New Gun Control Measure Passed

[Proteas]

----------------------------------
US House passes gun control bill

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers.

If it passes the Senate, it will be the first major gun control law since 1994.

It was drafted after April's Virginia Tech massacre, which exposed how gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to buy two guns despite having mental health problems.

The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers.

To become law, the measure must be approved by the Senate and be signed by President George W Bush.

The bill came as a White House report on the Virginia Tech shootings was released which said concerns over privacy laws meant data on potentially dangerous students often did not make it on to the federal gun purchase database.

A judge had ruled Cho needed mental health treatment but because the report never made it into federal records, he was able legally to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people and himself.

'Save lives'

Democratic Rep John Dingell, a strong supporter of gun rights, was one of those involved in negotiations on the House bill.

The bill will improve state reporting on people barred from buying guns

He said the legislation would "make a better system for public safety, law enforcement and for lawful and honest gun owners".

The Virginia Tech shootings had "made it clear" that the national database used for gun ownership checks needed to be improved with better information and better technology, he said.

Democratic Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for office on a gun control platform after her husband was shot dead on a train, was also involved in drafting the bill.

"This is a good policy that will change lives," she said.

House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed the move, saying: "As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent need to improve the background check system."

Gun lobby

The legislation has been backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby, which was involved in discussions with congressmen.

The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon.

Under legislation passed in 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled.

The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks.

It also provides $250 million (£125m) a year over the next three years to help states automate their systems to meet the new requirements.

The last major gun control legislation, passed in 1994 when the Democrats last controlled the House, banned some assault weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/675 0869.stm

-----------------------

I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that we haven't heard jack shit about this in the American newsmedia (cnn.com doesn't have SHIT about it on the front page), or the fact that the NRA actually worked with Senate Democrats to come up with this measure.

*puts on tinfoil beanie*

*hides in fallout shelter*

[stafffighter]

No, the wackiest part of this is that a bunch of people with guns are a powerful lobby. However the fact that no law was in place to keep track of the ones that already existed is right up there.

[TheMason]

At 6/13/07 08:29 PM, Proteas wrote: I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that we haven't heard jack shit about this in the American newsmedia (cnn.com doesn't have SHIT about it on the front page), or the fact that the NRA actually worked with Senate Democrats to come up with this measure.

1) It was not a controversial bill...so why would the news (CNN or FOX) care? It's not going to get ratings...after Paris sneezed in jail today!

2) As for the NRA working with Dems I think this is your bias and preconceptions of gun owners; not reality.
a) The NRA is actually non-partisan. They support Republicans overwhelmingly but guess what? Republicans are the ones most likely to support the NRA's position on gun rights and the Second Amendment. However, they do support Democrats if the Democrat is for rational gun policy. My current Rep is a Democrat and gets the NRA's top grade based upon his voting record.
b) The NRA also supports rational gun control measures that reinforce or improve (improve being relative to position) existing gun laws. This measure does not erode Constitutional freedoms and will help enforce current gun laws without making them more restrictive...just more effective.

[Proteas]

At 6/13/07 08:44 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) It was not a controversial bill...so why would the news (CNN or FOX) care? It's not going to get ratings...after Paris sneezed in jail today!

Point well taken.

a) The NRA is actually non-partisan.

*head explodes*

[Narusegawa]

I'm counting on Bush to shoot it down just like all the other legislation passed by Congress.

[TheMason]

At 6/13/07 08:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

a) The NRA is actually non-partisan.

*head explodes*

So do you have a rational argument against what I said...or just more humorous attempts at distraction away from my point? :-)

At 6/13/07 08:52 PM, BigScizot wrote: I'm counting on Bush to shoot it down just like all the other legislation passed by Congress.

I highly doubt he's going to veto this bill...it is probably the most coherent and strong bill this Congress has made to date...

[stafffighter]

Saying the nra is non partison is like saying pro life nuts aren't church affiliated.

[TheMason]

At 6/13/07 08:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Saying the nra is non partison is like saying pro life nuts aren't church affiliated.

No...they are strictly issue orientated. They do not have a pro-life agenda...and if they are sympathic to it they would not let it stand in the way of their pro-gun agenda. If a Democrat scores the same as a Republican on their scorecard they don't really endorse either candidate. If a Democrat scores higher on their scorecard they support the Democrat, and vice versa for the Republicans.

However, they are de facto partisan in that the Democratic platform is often in disagreement with their stance on gun control...so why would they support the party that is hostile to their policy opinions.

The organization (maybe not the majority of individual members) is issue driven and based...not partisan based.

[reviewer-general]

Where's cellar?

[cellardoor6]

At 6/13/07 09:20 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Where's cellar?

Just chillin

Honestly, I don't know what to say about the actual issue of the new measure, I'm indifferent I guess.

But, the NRA is actually non-partisan, as TheMason says. It's just that Republicans (for the most part) and the NRA both have a pro-gun agenda that unites them and makes it appear to the uninformed that it belongs to one political party.

There ARE Democrats in the NRA mind you, but its few and far between that they will get attention. The issue is too divided politically for the media to mention it. My last mayor and governor were both members of the NRA and are Democrats.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/13/07 08:52 PM, BigScizot wrote: I'm counting on Bush to shoot it down just like all the other legislation passed by Congress.

It was already signed.

[TheMason]

At 6/13/07 09:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 6/13/07 08:52 PM, BigScizot wrote: I'm counting on Bush to shoot it down just like all the other legislation passed by Congress.

It was already signed.

No...it just passed in the House. It needs to go to the Senate and then the President. However, Bush is going to sign it. From the way the story reads only one Republican, Ron Paul, voted against it.

This is not like the immigration bill that did not have strong liberal or conservative backing. It is the one piece of legislation in a long time that both sides agree on.

But nice try at slipping some Bush-dementia induced nonsense into the discussion...

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/13/07 08:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Saying the nra is non partison is like saying pro life nuts aren't church affiliated.

At least the NRA has made a good decision this time.

This, if there's any veracity to the claims and what I've read on this and other sources, seems ok.

Concessions to the NRA aside (some veterans issue, IIRC), I'm happy to see the NRA being logical.

[Memorize]

At 6/13/07 08:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Saying the nra is non partison is like saying pro life nuts aren't church affiliated.

Because the NRA actually supports the second amendment unlike... democrats. Those filthy bastards!

Heh.

[Dr-Worm]

At 6/13/07 08:32 PM, stafffighter wrote: No, the wackiest part of this is that a bunch of people with guns are a powerful lobby.

Not just a bunch of people with guns. A bunch of people with guns + Moses.

[Samuel-HALL]

Great. I, personally, have nothing but support for this.
Crazy fucks shouldn't own firearms, and that's about the total jist of it.

Also glad to see the NRA supporting this bill. Anyone standing opposed to this bill should come under close moral (and intellectual) scrutiny.

[Ravariel]

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but this is EXACTLY the kind of measure I proposed and got lambasted for 2 months ago during one of our big spats over gun control.

And yet here we are saying "boy this is a good idea!".

toot, mutherfuckers... toot.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/14/07 11:31 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 6/13/07 08:32 PM, stafffighter wrote: No, the wackiest part of this is that a bunch of people with guns are a powerful lobby.

Not just a bunch of people with guns. A bunch of people with guns + Moses.

Speaking of guns + moses...

Look at this (lawl).

[notld224]

That's one of the only things I don't about democrats, while liberal (like me), they take the nanny state side on this issue.

Even worse, Exactly HOW is one crazed Korean kid going on a college massacre enough to warrant intensified background checks?. As much as people'd like. These things can't be totally stopped or prevented so long as free will still exists.

If the kid didn't have a gun, I bet he'd buy a katana or take a kitchen knife and stab up everybody in a dormitory while they were asleep.

End of story. The end.

[Proteas]

At 6/16/07 02:16 PM, notld224 wrote: Even worse, Exactly HOW is one crazed Korean kid going on a college massacre enough to warrant intensified background checks?

Mentally disturbed people getting their hands on firearms and going on shooting sprees is nothing new is this country. What IS new about the V-Tech shooting is that this particular shooter was well known to be mentally disturbed beforehand and he STILL was able to to get his hands on firearms without having to sidestep any laws.

While I don't mind them taking such steps to ensure the public's safety at large, it bothers me that they have not defined what will disqualify someone from buying a firearm. Are they going to leave it at people ajudicated mentally incompetent and severely disturbed, or are will people on simple nerve medications (like myself) be disqualified as well? It will make for interesting debate...

[Nitroglys]

*clap clap clap clap clap* bravo. about time. we've been needing another one since 04. i would still like to see the automatic ban back up.

[Proteas]

At 6/16/07 03:13 PM, Nitroglys wrote: *clap clap clap clap clap* bravo. about time. we've been needing another one since 04. i would still like to see the automatic ban back up.

I defy you, or anyone else for that matter, to provide quantifiable proof that the Assault Weapons Ban actually did anything except keep members of the pro-gun control lobby quiet for 10 years.

Because last time I checked, blood was NOT running in the streets the day it expired, as per some democrats predictions.

[Nitroglys]

At 6/16/07 03:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

I defy you, or anyone else for that matter, to provide quantifiable proof that the Assault Weapons Ban actually did anything except keep members of the pro-gun control lobby quiet for 10 years.

Because last time I checked, blood was NOT running in the streets the day it expired, as per some democrats predictions.

In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.

"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. "

ok ill give you that the majority of crimes involving automatic guns are illegally boughten. but what would it hurt to increase backround checks and limit the availibilty of such weapons. if your an enthuisiest you can wait a couple of days for your gun. and what if we increased the gun trafficing penality. just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

link

[Proteas]

At 6/16/07 03:48 PM, Nitroglys wrote: statistics

Your statistics fail to mention that the Assault Weapons Ban had a "grandfather" clause built into it, stating that if you legally owned a gun defined as an Assault Weapon under the AWB, you could still keep it and resell it if you went through the correct channels.

There might have been a slight decrease in their criminal use, but you could still purchase one while the ban was in effect (assuming it was made prior to the ban).

So I ask again, what use was this pithy little piece of legislation?

just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

It's the lack of enforcement that kills people. New legislation doesn't mean SHIT if it's not enforced, and you're little link pretty much proves that in the first paragraph.

link

[Nitroglys]

At 6/16/07 04:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/16/07 03:48 PM, Nitroglys wrote: statistics

Your statistics fail to mention that the Assault Weapons Ban had a "grandfather" clause built into it, stating that if you legally owned a gun defined as an Assault Weapon under the AWB, you could still keep it and resell it if you went through the correct channels.

There might have been a slight decrease in their criminal use, but you could still purchase one while the ban was in effect (assuming it was made prior to the ban).

no you got yourself wrong. as long as you had owned the gun before the ban. after it you had to get the permits and shit to re-sale. it doesnt grandfather all guns manufactured before the ban. just the ones already owned. grandfathering is just the laziness of lawmakers, not wanting to go to everyone who owned the banned guns. if they even knew everyone who had one.

So I ask again, what use was this pithy little piece of legislation?

just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

alot of useless legeslation gets passed. alot. like i said it can't hurt to have these laws. but try telling the few thousand people that didnt die that it was useless

It's the lack of enforcement that kills people. New legislation doesn't mean SHIT if it's not enforced, and you're little link pretty much proves that in the first paragraph.

all our lawmakers can do is give them the rules. its an entire different arguement when were talking about enforcing said laws.

link

[Proteas]

At 6/16/07 04:08 PM, Nitroglys wrote: no you got yourself wrong. as long as you had owned the gun before the ban. after it you had to get the permits and shit to re-sale. it doesnt grandfather all guns manufactured before the ban. just the ones already owned.

That's what I said. Did you miss the part of "correct channels?"

grandfathering is just the laziness of lawmakers, not wanting to go to everyone who owned the banned guns. if they even knew everyone who had one.

So what was the point of said AWB?

To appease the gun-control lobby. Nothing else.

all our lawmakers can do is give them the rules. its an entire different arguement when were talking about enforcing said laws.

If their rules cannot and will not be enforced, then there is no point in electing these people to office to help run our country whilst we go about our lives. These people are overpaid, underworked, and inefectual, and even MCDONALDS would send send you to the unemployment office if you acted that way there.

There is no point to it.

[TheMason]

At 6/16/07 04:08 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

First of all, rifles of ALL types (to include "assault rifles" like AK-47 and M-16 clones) only contribute to less than 1% of firearm crime. The reason: they are ill-suited to criminal use. Handguns and shotguns are far and away more preferred by criminals.

The AWB was legislative masturbation...it made some people feel good but at the end of the day did nothing to curb crime.

no you got yourself wrong. as long as you had owned the gun before the ban. after it you had to get the permits and shit to re-sale. it doesnt grandfather all guns manufactured before the ban. just the ones already owned. grandfathering is just the laziness of lawmakers, not wanting to go to everyone who owned the banned guns. if they even knew everyone who had one.

It also grandfathered weapons already on the shelves as well as high-capacity magazines manufactured before the ban.

Furthermore, grandfathering is not legislators being lazy. It is a fundamental protection of civilian rights against retroactiver prosecution.

just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

You know, taking away things such as warrents and miranda rights couldn't hurt either, after all its the lack of freedom on the part of law enforcement that allows terrorists to kill people.

Please, spare us your superficial logic that has no basis in reality.

alot of useless legeslation gets passed. alot. like i said it can't hurt to have these laws. but try telling the few thousand people that didnt die that it was useless

Laws only apply to those people who are predisposed to follow them. Furthermore, the murder rate is not significantly high enough that we should just throw-out a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

all our lawmakers can do is give them the rules. its an entire different arguement when were talking about enforcing said laws.

No...it is the Liberal solution that when a law is not being enforced to enact new legislation. How about we try giving the existing laws a chance.

[HighlyIllogical]

Proteas, the numbers provided show that the AWB worked.

And, on principle, it's a perfectly logical ban.

[HighlyIllogical]

Besides (going on from what I said in my last post), the AWB covered weapons that weren't previously covered. Restricting magazine size among other things is inherently good for (a.) law enforcement and (b.) citizens...
I mean, seriously, a semi automatic weapon is not something that would be considered a hunting weapon. A semi-automatic rifle in the hands of a criminal or even a regular citizen is a danger to citizens and law enforcement. This is the kind of reasonable, targeted ban that keeps guns off the streets. And why does the percentage of crimes that these are used in matter? It's not important that ARs are only used in a few dozen crimes, it's that by banning them, we save lives.

And when we look at assault weapons, they're not very sporting. What's the fun in shooting a deer when you can unload a whole clip of ammo on it in a matter of seconds? Where's the sport in shooting the moose when the moose can't see the flash?

I commonly hear the argument that ARs fire big rounds so they should be banned. That's one of the fallacies from the anti-gun crowd that I'm proud to be a member of. The CAR-15, for example, fires a .223 remington. That's not so huge compared to at .30-06 or a .50 caliber. Yet this fallacious argument leads us to a rational point – the CAR-15 is infinitely more useful than a .30-06 or .50 cal hunting rifle when applied for a shooting rampage or murders in close proximity...after all, the CAR-15 can fire more rapidly than a bolt action weapon, can have a much, much larger clip, is shorter and more mobile, etc.

[TheMason]

At 6/16/07 03:48 PM, Nitroglys wrote: In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.

So what if trace requests declined? Just because a trace request is made does not mean that the firearm being traced was used in any crime. A private citizen can request a trace be made when buying a gun in a person-to-person sale. These types of sales of assault rifles would naturally decline in the following calender year not because of decreasing crime rights but the following variables:

1) People deciding to hold on to their guns.
2) Price of assault rifles going up due to the AWB.

I just love it when people quote statistics and do not understand what they are actually saying or look for deeper meaning.

"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. "

You're saying "assault weapons"...what all does that include? What makes a gun an assault weapon? What is interesting about this is that it is well established that rifles only account for less than 1% of ALL firearm crime (including non-violent crime such as the theft, illegal sale or illegal modification thereof).

ok ill give you that the majority of crimes involving automatic guns are illegally boughten. but what would it hurt to increase backround checks and limit the availibilty of such weapons. if your an enthuisiest you can wait a couple of days for your gun. and what if we increased the gun trafficing penality. just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

1) I think there should be background checks and someone who has ever done time should be denied and someone who has chronic mental illness should be denied.

2) You cannot limit the availability of these guns; if you do fully-autos will flood the black market and become even easier to get than the civilian clones of guns such as the AK-47. Simplistic logic.

3) We do have gun legislation, anymore would be irrational, unreasonable and driven by emotion. So please stop with your appeals to emotion and weak attempts at logic.