Background check gun bill is dead

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases

The Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to get the gun bill through Congress today, unable to prevent a Republican filibuster from stopping the bill cold.

Can be brought up again, but it is doubtable they can muster the support needed for the measure.

So, thoughts?

I did think it was mostly redundant, any gun sold at a store has to be background checked. Inner state commerce cannot be regulated by the federal government as per the constitution (see commerce clause), so the legality of a bill that forces federal firearm checks on every gun purchase or transfer, even those between citizens of the same state is questionable, to say the least.

I just posted in the "Myth of the Liberal Media" thread that I watched ABC news coverage of this: several minutes about how bad this was and how angry the President is, and how much support is out there for this sort of thing and mere instant of someone saying this is a victory for the 2nd Amendment.

How can people understand what the stakes were with this kind of uneven reporting from a supposedly objective source?

I understand they had Sandy Hook relatives nearby to support. But here in New England, we're still smarting from over 150 casualties caused by pressure cookers.

I wish I had seen the FOX report to see if the other side, y'know, the one that won for now, got to say what they believe and why.

I thought the bills were redundant as heck and was just something to say, "At least we did something."
I wish these shootings would stop, I really do, but we fought alot harder to have these freedoms in the first place to let them slip away. The American people are stronger than that. I would like to see a bill that might actually help the problem rather than the knee-jerk reactions we saw in the last 5 months.

The bill was redundant and the justification for the "change" was questionable at best. Let us see if the Cruz bill gets passed (it is being labeled as the alternative to the background check bill). From what I have seen I can get behind that bill. For those of y'all who do not know about the bill here is a summary-

Amazing what happens when you actually ask what NRA members want instead of telling them what they want.

Good, redundant bills such as this one have no business being discussed or even voted on.

I'm glad it got voted down if for no other reason than Obama parading those parents around like he did. I found it rather odd that he never had time for the people who lost children that didn't support his gun control measures. Then again Obama does come from the Emanuel School of "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" so I guess it's to be expected. Also we got to see Crazy ol' Uncle Joe standing off the to the side scowling like Jeff Dunham's old man puppet "Walter" and we got one of my new favorite memes courtesy of Mitch McConnell add all that to the fact even if this thing did get voted into law it would have accomplished fuck all and it's a win all around.

Super Not Cosmo:
I'm glad it got voted down if for no other reason than Obama parading those parents around like he did. I found it rather odd that he never had time for the people who lost children that didn't support his gun control measures. Then again Obama does come from the Emanuel School of "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" so I guess it's to be expected. Also we got to see Crazy ol' Uncle Joe standing off the to the side scowling like Jeff Dunham's old man puppet "Walter" and we got one of my new favorite memes courtesy of Mitch McConnell add all that to the fact even if this thing did get voted into law it would have accomplished fuck all and it's a win all around.

God it feels good to be a gun loving liberal, and watch the president and the Veep cry. Best day ever, and really I can move on to other shit like the Republicans fucking the first Amendment in the ass with a spiked dragon dildo. What is up with the Dems and Repub fucking with rights, I got to fight the Dems on 2nd Amendment, then switch sides and fight the Republicans on the first. I swear the Republicans didn't filibuster the bill earlier to cover up CISPA in the house.

Yup, I said from the start that nothing would come of it. Never does. Doesn't matter how many people are in favour. Money is just too powerful.

Skeleon:
Yup, I said from the start that nothing would come of it. Never does. Doesn't matter how many people are in favour. Money is just too powerful.

Course not, doesn't help the gun control side no jack about guns or the laws. Nor does it help that they put way to much bullshit on these type laws. Feels good to be an American right now, well for one fleeting moment.

So the loophole that prevents background checks at gun shows stays wide open. Then again I doubt the bill would have closed it. But hey, as long as those folks who need their firearms in a hurry aren't inconvenienced, guess we don't need to bother. Because as we all know, background checks lead directly into Nazism.

Magenera:
Course not, doesn't help the gun control side no jack about guns or the laws. Nor does it help that they put way to much bullshit on these type laws.

I don't know...there certainly seems to be a lot of that, but I'm not sure some of the rather bizarre seeming laws don't have a point to them, just not an obvious one.

Gorfias:
I just posted in the "Myth of the Liberal Media" thread that I watched ABC news coverage of this: several minutes about how bad this was and how angry the President is, and how much support is out there for this sort of thing and mere instant of someone saying this is a victory for the 2nd Amendment.

How can people understand what the stakes were with this kind of uneven reporting from a supposedly objective source?

I understand they had Sandy Hook relatives nearby to support. But here in New England, we're still smarting from over 150 casualties caused by pressure cookers.

I wish I had seen the FOX report to see if the other side, y'know, the one that won for now, got to say what they believe and why.

One network does not the whole media make.

Racecarlock:

Gorfias:
I just posted in the "Myth of the Liberal Media" thread that I watched ABC news coverage of this: several minutes about how bad this was and how angry the President is, and how much support is out there for this sort of thing and mere instant of someone saying this is a victory for the 2nd Amendment.

How can people understand what the stakes were with this kind of uneven reporting from a supposedly objective source?

I understand they had Sandy Hook relatives nearby to support. But here in New England, we're still smarting from over 150 casualties caused by pressure cookers.

I wish I had seen the FOX report to see if the other side, y'know, the one that won for now, got to say what they believe and why.

One network does not the whole media make.

Too true. Did you catch the coverage on another station with more equal time for each side of the controversy? Maybe I can find a youtube link. I'd also like to check on with unequal time given to the side that won for now. Reviewing.

Gorfias:

Racecarlock:

Gorfias:
I just posted in the "Myth of the Liberal Media" thread that I watched ABC news coverage of this: several minutes about how bad this was and how angry the President is, and how much support is out there for this sort of thing and mere instant of someone saying this is a victory for the 2nd Amendment.

How can people understand what the stakes were with this kind of uneven reporting from a supposedly objective source?

I understand they had Sandy Hook relatives nearby to support. But here in New England, we're still smarting from over 150 casualties caused by pressure cookers.

I wish I had seen the FOX report to see if the other side, y'know, the one that won for now, got to say what they believe and why.

One network does not the whole media make.

Too true. Did you catch the coverage on another station with more equal time for each side of the controversy? Maybe I can find a youtube link. I'd also like to check on with unequal time given to the side that won for now. Reviewing.

I could only find opinion pieces like those.

@Magenera

Feels good to be an American right now, well for one fleeting moment.

Feels good not to be an American, too. I'd hate to live like that. Savour it until the next massacre in a couple of weeks, months tops. And those massacres are even the smallest part of it, in terms of numbers.

People are happy that a bill that enforces background checks on people who want acquire weapons capable of killing many people has been stopped, particularly when people using said weapons have in the past killed many people. As Skeleon said, soon more people will die in large numbers. Again. I love in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world and even I can feel safe once I am sitting in school at the very least.

Kopikatsu:

Gorfias:

Racecarlock:

One network does not the whole media make.

Too true. Did you catch the coverage on another station with more equal time for each side of the controversy? Maybe I can find a youtube link. I'd also like to check on with unequal time given to the side that won for now. Reviewing.

I could only find opinion pieces like those.

Reviewing, thanks! Some interesting stuff so far. I'm listening to the bottom video right now.

FYI: I just got this in Email:

"Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

A big reason why no version of any gun-control proposal passed the Senate with 60 votes Wednesday was because none, or almost none, of the senators believed it would actually prevent another massacre. Vice President Joe Biden, leading the president's gun task force, declared, "Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now." (Video here.)

I don't need to rehash it much: The Newtown shooter stole the guns he used, none of the recent massacre perpetrators purchased their firearms at gun shows, most of them hadn't done anything that would flag them in the instant-check system until they pulled the trigger, police ignored the warnings of the Aurora shooter's psychiatrist, and so on.

When we learned the details about the Newtown shooter, it was painfully clear that no policy, short of banning private gun ownership and forcibly collecting every last firearm in private hands, could prevent something like that from happening again. And yet the whole argument for this bill was driven by invoking Newtown every moment possible.

Even my half-hearted cut-Toomey-some-slack argument was based upon the political realities, not the sense that the bill would prevent another awful day. Suburban soccer moms who have marinated in the Oprah-fied feel-don't-think culture for decades demand that "something be done," so incumbents who want to appeal to those soccer moms must appear to be attempting to "do something," regardless of whether it accomplishes the stated goal. (My cynicism may be appalling, but it does enjoy a lot of supporting evidence and footnotes.)

The White House video of kids begging for gun control, the constant use of the parents of slain children as the primary advocates, the knee-jerk declarations from the likes of Piers Morgan that to disagree with any of the legislative proposals is to desire more dead kindergarteners, all of this represented a particularly ruthless and emotionally manipulative form of politics . . .

. . . and then Monday, real life intruded."

Skeleon:
Yup, I said from the start that nothing would come of it. Never does. Doesn't matter how many people are in favour. Money is just too powerful.

Yes it is the money not the 4.3 million people that makes the NRA powerful. You know, I saw an interesting graphic recently-

Apparently money is not as important as you think.

Mr. Omega:
So the loophole that prevents background checks at gun shows stays wide open.

That "loophole" was never open. I have yet to purchase a firearm at a gun show without a background check and most gun owners could say the same. I could purchase firearms without a background check at a gun show. But more often than not the only firearms I would be able to find could be classified as C&R firearms.

Mr. Omega:
So the loophole that prevents background checks at gun shows stays wide open. Then again I doubt the bill would have closed it. But hey, as long as those folks who need their firearms in a hurry aren't inconvenienced, guess we don't need to bother. Because as we all know, background checks lead directly into Nazism.

Where Do people get this loophole at? FFL have to do background check at gun shows, any one else doing private sales doesn't need to do a Background check at all(depending on state). That is the law of the land, so tell me where the loophole is? Cause not liking a part of the law does not make it a loophole. "Today's compromise, is tomorrow loophole"

image
Good, the fact that gun control legislation has been ramping up was beginning to worry me.

Skeleon:
@Magenera

Feels good to be an American right now, well for one fleeting moment.

Feels good not to be an American, too. I'd hate to live like that. Savour it until the next massacre in a couple of weeks, months tops. And those massacres are even the smallest part of it, in terms of numbers.

Oh stop being a drama llama. There's much less violent crime in America compared to many European nations. Along with that, much violent crime bleeds in from Mexico.

Great. Now you can get a bill that regulates guns at least to the level of cars.

amuasyeas:

Skeleon:
@Magenera

Feels good to be an American right now, well for one fleeting moment.

Feels good not to be an American, too. I'd hate to live like that. Savour it until the next massacre in a couple of weeks, months tops. And those massacres are even the smallest part of it, in terms of numbers.

Oh stop being a drama llama. There's much less violent crime in America compared to many European nations. Along with that, much violent crime bleeds in from

Mexico.

Violent crime is hard to compare, as it greatly differs from country to country to what counts as such.
There's plenty of comparable data on homicides, however. US rates being one of the highest in the industrialised world with a rate of 4.75. Compare that that to countries in Europe. 1.0 average in Western Europe. 1.4 and 1.5 in Southern and Northern Europe. Eastern Europe has it worst with a rate of 6.4 thanks to Russia and 3-5 of it's neighbouring countries skewing the statistics (along with countries that have very low populations).
Of said 4.75 homicide rate in the US 3.21 is gun violence. Over two-thirds of your homicide rate. And the 3.21 rate is but a fraction of the total firearm related death rate of 10.3. That's on the scale of all traffic and all poisoning deaths (the other two leading injury death causes); unheard of in any other western country.

I'm not saying I have a magic bullet solution. I wouldn't even suggest to take away your guns, even though I find the idea of civilian's right to carry arms ridiculous. But stop pretending you don't have a problem.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Now maybe we can get a bill that actually does something?

I'm fairly pro-gun, but I support background checks to the fullest because more thorough background checks on the potential buyers could've prevented events like the Virginia Tech and Aurora shootings. I'm not stupid enough to think that it'll be the end-all of killing sprees - I remember in particular sometime within a year after VT that some kid killed about eight people at his high school after he he went to see his grandfather, a patrol officer, while he was on duty, killed his grandfather, and took a shotgun out of the patrol car.

farson135:
Yes it is the money not the 4.3 million people that makes the NRA powerful. You know, I saw an interesting graphic recently-

4.3 million people, many of whom don't agree with the wacko-sellouts leading the NRA for the gun manufacturers' benefit. Yeah, it's the money. It's not just the direct funding, though. It's campaigning. It's politicians. It's fear of a negative NRA-rating and attack ads. I know you are a big happy fan of the NRA's official stances, but luckily you're not representative.

amuasyeas:
Oh stop being a drama llama. There's much less violent crime in America compared to many European nations. Along with that, much violent crime bleeds in from Mexico.

In sizeable part thanks to American policies regarding the War on Drugs, immigration and of course gun laws, of course. Also, "violent crime" is a very broad stroke. I'd prefer to talk about murder because they are the harshest form thereof, whereas a brawl might fall under "violent crime" also. And when we are a bit more specific, the USA doesn't fare too well on the statistics.

Skeleon:

amuasyeas:
Oh stop being a drama llama. There's much less violent crime in America compared to many European nations. Along with that, much violent crime bleeds in from Mexico.

In sizeable part thanks to American policies regarding the War on Drugs, immigration and of course gun laws, of course. Also, "violent crime" is a very broad stroke. I'd prefer to talk about murder because they are the harshest form thereof, whereas a brawl might fall under "violent crime" also. And when we are a bit more specific, the USA doesn't fare too well on the statistics.

I'd rather have a peaceful society with a few deaths than a violent one in my opinion, but I respect yours since I'm not a massive tool.
image

Magenera:
spiked dragon dildo.

Are you a fellow /k/ommando?

OT: I am a little surprised they couldn't even get this by. I honestly do not feel to strongly one way or another. It was a big "meh" bill to me and the only thing worth noting was cross state firearm purchases.

amuasyeas:

I'd rather have a peaceful society with a few deaths than a violent one.
<graph removed for space>

Could I get a source on that graph? Somehow, I don't quite believe those numbers (although the exclusion of suicides from that graph is a nice touch that I feel should be done elsewhere, as suicide dramatically increases the US's "deaths per 100,000" statistic when included. That's really the only anti-gun argument I can't respond to- if a suicidal person has access to an instant and effective way to kill themselves, then obviously suicides are going to go up in number)

As for the bill, I'm glad it didn't pass. It did just enough to piss off the pro-gun crowd without really doing much to appease the anti-gun crowd in the process. Just a redundant waste of time, really.

Skeleon:
4.3 million people, many of whom don't agree with the wacko-sellouts leading the NRA for the gun manufacturers' benefit.

And NRA members are forced to contribute to the NRA now? Oh wait, we are not forced to contribute and you are talking out of your ass. Why would people pay money to an organization that they do not support? Also, why do NRA members keep voting for people (NRA board members) that they do not support?

BTW you still have not proven that the NRA is in the manufacturers pockets.

It's not just the direct funding, though. It's campaigning. It's politicians. It's fear of a negative NRA-rating and attack ads.

So it is the attack ads that make politicians change their votes not the fact that NRA members will vote against them. Politicians must be really sensitive to criticism but not care much for votes.

I know you are a big happy fan of the NRA's official stances

Am I? Care to back that up?

but luckily you're not representative.

Nor are you. No one person is representative of large groups of people.

amuasyeas:
-graph-

Where'd you get that from. No I mean, really, I'd like to check in with the source it's from. "England&Wales"? Something tells me that it's not priding itself on accuracy much...or that it bothers to check whether the trends in behavior changed, or the legal definitions changed...stuff like that.

amuasyeas:

Skeleon:

amuasyeas:
Oh stop being a drama llama. There's much less violent crime in America compared to many European nations. Along with that, much violent crime bleeds in from Mexico.

In sizeable part thanks to American policies regarding the War on Drugs, immigration and of course gun laws, of course. Also, "violent crime" is a very broad stroke. I'd prefer to talk about murder because they are the harshest form thereof, whereas a brawl might fall under "violent crime" also. And when we are a bit more specific, the USA doesn't fare too well on the statistics.

I'd rather have a peaceful society with a few deaths than a violent one in my opinion, but I respect yours since I'm not a massive tool.

As I said, "violent crime" is not an easily comparable statistics internationally as classification, reporting and availability of data can vary greatly between countries. In many European countries minor violence, such as slapping someone, counts as an assault. Offences like theft and assault are often resolved outside the criminal justice system.

I question the validity of your opinion. You base your opinion on unreliable, pick-and-choose data. You ignore valid, comparable data on homicide and dismiss it as 'few deaths' while it's 2-4 times larger than those of many European countries.

If you insist on comparing select classes of violent crime, compare the US to Germany or Austria instead of Europe's "crime capitol":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime
A couple examples of varying classification of violent crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

Edit: I softened my tone in response to a fellow poster's suggestion. Thank you.

Even Joe Biden seems to concede this was all just pretty symbolic:

There's real work to be done in the USA. I'd like to see what can be done to keep fertilizer plants from exploding. Unless that happened on purpose, I have to believe factory safety more controllable than the violence of the murderously deranged.

MarsAtlas:
Now maybe we can get a bill that actually does something?

I'm fairly pro-gun, but I support background checks to the fullest because more thorough background checks on the potential buyers could've prevented events like the Virginia Tech and Aurora shootings. I'm not stupid enough to think that it'll be the end-all of killing sprees - I remember in particular sometime within a year after VT that some kid killed about eight people at his high school after he he went to see his grandfather, a patrol officer, while he was on duty, killed his grandfather, and took a shotgun out of the patrol car.

While I am not sure about the Virginia tech, the Aurora shooter stole his gun from a relative of his, and both hadn't done anything that would of put a stopped a gun purchase even if they did have a background check.

I am not in the United States, I am watching this unfold from up here in Canada. Maybe I don't understand how numbers work, or apparently don't understand how democracy works.

How is 54 : 46 a losing vote? 54 isn't greater than 46?I just don't understand anything anymore. I must be doing math wrong >.>

And beyond that, it was supported by something like 85% of people in a poll. And it was still somehow a contentious law? Is 85% barely a majority now?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked