Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[Carl]

[quote="TheLionPrince"]Last Wednesday, the Senate (mostly controlled by Democrats) voted down Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban. (sources)

Thoughts? Concern? Outrage?[/quote]

I'm not surprised, and therefore, I'm not outraged. I do however think it is sad that most Americans think citizens need the right to own assault weapons.

I am annoyed by Sen. Mike Johanns statement though, because video games and movies aren't real, do not portray reality, and do not cause people to take assault weapons to schools and kill children. Crazy people will do those things anyway. Other people will use the imaginary deaths in games and movies to release anger without harming anyone real. Movies and video games have nothing to do with this argument, the rights of people to own assault weapons, or the safety of American citizens, so whether those media glorify them or not is irrelevant.

[Azdgari]

I don't know much about the assault weapons ban (I am inclined to think it is not a terribly effective gun control measure), but I believe that the background checks were not passed as well? Was that a rider on the assault weapons ban or separate legislature? In any event, that bill not being passed does worry me, considering it had the overwhelming support of our public. My opinion on the issue itself aside (and in my opinion how can you say no to background checks), clearly our democracy is not working particularly well if our elected officials do not remotely reflect public opinion.

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"]I don't know much about the assault weapons ban (I am inclined to think it is not a terribly effective gun control measure), but I believe that the background checks were not passed as well? Was that a rider on the assault weapons ban or separate legislature? In any event, that bill not being passed does worry me, considering it had the overwhelming support of our public. My opinion on the issue itself aside (and in my opinion how can you say no to background checks), clearly our democracy is not working particularly well if our elected officials do not remotely reflect public opinion.[/quote]

I don't know about "overwhelming support of our public", because at the end of the day, what can cause 15 democrats and all but 1 republican to vote against the bill (the only independent also voted "no", to a final of 60-40 against)? Maybe the big cities are largely in favor of gun control, but there is still a very large percentage of people not living in big cities who don't support gun bans. When you say "overwhelming support", speak for yourself or provide proof. Az, you of all people struck me as someone who should know this. I'm sorry to say this, but this comment struck me as very naive and quite childish.

Most moderates don't support gun bans. The midwest often threatens secession should one be implemented (my brother lives there, and he knows the local politics). Generally speaking, if you color code the US in terms of gun support, it's the coastal areas vs. everyone else. At the end of the day, the majority of Americans, while supporting things such as better BG checks (even the NRA likes this), an outright ban is a flat "no".

source

As for how come the background checks didn't get passed and all that: That's what you get when you combine the reasonable with the unreasonable. At the end of the day, if you try to get a small good law passed, but it's embedded into a larger, bad, law, don't expect to get your good law passed.

My personal opinion: When I see bills to "ban military-style guns", I see this clear distinction: A plastic AR-15 with a scope is a murder weapon. A wooden-stock Ruger Mini-14, with scope, is a hunting rifle. And yet, both fire the same round and are both semi-automatic. This meaning that for most practical purposes, they are the same gun. This is the lack of logic that I see all too common in these types of laws that really makes me question why we even allow congress to make laws in the first place, no matter the subject.

[Azdgari]

I'm sorry, what?

There is "overwhelming support" for background checks. Perhaps you misinterpreted my post somehow? Surely you must know that every major article on this subject has cited the statistic that about 9 in 10 American support background checks.

[Woeler]

[quote="Azdgari"]I'm sorry, what?

There is "overwhelming support" for background checks. Perhaps you misinterpreted my post somehow? Surely you must know that every major article on this subject has cited the statistic that about 9 in 10 American support background checks.[/quote]

1. disbelieving.
2. researching.
3. finding out that it is true.
4. Being surprised.

[Azdgari]

[quote="Woeler"][quote="Azdgari"]I'm sorry, what?

There is "overwhelming support" for background checks. Perhaps you misinterpreted my post somehow? Surely you must know that every major article on this subject has cited the statistic that about 9 in 10 American support background checks.[/quote]

1. disbelieving.
2. researching.
3. finding out that it is true.
4. Being surprised.[/quote]

[TheLionPrince]

[quote="Azdgari"]I don't know much about the assault weapons ban (I am inclined to think it is not a terribly effective gun control measure), but I believe that the background checks were not passed as well? Was that a rider on the assault weapons ban or separate legislature? In any event, that bill not being passed does worry me, considering it had the overwhelming support of our public. My opinion on the issue itself aside (and in my opinion how can you say no to background checks), clearly our democracy is not working particularly well if our elected officials do not remotely reflect public opinion.[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken, the universal background check legislation was the Manchin-Toomey bill. Yeah, it failed to passed with a vote of 54 - 46 needing only 60 votes to pass.

Defending DGFone's point (to a certain extent), please keep in mind, while 9 out of 10 Americans overwhelming support background checks, another Associated Press-GfK poll released early in April confirmed that 49 percent favored stricter gun laws, which is actually down from 58 percent back in January. 10 percent voted less-strict gun laws and 38 percent thought the current guns law should remain unchanged. (source)

While I do support universal background checks, the source states the current background check laws have not worked:

[quote="The New American"]The poll numbers indicate otherwise, and, as John Lott, an economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws, has noted, there is a good reason that Obama and other advocates of background checks never cite statistics to show such laws reduce gun crime: There is no such evidence. While a few criminals may be prevented from accessing a firearm, Lott noted that a "2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks [the present federal law in place] didn't reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have later studies found a beneficial effect."[/quote]

At the end of the day, what is missing from the background check system is a mental health provision. Police officers, ambulance workers, and any medical personnel should have access to the background check system. Any person who have exhibited assaultive behavior, violent conduct, or other mental health issues should be included. This is the loophole the gun control proponents should be looking for. Otherwise, gun control laws will only affect law abiding citizens, but we are not the problem. Most gun violence is gang related, and happens in inner city areas with illegally owned guns and strict gun control laws.

[DGFone]

Let me rephrase what I wanted to quote:

[quote="Azdgari"] In any event, that bill not being passed does worry me, considering it had the overwhelming support of our public.[/quote]

From this sentence, I got the impression that you are surprised that the bill itself did not pass, despite overwhelming public support for the bill. I completely agree that tougher background checks are needed, and that the vast majority of people agree with this measure (I even read somewhere that the NRA supports checks as well). Even I support them myself.

The problem, and why the bill didn't pass, is that the background checks were only a part of the bill, which included banning certain types of guns, which many Americans, especially in the West/Midwest, are strongly against. The senators didn't vote against the background checks, they voted against the gun bans. And unfortunately, someone decided that it will be a good idea to stick the two in the same bill and then wonder why it didn't pass.

I'm going to flat out state it: If you want to pass tougher checks, it has to be though its own bill and not within a mashup of larger gun control measures.

[Azdgari]

I can't seem to get good info on the Manchin Toomey's banning of specific weapons. Can you link me to somewhere that explains that section of the bill? I was (perhaps incorrectly) under the impression that the assault ban was separate . And I'm surprised none of the analyses I've read mention it being tacked onto an assault weapons ban... odd.

Speaking of "On it's own", I found that the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act, another bill seeking background check measures, was defeated. Anybody have the lowdown on that?

[DGFone]

Okay, so I somehow even managed to find the actual bill. For something that is supposed to have 90% of the population's approval, why was it so hard to find? Does it have something to hide? Anyways, here it is: [CAUTION: LAWYER TALK GALORE]

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

From what I read, the bill that as voted on was (as common now in congress) a combination of bills. Senators had no problem voting for tighter background checks, but the wouldn't vote for the actual banning of guns. And because of how often Feinstein's name came up, I think that what the senate actually voted on was a combination of that first bill and Feinstein's bill, which is in fact a gun banning bill. The next link is the summary of the bill taken from her website. Ironically enough though, when I try to access the link for the bill itself, the link gives me an error. Way to go.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... an-summary