Gun Control

[Junior]

So this huge ATF department can't do anything without a director??? So we are paying for thousands of Federal employees to sit around and do nothing. I think not. The Director is just a mouthpiece. Just like the AG. These large government agencies grind on whether their boss is around or not. Directors are just policy lobbyists.

 

No, the ATF can't do anything because of the NRA. Wouldn't a "policy lobbyist" be useful to help defend the ATF from the NRA's systematic deballing of the ATF?

[walksalone]

I guess all this bitching and moaning is a bit silly. Should they have back ground checks for gun shows and online gun sales, yes.

 

But you are going after the people that aren't committing crimes. I know municipalities are offering "gun buy backs", but are those committing gun crimes, walking up and selling their guns?

 

I've got a brilliant idea for those up on Capital Hill, that are either butthurt or feeling like they've won something. How about coming up with a plan to get the guns away from those with criminal records? This bill isn't going to accomplish anything whether it would have passed or not.

 

 

Thank you....Can we please concentrate on something that is actually going to make a difference?

 

You don't think stopping random people from ordering guns almost anonymously on the internet would make a difference? I'm curious, what would make a difference?

 

Would allowing the ATF to require gun dealers submit inventories make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Would allowing federal money to go to research on gun crimes make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Assault weapons bans? Nope.

Expanding background checks? Nope.

Regulating magazine sizes? Nope.

Regulating ammunition sales? Nope.

 

So tell me, what? What would make the difference? What action, however minute, will the NRA allow us to take in order to stop the epidemic of gun violence?

 

I'm so tired of this just ridiculous idea that if the criminals will still get guns, we might as well not try. There will always be criminals. There will always be robberies, murders, rapes etc. That doesn't mean we don't try to make it harder. This idea that we have to find the one magic bullet (no pun intended) piece of policy that will solve all of the gun problems before we can do anything at all, is just maddening.

"Enforce the laws that we already have!" (Either ignoring or simply ignorant of the fact that the NRA/GOP actively works to make it harder to enforce gun laws.)

 

How about making penalties on gun crimes tougher, and not cutting budgets of police departments. Where I work I get page's from local police departments, and you'd be amazed at the number of page's I see each night where there's a gun related crime. We need to worry about the criminals with guns first, why is that so hard to grasp. Most of your shootings in Chicago were more than likely perpetrated by guys with rap sheets, not your next door neighbor. Not too mention, when you do have a mass shooting, it's done by someone who's nuts who shouldn't be around firearms in the first place.

 

I'm fine with background checks no matter what kind of weapon you buy. Not for nothing, I've been waiting over three months for my permit to get approved, and the dump I live in has one of the highest crime rates in NJ and not to mention, they've cut the police force in half two years ago...

[Count 'Bility]

I guess all this bitching and moaning is a bit silly. Should they have back ground checks for gun shows and online gun sales, yes.

 

But you are going after the people that aren't committing crimes. I know municipalities are offering "gun buy backs", but are those committing gun crimes, walking up and selling their guns?

 

I've got a brilliant idea for those up on Capital Hill, that are either butthurt or feeling like they've won something. How about coming up with a plan to get the guns away from those with criminal records? This bill isn't going to accomplish anything whether it would have passed or not.

 

 

Thank you....Can we please concentrate on something that is actually going to make a difference?

 

You don't think stopping random people from ordering guns almost anonymously on the internet would make a difference? I'm curious, what would make a difference?

 

Would allowing the ATF to require gun dealers submit inventories make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Would allowing federal money to go to research on gun crimes make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Assault weapons bans? Nope.

Expanding background checks? Nope.

Regulating magazine sizes? Nope.

Regulating ammunition sales? Nope.

 

So tell me, what? What would make the difference? What action, however minute, will the NRA allow us to take in order to stop the epidemic of gun violence?

 

I'm so tired of this just ridiculous idea that if the criminals will still get guns, we might as well not try. There will always be criminals. There will always be robberies, murders, rapes etc. That doesn't mean we don't try to make it harder. This idea that we have to find the one magic bullet (no pun intended) piece of policy that will solve all of the gun problems before we can do anything at all, is just maddening.

"Enforce the laws that we already have!" (Either ignoring or simply ignorant of the fact that the NRA/GOP actively works to make it harder to enforce gun laws.)

 

How about making penalties on gun crimes tougher, and not cutting budgets of police departments. Where I work I get page's from local police departments, and you'd be amazed at the number of page's I see each night where there's a gun related crime. We need to worry about the criminals with guns first, why is that so hard to grasp. Most of your shootings in Chicago were more than likely perpetrated by guys with rap sheets, not your next door neighbor. Not too mention, when you do have a mass shooting, it's done by someone who's nuts who shouldn't be around firearms in the first place.

 

I'm fine with background checks no matter what kind of weapon you buy. Not for nothing, I've been waiting over three months for my permit to get approved, and the dump I live in has one of the highest crime rates in NJ and not to mention, they've cut the police force in half two years ago...

So again, no more laws. Just enforce the ones we already have? Interesting concept.

[Junior]

So again, no more laws. Just enforce the ones we already have? Interesting concept.

 

Would be nice if we could.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra?page=2

 

Yet another Tiahrt amendment bars the ATF from forcing gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms, which the NRA's Cox describes as a "laborious and time-consuming process" and "generally unnecessary." In fact, unlike automobile dealers who have a pretty good idea when a car is missing from the lot, gun dealers seem to lose track of firearms all the time. In 2010, ATF inspections of less than 10 percent of firearms licensees identified more than 31,000 missing weapons. Unlike gun dealers, explosives dealers, also regulated by ATF, are required to keep annual inventories.

--

Corrupt dealers will often claim that a firearm that turned up at a crime scene was lost or stolen. Absent annual inventories, ATF must rely on on-site inspections to ascertain whether a dealer has accounted for every firearm he has bought or sold. That was made more difficult by the 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act, which essentially limits ATF to a single inspection per year for a dealer.

--

The Tiahrt amendments also barred the use of ATF trace data in administrative proceedings such as those to revoke a dealer's license. John Feinblatt, chief policy adviser to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said trace data is extremely useful in establishing "whether a dealer has broken the law," and that barring its use in revocation hearings is "like having a law that says you can't introduce DNA evidence in a rape case." Under Tiahrt most trace data is also off limits to journalists and scholars. "You're trying to detect a pattern," says former ATF agent Vince. "And the idea is, let's keep the truth and the facts from really coming out so the public can't see what's really going on." In a recent report, Mayors Against Illegal Guns charged the gun lobby with "blindfolding law enforcement" by limiting access to trace data.

[walksalone]

How about making penalties on gun crimes tougher, and not cutting budgets of police departments. Where I work I get page's from local police departments, and you'd be amazed at the number of page's I see each night where there's a gun related crime. We need to worry about the criminals with guns first, why is that so hard to grasp. Most of your shootings in Chicago were more than likely perpetrated by guys with rap sheets, not your next door neighbor. Not too mention, when you do have a mass shooting, it's done by someone who's nuts who shouldn't be around firearms in the first place.

 

I'm fine with background checks no matter what kind of weapon you buy. Not for nothing, I've been waiting over three months for my permit to get approved, and the dump I live in has one of the highest crime rates in NJ and not to mention, they've cut the police force in half two years ago...

So again, no more laws. Just enforce the ones we already have? Interesting concept.

 

make sure you read the entire message...

 

I'm ok with legislation for background checks, I'm not sure where I wasn't clear before...

[Count 'Bility]

How about making penalties on gun crimes tougher, and not cutting budgets of police departments. Where I work I get page's from local police departments, and you'd be amazed at the number of page's I see each night where there's a gun related crime. We need to worry about the criminals with guns first, why is that so hard to grasp. Most of your shootings in Chicago were more than likely perpetrated by guys with rap sheets, not your next door neighbor. Not too mention, when you do have a mass shooting, it's done by someone who's nuts who shouldn't be around firearms in the first place.

 

I'm fine with background checks no matter what kind of weapon you buy. Not for nothing, I've been waiting over three months for my permit to get approved, and the dump I live in has one of the highest crime rates in NJ and not to mention, they've cut the police force in half two years ago...

So again, no more laws. Just enforce the ones we already have? Interesting concept.

 

make sure you read the entire message...

 

I'm ok with legislation for background checks, I'm not sure where I wasn't clear before...

I was referring to your idea of making punishments tougher more than anything. Not to mention in a very generalized view. I've always thought that punishments for crimes in the country are not nearly sever enough. There is just not enough deterrant from attempting such acts.

 

My theory on enforcing the laws we already have goes both ways.

[carlfense]

How about making penalties on gun crimes tougher, and not cutting budgets of police departments.

I support both. You might see some pushback from a certain group of budget hawks regarding the latter.

 

We need to worry about the criminals with guns first, why is that so hard to grasp. Most of your shootings in Chicago were more than likely perpetrated by guys with rap sheets, not your next door neighbor. Not too mention, when you do have a mass shooting, it's done by someone who's nuts who shouldn't be around firearms in the first place.

I completely agree. That's why we should try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and our people with severe mental health problems . . . perhaps with some sort of background check system. I'm not sure why you think that is hard to grasp.

 

I'm fine with background checks no matter what kind of weapon you buy.

Me too.

[BigRedBuster]

There are literally millions of guns in this country that are are in circulation that there is absolutely no record of. Back ground checks wouldn't have one iota of affect on the purchase of the vast majority of these. This is a "feel good" bill. It would have made all of the people who wanted it feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they feel like they accomplished something but it would do nothing to make us safer.

 

Now, as a responsible gun owner, I have always thought this problem really is a problem the gun owners need to fix. It's like the guy who owns the pit bull down the street. It is his responsibility to figure out how to keep the people around that dog safe and if something happens, it's his problem.

 

Gun owners need to come together and stop fighting every single bill that comes up with no solution. I don't know what that solution is. Like I said, I probably would have voted for this bill if I were in congress. But, there are other issues in this world that needs to be addressed to keep us safe like mental health issues.

[BigRedBuster]

Another thing that I find funny is all the venom towards just Republicans.

 

Hmmm...last I checked the Dems have the White House and the Senate and they can't even get a bill through the Senate? Where is all the venom towards the Dems that voted against it?

[carlfense]

Hmmm...last I checked the Dems have the White House and the Senate and they can't even get a bill through the Senate?

 

Where is all the venom towards the Dems that voted against it?

You serious?

[strigori]

do your friends in MN approve of selling guns of felons are gun shows?

I don't think they go to gun shows. They have some dealer in the cities that they all drive to. They buy a lot of them. Even seen them give guns as birthday presents to their wives. Seems strange to me, but most of these people up here seem a little off in my opinion.

 

I don't own a gun, and I am definitely one of the few.

When they do those numbers for polls there is a science behind it. Probably a +/-3% or similar. And NM is hardly representative of the majority of people living in the US. Particularly if they do not live in a city of any kind.

 

Morons like Grassley making comments that "criminals don't submit to background checks" is at the same time both correct, and epicly stupid. Currently they don't have to, order online or roll into a gun show, they can buy one no question asked. And that is epicly stupid.

 

I don't care what kind of "science" is behind it. You can't take a sample size of 1700(or whatever the hell it was) no matter how they selected the samples and expect that to be within 3% accurate for our entire country. The poll referenced just above said over 80%. That's quite a bit different than what Junior's poll listed. I could believe 80%. 90+ %? I have my doubts. I personally am fine with background checks. It certainly doesn't bother me since I don't own a gun and haven't hunted for 16 years.

Will Gallup work for you?

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

 

Do not disregard the science because you don't understand it. The methodology has been proven to be effective over a very long term.

[strigori]

Another thing that I find funny is all the venom towards just Republicans.

 

Hmmm...last I checked the Dems have the White House and the Senate and they can't even get a bill through the Senate? Where is all the venom towards the Dems that voted against it?

Dems do not have a supermajority of 60 to force everything through. Which this vote required, getting 51 (they had 54) isnt enough.

[Count 'Bility]

There are literally millions of guns in this country that are are in circulation that there is absolutely no record of. Back ground checks wouldn't have one iota of affect on the purchase of the vast majority of these. This is a "feel good" bill. It would have made all of the people who wanted it feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they feel like they accomplished something but it would do nothing to make us safer.

 

Now, as a responsible gun owner, I have always thought this problem really is a problem the gun owners need to fix. It's like the guy who owns the pit bull down the street. It is his responsibility to figure out how to keep the people around that dog safe and if something happens, it's his problem.

 

Gun owners need to come together and stop fighting every single bill that comes up with no solution. I don't know what that solution is. Like I said, I probably would have voted for this bill if I were in congress. But, there are other issues in this world that needs to be addressed to keep us safe like mental health issues.

To me that'd be like quitting changing oil in your car just becuase the tires are shot. We have to start somewhere.

 

And I agree 100% with your idea on current gun owners taking more responsibility. There has to be some compromise somewhere.

[BigRedBuster]

Another thing that I find funny is all the venom towards just Republicans.

 

Hmmm...last I checked the Dems have the White House and the Senate and they can't even get a bill through the Senate? Where is all the venom towards the Dems that voted against it?

Dems do not have a supermajority of 60 to force everything through. Which this vote required, getting 51 (they had 54) isnt enough.

 

 

I understand that. But, there were 4 Dems that voted no. I would think the anger would be towards anyone who voted no. Not just the ones that voted no from one party.

[BigRedBuster]

There are literally millions of guns in this country that are are in circulation that there is absolutely no record of. Back ground checks wouldn't have one iota of affect on the purchase of the vast majority of these. This is a "feel good" bill. It would have made all of the people who wanted it feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they feel like they accomplished something but it would do nothing to make us safer.

 

Now, as a responsible gun owner, I have always thought this problem really is a problem the gun owners need to fix. It's like the guy who owns the pit bull down the street. It is his responsibility to figure out how to keep the people around that dog safe and if something happens, it's his problem.

 

Gun owners need to come together and stop fighting every single bill that comes up with no solution. I don't know what that solution is. Like I said, I probably would have voted for this bill if I were in congress. But, there are other issues in this world that needs to be addressed to keep us safe like mental health issues.

To me that'd be like quitting changing oil in your car just becuase the tires are shot. We have to start somewhere.

 

And I agree 100% with your idea on current gun owners taking more responsibility. There has to be some compromise somewhere.

 

 

No, it's like changing the oil and thinking it's going to somehow fix the tire problem.

 

Changing the oil would be a good thing to do. But, don't expect to be safer driving down the road till you replace the tires.