100 days to pull their act together, put a bill on my desk for signature, and if they don't, I will take executive action and put in place a comprehensive background check requirement and ban the importation of assault weapons into our country because it is time to act.

COOPER: Senator Biden -- Vice President Biden, your response.

BIDEN: I'm the only one on this stage who has taken on the NRA and beat them, and beat them twice. We were able to get assault weapons off the streets and not be able to be sold for 10 years. Recent studies show that mass violence went down when that occurred.

The way to deal with those guns and those AR-15s and assault weapons that are on the street -- or not on the street, that people own, is to do what we did with the National Firearms Act as it related to machine guns. You must register that weapon. You must register it. When you register it, the likelihood of it being used diminishes exponentially.

I'm the only one that got -- got -- moved the -- to make sure that we could not have a magazine that had more than 10 rounds in it. I've done this. I know how to get it done. If you really want to get it done, go after the gun manufacturers and take back the exemption they have of not being able to be sued. That would change it.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

Secretary Castro, the vast majority of homicides committed with a gun in this country are from handguns, not assault-style weapons. What's your plan to prevent those deaths?

CASTRO: Thank you very much for the question. You know, I grew up in neighborhoods where it wasn't uncommon to hear gunshots at night. And I can remember ducking into the back seat of a car when I was a freshman in high school, across the street from my school, my public school, because folks were shooting at each other.

You know, in the neighborhoods -- let me answer this question about voluntary versus mandatory. There are two problems I have with mandatory buybacks. Number one, folks can't define it. And if you're not going door to door, then it's not really mandatory.

But also, in the places that I grew up in, we weren't exactly looking for another reason for cops to come banging on the door. And you all saw a couple days ago what happened to Atatiana Jefferson in Fort Worth. A cop showed up at 2:00 in the morning at her house when she was playing video games with her nephew. He didn't even announced himself. And within four seconds, he shot her and killed her through her home window. She was in her own home.

And so I am not going to give these police officers another reason to go door to door in certain communities, because police violence is also gun violence, and we need to address that.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Secretary Castro, thank you.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27004
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

Post by Broomstick » 2019-10-17 04:07am

MKSheppard wrote:
2019-10-04 09:22pm
In order to get rid of the handgun ammo bound book requirement, we gave up brand new machine guns.

Do you understand why, now so many are "no more compromises?
No, because I don't see where the problem is here - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"? Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

Post Reply