Gun Control

[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.

 

 

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.

Youre right. But I was referring to if we didnt pass the law because of the guns in circulation. Hence, giving up on the whole process because of an issue already out of our grasp.

[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.

 

 

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.

The only reason is the 4 who voted no are up for reelection in '14 and will probably be facing teabaggers in the reelection races.

[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.

The only reason is the 4 who voted no are up for reelection in '14 and will probably be facing teabaggers in the reelection races.

 

 

Oh...silly me....Then that's OK. Politics as usual. Carry on.

 

 

Oh...wait....I thought the Dems didn't play politics in this issue.

[Count 'Bility]

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.

The only reason is the 4 who voted no are up for reelection in '14 and will probably be facing teabaggers in the reelection races.

And boom. The real problem. Loud and clear.

[beanman]

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.co.../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.

 

Give me a f'ing break. I use statistics every day in my job. And I have for 10 years. We use surveys in my business to understand the voice of the customer so we can design/manufacture products that they are satisfied with and meet their specifications.

 

Is this the type of science you're talking about? Asking long-winded questions over the phone to Joe Blow who probably can't focus on anything for more than 5 seconds?

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/28/1174401/-PPP-found-wide-majority-in-favor-of-banning-assault-weapons-Gallup-a-majority-against-what-gives

 

While I'm quite certain they are very particular about where the sampling comes from to ensure they have representative samples of different ethnicities and political backgrounds that are proportional to what we have in this country, there are many many things that can go wrong to impact the accuracy of polls like this. And extrapolating it to a population 18,400 times the sample size can obviously cause issues as well.

 

They can put whatever measures they want into place. I honestly don't understand what kind of argument people can have with background checks unless it makes it take 3 months. I'm just fine with background checks. Do I think they're going to make a major difference? No. Do I think it will save some lives? Yes. And that's good enough for me. I just don't think you can put much weight into poll numbers like this, that's all. I just wish this gun stuff would get passed so we can move on to focusing more on the mental health issues. The background checks seems to me like it should be a no-brainer, and I don't have a horse in this race other than not wanting to have to worry about my kids' safety all the time. And gun violence is pretty low on my list of worries with regard to my children.

[walksalone]

you might see some pushback from a certain group of budget hawks regarding the latter.

 

Well, unless you want folks offing each other in droves with guns, then you might want rectify that problem..

 

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.

 

 

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...

 

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've said this multiple times. I'm frustrated because due to the lack of law enforcement, to get my permit is taking even longer. (doesn't help I live on the east coast and this place is overrun by douchebags, but thats a different story for a different day)

[Someone]

"It's not going to stop the criminals."

 

For many here, unless a law can be 100% effective, it shouldn't pass the Senate. That's madness, of course.

 

We have laws about illegal drugs without stopping all drug sales/use.

We have laws about drunk driving without stopping everyone who drives drunk.

 

In fact, ~99.999% of all laws fail to stop 100% of the crime they target. Does that mean we should have any laws?

 

The facts show that drunk driving deaths are down 50% since tougher drunk driving laws went into effect. Increase use of seatbelts and air bags might have some impact on that but even with more cars driving more miles, deaths are down 50%.

 

We know about people go online and buy guns that they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to buy for a dealer who does the required background checks. People have been killed. The killers got there guns online. Nobody cared enough to stop them.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[QMany]

Republican Arkansas lawmaker:

[Someone]

I know I sleep better knowing I have a AK-15 when a man who is believed to leave bombs around is in the neighborhood.

 

My AK-15 can be used to shoot shrapnel out of the air as it flies towards me and my family.

 

If that is his real twitter account, he's done.

[carlfense]

If that is his really twitter account, he's done.

No way. He'll benefit from it. You underestimate the craziness of the far right.

[QMany]

If that is his really twitter account, he's done.

It is his account, for sure. He already took it down and apologized. By apologize I mean he said that was basically what he meant but it might not have been the right time to say it.

[Junior]

If that is his really twitter account, he's done.

No way. He'll benefit from it. You underestimate the craziness of the far right.

 

Indeed. He'll be on Fox tonight as a rising Republican star under attack from a liberal press.

[carlfense]

If that is his really twitter account, he's done.

No way. He'll benefit from it. You underestimate the craziness of the far right.

 

Indeed. He'll be on Fox tonight as a rising Republican star under attack from a liberal press.

Count on it.

[Junior]

If that is his really twitter account, he's done.

No way. He'll benefit from it. You underestimate the craziness of the far right.

 

Indeed. He'll be on Fox tonight as a rising Republican star under attack from a liberal press.

Count on it.

 

If you could wager on these sorts of things, I'd put a substantial amount of money on it.

[Someone]

It is true that he said it was poor timing on his part. It seems that is all he is willing to admit was wrong.

 

I'd bet that State Rep is the top rung on his political ladder.