Fair play to him for having a final crack at this before his term ends.
BBC.CO.UK The measures don't exactly seem extreme:
• Background checks for all gun sellers, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers
• States providing information on people disqualified from buying guns due to mental illness or domestic violence
• Increased workforce for the FBI to process background checks, hiring more than 230 new examiners
• Congress being asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare in the US
• The departments of defence, justice and homeland security exploring "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety
So basically, they want to know who is selling guns, check who is buying them, explore making guns safer, and try a bit harder with mental health issues.
That doesn't seem unreasonable. But, predictably, he is getting a kicking from the Republicans for even these small measures.
House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said these actions [i]"amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty"[/i]
I know this is old ground here and we probably don't have anything new to add to the debate, but... SMH (as the kids say)
Yep he's a communist...
Quick, take over a bird sanctuary !
Perhaps the the only sensible option is to ban bullets...
Gun lobby in America is far too strong. I wish him luck I really do but I fear he in on a hiding to nothing.
If you watch the bottom video in that report it is very revealing - that the resistance to the proposal is actually about much wider issues than whether there should be checks.
It's an interesting moment for this Damascene conversion by Obama - despite numerous massacres, despite sandy hook and aurora, he 'finally does something' in the last few months of his second term? Remarkable...
Against the lunatics in congress? Come on ninfan, of course he didn't want to spend the last few years battling then at every turn?
It would have hamstrung every other piece of governing he tried to do
(Some) Americans see the number of people killed by people with guns each year as an acceptable cost for being able to relatively freely buy guns.
It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.
It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.
what? 😆
The last trip to the states had the air of war time and fear, the constant threat/warning that the rest of the world was only seconds away from attacking was there. In many ways the fear is being manipulated and engineered by those who want to sell guns, own an arsenal or just get rid of people who aren't white.
Just the idea that you should be armed in case you need to overthrow the government is grounds for taking them away.
Just the idea that you should be armed in case you need to overthrow the government is grounds for taking them away.
Really? I hear lefties talking all the time about wanting to rebel and rise up against Cameron and the evil cuts agenda being imposed by the Tories? Surely if the government was concerned about a popular uprising it would prevent the gross abuse of a flawed democracy by those who seek to privatise and destroy the NHS?
It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.
what?
He's right. Have a universal speed limit of 15mph everywhere and, chances are, no one would be killed in an rtc every again. But would you vote for it? Not even sure I would.
he 'finally does something' in the last few months of his second term? Remarkable...
He's repeatedly raised the issue of gun control and been met with fierce opposition. I actually think it's quite smart - try to force in some changes while he still has some power, and let Hilary deal with it at the beginning of her first term and people might have gotten over it by the time she needs to stand for a second time. Given the current republican candidates have little chance of becoming president he has nothing to lose here.
It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars.
I don't recall any teenagers near me driving cars in to school and around the hall during assembly.
No idea what you are on about ninfan, UK and US both have legitimate and easy routes to effect a change of government. Ironically the US is very keen to impose this system around the world and stop armed militias running the show
The car comparison is to take the list of things that kills or injures the most people and tick them off in order.
I don't recall any teenagers near me driving cars in to school and around the hall during assembly.
Clearly, the analogy was to the mindset not the actual acts.
Edit: Read American comment pieces on gun control, then read UK articles on 20MPH urban speed limits.
America is a big beautiful place and I would love to go back and explore more of it,but when I see this ongoing arms debate,it feels like a lot of Americans are going to implode with distrust and paranoia.
Put a few Trump types in charge and the madness recipe will be complete.
How about limiting bullets to 15mph? That should sort it.
This is an unusual comment. He's repeatedly raised the issue of gun control [s]and been met with fierce opposition.[/s] but done nothing about it
FTFY
No idea what you are on about ninfan, UK and US both have legitimate and easy routes to effect a change of government
Which is why we still have an unelected second chamber, an unelected head of state, and the government run by millionaires in the pay of vested interests and multinational corporations?
Check out cam zinc.....
AMERICANSHOOTINGJOURNAL.COM Z I have several di?erent models, all for di?erent reasons. My daily carry is a Ruger LC9, but the trigger is a bit annoying. Other than that, I have a S&W .40-caliber handgun and .22 revolver, a Remington 20-gauge shotgun and .243 ri?e, a Tikka T3 Tactical .308, an H&K .45 and, of course, an AR-15.
Hes all about keeping his family safe 🙄
Well over 100 gun deaths in America already this year....
GUNVIOLENCEARCHIVE.ORG (Above link not yet updated for last night's deaths)
It's called politics ninfan pick your battles. He has had to force massive stuff through none of which would have happened if he had done gun control earlier.
It's called politics ninfan pick your battles. He has had to force massive stuff through none of which would have happened if he had done gun control earlier.
E.g. Look at what he's had to deal with to make any progress on health care
Really? I hear lefties talking all the time about wanting to rebel and rise up against Cameron and the evil cuts agenda being imposed by the Tories? Surely if the government was concerned about a popular uprising it would prevent the gross abuse of a flawed democracy by those who seek to privatise and destroy the NHS?
Eh????
I think even you know you are on shaky ground here if you are coming up with ransoms like this
Guns are designed to kill people, America has lots of them, which is silly
[img]
UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG Democracy eh?
Who would have it?
@kimbers - what a strange list, no mention of, for example, Canada or Switzerland - almost as if someone cherry picked a list of countries to try and prove a point 🙄 - and let's be honest, your list shows guns per head rather than proportion of people owning guns, does it matter if I own one gun or thirty five? I've only got two trigger fingers.
Ps. According to uk law, owning a couple of these doubles the amount of 'firearms per head' in my household:
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Yes, this small metal tube is actually a section one registered firearm - strangely, owning an identical one of an air rifle doesn't show on figures at all - so you can take your 'firearms per capita' figures and smoke them, because they tell us nothing.
ninfan - Member
Democracy eh?
Who would have it?
The NRA seem to be big fans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/
Ninfan full list here if you want to learn more....
[i]It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars. It seems really hard to understand until you compare it to the UK and cars. We see a couple of thousand deaths on the roads per year (plus those caused by pollution, obesity, etc) as an acceptable price to pay for the widespread use of cars. [/i]
Road deaths? The USA sits way above us on this too.
@kimbers - what a strange list, no mention of, for example, Canada or Switzerland - almost as if someone cherry picked a list of countries to try and prove a point
Switzerland has high gun ownership (much because of active military conscription/service), but also strict rules and regulations about the purchase of weapons and ammunition. That level of control in the US would be a hugely positive step.
- almost as if someone cherry picked a list of countries to try and prove a point
Hardly any need to, the US approach to guns doesn't work, the evidence is the number of bodies.
Edit: Read American comment pieces on gun control, then read UK articles on 20MPH urban speed limits
Eh? Comparing apples to pteradons...
FWIW I don't think many would be opposed to a 20mph limit, moreso as you rarely get much faster (if even that speed) in areas where it would be useful. Unless you're a prat.
Eh? Comparing apples to pteradons...
As I said above, I was comparing attitudes.
FWIW I don't think many would be opposed to a 20mph limit, moreso as you rarely get much faster (if even that speed) in areas where it would be useful. Unless you're a prat.
Find a random article of 20 limits. Read the comments.
Edit: or read [url=
opinion piece in the Telegraph[/url].
I think he's done what he can, he tried to push even slight increases in control through Congress and had it beaten every time - the restrictions he's ordered aren't even restrictions, they're measures to actually enforce the existing restrictions.
The thing is, the pro-gun lobby isn't listening, he could speak for hours, days even. They've been debating it for decades and the pro-gun lobby has long stopped listening - there is no amount of deaths that will change their mind and enough of them seem proud to claim that if someone does try to disarm them, they'll kill them - how do you try to reason with that sort of insanity?
there is no amount of deaths that will change their mind and enough of them seem proud to claim that if someone does try to disarm them, they'll kill them -
With a basic principle that every gun death could have been prevented by more guns they are really backed into a corner and are just swinging madly. It's along the lines that the pedestrian and cyclists are best protected by being inside cars.
squirrelking - MemberFWIW I don't think many would be opposed to a 20mph limit, moreso as you rarely get much faster (if even that speed) in areas where it would be useful. Unless you're a prat.
you're clearly a reasonably person. but in case you hadn't noticed, people are prats.
Against the lunatics in congress? Come on ninfan,
They are his own people.
there is no amount of deaths that will change their mind and enough of them seem proud to claim that if someone does try to disarm them, they'll kill them - how do you try to reason with that sort of insanity?
I find it highly amusing that these gun nuts think they are going to last five minutes against the most powerful military force on the planet.
Ninfan, since when have big black dildos been classed as firearms?
I really don't understand the American fixation with owning and using guns.
I guess the important thing from a UK perspective is that we can see and learn from their lax approach.
I find it highly amusing that these gun nuts think they are going to last five minutes against the most powerful military force on the planet
China?
Someone try and tell me this isn't the product of a sick society that fetishises guns and violence:
"
That's a republican leadership candidate BTW.
MoreCashThanDash - MemberI guess the important thing from a UK perspective is that we can see and learn from their lax approach.
it's a bit like the Australian approach to cycling laws, it's nice of them to provide proof that all the stupid ideas don't work.
Apparently it's un-American and unconstitutional to deny someone access to guns. Anyone*
[i]
*Unless they muslamic, which is difernt.[/i]
Unless you're Ronald Reagan, who remains a GOP hero despite doing far more for gun control than Obama has any chance of doing.
Regardless of rights and wrongs, so many of the responses have been absolutely barking mad. And a lot of them were written before people even knew what the orders were. They're illegal! Unconstitional! An attack on your freedoms! And they won't work! Er, whatever they are.
Ironically, there's some legitimate questions about these orders- how practical/enforcable background checks are for less formal sellers, exactly who counts as being "in the business of selling firearms", and what effect it'll really have since background checks are so toothless anyway.
*Unless they muslamic, which is difernt.
Same applies to the First Amendment as well: [i]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."[/i]
Violating that would be illegal, unconstitutional, an attack on freedoms etc etc - unless of course the targets are muslamic in which case a presidential candidate can suggest banning them completely and many of the people clapping him will be the same people who hold the Second Amendment as sacred and unchangeable.
For me in order to address the gun situation in the states you first have tackle this sence of fear and paranoia alot/most Americans seem to feel. The pro gun lobby feeds off this fear and is able to manipulate vast swathes of the population convincing them they need to tool up with an Arsenal of military grade weapons to protect themselves (from what I don't know). As a wise man once said a long time ago in a galaxy far far away: fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger. So you have a lot of scared, hateful and angry people....with guns. It's a toxic mix and can never end well.
Ironically, there's some legitimate questions about these orders- how practical/enforcable background checks are for less formal sellers
"any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"
--
They demonstrated this [url=
BBC News the other day[/url]. The reporter just needed to show his driver's license (to prove he was a resident) and then verbally answer the question [i]"are you a convicted felon or is there any reason you cannot own this gun"[/i]. If he said "no" then he could buy the gun on the spot and walk out with it. Even the gun seller thought this was a bit lax!
Yup, but the gun show exemption is only a part of it. The line between a person who owns guns and occasionally sells one, and a person who sells guns, can be pretty fine. Would gun-Hora be a seller or an owner who sells?
The numbers are pretty crazy though. 40% of guns are bought by routes that evade background checks. Support for reducing that seems overwhelming. But less than 1% of checks completed lead to a refusal, even with that capacity to evade checks.
The polling's pretty interesting- in one poll, 90% said they thought all gun purchases should be subject to a background check but only 50% were in favour of stricter gun control. Various reasons for that but the 2 main ones would seem to be either that people don't see background checks as gun control, or that people assume that everyone already gets background checked. Either has interesting implications for the bigger debate in terms of how things are represented and understood
It seems to be a recurring theme though that if you say "gun control" people think about taking guns from law abiding citizens and if you say "background checks" they think about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Which presumably is why he's chosen this approach.
I like the weird ironies too. Like, Obama raised the prospect of banning people on the US no fly list from buying guns. The GOP fell over themselves in hysterics about how the no fly list avoids due process and infringes on the rights of citizens. But they invented the bloomin no fly list, specifically to avoid due process and infringe on the rights of citizens. And freedom of movement is surely more important than freedom to own a gun.
