Skip to main content

I hate to ask this, but I think it's something we all should think about. Plus I think if we think about what OBAMA is trying to accomplish, we might ALSO think about your own goals in the process.

So, question time.

Do you think Obama is PRIMARILY trying to:

- Minimize the damage done (with guns), by insane mass murderers.


- Meaningfully* lower the number of gun victims in the US.

They are really different goals and require really different approaches.

And if you would like to leave a comment, telling me what YOU think he should be doing, i.e. what you'd do if you were setting the agenda, I'd really appreciate that as well.

For the record, I personally think he is trying to, "Minimize the damage done (with guns), by random, insane, mass murderers." I would prefer he tried to meaningfully lower the number of gun victims in the US, however.

Thanks for you responses in advance.

*I know some of you think a 2% decrease in gun homicides is meaningful; I understand your position (and am for saving as many as possible - and all weapons bans/restrictions), but would say that a 2-3% success rate wouldn't be considered very successful in almost any context.


What is Obama hoping to primarily accomplish?

62%5 votes
37%3 votes

| 8 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is there a reason (4+ / 0-)

    he cannot try to accomplish both?

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:43:17 PM PST

    •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

      I've seen nothing to suggest he's trying to make a meaningful impact on the overall gun death/injuries numbers.

      Have you?

      •  No one has seen anything yet. (0+ / 0-)

        Good grief Biden's group met for the first time today. I  mean were you seriously expecting to get a clear sense of direction when the conversation just started and ideas were just beginning to be submitted?

        Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

        by jsfox on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:18:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          Have you seen or heard anyone discussing a wider gun ban, or wider gun control, other than assault weapons re-ban, high capacity clips ban and some tweaks to existing laws?

          I haven't.

          In fact I see people claiming that even an assault weapons ban might not pass the House.

          So, no nothing I've seen sounds like anything other thank minor changes and nibbling around the edges of the issue.

          •  No and I don't expect a wider gun ban (0+ / 0-)

            that would be bloody impossible the assault weapon ban will be tough enough. However there have been discussions about closing gun show loopholes, mandatory waiting periods on all guns purchases, no more internet  gun and ammo sales. Training, licensing all things that may cut down on the number of gun deaths overall.

            Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

            by jsfox on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:31:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              It may.

              But it won't bring it down by even 5% I'd wager, having looked closely at all those FBI stats for the last few years.

              I think you might bring the holicide rate down by 3-4%, but you'd have almost no effect on the suicide rate... And a negligible effect on the injury rate I'd guess.


              Nibbling around the edges. Which is why I believe what I believe.

  •  I don't know what his goal is , (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, riottapes, cassandracarolina

    my wish/goal is to cut the number of killed and wounded by 50 % .
    It might look crazy , but it would be a hell of an accomplishment .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:45:15 PM PST

  •  Pragmatically, the next steps (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, riottapes

    will have to be determined by what votes can get a majority in Congress and a majority of public support.  

    The low hanging fruit seems to be insanely high capacity weapons like the one the shooters in the Connecticut school and the Colorado movie theater used.  Restricting access to these and to high capacity magazines would seem to be the easiest prospects.  

    An easy to identify goal, but one which will prove much harder to get a handle on, is that of improving access to mental health care for young people who are at risk of developing a problem that will be harder to treat as they age beyond adolescence.  

    A lot of the discussion around that issue lacks consensus and much of it is misinformed.  No use thinking Congress is better informed about this area.  Real progress could take many years.  

    It would be easier to satisfy a lot of people by installing armed guards in schools, even though this has little or no chance of really providing relief.  Instead, this will burden school districts across the country with another budget burden that will result in fewer teachers or school librarians or programs that benefit students.  

    Most likely, once the low hanging fruit has been dealt with, the debate will stall in the complexity of it all.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:13:08 PM PST

    •  I think you nailed it (0+ / 0-)

      Especially this part:

      The low hanging fruit seems to be insanely high capacity weapons like the one the shooters in the Connecticut school and the Colorado movie theater used.  Restricting access to these and to high capacity magazines would seem to be the easiest prospects.  
      It won't be hard for him to push for banning rapid-fire weapons, boosting mental health resources, and overall education about gun safety.

      But you're question is key because if none of these strategies reduces gun violence/mass shootings, the gun lobby will say "told you so."

      The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

      by LiberalLady on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:21:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I really, truly hate to be cynical (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Of Limeyland

    But I'm guessing the goal will be to look like the administration tried to do something, that something will be savaged at the hands of paid political operatives, the administration and the Democrats won't lift a finger to put any oomph behind it, and it will die a quiet and gruesome death sometime during Super Bowl Week.

    What I would like to see happen would be registration of every functional shootin' arn in the country; mandatory minimum annual training for every functional weapon a person wants to own (I'd like to see two weeks full time, but would settle for one week); and criminal penalties (30 days seems like a good minimum as a reminder for absent-minded owners) for the owner each and every time a weapon is stolen, misplaced, forgotten in some carry-on luggage or left behind at the movies.

    That would do for a start.

  •  Make the NRA STFU (0+ / 0-)

    I know this isn't a realistic or even constitutional issue, but the root of the problem, IMHO, is that the NRA controls the national lawmakers to a nearly absolute extent.   That in itself wouldn't be a big deal if their positions weren't so extreme.  If the NRA were simply promoting the shooting sports and responsible gun ownership, I would be a life member.  They aren't that.  What the NRA does is a constant ratcheting of rhetoric, paranoia, and nonsense against anyone anywhere who doesn't agree with their extremist and constantly expanding views.  

    Do the training.  Do the education.  Do the reasonable promotion of gun ownership.  Just stop doing the crazy.  And stop promoting Republicans.  Although I repeat myself.  

    How many wrongs does it take to make a right?

    by pdknz on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:10:53 PM PST

  •  President Obama has been masterful (0+ / 0-)

    in taking things off the table.  The most widespread, and expedient action to address gun violence would be to take the profit motive out of the narcotics trade by sweeping legalization of dealing and possession.

    Throw the manufacturing and cultivation to the regulatory agencies if he must, but stop the violence associated with a high-profit prohibited commodity.

    As for the random mass killings where a disturbed individual uses a gun, that is going to take time and a sea change in our culture that must require a holistic approach.

    There is a long overdue, honest discussion out there, but I do not believe knee-jerk, reactive, Constitutionally questionable legislation is the answer.

    The first thing is to dissolve the budget rider that prohibits the CDC from tracking and analyzing data regarding injuries and deaths attributable to firearms.

    From: Forbes:  Gun Violence: How Research on an American Health Crisis Has Been Suppressed  (12/17/2012)

    In 1995, about 5 percent of the budget of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control was devoted to gun research
    The effort to kill the Prevention Center failed but Congress cut the CDC’s budget by $2.6 million—the amount thought to be spent on the offending publication—and passed language declaring: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
    As the same with marijuana prohibition, the right uses enforced ignorance of the subject matter to further a demonstrably destructive agenda that is based on personal bias, not facts, even when non-domestic research points to the contrary.

    How can we even begin to talk about solutions in a rational manner when we aren't even allowed to know the most basic of raw data.

    My own personal enjoyment of my hobby be damned, my goals are exactly the same as any rational person, what I may differ on is how we go about achieving these goals:  to drastically reduce violence, in every form, that does not entail irrational, unconstitutional, oppressive means.

    I truly believe we can find a solution, we must absolutely address the issue of violence within our culture, and any long-lasting and meaningful solution has to be based on access to, and an unflinching look at facts.

    •  I don't REALLY think (0+ / 0-)

      that there's a meaningful amount of Marijuana related gun violence to make it's decriminalization a meaningful road to reducing overall gun violence.

      If you check the FBI stats, the two biggest causes of homicides are "other" and robberies... Narcotics is third in the felony list, but what percentage of that is violent pot dealers, I just don't know.


      The felony related gun-homicide numbers pale in comparison to the non-related numbers.

      For instance, the FBI measured 463 narcotic related gun homicides in 2010 - HOWEVER - in that same year they recorded 3215 ARGUMENT related gun homicides.

      In fact if you add to that people involved in deadly fights due to the influence of drugs and alcohol the number jumps to 3400+. That's more than a quarter of all homicides.

      That's compared to less than 900 gang related killings.

      Arguments - 3215
      Gangs - 849*

      *Note that of that number (849) MOST homicide are actually related to  juvenile gangs (673).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site