Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama taps Biden to lead administration response to mass shootings (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is all relatively meaningless stuff (0+ / 0-)

    Most guns used in these things are legally owned.

    Mass shooting account for a TINY percentage of total gun deaths.. a percent of a percent.

    High capacity magazines and assault weapons were banned in 2003 - and the US still had 11,000 gun murders - in 2011 it was 8875.

    On top of that CT already had a assault weapons ban and the rifle used in SH isn't technically (legally) an assault weapon.

    This is just political posturing instead of meaningful change.

    •  ok, if it's meaningless, what do you (7+ / 0-)

      prescribe?

      “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

      by SottoVoce on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:16:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he needs to get his facts on the AWB right first (5+ / 0-)

        We DID NOT ban assault weapons and high capacity clips in 2003. I'm not sure what planet he's living on, because that's the year it expired and it was effective at reducing crimes involving these types of weapons.

        His first point makes almost no sense--most of these weapons used in these mass shootings are legal...so they should continue to be legal?

        And his clueless as to the out-of-control assault weapons culture surrounding Newtown, that prevented local police, hunters, and responsible gun owners from discharging weapons near residences, load targets with explosives, setting up unlicensed shooting ranges. People don't get to pretend that that kind of atmosphere isn't a contributing factor or that that kind of recklessness isn't happening elsewhere.

        They have no good reason for owning these kinds of weapons and ammo and they KNOW it.

        •  I agree with all your suggestions, except to say (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pamelabrown, Shippo1776

          that everyone around here is in a tremendous hurry to have instant results, laws put into effect without either knowledge or attention to detail.  Since, as you say, Obama doesn't know his gun facts and I'm sure that everyone in his cabinet is not yet a gun expert, perhaps the first thing the commission needs is to lay out the facts in no uncertain terms.  Then it would be much easier to promote serious, well-crafted laws and policies (such as yours) that would be effective.  That won't happen if people expect the laws to be on the books before Christmas, absent which is all the proof they need that Obama is a loser and sellout. An immediate start (with his cabinet) and one month, when he demands results, is not unreasonable.

          “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

          by SottoVoce on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:28:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say (or at least mean) (0+ / 0-)

          They were banned INITIALLY in 2003. That was the LAST full year they WERE banned.

          And in that year there were 30K gun deaths, including 11K gun homicides, WITH that ban in place.

      •  Effective (0+ / 0-)

        Is a policy that lowers gun murder rates by at least 5%.

        This won't.

        Not even close.

        This would MAYBE drop rates by 2-3%, assuming the murders didn't just switch the weapon they used to an un-banned handgun.

      •  easier to throw up hands (0+ / 0-)

        than offer concrete input.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:50:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  meaningless (9+ / 0-)

      Please. The Assault Weapons ban was effective, even though it could have been more effective. It expired in 03-04 and the nation's police chiefs have been calling for a new one ever since.

      You're just making excuses for doing something that you clearly can't bring yourself to support.

      •  Please don't (0+ / 0-)

        put words in my mouth.

        We had 11,000 gun murders with both bands (AW and HCM) so obviously they weren't wildly effective at lowering the gun homicide rate, were they?

        OR do you consider 11K gunned down Americans the outcome of an effective policy?

        •  you don't even know when the ban was in effect (4+ / 0-)

          It EXPIRED in 2003. When it was in effect between 1994 and then it reduced crimes involving these weapons by almost 2/3. Those aren't my stats--that's from the International Association of Police Chiefs. Why do you know better than are law enforcement?

          •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

            I never said it was initiated in 2003. That was the LAST FULL YEAR it was in place.

            You tell me, what percentage of murders are committed with assault weapons?

            Any idea?

            •  whatever that number is, it's too many. (0+ / 0-)

              Australia implemented an actual working assault weapons ban and do you know how many Australians have been killed since using an assault weapon??? the answer is zero.

              It's not acceptable that anyone die and why that may never be the case, accepting a number on this subject is asinine.

              mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

              by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:55:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  fortunately the president is not calling for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1

          the ban as the only solution. but as part of it.

          or did you not even listen to the statement?

          he's talking about other measures including more rigorous background checks and the use of technology to do what needs to be done to curb gun violence. He's talking about mental health services as well.

          And since you want to talk about gun violence and deaths, yes, you're correct that 11,000 deaths is too many. And the truth is that most of those deaths are not from mass shootings but from people who possess guns illegally. So I think requiring BG checks at, say, gun shows, will be useful in making a serious dent in guns being bought ILLEGALLY and hence we'll see a drop in the numbers of  gun deaths - most of which are happening in urban areas using guns that are not legally owned.

          So.

          •  Actually. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mdmslle

            You might want to check the FBI statistics before you make that claim.

            http://www.fbi.gov/...

            •  Then the OP's point is even more ridiculous. (0+ / 0-)

              The bottom line is the president is calling for a multi-front approach to solutions. I'm a gun owner and 2A advocate and a democratic socialist. In fact I wrote an essay on it for RKBA once upon a time.

              This is going to involve some restrictions,yes. It's going to involve increased services for mental illness and, I hope, as I said in my essay, some attention to domestic issues and abuse.

              It needs to, yes, address the illegal weapons on the street that are killing too many of my young brothers and sisters in the city. And lessen the mechanisms available for them to get these weapons. Like gun shows that don't require bG checks.

              This has to be a multi-tiered approach and yes, any change is going to piss somebody off. And two weeks ago I'd have argued against what I just typed. But I can't argue it in good conscience today. Sorry, I just can't.

        •  wondering why (0+ / 0-)

          you did not answer the question posed?

          what positive input would you like to add that would improve the situation??????

          well?????

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:52:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Realitively meaningless? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wewantthetruth

      I think it just might be meaningfully realitive to a whole lot of relatives.

      Fuck Big Brother...from now on, WE'RE watching.

      by franklyn on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:45:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

      loopholes in all current legislation because the NRA has its hand all over it.

      if we were all like you, throwing up our hands and saying "oh, well" nothing would ever get done.

      defeatism or fatalism gets us nowhere. if they can do it in Australia, no reason that the greatest nation on Earth can come through.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:50:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site