nafod wrote:Sua Sponte wrote:While much can be made of the fact that McCain changed his vote there may to his mind be good reasons. Background checks mean the gov't knows what you're buying and therefore has record. For those who fear gov't confiscation, this is a big deal.
*sigh*
Background checks are the least of it, if folks are worried about getting tracked. I am constantly amazed by the crickets from the Gun Rights folks regarding NSA monitoring and that ilk. What it tells me is that it is not really about the tracking and confiscation, it is about the emotional attachment. I spent three years on the Find/Fix/Finish. The gun rights folks seem to be focused on being ready to fight off the "finish", but I am here to tell you that's the easy part.
*heavier sigh* *eye roll* *contemptuous "you know better" look*
People are worried about being tracked. This is inarguable. The statement in essence of "we can track you anyway, dumb ass" really isn't a very compelling argument as why you shouldn't be worried if you worry about such things. The historical comaprison is to how the Australian gov't implemented their laws. Comparisons to evolved military targeting over the last 15 years don't help that point of view, either, they just really fuel the paranoia. Again, I think it's a bit paranoid, but given Hillary's predilections, it's not a point entirely without merit, either.
nafod wrote: it's seemingly becoming less fictional that there is some conspiracy, by whatever subterfuge is available, to deny people their 2nd amendment rights.
The Heller case confirmed for the first time that us merkins have an individual right to be armed. It also clearly stated that the right has bounds. Now multiple different circuit courts have consistently upheld restrictions by the states on assault rifles, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly and very visibly chosen not to hear those cases. Pretty clear that they are allowing the people themselves to determine where the operational bounds are, and assault rifles are in the optional category.
A good counter to a point that wasn't made. Straw man? The point made is most don't realize there's a different between the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list. While the rhetoric has been around "if you can't fly, why should you be able to buy a gun" the proposed legislation is about "if we arbitrarily put you on something called a terrorist watch list, which sounds scary, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun." It's broadening the stated intent of the law through misdirection and subterfuge. If the proposed amendment had kept true to "no-fly = no guns", you'd have a point. Maybe we should ask ourselves the question "If you're under investigation by the FBI for felony mishandling of national secrets, should you be allowed to run for president?"
nafod wrote:And it can't be emphasized enough, that Mateen not only passed state and federal background checks, he was the individual target of multiple, multi-month FBI investigations and he was on no list of any sort, not denied gun purchases.
Two comments on that. First, Mateen shined the light on the fact that someone on a no-fly list can buy an assault weapon. Saying the fact that he wasn't on the list matters, is to kind of say that even if we think it is a bad idea for someone to be able to buy a gun like that, we need to wait until we have another mass shooting to pass a law on it.
Second, you are making an argument for why assault rifles should be banned.
Not at all. My point as stated is that many believe that background checks would have stopped this or many other recent mass shootings not that background checks aren't a good idea. I've stated I think background checks are a good idea.
Before the Mateen case brought to life that people on no-fly lists can buy guns, he brought to light the fact there is a no-fly list and there's no well known criteria to be on it. The fact that Mateen's actions brought the list and its consequences or lack hereof into the open doesn't mean that's how it had to be. Where was Feinstein, why didn't she propose such a ban for such persons long ago? Or any legislator? Or the administration, this one or the previous?
My argument would only imply assault rifles should be banned if I were making an argument that I think any problem would, should or could be solved simply and uniquely by banning something.
nafod wrote:A closer comparison is to traffic deaths, which show more lost lives, and much higher injury rates, along with a reported 50% lat year over the previous two. Yet, there's no background check to buy a car, no screams of "people don't need that much horsepower" or "why do we have cars and trucks that can go 2 to 3 times the post speed limited on most highways." There's no designation of cars with seat side bolsters, turbos, extra wide low profile tires, or other features as "assault vehicles." No outcry that all cars should be equipped with mandatory breathalyzers in order to be able to start the car, or identification technology so only the licensed owner may drive it.
This is a really bad analogy to go down. You can only operate a car in public (not own it) if you have demonstrated ability and some minimal medical suitability. There are absolutely graduating scales of training and medical readiness for moving from non-commercial to commercial, with multiple classes of commercial vehicles and multiple approvals for things like transporting hazmat, double trailers, etc. The Class A vehicles are more closely regulated for inspection and operation because of their potential for havoc. Identification technology so only the licensed driver can operate it? It is called a key. It is a readily available technology that makes your product not as useful to someone else. Kind of like a password for a smartphone, that prevents the information on there from being used against you when stolen.
It's only a bad analogy to go down if the point was that training was at issue which it isn't. The point is that traffic deaths are at least an equivalent social ill but there are no proposed solutions akin to those for guns. Most vehicle deaths are personal car/truck related so large commercial vehicle are irrelevant to the conversation. I hasten to add here that RV's, pretty far removed from handling a car, require no special licensing.
By way of the analogy actually intended concerning passenger vehicles, there are no restrictions whatsoever on me buying a car, on whether my car has 100hp or 500hp, no restriction on enhancements that make the car easier to drive at law shattering speeds, no restrictions on size or weight other those limiting category, both of which make considerable contribution to the damage they may do. So, first then, while people seek to limit availability of guns with greater potential to kill, no such restrictions exist on acquisition of cars that have the greater potential. The analogy stands even if I initially failed to make it clear.
Further, no technology is required to prevent drunks from, say, getting in and killing 30+ kids who largely burned to death in a bus, even 40 yrs after the fact (origins of MADD), no effort to stop texting and driving, the technology for which exists and would save many more than at the Orlando shooting, largely because "why are we penalizing people who did nothing wrong because others chose to break the law." Certainly every time there's a misuse of alcohol or a vehicle there's no concern on the part of people who drink or people who drive that their *privileges* (not rights) will be infringed upon. Tet there are moves afoot to have "smart guns" that prevent misuse. The point isn't that "smart guns" are smart or dumb, only that there are parallels in automotive technology to such an idea that aren't seriously pursued despite the potential for saving many more lives than would they on guns.
A key doesn't keep anybody but the owner from starting the car, it just requires that you have the key. Nothing personally about the owner is required such as fingerprints or even a password which is much harder to steal than a key (mostly). While this is a poor analogy because people park cars in public areas where fear of having a high value items stolen not the death they can wreak if stolen, the truth is many if not most guns today come with methods of locking them. And, again, the point being raised is the parallel to suggested use-limiting technology on guns vs. autos.
Gun advocates say that the person is the problem, not the gun. Most of your argument is the same. Let's not limit availability to these "assault vehicles", let's place laws on the operators, that'll stop 'em.
nafod wrote:Ubiquitous cell phone usage, especially texting while driving, receives largely lip service and public service announcements despite tens of studies equating such actions with impairment many times over the legal alcohol content limit.
I missed the lip service and public service announcements regarding safe use of weapons advocated for by the republicans.
Again here, the issue with mass shooters isn't that they failed to use safe handling procedures. Again here, it's not the case that people don't understand that guns are very dangerous. It's that they don't seem to get that texting and driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving which is more dangerous than a mishandled gun.
But do you know who does advocate for safe gun handling, offering free or at very low cost classes in the same? Why the NRA, of course. Where's that Dem ad that goes"while we wish you wouldn't buy guns, if you do, please take an NRA class on how to use and store it, they're the best out there."
nafod wrote:I wonder what will happen when background checks and weapons bans fail to have the desired effect of markedly reducing gun violence
I wonder what will happen when they do. People keep saying there are so many guns out there, that prohibiting access won't change a thing, and yet
people keep buying them, including criminals. Any friction in the process will result in lower usage.
Totally miss the point about friction resulting in lower usage. Mass shooters, in particular, get their guns legally, aren't on watch lists, and, primarily, are meticulous planners, weeks to months ahead of time putting the pieces in place. Hard to conclude they're impeded by friction.
While some say there are so many guns out there restrictions won't change a thing, and perhaps that's even true, I didn't make that point. My point was that the proposed restrictions won't impact the categories where most gun deaths occur and that most people seem to think they will.
nafod wrote:Suicide by firearm is the topmost category by a wide margin of deaths, up 26%, with suicides by all measures up double that.
You know what one of my first tasks was when I learned one of my sailors was potentially suicidal? Ensure he didn't have access to a firearm.
Good on ya. You should also remove any source of personal harm, to include belts, sharp objects, even medications. Posting a suicide watch is also protocol. This assumes that you have some warning and that's statistically not typically the case.
nafod wrote:I'm with General McChrystal on this:
"Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and that therefore taking these steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership," he wrote.
Normally I'd say no fair taking an Army General's quote there, sailor boy, but nothing I wrote runs against what the distinguished general said and in most ways supports it. So there.
