General News Get Behind Your President's Actions Re. Gun Control Americans

I love my President.

 

I'm definitely optimistic about the President's executive order on firearms, and I'm definitely hoping that we have a Democratic successor to President Obama (whether it be Clinton, Sanders, or by some act of dark magic O'Malley) that will continue to enact these measures.

 

The President's executive order is going to do little to curb gun violence. It is going to do a lot to motivate the conservative base and might win them the election.

 

That's not factual though. This will actually do quite a bit to curb gun violence in terms of shootings by those who are not mentally fit to have firearms or have previous convictions for things such as domestic violence. Conservatives also support the idea of universal background checks by about 80 or 90 percent. If we get the actual facts out about this executive action and don't cowtow to conservatives, this is a winning issue for liberals, as political moderates are largely on our side as well.

 

People are mainly making a stink because it's executive action for gun control, which is not a combo that's palatable to a lot outside of Obama's supporters. But other than the fact that they market it as "gun safety" (just call it what it is because gun safety is about the personal level) and the other fact that there is no gun show loophole*, it doesn't seem all that dramatic.

*When I say this, I mean that I've been to gun shows, and seen that there is no shady cash-for-gun swapping. All firearm purchases still have to be done with federal forms being signed with licensed sellers authorizing the transfer.

About domestic violence, in my home state at least, someone convicted of a DV crime is already barred from owning any kind of gun. So that part of Obama's action is redundant, which I suppose it could be a lot worse.

The meat of it comes in the address about "mentally unstable" individuals. The infamous notion of abusing this law to be tantamount to total confiscation is a pretty weak argument I'll admit. But I am curious to see how they will define who's dangerous and who isn't, and how well it will work.

So yeah, overall, not amazing, but as a pro-gun advocate most times, not the end of the world. It's attempting to reinforce what is distinctly there already, perhaps reminding people to try what we've got before writing up a bunch more laws.

 

I think calling out the NRA and Congress on their bullshit was far more important than anything the actual executive orders will accomplish.

 

When it comes to the gun show loophole, it's thought that up to 40% of firearms purchases do not have a background check go along with it, and that's what the government is trying to crack down on. Your personal experiences are one thing, but it is not empirical evidence to point to disproving the gun show loophole.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our Here's the full press release for anyone to read to see that this executive order is not just talk, but will actually do many things when it comes to curbing gun violence that are currently not being done.

 

Thanks for that link. But reading that quote, I'm of the impression that it's already the law. I've never heard of someone being allowed to sell even one gun without a license and paperwork for the transaction. Granted I'm certain it happens anyway, but that's just what the quote said, pretty darn illegal. If anything the executive order makes the guidelines clearer on what is supposed to happen and the penalties for if it doesn't.

I really expected to oppose it on principle at first. But upon seeing the wording, it's pretty much alright. Who knew? :/ I just hope that it works.

 

I'm just gonna leave this here

 

And this

 

Not many celebrities and politicians are calling for a FULL gun ban. Also how does an average Joe wanting to walk down the streets with an AR-15 because he's paranoid compare to a figure head who probably gets 1000s of death threats a year?

 

That's just nothing more than the age-old NRA freak out line. Requiring background checks on every gun sale is not a total gun ban, no matter what they might tell you. The only reason anybody is against background checks is because they're one of the people that background checks are designed to prevent from getting a gun.

 

The EU dosent hafe much shootings conpared to to US and we have gun control

 

Oh really

 

It varies by country to country, but yes, FootballFan101 is correct to say that in European countries that have enacted strict gun control measures, gun violence per capita is much less than that of countries such as the United States.



Also, having as many guns per capita is also something that is correlated with more gun deaths, and as seen with Australia, voluntary buyback programs also reduce the amount of gun deaths.

 

Perhaps it's because you live in Florida, but in other parts of the country, if you have a gun you want to sell, you can go to a gun show and sell it to another person without a background check (private sale) as long as you're not "in the business of selling firearms." You do have to make sure that the person is old enough, and a resident of the state you're in, so to protect yourself you should ask for I.D. Also you can't legally sell a gun to someone you know is prohibited, so if the person says he's buying from you because he's a convicted felon, you can't sell it. :rolle: Nothing the president said today changes any of this. According to a lawyer friend of mine, the definition of who is a gun dealer or not hasn't changed for almost 50 years, and didn't really change today.

The most positive changes from the presidents E.O.'s is in the additional agents that will conduct the background checks already being done, and investigate and prosecute violations of gun laws when they occur. This is something the NRA has said in the past that they support. In addition the federal government will consult with the states on updating the database used in the federal background checks to avoid info not being submitted, so people who are prohibited aren't slipping through the system. Also doctors who report to the government about someone who is prohibited due to certain mental illnesses won't be charged with a possible HIPPA violation. There is also money allocated for mental health treatment, although not much, which is another thing the NRA claims they wanted.

I like what the president said in general, but it didn't end gun shows or private sales. Time will tell if it has a positive impact, but I remain hopeful.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Florida has no law generally requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer. However, the Florida Constitution permits counties to adopt laws that would require such background checks for sales occurring in or on “property to which the public has the right of access” within the county. The Florida Constitution states that, “[e]ach county shall have the authority to require a criminal history records check…in connection with the sale of any firearm occurring within such county.”1 The term “sale” under this section “means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration for any firearm when any part of the transaction is conducted on property to which the public has the right of access.”2 Concealed weapons permit holders are not subject to these laws.3

 

All the hand-wringing over the sale and availability of guns in the US, meanwhile our government and US companies facilitate the massive distribution of arms all around the world, to some of the most violent and dangerous regimes, groups and people out there. And of course, our government is using those same weapons itself, in VERY questionable ways, in very questionable places and for very questionable objectives. Whether Republican or Democrat, its the same story. Bush or Obama.

That's the issue I'm really worried about. My little town is stocked to the gills with firearms. There's a house up on a hill nearby, with a ton of land, those guys are popping off rounds every weekend on their range. And I'm not worried one wit about the guns around here. But that's this town.

 

I despise guns with a passion, but the notion that gun control would work as well here as it has for Europe is just silly. The fact that there are so many my guns on the streets already combined with the ridiculous amount of organized crime we have means that if someone wants to commit a murder they will have no trouble getting their hands on a gun. I wish guns could just be wiped off the face of the earth, but I would say most people who are capable of viewing the situation objectively can admit that that is not the case. It is indisputable that the majority of gun related homicides in the United States are not committed with a legally obtained weapon. It is not difficult to obtain a firearm illegally. A lot of people point to the fact that most mass shootings are done with legally obtained guns, but I would argue that this is only because of the convenience of getting a gun legally. If you can honestly tell me that you think these people would not go the extra mile were they incapable of purchasing a gun legally, then I sincerely believe you're lying to yourself. If we want to be viewed as the smarter side of this argument we need to acknowledge these things. We can't deny that most homicides are committed without guns. We can't deny that most homicides that are committed with guns are not from legally obtained weapons. We can't get angry when people point out that organized crime rings would benefit tremendously from stricter gun control. Getting angry and ignoring valid counter arguments is exactly what the other side does, and we need to place ourselves above that. These are of course just my thoughts, and if you disagree or want to add something I would be more than happy to listen. I wouldn't consider myself a particularly intelligent person, so I'm sure my argument was flawed in some places.