Senate Democrats preparing legislative package to curb guns

Best thing they could do is ban "gun-free zones". Only the law-abiding respect them.

@Traveling sales

How many posters who say “if students in the Oregon classroom had had guns they would have stopped the massacre” have ever had to fire a handgun in a situation like that, or in a crowded movie theatre, or in the dozens of other crowded places where a madman with a gun has massacred people?

Maybe you’re a good shot at the pistol range, but the pistol range can not replicate what could happen in real life, and unless you’re terminally hard of thinking you know that. You have no idea how you’re going to react nor how quickly you will react. You have no idea how accurate you might or might not be when the adrenalin starts flowing and your hands are shaking. You have no idea what the people around you are going to do. If you start shooting, will one of those carrying a gun think you’re a bad guy and start shooting you? How many bystanders could be killed by stray bullets? Is that really what you want?

In Australia a hostage was killed by a police bullet, by a highly trained police officer, someone who probably had more skill with a handgun than most other humans. Stuff happens in the fog of gunfights and it's almost always ugly.

I'm sure some posters have been in combat, in an actual firefight. If you have, you know full well firefights don't follow scripts and that the best trained soldiers can mess up. And you want untrained people who've never been in a firefight packing pistols in public?

As usual the Dems show common sense.

TravelingSales OCT. 08, 2015 - 12:56PM JST Best thing they could do is ban "gun-free zones". Only the law-abiding respect them.

Umpqua Community College was not unambiguously a gun-free zone, as there were people on campus during the attack who had permits for concealed carry and had their weapons at the time. They couldn't stop the attack.

Merely having a firearm does not make a person proficient enough in using it to stop what is essentially a terrorist attack, and having a person who is that proficient is no guarantee they'll actually be around when an attack occurs. America needs to quit dithering about with empty rhetoric and untested social experimentation like the calls to arm as many people as possible to stop these attacks. True conservatives should deal with violence through the methods that have been tested successfully time and time again around the world, and a big part of those methods is a certain degree of gun regulation.

@smithinjapan

Mind explaining how any of the proposals outlined in this article would have helped prevent the Oregon mass shooting, or indeed the far more frequent forms of gun violence committed by gangs, drug dealers, and other career criminals?

I don't see why anyone cannot drunkenly order a gun over the Net completely anonymously in the middle of the night. I mean, take away that right, and what's the whole point of freedom?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/05/is-it-really-so-easy-to-buy-a-gun-over-the-internet/

A bipartisan version of that plan was blocked in 2013 by Republicans and a few Democrats, months after the fatal shooting of 20 students and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Something like 90% of the public, that includes people from both parties, supported this. But it didn't pass. Not the will of the people.

Illyas: Mind explaining how any of the proposals outlined in this article would have helped prevent the Oregon mass shooting, or indeed the far more frequent forms of gun violence committed by gangs, drug dealers, and other career criminals?

It's not designed to stop all gun violence. It's supposed to be a common sense start to looking at our gun laws, something that's pretty much being blocked by the NRA and gun nutters. These proposals look to close some of the loopholes, which I can't imagine anyone would be against. Sales are allowed if the FBI doesn't get the info in time? Just utterly brilliant. The obvious question is why it took us so long to even get to this point.

New gun laws pass often in the United States. But they usually make guns easier to get.

And the problem is?

I think what you mean to say is, "New gun laws pass often in the United States. But they usually make guns easier to get. And sometimes people shoot up schools.

And the problem is?"

They said they would propose making it harder for people to buy guns if their background check, which is run by the FBI, is not completed. Currently, if a background check is still not complete after three days — often because the FBI is awaiting information from local law enforcement agencies — the sale is allowed.

Now there is a little bit of nonsense legislation for you, pointless.

if a background check is still not complete after three days — often because the FBI is awaiting information from local law enforcement agencies — the sale is allowed.

WHAT?????

This is another case where the federal gov is more of a hindrance. They should allow the states to decide, just like with the free market, and progressive foward thinking states should be allowed to exerices their 10 th admendment right and decide their own gun laws. The Feds could reward these states in return with whatever multitude of gimmicks they have to offer. Gun free zones and other nonsense doesnt work long term. All states would allow gun ownership in keeping with the 2nd admendments, but states who want to really remain gun free and safe would require gun owners to broadcast their presence in public, and then be taxed for it. Anyone who knowingly hides guns would also be penalized and people who turn in "keepers" would be rewarded. You could keep your arm at an armory and bear it on the range, all supervised by a civilian, and avoid any tax or penalty.

I'd suggested a tax on guns, but this legislation would be easier and accomplish the same goal: liability insurance requirement.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act, unveiled Friday, would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.

Responsible gun-owners could likely get it cheaply; irresponsible owners would give a reason to police to confiscate their guns; and those who own guns but don' t really want them would have an incentive to dispose of them. What's not to like? (Well, Republicans will fill us in with plenty of horror stories soon.)

It sounds great, but if there is one thing that republicans hate as much as the idea of taking away their guns, it's adding new taxes.

Thats a brillant move in the right direction and easier to implement but it still carries some risk. I dont want to be sitting next to anyone in a movie theater or chuch who is "strapped" Id like to be informed so I can leave the building. A requirement to broadcast would warn people. Im talking about a gun safe community; not a zero gun ownership country. It would be up to the communites to decide their own gun laws. The U.S. has become such a zero tolerant state on many issues that should of been left up to the states to decide. I think its this nanny policing that has produced some of the insanity we see today where people are not allowed to exercise common sense or logic due to information overload and brainwashing so they segregate and isolate themselves further.. Im not suggesting seccsion either; no state can survive on its own. I think the states should have more control over what laws they can pass under the umbrella of the constitution .

We could just apply the new abortion limiting tricks to gun shops and sellers. If making a woman drive hundreds of miles for an abortion doesn't infringe on her rights then making a gun buyer do the same seems fair to me. Pass safety laws to close all but a handful of gun shops in a state, then say the 2nd amendment isn't harmed.

Currently, if a background check is still not complete after three days — often because the FBI is awaiting information from local law enforcement agencies — the sale is allowed.

What the reader sees is Americans will sell any weapon to anyone without any requirements.

Some are whining for no more prohibitions of any guns anywhere.

Since the Shia-Tea has toppled the GOP/Tea and effectively closed the House of Representatives, Americans can expect the gun slaughter will continue unabated.

Congratulations to the NRA and their Shia-Tea Frankenstein the old chant that "they are coming for our guns" needs an update.

The next chant? "We're gunning for your children" and the slaughter cannot happen soon enough for the gun obsessed and hysterical gun nuts and that's just good business.

They said they would propose making it harder for people to buy guns if their background check, which is run by the FBI, is not completed. Currently, if a background check is still not complete after three days — often because the FBI is awaiting information from local law enforcement agencies — the sale is allowed.

WHAT?????

Cleo,

That’s exactly how Dylann Roof passed his background check. The US has no shortage of firearm laws and new ones pop up every year. The problem is not a lack of laws, it is the spotty enforcement of the laws already on the books. More often than not, you will find that the intent of the law is usurped by bureaucratic maneuvering intended to make the bureaucratic process less burdensome for the bureaucrats. I think that this example of the system’s failure is a result of that. In my view, this proposal to extend the time frame for the FBI to complete their checks is very reasonable, that is of course if it is enforced.

What the reader sees is Americans will sell any weapon to anyone without any requirements.

Kcjapan,

If that is what you see then I think you should get your dogma on a leash. It seems to be distracting you and interfering with you reading comprehension. What I see is an attempt to close an administrative loophole that has resulted in improper and unfortunate clearances in the past. That’s a good thing, right? In regards to “any weapon to anyone without any requirements” try ask a gun owner in California or Hawaii if that has been their experience, you might be surprised.

What I see is an attempt to close an administrative loophole that has resulted in improper and unfortunate clearances in the past. - comments

Sorry, an attempt to close an administrative loophole that is being closed how?

Today the Shia-Tea just shut down the House of Representatives with their campaign of destruction in the Speaker's campaign.

Did that suggest some improvement in the regulation of firearms sales? Maybe the Shia-Tea will outlaw all weapons as an affront to their gods and respect for life in all of its forms? That's some administrative loophole alright. Congratulation to the NRA! Well done.

Sorry, an attempt to close an administrative loophole that is being closed how?

By drafting proposed legislation to close it. It says that in the article.

Did that suggest some improvement in the regulation of firearms sales?

What? The fact that some Democrats are attempting to introduce sensible legislation or that the Republicans are bickering among themselves? If the former, yes.

That's some administrative loophole alright.

I agree if you mean the FBI's current policy that allowed Dylann Roof to pass his background check.

Republicans controlling Congress have shown scant interest in restricting guns and the Democratic effort has little chance of success.

The article is reporting that the Shia-Tea has successfully log jammed any Legislation in their revolt against a new Speaker of the House. How this is somehow a resolution of "administrative loopholes" on gun control is still unclear.

Good on the Democrats for responding to the slaughters of Oregon and Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty tiny children were slain in their class rooms along with six of their teachers; but how the debate or refinement of gun regulation will even be discussed in the House of Representatives when the Shia-Tea has successfully shut down election of a new Speaker is just nonsense.

The NRA has again dictated the US Government shall not discuss, study or regulate the sale or transfer of weapons of mass destruction. Well Done NRA! Good business plan. Some dead kids and some wicked profit. All is right with the world.

The article is reporting that the Shia-Tea has successfully log jammed any Legislation in their revolt against a new Speaker of the House.

It is? Really? Wow, I didn’t get that at all. The only mention of Republicans that I saw was about something that happened two years ago and in the sentence you quoted. No wait, they were also mentioned in the sentence right after that,

" But their drive could keep the issue alive during next year’s elections and complicate Republican senators’ re-election campaigns in some closely divided states".

I hope you’re not suggesting that Democrats just throw up their hands in defeat just because it looks like a hard fight.

How this is somehow a resolution of "administrative loopholes" on gun control is still unclear.

Well, if you start with the assumption that proposed legislation equals resolution and that the whole subject is moot anyway because the Republicans have rendered the Democrats powerless by their infighting. Then I can see how the idea of keeping an issue alive even in the face of strong opposition and possible failure might escape some folks.

Republicans controlling Congress have shown scant interest in restricting guns and the Democratic effort has little chance of success.

Reckless gun slaughter has become so ordinary the NRA constituents are surprised anyone is still interested in, say, twenty tiny children, slaughtered in their classrooms or the six teachers who tried to save their children; this actually happened in Newtown, Connecticut.

Today's slaughter occurred at a Community College in Oregon. The gunner slaughtered the English Professor and GOP/Tea candidate Carson criticized the American cowards who failed to reason with the deranged gun nut with multiple weapons and magazines or mob him with tiny fists of fury. Some of the cowards were only seventeen and one was a forty-one year old.

So, while we enjoy Carson's taunting of those who witnessed the horror of gun slaughter; they really should have been better behaved when their teacher's blood spattered and classmates were forced to choke out their religious faith before their executions.

The most important revelation is that Candidate Carson faulted them for being weak and cowards. This is the model President, one who can make clear a teenager is a weakling as his teacher's blood is sprayed over the blackboard.

This is the "real black" that Mr. FOXNews Murdock hopes will guide more Americans to better behavior when under attack from a mad gunman with unlimited firepower and access to as many weapons of mass destruction as he might care to obtain.

Those Democrats, always tilting at windmills, think Legislation might protect America's children? The NRA has already made sure the Shia-Tea will close that window of opportunity. You can't sell and AR-15 if it's illegal to vend at the local Gun Show without ID or background check, so the Shia-Tea has their first marching order from the NRA. Don't count on a white Christmas America. The Shia-Tea's the new Shareef in town, and Shareef don't like it.

There was a report that a robber shuttered window and got into a house, then home owner who woke up from couch went to get his gun and shot the robber. Interviewees of the neighbor did not hide and said they would do the same. The robber was released from hospital to police. Gop candidates and Hillary are in Vegas but this news was the biggest.