What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

This is all I know about gun control.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, on Friday called on school officials to immediately come up with a plan to place armed security in every school in America.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?” he asked.
Click to expand...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nra-only-thing-stops-bad-guy-gun-good-guy-gun
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Kepler said:
Subscribed because the topic has no natural home right now.

Obama's Executive Order of 5 January 2016.

Please discuss.
Click to expand...

Two questions:
1. If I sell you a handgun, am I classified as a "gun seller" under the EO? OK. WaPo article says no. But if I sell you my gun collection, that looks like a yes
2. What if Congress passes legislation to invalidate the EO? Can they?
2a. Does the Executive always win if he/she issues EOs to do something the Congre$$ refuses to do? Good thing or bad thing? Or, does it depend on which side of the fence you're sitting

Oh, I agree with Scooby.

How will this stop Theo the Thug from obtaining an illegal gun?
 
Last edited:
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

joecct said:
Two questions:
1. If I sell you a handgun, am I classified as a "gun seller" under the EO? OK. WaPo article says no. But if I sell you my gun collection, that looks like a yes
Click to expand...

Here's a scanty write-up from the ABA.

According to the Times, the president plans to clarify that anyone who makes a living by selling guns must register as a licensed gun dealer who is required to conduct background checks. However, someone who sells only one or two guns could be considered a regulated dealer “engaged in the business” of selling firearms under new federal guidance on the issue.

The standards would take into account business activities by sellers, such as whether they accept credit cards, use business cards, use a website for sales, and rent tables at gun shows.
Click to expand...

I assume there must be a metric sh-t ton of case law defining what constitutes "business" as distinct from "non-business activity." Legal eagles?
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Kepler said:
Subscribed because the topic has no natural home right now.

Obama's Executive Order of 5 January 2016.

Please discuss.
Click to expand...

Speaking as a gun owner, it's about *ing time. I'm very tired of the crowd that hollers about slippery slopes at the mere mention of doing anything about the issue. The NRA says "people kill people", well here you go, here's more money for mental health and an expansion of existing steps to identify the crazies. Watch, now they will holler about "Soviet psychiatry" and "no buy lists", or something. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
here's more money for mental health
Click to expand...

When I heard the amount ($500M) I nearly choked. To get a real handle on the deficiencies in our mental health infrastructure we probably need about $50B more. Per year.
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Here's a poll on current public opinion on gun controll:

Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Almost identical shares of Republicans (81%) and Democrats (79%) support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. But other proposals are more divisive: 85% of Democrats favor creation of a database for the federal government to track gun sales, compared with 55% of Republicans. And while 70% of Democrats back an assault-weapons ban, only about half of Republicans (48%) favor this proposal. due to 'no opinion results', even more Republicans support an assault weapons ban than reject it

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08...-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Will these moves* really make a difference?
When was the last time a criminal used a "mentally deficient" person's ID to purchase a weapon? And was that weapon used to commit a crime?

These "actions" sound wonderful and make for great sound bites, but will they make an iota of difference?


*I won't question if they are an end-run around Congress or extra-Constitutional.
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

SonofSouthie said:
Never seems to be any of those around.
Click to expand...

Ever wonder why you never hear of a bad guy trying to knock over a shooting range or a gun shop?

Hint: It might have to do with the lawful gun owners, many with concealed carry permits, that frequent the establishments. ;)
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

The real solution is to eliminate gun owners, not guns.

Eta. Maybe require all guns to be bright pink in color. Since offing the owners will be frowned upon.
 
Last edited:
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Kepler said:
When I heard the amount ($500M) I nearly choked. To get a real handle on the deficiencies in our mental health infrastructure we probably need about $50B more. Per year.
Click to expand...

Isn't part of the issue that many of the mentally deficient that would've been institutionalized in by-gone days have been "streeted" by public policies aimed to give them their freedom (and ability to not be able to sustain themselves).

I can only speak for ND, but closure of the Grafton State School and San Haven State Hospital years ago put many folks that couldn't cope with living in greater society (much less tasks of daily life) back into communities. Were those facilities perfect, or even good? Looking objectively, not many were; however, in comparison to not having shelter and living under a bridge with no food, they weren't bad. Our mistake was not fixing the infrastructure systems we had.
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

The Sicatoka said:
Isn't part of the issue that many of the mentally deficient that would've been institutionalized in by-gone days have been "streeted" by public policies aimed to give them their freedom (and ability to not be able to sustain themselves).
Click to expand...

I'd say the policies were mostly born of states cutting budgets. That's what happened during the 1980s, anyway, when it seemed like the paradigm shift occurred. There was a "Cuckoos Nest" Effect to some extent, as patients gained rights and confinement gave way to temporary holds, but as usual the villain of the piece was the tax revolt. People became convinced in the 80s that they could have all their goodies but not pay for them, and since this is patent nonsense, all the goodies that didn't have well-heeled sponsors got lopped off. Crazy care was one of the first to go. Elections have consequences.
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

The Sicatoka said:
Isn't part of the issue that many of the mentally deficient that would've been institutionalized in by-gone days have been "streeted" by public policies aimed to give them their freedom (and ability to not be able to sustain themselves).

I can only speak for ND, but closure of the Grafton State School and San Haven State Hospital years ago put many folks that couldn't cope with living in greater society (much less tasks of daily life) back into communities. Were those facilities perfect, or even good? Looking objectively, not many were; however, in comparison to not having shelter and living under a bridge with no food, they weren't bad. Our mistake was not fixing the infrastructure systems we had.
Click to expand...
I was in college in North Dakota when the ARC lawsuit essentially sounded the death knell for Grafton and San Haven. Probably one of the more controversial periods in North Dakota history, largely forgotten now.

We have a horrible problem in this country with respect to those individuals whose mental handicap or disability makes it more difficult, or impossible, for them to function as a "normal" (whatever that is) adult in society.

The first problem is the degrees of mental disability. Not everyone is the same. Some can't function at all, and some function quite highly. The problem we have is trying to use a one size fits all approach.

I don't think institutionalization is necessarily the way to go, but it's also apparent that the expectation that all mentally disabled individuals can simply be assimilated into standard society isn't the right answer either.
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Kepler said:
I'd say the policies were mostly born of states cutting budgets. That's what happened during the 1980s, anyway, when it seemed like the paradigm shift occurred. There was a "Cuckoos Nest" Effect to some extent, as patients gained rights and confinement gave way to temporary holds, but as usual the villain of the piece was the tax revolt. People became convinced in the 80s that they could have all their goodies but not pay for them, and since this is patent nonsense, all the goodies that didn't have well-heeled sponsors got lopped off. Crazy care was one of the first to go. Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...

And thus we learned the hard way that centralized "crazy care" (not my phrase, quoting Kep) is far more efficient and cost effective than the current mess alternative.
 
Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

In "All Quiet on the Western Front" one of the soldiers in the hospital had received a knock on the head (concussion) from an artillery shell and head a certificate that if he went off the handle, it was OK.

It was called a "Shooting License".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top