Announcement Module
No announcement yet.

The emerging Biden Proposal

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So Beavah,

    You want to give private citizens the ability to do background checks on people at no cost/requiring no approval from the person? So when my son turns 18, you think it is a good idea that I be required to give him a background check before giving him the shotgun that my great grandfather gave to my grandfather who gave it to my father who gave it to me?

    It is already against the law to sell a gun to a felon. That is why I would never privately sell a gun to somebody that I don't know. Let's just hold people responsible for selling guns to criminals.

    The Korean shopkeepers of south Central LA were happy to have 30 rd clips in their AR-15s when facing down mobs intent on burning down their shops/houses.


    • #17
      Funny, the CDC did studies of the effectiveness of gun control during the GW Bush administration. They found no proof of effectiveness.

      Also, isn't that more of a Department of Justice job. Why should the CDC be involved in matters of violence and public policy? I thought they were supposed to be involved in disease control and prevention, not crime control and prevention.


      • #18

        1) Of course all transfers of firearms should require a background check.

        2) General McChrystal has it spot on. Civilians should not have access to military-grade weapons.

        3) I am all for data collection and research.

        The CDC, DOJ and other agency's research into issues related to firearms has been hampered by Congress for decades. Of course, Congress has done so at the financial behest of (you guessed it) the NRA and the firearms manufacturers.

        The reason the CDC was collecting data was because the medical community reports to the CDC, not the DOJ.

        Ironically, if you enter the Family Court system in the US, you are almost immediately asked if either party has firearms, if so, what types, how much ammo, and why are next. If you answer "yes" you are on the short list for losing parenting time and having protection orders placed.


        • #19
          ahhhh, joebob.....shakin my head

          As a Doctor, I would like to know that you own firearms to help me diagnose health issues..... Beyond the danger of simply owning a firearm. you have issues with the cleaning and lubrication chemicals, indoor range air pollution with both lead and propellant smoke. Hearing damage and bone and joint issues from shooting high power firearms......


          • #20
            "Propellant smoke?" Oh good grief.

            If a doctor asked me if we had a gun in our house I would tell him/her to go pound sand.


            • #21
              Background checks - We should expand them to include private sales but we also need to recognize that background checks alone won't solve anything. Neither the Virginia Tech shooter or the Aurora, Colorado Batman shooter would have failed the background check as neither of them had a criminal record and neither of them had a documented history of mental illness.

              Ban on High Capacity Clips - At this point, it's a useless, feel-good measure as the proposed ban doesn't require people who already have high capacity clip to turn them in (and of course be reimbursed as a taking). On the other hand, we should register all gun owners, and their guns, if they have high capacity clips, so we can actually keep track of who has them and where they are. Require transfer registration when the guns and clips are sold or given away. Require owners to immediately report the loss of any high capacity clip and/or gun that holds the clip by theft or misadventure.

              Lifting restrictions on research - yes, lift the restrictions - despite the grumblings of a segment of ant-government people, the US government is singularly able to coordinate massive amounts of research through their grant programs.

              BTW Perdidochas, you have completely mischaracterized the results of the study you posted. The study did NOT say gun laws weren't effective. What the study (and it was a review of other research) said, in every category that they looked at, was that all of the research was insufficient to make any statements regarding the effectiveness of guns - in other words, the laws may, or may not be effective, but we don't know enough (because the research that is out there isn't clear) to determine which it is.

              "Gun Free Zones" - yeah, maybe a bunch of the shootings were in "gun free zones" but what's the point, to ban "gun free zones"? That ignores that fact that in every shooting in a "gun free zone", the shooting was also where large numbers of people who are unrelated to each other gather. Maybe the solution is to ban schools, churches, shopping malls and parks so that unrelated people can't gather together. It also ignores the fact that there have been shootings that took place in places that weren't "gun free zones" but were still places where large numbers of unrelated people congregate.

              "Mental Health Laws" - no doubt, we should look into strengthening services to the mentally ill, but we also need to stop using the blanket term "mentally ill" to describe shooters. The truth is, most everyone of us suffers from mental disorders of some kind. Afraid of snakes? That's a phobia and phobias are a mental disorder. Do folks think a gun owner who is afraid of spiders, or heights, of clowns, should be forced to turn in their guns because of their mental disorder? Some mental health issues are temporary - I wouldn't doubt that most people haven't exhibited the signs of depression, a mental disorder, for at least some portion of their lives - whould you no longer be able to own a gun because you showed enough of the symptoms of depression to be clinically diagnosed for a couple of weeks because you got fired from your job, or got a divorce, or had someone close to you die? I could make a reasonable case that all those folks rushing out to the stores to buy guns because they are afraid of the big bad government, or all those folks getting concealed weapons permits because they are afraid of walking down the street, are suffering from paranoia, a mental illness. The Sandy Hook shooter had autism, a neurological disorder and the media is quick to pronounce that he was mentally ill and it's because he was mentally ill that the shooting occured - but there is no basis in fact to prove that. Mental health issues should be looked at but the gun lobby has to be told to understand that it's only one part of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

              Violent Video Games and Movies - yeah, another gun lobby and media bugaboo with nothing concrete to back up the claims that it's video games and movies that are the cause. The gun lobby loves to point out that there are millions of people with guns and the problems only come from a small number of people. They fail to recognize that there are millions of people that watch violent movies and play violent video games that never act in violence.

              Information - the biggest problem we have in solving this kind of issue is the sheer amount of bad information that is being repeated, from both sides. For instance, in this thread, we're told that there are doctors asking if you have a gun in the house so they can be reported to the authorities. The part of reporting it to the authorities is patently untrue. There are doctors that want to know things like this so they can better understand their patients and better be able to assess risks, which helps make them better doctors for you. It became an issue when a state (Georgia, as I recall) passed a law saying doctors couldn't ask that question anymore. Someone suggested, in that paranoid slippery-slope argument that we get in these kinds of debates, that the government could, in the future, require doctors to report it to the authorities. No doctor is reporting anything like that to the authorities.

              We also have a propblem with how information is presented. Last weekend, I caught the introduction of a program by some talking head on Fox where she gave this really angry ranting screed about a newspaper in New York planning to print the names of gun owners in their area. She had made a really good point that doing so would just identify to thieves where there might be guns to steal, but the manner in which she deliverd it was so off-putting that it's just really easy to ignore it. If this is how we're going to discuss issues, no wonder we can't have rational discussions on the issue.

              This is not an issue where we can concentrate on one thing and ignore something else - this is an "everything needs to be on the table" thing - and no one's going to be 100% happy with the outcomes.


              • #22
                So brew when's the last time you have had a physical by your physician and not a CVS or Kroger minute clinic?????

                I would like to think that you understand breathing the air at the gun range isn't all that healthy. It can get fairly smokey at the local one.

                I get asked those same questions year after year.

                Do you wear your seat belt???

                Do you wear your helmet when riding your motorcycle???

                Do you have a living will???

                Do you smoke or drink or engage in risky sexual activities?????

                So how is asking if you own a gun any different than any of the other questions???? So do you tell him to pound sand about those??????? I don't because I want the absolute best diagnostic health care I can get and hiding or lying about your activities or habits hinders the treatment.(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)


                • #23
                  Basement, I just ran those questions past my mind and can only conclude: I am an incredibly boring person. Thanks a whole lot.
                  BTW, the only complaint I get about my basement range is how loud it is. But I'm old, so lead and smoke are no longer an important concern for me.

                  Trevorum, I think a 100% tax would be a great place to start. Even a moron could figure it out at that rate. And it could be adjusted up if needed to cover costs.


                  • #24
                    You want to give private citizens the ability to do background checks on people at no cost/requiring no approval from the person? So when my son turns 18, you think it is a good idea that I be required to give him a background check before giving him the shotgun that my great grandfather gave to my grandfather who gave it to my father who gave it to me?

                    Hiya perdicochas! I don't reckon I've ever said anywhere that I "want" anything. As a responsible gun owner, I just feel that I should be a participant in da national conversation with fellow citizens. This thread is talkin' about the proposals (though it got off track pretty quickly). One proposal is eliminating the private sale exception for background checks.

                    I'm not sure I "want" that as a solution, but I have no problem with it. Someday as yeh get older you may want to sell your guns, even if yeh don't sell to strangers now. Or your son may want to sell his gun to pay for medical school books. Who knows? At the point yeh do, you should click on your smart phone and run an instant background check before yeh sell it to someone. That's not a big enough inconvenience to spend any time worryin' about, eh? Heck, just typin' these messages takes more time.

                    And yep, yeh should do it for your kid, too. Just to be a good example, the way we do things to be a good example for the Scouts. Takes 5 minutes, shows your boy that ownin' a gun means being responsible in who yeh give it to.



                    • #25
                      Found the cite:


                      "With just one single exception, the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."


                      • #26

                        Most of the legal weapons available today are of "military grade." I own a Remington 870 pump shotgun. That same gun is used by the U.S. military (as well as millions of hunters). My father owns a 35 yr old revolver. A version of that gun (different finish) was used by the military. It is military grade. Nobody is suggesting that the current M4 be allowed for civilian use. "Military grade" is a silly term. General McChrystal is a disgraced general who has problems with shooting off his mouth. Not sure I'd take his words as meaning much.


                        • #27
                          Yah, JoeBob, that's not a citation, eh? That's a commentary piece by a far-right fellow (John Fund) who is himself quoting a Fox News commentator and gun lobby blogger (John Lott) who used to be an economist, sort of, but was drummed out of academia on suspicion of research fraud. Irresponsible journalism, to be sure, eh?

                          Again, it's a patently ridiculous claim, since gun-free zone legislation did not really exist between 1950 and 1990. It's even more preposterous given that da article references the Mother Jones piece. So here's the Mother Jones piece, listing all of the mass shootings:


                          Your homework is to count the number that did not take place in a gun-free zone. The claim is proved false in 2012 by itself. You allowed yourself to be lied to.

                          (This message has been edited by Beavah)


                          • #28
                            I'm not "pro-gun", but I am "pro-liberty". I don't see any problem with background checks. All transactions could go through a FFL dealer for validation that the recipient is not a felon. The issue of mental illness is another conundrum. While the background check form asks if you have been "adjudicated" as mentally ill, probably 99% of the nutcases out there have not been "adjudicated". It's kinda like the question on my security clearance application "do you use illegal drugs?" Well, no, of course not...does anyone answer "yes" to these questions? We do need to close the gun show loophole, somehow. I have recently read that there is an Amendment in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that prohibits using the healthcare system to gather information on gun ownership. That was a bribe to keep the NRA out of the debate on healthcare. Tax on ammo? Hmmmm...maybe for private purchase. How about if I want to go to the range and blow off 500 rounds, it's tax-free if I buy it from them (and turn back in what I don't use?). Just a thought. I don't think we want to dissuade gun owners from getting as much practice as they can by making the ammo prohibitively expensive.


                            • #29
                              Sorry Pack....I am pretty boring too.

                              My favorite quote from all my reading....


                              under comments.

                              "Anyone that cant live without assault weapons, probably shouldnt have them."

                              The boys at work and I played the old hypothetical situation at lunch to day. your sitting in a movie theater, someone chucks in a a can of tear gas and starts shooting, the other 5 or 6 gun owners do the same.......Who is the bad guy and who are you going to shoot???? It is dark and the movie theater is filled with tear gas or smoke???? How are you going to select your target??? How many more folks would have been killed or wounded by the CCW holders???? hypothetical of course and it the result depends on the gun owners in the theater at the time.


                              • #30
                                JB I think your article is wrong.....

                                Take a look at this


                                There are few I never heard of but they were not in gun free zones.