^Per FBI, gun crime is down 47% over the last 20 years while gun ownership has soared from 200million in US to 330 million in US (iirc).

I'll try to find the FBI link.

1/7/2016 9:17:39 AM

fewer people are buying more guns

1/7/2016 10:00:13 AM

1/7/2016 10:29:08 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-the-nras-support-for-expanded-background-checks/2013/04/18/fb2ee58e-a875-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_blog.html

It's all part of the political game both sides are playing.

1/7/2016 11:40:22 AM

Well yeah, the only reason he said is was "reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops, no loopholes" etc was because much harsher restrictions were on the table. But still, he said it!

1/7/2016 11:52:01 AM

^

If you haven't figured it out, the NRA doesn't really have a backbone. They'll flop like any politician and bow to pressure, such as when expanding background checks was the "least bad option" in their eyes, they all of a sudden supported it.

1/7/2016 1:46:18 PM

It's not the background checks themselves that anyone has a problem with.

1/8/2016 1:23:57 PM

Quote :

"It's not the background checks themselves that I have a problem with."

ftfy

Lots of people oppose increased background checks, but I know where you're going with that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

1/8/2016 2:11:33 PM

^ i don't see where he's going with that...

Also im surprised in most categories a majority of people would support the things Obama has called for, but they still don't support him calling for it. Seems really like it's just personal beef with Obama that stalls this agenda.

1/8/2016 2:21:43 PM

they don't like it because if in the future something they own becomes illegal, they plan on owning it illegally and don't want anyone to be able to know they have it

1/8/2016 2:44:42 PM

Nobody that I've ever met has a problem with background checks.

People have a problem with the registry that would be required for what is always proposed, as it would enable confiscation.

1/8/2016 2:55:42 PM

which is only an issue if you plan on illegally keeping something otherwise

1/8/2016 3:39:54 PM

Ah, yes, the ol' "you don't have anything to worry about if you're not breaking the law" argument.

Breaking the law is as American as apple pie.

1/8/2016 6:26:45 PM

that's not at all what i am saying, i'm saying that the only reason anyone would be worried about a registry is if they otherwise planned to not comply with the law. it's worth pointing out that we are talking about would-be criminals if we discuss that point.

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 7:31 PM. Reason : i am against a registry, but requiring someone to keep transaction records is needed]

1/8/2016 7:30:18 PM

Or if they retroactively banned something and came and confiscated them via that registry.

Or if they used that registry as a reason to say, use the SWAT team when they serve a warrant for something silly and that results in say... your dogs getting shot.

The government almost always abuses shit when they collect data.

1/8/2016 7:39:45 PM

The data could be made public as well

Maybe posted in the newspaper

1/8/2016 8:07:30 PM

Quote :

"Or if they retroactively banned something and came and confiscated them via that registry. "

that's exactly the scenario i was describing, how did you miss that?

1/8/2016 8:22:53 PM

^^, ^^^

exactly.

also, you're goddamned right I'm not going to turn anything in if they ever did manage to pass a ban without a grandfather clause.

1/9/2016 2:13:27 PM

all of you are saying the same thing

1/9/2016 4:13:36 PM

Why are they so against smart guns? Are they afraid the government might hack the smartguns rendering them all suddenly useless?

Why would anyone think its a good idea for a non-owner to shoot the gun?

1/9/2016 4:16:32 PM

^Its generally thought that anything electronic will fail, and if using the firearm for self defense you really really would not want the "smart gun" to fail when you were trying to shoot a guy stabbing you.

1/9/2016 5:49:24 PM

which is not relevant at all to anything proposed

1/9/2016 6:12:18 PM

I can see both sides of the smart gun thing. I'm not super-smart on that issue yet. I would say probably that it'd be nice to develop them, but not mandate them.

What I do think is absurd is to require DoD to develop them on the gov't dime, in hopes that they'll proliferate to the civilian market. WTF, it sounds like a terrible idea to me to have military small-arms "keyed" to a user (or users) like that (aside from adding one more layer of failure potential).

[Edited on January 9, 2016 at 9:14 PM. Reason : I think the hoopla over the President's executive action is way overblown from what I've seen, thoug]

1/9/2016 9:14:19 PM

not a supporter of Trump but thought it was funny he told the Hildabeast that if guns dont make us safer why doesnt she disarm her security detail

1/10/2016 7:40:39 AM

So Trump is a comment section of a website come to life. I have seen that "joke" on gun articles comment sections and probably here for years.

1/10/2016 10:59:59 AM

we shouldn't mandate gun safes because the gun might get stuck in the safe
no one wants to deal with a safe when a killer is stabbing you


guns should be loaded and in hand at all times

1/10/2016 1:55:08 PM

https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation/posts/10154046665426833

So the NRA is sharing a brief art article that gun confiscation is about to happen, and Obama wants to label homeschooling, climate change deniers, and believers in the constitution as mentally ill to take people's guns.

This is a nutty, crazy group that should not be influencing politics.

1/25/2016 9:55:43 PM

1/25/2016 10:13:19 PM

Do we really have nothing better to do with our time and money that worry about extra gun legislation? what is your chance of dying by a gun (non self inflicted) vs other things.

Seems like we spend a lot of our time dealing with low risk type things while failing to address higher risk social issues.

I.E. put that budget towards suicide prevention instead of gun regulation.

[Edited on January 25, 2016 at 10:51 PM. Reason : dd]

1/25/2016 10:49:57 PM

^the old more kids die from TVs falling on them than school shooting argument. i like it

1/26/2016 7:02:28 AM

We spend billions of dollars on things much less likely to harm anyone

gun violence is a real publick health threat that we should be allowed to study

1/26/2016 7:08:05 AM

Then conduct a study true study, pass a law that a random 50% of gun sales go though additional screening. See if it lowers crime vs those that don't. Instead we will just throw more laws at it and assume that any change is the result of the laws, and not just natural trends, or other forces.

1/26/2016 9:03:30 AM

Quote :

"conduct a study true study"

Have you heard of a guy named Jay Dickey?

1/26/2016 9:33:01 AM

Quote :

"pass a law that a random 50% of gun sales go though additional screening."

lol, yeah that's likely to pass

1/26/2016 10:20:07 AM

Here America, take this pill, we think, it may hopefully, well possibly make things better. We don't do a controlled study, we will just force you to take this pill. We don't know if this other pill over here, that may be cheaper, might even work better, but why would we look at that we have this new Miracle PILL!

Ohh look, some people got better, THE PILL WORKED ITS A MIRACLE!!!!!!!!! Now try this next pill.

We don't do real science that way, and we should conduct similar studies with policies. You want to pass a law, prove its effectiveness. Also prove that its more effective than existing laws or other options.

1/26/2016 11:51:59 PM

inorite, who passes laws before showing what's in them

1/27/2016 12:00:14 AM

The NRA is fervently opposed to researching the issue, and their anti-science GOP friends have their back: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-renew-push-to-reverse-gun-violence-research-restriction/

1/27/2016 12:02:57 AM

Quote :

"There's a reason for the lack of comprehensive data. Since 1996, Congress has placed an annual restriction on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That year lawmakers slashed $2.6 million they had allotted to the agency to conduct gun studies. While the restriction hasn't explicitly banned the CDC from conducting research on gun violence, it has barred it from using federal funding to "advocate or promote gun control.""

1/28/2016 3:50:17 PM

WTF is this crap? Why should gun manufacturers be held liable when people commit crimes with guns? I know its an all-too hackneyed saying now, but the same types of protection should be removed from car manufacturers when people decide to drive drunk...if we are really going to go down this path.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/bernie-sanders-gun-law-reversal/index.html

1/28/2016 3:54:00 PM

why should the gun industry have specific codified protection?

oh, i see your confusion:

Quote :

" but the same types of protection should be removed from car manufacturers when people decide to drive drunk...if we are really going to go down this path."

the car industry has no such protection. until the PLCAA no industry had this broad protection and I'm pretty sure it's still limited to just the gun industry

[Edited on January 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2016 4:16:23 PM

the car industry doesn't produce a product whose sole purpose is to end life

and spare me any target practice bullshit

[Edited on January 28, 2016 at 7:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2016 7:09:36 PM

its just an underhanded way to make purchasing a gun more expensive

maybe manufacturers can simply require a contract of sorts that leaves all responsibility with the purchaser?

but what about previously purchased guns?

so can you sue any manufacturer if a product is used in the commission of a crime?

1/29/2016 10:17:48 PM

^ you can sue anyone for anything and get laughed out of court of you can't prove your case.
It's big government overreach and corporatist collusion for gun manufacturers to have special protection.

1/30/2016 12:49:48 AM

I agree with moron.

1/30/2016 9:58:59 PM

It is our broke ass tort system that they are trying to bypass. It is a political expediency, since all the lawyers in the system would never tolerate the fixing of our clearly broke ass tort system. As such, since industries with clear political influence cannot fix the broken system, they want to opt out of the broken part. Which I'm in favor of.

A broken tort system is a bad thing. Being taken to court when you've done nothing wrong is a bad thing. Such a law as proposed would lessen such cases. I realize it would also institutionalize unfairness, since all industries deserve this protection, but only one would have it. But the broke ass tort system is already blindingly unfair, so turning it up a little bit might actually help.

After all, once one industry is exempt, other industries will seek exemption, until eventually all industries are exempt. Problem fixed! In the long term, fairness will hopefully be restored. But, even if it is not, as much of the bad as plausible will have been prevented.

1/31/2016 2:37:34 AM

Is the tort system broken or not?

1/31/2016 2:28:02 PM

broke ass, i believe

the logic that other industries will follow until all industries are protected and that's good and that's a solution is pretty silly and dumb

1/31/2016 2:57:42 PM

^^ If there is a genuine risk of a gun manufacturer being held liable solely for the actions of a criminal then yea, I'd call that broken. But my rant was solely dependent on this presumptive opinion. If you think it is good for the innocent to be held liable for the acts of criminals, then you won't like any changes that might risk changing that.

^ which step along the chain is "silly and dumb"?

1/31/2016 4:56:23 PM

it starts being dumb from the first step and just continues from there

2/1/2016 11:50:13 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/index.html

Quote :

"Why Sandy Hook parents are suing a gun-maker"

I support gun rights but also support reasonable improvements to gun control laws to keep weapons out of the wrong hands and on certain types of weapons ( a civilian doesn't need a fucking M-60 unless he's setting up his defensive parameter for the zombie apocalypse or lives in Baltimore).

How is it the manufactuerer's fault for sandy hook....

2/22/2016 11:29:48 AM