NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control

[_EAllusion]

The mentally ill, as a group, are statistically less likely to commit homicides. That goes for every subcategory of mental illness minus cluster b personality disorders, its antecedents, and alcohol dependency. A national registry for them is bigoted and frighteningly reminiscent of the ugliest parts of the 20th century. On top of that, mental illness, like illness in general, is a common thing that touches most people at some point in their lives. We don't need to further stigmatize it and drive people away from needed treatment.

[_honorentheos]

The mentally ill, as a group, are statistically less likely to commit homicides. That goes for every subcategory of mental illness minus cluster b personality disorders, its antecedents, and alcohol dependency. A national registry for them is bigoted and frighteningly reminiscent of the ugliest parts of the 20th century. On top of that, mental illness, like illness in general, is a common thing that touches most people at some point in their lives. We don't need to further stigmatize it and drive people away from needed treatment.

What do you think of requiring gun insurance? It seems like a libertarian solution to the problem whereby markets evaluate the probable risk any particular gun owner might pose which is reflected in the cost for that person to buy the insurance.

[_bcspace]

Here are the executive orders that Obama wants implemented:

While there are some onerous ones, executive orders are a small part of the issue and you know it. Try looking at the Democrat gun ban proposals in the Senate.

[_honorentheos]

Here are the executive orders that Obama wants implemented:

While there are some onerous ones, executive orders are a small part of the issue and you know it. Try looking at the Democrat gun ban proposals in the Senate.

Or...try taking a specific position that doesn't rely on broad terms and assumed meanings.

Beastie asked a simple question and did most of the work for you in capturing the executive order's in this thread. The least you could do is spell out which you see as "onerous".

[_bcspace]

Or...try taking a specific position that doesn't rely on broad terms and assumed meanings.

Beastie asked a simple question and did most of the work for you in capturing the executive order's in this thread. The least you could do is spell out which you see as "onerous".

She's done no work at all. But she has essentially (and erroneously) claimed that, for example, Obama has not called for things like:

Requiring background checks for all gun sales, including those by private individuals
Passing a new, stronger ban on assault weapons
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets

[_honorentheos]

Or...try taking a specific position that doesn't rely on broad terms and assumed meanings.

Beastie asked a simple question and did most of the work for you in capturing the executive order's in this thread. The least you could do is spell out which you see as "onerous".

She's done no work at all. But she has essentially (and erroneously) claimed that, for example, Obama has not called for things like:

Requiring background checks for all gun sales, including those by private individuals
Passing a new, stronger ban on assault weapons
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets

bcspace,

She asked specifically which of the executive order you take issue with. Other considerations that would require congressional action are another topic.

[_Tarski]

Requiring background checks for all gun sales, including those by private individuals

You mean like those "law abiding folk" who make an extra buck underneath the radar buying and then selling guns to criminals?

[_Kevin Graham]

NRA is winning bcspace says. This is the same guy who lives in that bubble where his Right Wing sources promised Mitt Romney was going to wipe the floors with Obama in the 2012 election. In fact, the NRA position is so ridiculous, their leader was made a fool on FOX news in an interview with Chris Wallace who pointed out that their argument is based on nothing more than fear and speculation. The NRA's position against background checks is so pathetic, that in 1999 this same idiot was on camera insisting how they fully support this "reasonable" measure. Bcspace says they are winning influence, but polls show Americans overwhelmingly support this measure as well. Even gun owners support it. So why doesn't the NRA? It all comes down to the bubble and the power the gun lobby has over this idiot. Even FOX News is losing faith in their extremist positions!

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

Fox News' Chris Wallace challenged National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's false claims about strengthening gun laws, even going so far as to describe one of his talking points as "ridiculous." Wallace's treatment of LaPierre is a departure from his Fox colleagues who have allowed LaPierre to push his agenda without challenge.

On Fox News Sunday, Wallace challenged LaPierre's attempt to mislead on criminal background checks for gun sales and debunked the NRA claim that the Obama administration wants to create a national registry of gun owners. Wallace also dismissed LaPierre's defense of an NRA advertisement that charged President Obama with hypocrisy for protecting his children with armed guards, responding to the NRA leader's comparison between threats faced by the president's children and school children nationwide by saying "that's ridiculous and you know it, sir."

The refusal of Wallace to acquiesce to all of LaPierre's claims during Fox News Sunday was markedly different from Fox's typical treatment of the gun issue, which has included giving the NRA a platform to spread falsehoods.

During the interview, Wallace dismissed LaPierre's attempt to obfuscate the fact that over a million people have been stopped from obtaining a firearm since 1999 after failing a criminal background check by stating, "It worked enough that 1.7 million people were denied."

LAPIERRE: I don't think you can say that those 1.7 million people have been stopped from getting a gun at all because the government didn't prosecute virtually any of them. They let them walk in, they were denied, they let them walk out. And who really thinks if they really wanted to commit a crime they didn't go on and get a gun.

WALLACE: I don't know. It seems to me if 1.7 million people were denied. I understand the hardened criminal. But the disturbed person. The Adam Lanza in Newtown. The James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. Those aren't hardened criminals, and if they are stopped from getting a gun by a universal background check won't that make a difference?

LAPIERRE: You know the instant check was actually the NRA's proposal. We offered it as an amendment to the Brady Bill to put it on dealers. And I've been in this fight for 20 years, we supported it, we put it on the books. But I have finally become convinced after fighting to get the mental records computerized for 20 years and watching the mental health lobby, the HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] laws, and the AMA [American Medical Association] oppose it, I don't think it's going to happen. I mean the fact is the check now, these people are not --

WALLACE: It worked enough that 1.7 million people were denied. I mean I completely agree with you, I mean as Captain Kelly pointed out [Tucson shooter] Jared Loughner was able to pass the test. So there are holes in it, but that doesn't mean, you know, because it's not perfect doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

As Wallace pointed out, there is a logical fallacy in LaPierre's argument that because background checks will not stop all criminals there is no value in attempts to improve the background check system.

LaPierre's attack on the effectiveness of the background check system also exposes the hypocrisy of the NRA's opposition to requiring criminal background checks on every gun sale. LaPierre speculated that individuals denied a firearm by a background check were still able to "go on and get a gun." A loophole in federal law allows a significant proportion of firearms to be obtained through private sales where no background check is required, with one 2004 study indicating that criminals are even more likely to use private transactions to obtain firearms.

Wallace was equally skeptical of LaPierre's claim that an Obama administration proposal to require background checks on all gun sales would necessitate that the federal government create a registry of gun owners by noting that, "there is nothing that anyone in the administration has said that indicates they are going to have a universal registry."

Like a broken clock, even FOX can get it right every once in a while. Maybe they're beginning to learn their lessons about how pandering to the fringe is only going to further ruin the Republican party.

[_beastie]

Here are the executive orders that Obama wants implemented:

While there are some onerous ones, executive orders are a small part of the issue and you know it. Try looking at the Democrat gun ban proposals in the Senate.

These all require congressional approval. By definition, that means he's not acting as a tyrant.

[_cinepro]

I asked a policeman friend of mine what his solution to the problem of gun violence in schools would be.

He suggested that every school have between 5-10 teachers that get a bump in pay for being trained in armed defense. This would include on-going training.

Each teacher and school could decide whether they wanted to have a firearm locked in a safe in their desk, or somewhere else like the teacher's lounge or the office.

Or not even have a gun on campus at all.

Then the school district would let it be publicly known that each school has teachers that are trained to defend the students if the need arises, and they may or may not have ready access to their weapon.

My friend theorized that this would prevent almost all school "invasions", since there has never been someone who attacked a school that wanted a gun fight (after all, they attack schools and not police stations!). Schools are defenseless campuses with many helpless students clustered together. As long as this is the case, crazy people looking for easy people to kill will seek out schools.

This sounded pretty good to me, and I was surprised to see that California legislator Tim Donnelly has actually moved in this direction:

http://ivn.us/2013/02/04/the-gun-debate ... -teachers/