Gun Control

Heretic wrote:

The problem runs a lot deeper than Ted Nugent

Quote :

They have to stop educating their rank-and-file voters to accept crazy stuff. That means cutting out the teleprompter jokes, the winks to birthers, the claims that Democrats are anti-American — all of it. It means that if a backbench member of the House yells out “you lie” during a presidential speech, he gets censured instead of praised. That’s going to mean some short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. It may be hard to go in front of a conservative crowd and resist an applause line calling Barack Obama a socialist.

Can Republicans shut it all down? Of course not. But they could choose to minimize it. That means politicians steering clear of it; it means those party actors who care about winning elections doing what they can to discourage it from those party actors who have different incentives (such as those hawking that merchandise or who can make a very good living selling to a group which is a large market but a small portion of the electorate).

Right-wing Hate radio has now become their Frankenstein. I've tuned in the last few days and their utter contempt and hatred for establishment Repubs like Karl Rove is stunning to say the least. It's all choreographed too,with the same talking points on every single show and network. Their "Usefull idiots" are now no longer so "useful" and in full rioting mode against the mainstream Repubs. Even Fox News is now a target of their wrath simply because they put Rove on regularly. They can talk all they want about "re-branding" their party,but as long as they keep treating lunatics like Ted Nugent like they're relevant,all they're going to get is a whole lot of negative press coverage. They can kiss any dreams of winning back the Presidency in 2016 goodbye as long as this continues and that probably goes for the Senate as well in 2014.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Hey, edge - do you and Mr. Cesca think that these people wish their penises were larger?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?hp&_r=0

Yep, that's what we need, more gun loons like Nancy Lanza.

Can you explain why you refer to these women as "loons"?
(By the way, lots of women enjoy shooting, especially the one pictured in my avatar.)

I was not specifically referring to any of those women in the article as gun loons.

Here's another direct refutation of one of happy's earlier points:

Quote :

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms. From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year. In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean. This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

Translation: Background checks do save lives.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Here's another direct refutation of one of happy's earlier points:

Quote :

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms. From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year. In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean. This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

Translation: Background checks do save lives.

[b]Are you telling me that there were absolutely no other factors which may have led to these figures?

Such as? :bball:

happy jack wrote:

Are you telling me that there were absolutely no other factors which may have led to these figures?

What do you suggest? Aliens? Ghosts? Some liberal crime syndicate in operation to destroy Republican talking points? Mirage's government mind control devices?

You could, I don't know, try and identify them yourself and then cite the appropriate research/evidence bolstering your claim for once. I know that doesn't come easy to conservatives, and they're certainly not used to it, but I have faith in you.

happy jack wrote:

Citing a single factor as a cause does not a legitimate study make.

Outright denial. I shouldn't have expected more.

Anyway, I linked to the article for a reason. You should actually read it before you embarrass yourself further. If you believe that there's a factor the Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research didn't adequately control for, by all means, pony up.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Are you telling me that there were absolutely no other factors which may have led to these figures?

What do you suggest? Aliens? Ghosts? Some liberal crime syndicate in operation to destroy Republican talking points? Mirage's government mind control devices?

You could, I don't know, try and identify them yourself and then cite the appropriate research/evidence bolstering your claim for once. I know that doesn't come easy to conservatives, and they're certainly not used to it, but I have faith in you.

Citing a single factor as a cause does not a legitimate study make.

Rake meet forehead. Get some ice.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Are you telling me that there were absolutely no other factors which may have led to these figures?

What do you suggest? Aliens? Ghosts? Some liberal crime syndicate in operation to destroy Republican talking points? Mirage's government mind control devices?

You could, I don't know, try and identify them yourself and then cite the appropriate research/evidence bolstering your claim for once. I know that doesn't come easy to conservatives, and they're certainly not used to it, but I have faith in you.

Citing a single factor as a cause does not a legitimate study make.

Rake meet forehead. Get some ice.

LMAO! Our board pinata is priceless,isn't he!

Joe Arpaio hired a convicted child-sex criminal for armed school “posse”

Quote :

Responding to calls from the National Rifle Association to arm teachers and school officials, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio vowed to deploy his gun-toting volunteers to monitor Arizona schools. Members of the 3,450-strong group began patrolling in January, and the sheriff’s office announced recently that the program will continue into next year. But the thing is, no schools have actually requested this service from Sheriff Joe, and it’s easy to understand why.

Local news affiliate KPHO reported on Arpaio’s “posse” and found that the sheriff hired sex offenders, domestic abusers and other members with criminal records to “serve and protect” Phoenix-area schools.

Incredible and sickening,right? But this is only half the story.....
Joe Arpaio's School-Patrol Posse Gets a Glowing Review From the NRA

Quote :

While the National Rifle Association has proposed putting an armed guard inside every American school, the lobbying organization's "news" arm ran a gushing endorsement of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's school-patrol posse, which puts an armed guard in zero schools.

The public-relations piece for Arpaio aired on the TV show "NRA News Cam & Co" -- which can be found on the Sportsman Channel -- and it portrays the Sheriff as a guy who's doing something about gun-violence at schools.

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Are you telling me that there were absolutely no other factors which may have led to these figures?

What do you suggest? Aliens? Ghosts? Some liberal crime syndicate in operation to destroy Republican talking points? Mirage's government mind control devices?

You could, I don't know, try and identify them yourself and then cite the appropriate research/evidence bolstering your claim for once. I know that doesn't come easy to conservatives, and they're certainly not used to it, but I have faith in you.

Citing a single factor as a cause does not a legitimate study make.

Rake meet forehead. Get some ice.

LMAO! Our board pinata is priceless,isn't he!

Yes, pretending that you just didn't get your ass handed to you is indeed priceless.

NRA Caught Handing Out Newsletter Calling For Treason And Violent Revolution

Quote :

Moonbats or Wingnuts? I never know which one to use. Domestic Terrorists would work.

The Wisconsin branch of the National Rifle Association sure did make a mess of things this past weekend. Not only was their lobbyist caught on tape bragging about how he controls the legislature, but the NRA was handing out copies of The Reality News, an extremist right-wing publication. But not only is it an extremist right-wing publication, it’s an extremist right-wing publication calling for armed revolt to topple the government.

Within the publication was a piece by Karl Koenigs titled, “What Would Davy Crockett Say?” In the article, he makes a call for armed revolt, to topple the democratically elected government of the United States, following with the imposition of a dictatorship, where he, and those who believe as he does, are the dictators.

A direct quote from the article:

ELECTIONS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM; ELECTIONS ARE THE PROBLEM!

Further in, to resolve the issues he sees with the system, his proposal offers this:

This is a most heinous disease that can only be cured by the constitutional De-Centralized power of our home country of Wisconsin restoring our “supreme Laws” on our Federal public servants within our borders; OR otherwise by a combo Civil/Re-Revolutionary War with the very same goal to restore the rule of OUR Laws on our elected non-elected and wannabe elected Republican and Democrat Federal servants through the refreshment of the Tree of Liberty by its natural manure. (sic)

Most Mass Shootings Target Women and Families; Study Finds Men With Legal Guns Are to Blame

Quote :

Data suggests that a gun present in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.
February 24, 2013 |

A new analysis of 56 mass shootings across America since 2009 finds women and family members are the most frequent victims, and that the shooter almost always acquired his guns legally, in cases where the gun source is known.

“In at least 32 of the cases (57 percent), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member, and at least eight of those shooters had a prior domestic violence charge,” the Mayors Against Illegal Guns report on mass shootings said, suggesting that the problem of gun violence is far more related to violence against women in homes than rampages in public settings such as schools and theaters.

The study also found that in the cases where the source of the guns was known, almost all were acquired legally: only two examples were given of mass killings with a stolen or illegal gun. That finding runs counter to the gun lobby’s oft-cited rhetoric that only criminals abuse guns.

“We had sufficient evidence to judge whether the shooter was a prohibited gun possessor in 42 of the 56 incidents,” the report said, referring to laws barring ex-felons, mentally ill people, drug addicts and other categories of people from owning guns. “Of those 42 incidents, 15 (36 percent) involved a prohibited possessor and 27 (64 percent) did not.”

Another episode of "Responsible legal Gun Owners"

Finally, a rational response from liberals to these senseless school shootings.




http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/03/update-ii-school-offers-counseling-for-students-troubled-by-pastry-gun-incident.html

UPDATE II: School Offers Counseling for Students Troubled by Pastry-Gun Incident

As you know if you have been following this dramatic story unfolding in Brooklyn Park, Maryland, seven-year-old Josh Welch has been suspended for two days after he allegedly fashioned his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun.
Did I say "dramatic"? I meant "stupid."

The elementary school that was the scene of Josh's brutally harmless rampage sent students home Friday with a letter describing the incident as if it had actually been serious:



Dear Parents and Guardians:

I am writing to let you know about an incident that occurred this morning in one of our classrooms and encourage you to discuss this matter with your child in a manner you deem most appropriate.
During breakfast this morning, one of our students used food to make inappropriate gestures that disrupted the class. While no physical threats were made and no one [was] harmed, the student had to be removed from the classroom.
As you are aware, the ... Code of Student Conduct and appropriate consequences related to violations of the code are clearly spelled out in the Student Handbook, which was sent home during the first week of school and can be found on our website, www.aacps.org....
If your children express that they are troubled by today's incident, please talk with them and help them share their feelings. Our school counselor is available to meet with any students who have the need to do so next week. In general, please remind them of the importance of making good choices.


Pretty sure that if your children are "troubled" by another kid biting a pastry into something that looks sort of like a gun and waving said pastry around, you have already failed as a parent.
The two-day suspension indicates that the school considered this a "Level 3" violation, but exactly what part of the Code was in play is not clear. The letter suggests Josh disrupted the class, but the reference to "inappropriate gestures" involving food can only mean he was also charged with a pastry-based-weapons violation. The Code defines "other weapons" as:


Any gun of any kind, loaded or unloaded, operable or inoperable, including any object other than a firearm which is a look-a-like of a gun. This shall include, but is not limited to, pellet gun, paintball gun, stun gun, taser, BB gun, flare gun, nail gun, and air soft gun.

Josh's gun was not a firearm, because it was a pastry, and it seems highly unlikely that it qualified as a gun "look-a-like," again because it was a pastry. It certainly is nothing like any of the "look-a-like" items set forth in the list, largely because those items are not pastries.
Josh's father expressed amazement at the school's reaction to the incident, which involved a pastry.
"I'll just call it insanity," Josh's father said. "It's a pastry."

More Gun Laws = Fewer Deaths, 50-state Study Says

Quote :

In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-50-state-study-says/

A link to the actual study is here. There was an invited commentary here, which discusses the limitations of the study and why they exist:

Quote :

The United States has belatedly awakened to the knowledge that it is, in effect, under armed attack. More than 30 000 people are purposely shot to death each year—more than 300 000 since the World Trade Center was destroyed in 2001. Rates of firearm-related violent crime have increased 26% since 2008.1 Physicians have joined others in demanding a strong response to this crisis. We look to scientific research to provide the evidence on which that response should be based. Such evidence should include a thorough exploration of risk and protective factors and, most importantly, controlled studies showing which interventions work to reduce firearm violence and why.

At a time when guidance is urgently needed, Fleegler and colleagues2 have examined the relationship between firearm laws and firearm-related deaths in the United States. Their state-level ecological study (a design in which the unit of analysis is a population in aggregate, not the individuals in it) correlated the presence or absence of 28 laws arguably related to firearm violence with firearm-related mortality rates. Their main finding is that having more laws on the books is associated with having lower rates of firearm-related homicide and suicide. This would be an important finding—if it were robust and if its meaning were clear.

. . .

In the end, Fleegler et al2 provide no firm guidance. Do the laws work, or not? If so, which ones? Should policymakers enact the entire package? Some part? Which part? Frustrated policymakers sometimes ask to hear from 1-armed scientists, to avoid “on the one hand . . . on the other hand” summations of the evidence that end with competing recommendations. Here, there can be no recommendation at all; it is as if the scientists have both hands tied behind their backs.

In fact, that is precisely what has happened—not just to these investigators, who did well with the data available to them, but to firearm violence researchers generally. The disappearance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research program in this field in the 1990s has been well documented.4- 5 A complementary program at the National Institute of Justice survived longer, thanks to the tenacity of its program officer, but ended after she retired in 2008.

Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Only 2 are physicians. Only 1 has evaluated the effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.6

Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies. To those whose interests were threatened by such reforms, it made perfect sense to choke off the production of the evidence. This effort was led by Congressman Jay Dickey, self-described “point person for the NRA.”7 It succeeded. When rates of firearm violence were at historic highs and appeared to be increasing, the government abandoned its commitment to understanding the problem and devising evidence-based solutions.

This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. The motor vehicle industry waged what the Supreme Court called the “regulatory equivalent of war” against airbags, one of the most important of those interventions.8 On airbags and other matters, the industry lost; the public's health and safety won. The effects of these contrasting approaches are clear.

Now, President Obama has directed the CDC to resume firearm violence research. To my knowledge, however, no CDC researcher has done more than occasional work in this field in 15 years. New funding will need approval by Congress, and the House of Representatives may be unsympathetic. The National Institute of Justice issued a solicitation for firearm violence research proposals in February 2013, but it will be a small beginning; the institute plans to fund no more than 3 projects.

To prevent firearm violence, our research effort must be substantial and sustained. Physician engagement in developing that effort is particularly important.9 Some projects must have direct relevance to policy-based and other potential interventions. Others need to deepen our basic understanding of the problem. Better data, and data systems, are needed. Interventions must be evaluated, and those evaluations must help guide further efforts. Until we revitalize firearm violence research, studies using available data will often be the best we have. They are not good enough.

If the NRA and their acolytes actually care more about saving children then saving their weapons, they shouldn't be blocking any research on gun related deaths.

Heretic wrote:

Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies. To those whose interests were threatened by such reforms, it made perfect sense to choke off the production of the evidence. This effort was led by Congressman Jay Dickey, self-described “point person for the NRA.”7 It succeeded. When rates of firearm violence were at historic highs and appeared to be increasing, the government abandoned its commitment to understanding the problem and devising evidence-based solutions.

Heretic wrote:

If the NRA and their acolytes actually care more about saving children then saving their weapons, they shouldn't be blocking any research on gun related deaths.

Dickey is not blocking anything now.
What is your problem with him?


http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/post/90244/jay-dickey-on-obamas-order-to-ease-research-on-gun-violence



Jay Dickey on Obama's Order to Encourage Research on Gun Violence

by Lance Turner
1/17/2013 04:26 pm


Former U.S. Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., responds to President Obama's order Wednesday to ease gun research restrictions pushed through Congress in the 1990s by the gun lobby.

As the Associated Press recalls today in a piece about the prospects of more gun-violence research, Dickey led an effort to remove $2.6 million from the CDC's injury prevention center, which had led most of the research on guns.

According to Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who headed the CDC's injury center at the time, what the NRA did was "basically terrorize" the research community and the CDC, scaring them away from meaningful research into gun violence in America.

Dickey sees it differently. But he and Rosenberg are now on the same page about gun research:


Dickey, who is now retired, said Wednesday that his real concern was the researcher who led that gun ownership study, who Dickey described as being "in his own kingdom or fiefdom" and believing guns are bad.

He and Rosenberg said they have modified their views over time and now both agree that research is needed. They put out a joint statement Wednesday urging research that prevents firearm injuries while also protecting the rights "of legitimate gun owners."

"We ought to research the whole environment, both sides - what the benefits of having guns are and what are the benefits of not having guns," Dickey said. "We should study any part of this problem," including whether armed guards at schools would help, as the National Rifle Association has suggested.

So what's next? Does Obama's executive order give the CDC clearance to start analysizing data about guns? Some think the answer isn't clear. Dickey thinks it's up to Congress:


The Union of Concerned Scientists said the White House's view that the law does not ban gun research is helpful, but not enough to clarify the situation for scientists, and that congressional action is needed.

Dickey, the former congressman, agreed.

"Congress is supposed to do that. He's not supposed to do that," Dickey said of Obama's order. "The restrictions were placed there by Congress.

"What I was hoping for ... is 'let's do this together,'" Dickey said.

happy jack wrote:

Dickey is not blocking anything now.
What is your problem with him?

Yes, now, years later. But he's still either a dishonest tool or too stupid to be making/influencing legislation.

Anyone interested in sound policy will not shy away from further research on a topic. This is why evolutionary biologists, historians, geneticists making vaccinations, demolition experts, etc, encourage their anti-science opponents to publish their research (or make it available online along with their rejection letters if they're alleging conspiracy in journals).

Because whatever bias Dickey believed there was in the lead researcher, it would have easily been proven in either the design of the study itself or its results. They are forced to "show their work", and if it doesn't square with reality, everyone knows. That's peer review. Everyone with an IQ over 70 would have been able to see that, and Dickey would have had written, demonstrable proof of his bias and dishonesty.

This is what I did to MadMaxx and his endless 9/11 conspiracies and what I've continued to do to each and every global warming "skeptic" over the years in the various incarnations of this forum.

But instead of doing that, Dickey chose to limit research on the topic, preventing any evidence-based policy from being instituted in a very real attempt to save lives, a number easily dwarfing the number of abortions or 9/11 by magnitudes. I would think that would be a concern to anyone even a fraction as pro-life as you claim to be.

happy jack wrote:

Finally, a rational response from liberals to these senseless school shootings.




http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/03/update-ii-school-offers-counseling-for-students-troubled-by-pastry-gun-incident.html

UPDATE II: School Offers Counseling for Students Troubled by Pastry-Gun Incident

As you know if you have been following this dramatic story unfolding in Brooklyn Park, Maryland, seven-year-old Josh Welch has been suspended for two days after he allegedly fashioned his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun.
Did I say "dramatic"? I meant "stupid."

The elementary school that was the scene of Josh's brutally harmless rampage sent students home Friday with a letter describing the incident as if it had actually been serious:



Dear Parents and Guardians:

I am writing to let you know about an incident that occurred this morning in one of our classrooms and encourage you to discuss this matter with your child in a manner you deem most appropriate.
During breakfast this morning, one of our students used food to make inappropriate gestures that disrupted the class. While no physical threats were made and no one [was] harmed, the student had to be removed from the classroom.
As you are aware, the ... Code of Student Conduct and appropriate consequences related to violations of the code are clearly spelled out in the Student Handbook, which was sent home during the first week of school and can be found on our website, www.aacps.org....
If your children express that they are troubled by today's incident, please talk with them and help them share their feelings. Our school counselor is available to meet with any students who have the need to do so next week. In general, please remind them of the importance of making good choices.


Pretty sure that if your children are "troubled" by another kid biting a pastry into something that looks sort of like a gun and waving said pastry around, you have already failed as a parent.
The two-day suspension indicates that the school considered this a "Level 3" violation, but exactly what part of the Code was in play is not clear. The letter suggests Josh disrupted the class, but the reference to "inappropriate gestures" involving food can only mean he was also charged with a pastry-based-weapons violation. The Code defines "other weapons" as:


Any gun of any kind, loaded or unloaded, operable or inoperable, including any object other than a firearm which is a look-a-like of a gun. This shall include, but is not limited to, pellet gun, paintball gun, stun gun, taser, BB gun, flare gun, nail gun, and air soft gun.

Josh's gun was not a firearm, because it was a pastry, and it seems highly unlikely that it qualified as a gun "look-a-like," again because it was a pastry. It certainly is nothing like any of the "look-a-like" items set forth in the list, largely because those items are not pastries.
Josh's father expressed amazement at the school's reaction to the incident, which involved a pastry.
"I'll just call it insanity," Josh's father said. "It's a pastry."

And the hits keep coming:



http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/03/08/cupcakes-with-army-soldiers-get-kid-in-hot-water-at-school/

Cupcakes With Army Soldiers Get Kid In Hot Water At School

March 8, 2013 3:15 PM

CARO (CBS Detroit) A 9-year-old boy’s birthday cupcakes sparked a school controversy that just keeps growing, with scores of people lining up against a school principal who found the cupcake’s topping “inappropriate.”
The boy was chided, and so were his parents, for cupcakes featuring little green Army men on the top.
Schall Elementary School principal Susan Wright called the parents at home and said the cupcakes were insensitive in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. School staff pulled off the Army men before they were served.
………
And the principal, who refused to speak publicly on the issue, issued an extensive statement that said, in part:
“In the climate of recent events in schools we walk a delicate balance in teaching non-violence in our buildings and trying to ensure a safe, peaceful atmosphere. On one hand, there are those who advocate arming teachers, having armed security guards and creating a fortress of defense in our schools. On the other hand, there are those who feel that guns create fear in schools and we need to put solid security measures in place plus practice routines to be prepared in case an emergency should ever occur. Living in a democratic society entails respect for opposing opinions.”
She added that some parents “prohibit all guns as toys,” and “no disrespect” was intended for members of the military, however, “Our commitment is always to our children and creating a safe place for them to learn, grow and have respectful dialogues about their differences.”



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/08/feinstein_veterans_may_have_ptsd_and_should_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

Feinstein: Veterans May Have PTSD And Should Not Be Exempt From Assault Weapons Ban

At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) opposed an amendment to her Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would allow military veterans to continue to buy the firearms that would be banned. Feinstein says a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to-- if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

happy jack wrote:

I do declare, that's some mighty interesting math you're using.
Could you show me those figures?

You're right. That was way off.

Quote :

But instead of doing that, Dickey chose to limit research on the topic, preventing any evidence-based policy from being instituted in a very real attempt to save lives, a number easily dwarfing the number of dead on 9/11 by magnitudes. I would think that would be a concern to anyone even a fraction as pro-life as you claim to be.

Fixed. Now, any comment on the actual substance of my post?