Obama marks Newtown school shooting anniversary with call for gun control

[Jefferson23]

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama marked the anniversary of the Newtown school shootings on Saturday by calling for tighter gun control and expanded mental health care.

"We haven't yet done enough to make our communities and our country safer," the president said in his weekly address. "We have to do more to keep dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily. We have to do more to heal troubled minds."

The president did not mention the shooting at a Colorado high school on Friday where a student armed with a shotgun wounded at least two classmates before apparently taking his own life. The president's address is recorded in advance.

Obama is due later Saturday to observe a moment of silence at the White House and light candles in memory of the 20 children and six school workers who died in a shooting at a Connecticut elementary school a year ago.

in full: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-obama-idUSBRE9BD04520131214

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

1. It sounds like a good idea.

Peace

[Jefferson23]

2. Thank you for the 28 candles..I think it is essential to recognize that number.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

3. You humble me Sir.

Thank You.......................

[Eleanors38]

4. Making B.G. checks universal is a good goal, and increased

efforts to ID those with mental health problems may be of benefit. Calls for banning a rifle type will have little effect since another type of weapon will be (and clearly has been) used.

If calls for bans (and the hateful culture war expressions which accompany them) continue as the "first response" of MSM & controller/banners, then expect a double-down reaction by 2A defenders.

Gun controller/banners need to change and take responsibility, and the first step is to recognize that decades of mean-spirited attacks and mechanistic calls for bans has led to self-destructive culture war and a complete crippling of any meaningful efforts toward change. It may be fun -- even pleasurable -- to create and attack enemies. But the price of that indulgence is great.

Question: Have the positions of gun-controllers improved as the result of this culture war?

[Jefferson23]

5. Hateful culture war expressions? That's what concerns you, as a priority?

Right now this is my top priority...then working forward..that is, if the poisonous money
ever ends in US elections:

The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions

Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public—eight states now even allow them in bars—and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support. (Note: Click on the colored states for details on additional laws; info on a few particularly noteworthy ones follows below the map. Also see our related story on the frightening rise of mass shootings in the US.)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

[gejohnston]

6. about that frightening rise in mass shootings

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/28/department-of-awful-statistics-are-mass-shootings-really-on-the-rise.html

[Jefferson23]

7. Why are you responding to this OP without having read it..clearly from your repsonse, you haven't.

Btw, is this argument from Fox supposed to be an argument against the roll back of restrictions??


on edit for clarity.

[gejohnston]

8. I read it,

simply pointing out the myth about mass shootings.
Is it supposed to be an augment for or against rolling back restrictions? I didn't intend it either way, but I doubt any of those restrictions would prevent or cause anything either way.
Look what happened at Sandy Hook: kid murdered mom and gained access to the safe. The magazines violated CT state law, the rifle was not an "assault weapon" by CT legal definition. How would rules allowing someone to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol (but still a felony to drink alcohol while armed) affect the tragedy? Wouldn't either way, its a red herring.

[Jefferson23]

9. Red herring, nah. You avoided the OP, true. Your opinion is you doubt any of those

restrictions would prevent or cause anything either way. Is it safe to say, you do not support
rolling them back?

Also, you are presuming each and every mass shooting case should be scrutinized by what would have
occurred if the roll backs had been in effect...wrong.

You roll those back because that is what a responsible nation does, as prevention.


The myth of mass shootings on the rise..how nice this would be if we could
pacify ourselves with the notion that citizens are safe as long we do not
look at the carnage that allegedly only takes place in large group killings...in such rare occasions.

Your OP from Megan McCardle, a right leaning libertarian..really? This passes as
legit here?

[gejohnston]

10. What does pass for legit is who Mr. Fox is.

restrictions would prevent or cause anything either way. Is it safe to say, you do not support
rolling them back?

I would have to see each one individually.

Also, you are presuming each and every mass shooting case should be scrutinized by what would have
occurred if the roll backs had been in effect...wrong.

All mass murders should be scrutinized equally.

You roll those back because that is what a responsible nation does, as prevention.

I don't think black swan events can be prevented.

The myth of mass shootings on the rise..how nice this would be if we could
pacify ourselves with the notion that citizens are safe as long we do not
look at the carnage that allegedly only takes place in large group killings...in such rare occasions.

sorry, missing the point.

Your OP from Megan McCardle, a right leaning libertarian..really? This passes as
legit here?

Actually, that was the first article to pop up, but I have no idea who she is. Last I checked, TDB was left of center. According to her bio, her views on economics leans libertarian/classical liberal. That has nothing to do with her views on anything else. The charts and graphs are Mr. Fox's.
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20130920-qa-what-the-right-and-left-get-wrong-about-mass-shootings.ece
http://www.jfox.neu.edu/

I simply pointed out a flaw in MJ's method discovered by a criminologist. That was my only point. If you want to read more in it than I intended, that's your prerogative.

[Jefferson23]

12. 1) Good, then leave McCardle behind, next time. Agree about Fox.

2 )You have to see each one to decide? Well, fine..but I would have appreciated you doing just
that before you responded the first time..that is what the point of my post was centered
on.

3) All mass murders should be scrutinized equally. Yes, but not in the context as you applied it, which
was, imo, an approach used to dismiss the need to roll them back. You essentially were stating tha
if Newtown could not have been prevented, then these roll backs are pointless.

4) Black swan events can't be prevented? none, how do you know this? So you do not support the roll backs?

5) The charts and graphs from Fox, I do not see anything suggesting he would not support
the roll backs. I also do not see anything from him suggesting he is not concerned
about gun violence...what am I missing?

[gejohnston]

14. once again

I was simply pointing out what Fox said about MJ's methods.

From what I read of these roll backs, none of them were of any consequence either way. I have no opinion of them either way.

I said "I think" not "I know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
He was saying the MJ article was wrong. No more, no less.

What I think would have the greatest effect on gun violence in the US would be to end the drug war. Before Nixon's WoD, gangs rarely had guns because they could not afford them even though federal and state laws were generally more liberal. Take away their money, you take away the guns.

[Jefferson23]

15. I get that, but that was not the OP I put up for discussion.

You have no opinion of the roll backs, either way. Ok

Yes, Fox was clear. I imagine his opinion of the roll backs would be interesting...at least to me.

The roll backs occurred due to the over reach of those professing to keep America "safe", aka the NRA,
they were wrong.

[gejohnston]

16. based on what I have read of his other writings,

he tends to think that some restrictions could possibly prevent some shootings, in general.

Not all restrictions/rollbacks are created equal. For example, in the US if you have a single shot rifle or shotgun with a 15 inch barrel (the legal lengths is 16" and 18" respectively) it is regulated the same as a machine gun. Changing that would be a sensible rollback. Repealing the National Firearms Act entirely may not be. Of course, that is a matter of what the definition of "sensible regulation" is. The one rollback I know the most aware of is one in Wyoming that allows the judge to carry in a courtroom. Allowing anyone else is up to him or her. I don't have a problem with that. Now if the rollback was something like allowing everyone to show up armed, that I would oppose.

In Canada, a pump shotgun with a 13 inch barrel is the same as a one with a 20 inch barrel that any 18 year old with an Unrestricted PAL can buy and any 12 year old (with minors permit) can possess and buy ammo for. That is not to say I support a roll back in min age requirements in the US.

Allowing one to drink alcohol while armed would not be a reasonable roll back. If someone is bent on mass murder, a gun free zone sign isn't going to stop them. Is the possibility that intended victims would be able to shoot back prevent him? I don't think so either. At best, some of the carnage could be mitigated. At wost, you would have the same result as before.

[Jefferson23]

17. You're concentrating on roll backs, in your mind, that would be sensible,

as demonstrated in your example...due to the length of some rifles b/c they are regulated the same
as machine guns...and this should be rolled back. Interesting.

But you have no opinion either way on those specific ones discussed in the OP...ok.

[gejohnston]

18. Because I don't know the details of those,

other than the one in Wyoming I mentioned in my edit. Everything is in the details. Most media sources says "allows carry in the court room". I looked up the actual statute, it says only the judge and anyone he or she allows. Even in Wyoming, I doubt that will mean anyone else besides the bailiff. I learned a long time ago that never to take the media, any media, at face value or expect them to report with accuracy. Without those details, I can't give an informed opinion.

[NYC_SKP]

11. You challenge the source, because you can't challenge the facts.

[Jefferson23]

13. Learn to read, that was not the OP I posted..he diverted from the Rollback OP.

MCardle is not a right leaning libertarian?? Wonder where her OP is about the roll backs.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Recommended.

For posting in the RKBA group.