Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Personally, I support mandatory registration and competency requirements before getting a concealed carry permit. It still boggles me that my state (WA) gives anyone a CPL without making them prove competency first, but they have a required firearms safety course for hunting licenses.
The rest of the stuff I'd implement is in other arenas, but I think they'd reduce violence.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianNo it wouldn't. Besides, it's been done, and there wasn't much of a blip because those weapons are unlikely to ever be used in a crime to begin with. It's like worrying about sharks at the beach even if you're more likely to die from drowning.
Fight smart, not fair.You mean aside from the list of things Obama has already stated he wants to put in place and is making moves to do so? Because it's a fairly good list that you seem unaware of.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/obama-executive-actions-gun-list/61075/
We need a comprehensive national database of gun owners and their current license status.
Probably. We're just going to have to wait and see. He also addressed the issue in his Inaugural Address, and given the ongoing debate in general I doubt the issue is going to be dropped. But that list still makes a damn sight more sense than your foolish suggestion. (Not to mention unjust since you seemed to be unaware that we can't just say someone retroactively committed a crime.)
All else about the gun-laws aside, is no one else worried about the proposals regarding documentation of people with mental illness?
As someone who stands a fair chance of ending up on such a list, I have to say much of what I've heard has me nervous about how such action could shift public perception of the mentally ill.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."So the mentally ill should just be ignored or go through their lives untreated? That's a horrible idea.
Logically you would only get arrested if you have a gun after being certified that you're not in the right state of mind to own one.
edited 22nd Jan '13 7:48:02 PM by Kostya
I'm not saying that there isn't room for change in the way we approach our dealings with the mentally ill, quite the opposite. There is a huge amount of room for compassionate and effective reform regarding the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.
But what I have heard on the radio every morning and on the TV each night are reports that constantly link the cataloging of the mentally ill to the gun issue, and that unsettles me. Too much of that can lead to a stigma of all mentally ill people as violent "psychos" that we have done a great deal to try and fight in the past, but very few seem to be fighting now.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."No idea. I'm bright enough to spot the trend, not so bright to have a good solution at nearly eleven on a work night.
I was bringing it here to see what ya'll may think for that reason.
edited 22nd Jan '13 7:54:40 PM by OhnoaBear
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."A screening to make sure a gun doesn't end up in the hands of someone likely to use the gun badly is sensible. Changing society's view of the mentally ill in general is an issue that healthcare legislation is better equipped to handle than gun legislation. Though Obama clearly stated in that plan ways to improve mental health care in order to ensure gun safety. It's like two birds with one stone right there.
I wouldn't mind if it was kept in a closed database that wasn't accessible, but then again, I support keeping a database for physical health stuff too. It just seems like a good idea.
As for how to relate from a closed database to barring them from owning guns, maybe we could flag certain sorts of illness, and they could search for whether or not the person in question has any flags.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianWell I do think keeping guns out of the hands of people that are paranoid or schizophrenic would be a good idea. We'd have to define specific disorders that could make people more prone to violence or not thinking clearly rather than just saying mental illness.
edited 22nd Jan '13 7:57:40 PM by Kostya
If you'll notice, none of Obamas suggestions include magazine limits (which were tried, and failed to effect crime) or bans on cosmetic additions of rifles (the assault weapons ban, which failed on several fronts) or declaring specific rifles illegal (which wouldn't do any thing else the assault weapons ban failed to do). Hence why I didn't specifically object to those things.
The only one I really object to is the terrorist watch list one, because the terrorist watch list is a bad thing to use for anything right now. If it were improved to the point of being a useful list, it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Fight smart, not fair.Had to back a few pages to find it (Page 1898), but http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/
The Clinton-era assault weapons bill had no real effect on crime or the economy. It was basically just a band-aid over the top of the rampant crime of the late 80s and early 90s (as the cold war ended, illegal drug and weapon trafficking was big business).
Feinstein's new AWB proposal really just the Clinton Era ban gone haywire, as it again will not do much to stop crime. Magazine size capacity, for instance, does little when you can just carry more magazines.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!

All right, what's your idea on how to improve gun regulations?
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.