View Full Version : Gun Control - 23 Executive Orders
Here are the 23 Executive Orders the President signed this morning.
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."
2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
gimmethesimplelife
1-16-13, 2:20pm
I'm a little confused by #16 - in what instances would a doctor be asking about the guns in a patient's home? Is this the doctors place? Maybe there is something obvious there that I am just not getting, but.....my instinct is I don't like it. Rob
Tussiemussies
1-16-13, 2:29pm
I'm a little confused by #16 - in what instances would a doctor be asking about the guns in a patient's home? Is this the doctors place? Maybe there is something obvious there that I am just not getting, but.....my instinct is I don't like it. Rob
Maybe they mean a psychiatrist?
I'm a little confused by #16 - in what instances would a doctor be asking about the guns in a patient's home? Is this the doctors place? Maybe there is something obvious there that I am just not getting, but.....my instinct is I don't like it. Rob
If my mine or my child's physician asks irrelevant questions about firearms, we will be looking for new physician.
#3 makes me laugh - and in not a funny way. Here in IL, you need a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card before you can even buy ammo or rent a gun at a range, let alone buy a gun. You have a background check run by the state police. The individual counties are supposed to share info (court orders for those found mentally incompetent or not guilty by reason of insanity) with the ISP for the FOID card program. Only 1-2 counties out of the state do this on a regular basis.
Compliance is going to be an issue.
Compliance is going to be an issue.
It already is. If current laws were enforced we probably wouldn't need any new ones.
If my mine or my child's physician asks irrelevant questions about firearms, we will be looking for new physician.
Last time I went to shoot sporting clays my Dr. was in the group ahead of me. Guess its a moot point in our house.
I would guess # 16 is trying to deal with psychiatric patients. Even the NRA should agree with this one as they say it is the problem not guns. I actually agree but it is a big one to enforce. There are civil rights involved and many people do not have the money to see a psychiatrist.
I agree with most of the proposals but as said above we don't even enforce current laws. We sure don't have the money or capability to enforce new laws. I feel we are past the point of no return in controlling gun violence. Even the assault weapons ban is a joke. It would only ban the sale of new assault weapons. There are already something like 18 million assault weapons on the streets of America.
So sad but I feel we are past the point of no return on controlling gun violence in America!
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 3:26pm
I'm a little confused by #16 - in what instances would a doctor be asking about the guns in a patient's home?
Most obviously: if they are suicidal. Depressed patient whom you suspect might make an attempt at off-ing themselves, hmm .... and no this doesn't make them a bad physician, just a concerned one. The government on the other hand may be an entirely other matter.
So sad but I feel we are past the point of no return on controlling gun violence in America!
I agree! But I feel that we could turn that around if we focused our efforts on controlling the violence rather than the gun.
For the most part, this list seems like an order from the President that various agencies that report to him simply do their job.
I wish they had also ordered that the NICS system be made available for access to private sellers, he could order that today I think. I'd even be happy to pay $10/call into it.
Most obviously: if they are suicidal. Depressed patient whom you suspect might make an attempt at off-ing themselves, hmm .... and no this doesn't make them a bad physician, just a concerned one. The government on the other hand may be an entirely other matter.
But with oh so many ways to kill yourself available, why ask that question in specific? Unless the person has been diagnosed with some form of mental illness (and not just the garden variety of low level of depression that many people go thru for various easons like divorce, death in the family, job lose, etc...) then I would consider such a question as extremely NOTB (none of their beeswax!) as it doesn't have anything to do with my treatment. When ever I go to the VA hospital I have to fill out a questionaire asking if I had thoughts of suicide, thoughts to harm myself or others, etc... I think that's an appropriate question from a medical professional, but not do I have any guns. Now if I exhibited very radical personality disorder, and the dr thought I had a mental illness, then maybe that's a more legit question. But what do you do with the answer? Does the dr call the police when the person hasn't done anything yet? Does he enter that data into some sort of DOJ national law enforcement bulletin? It's a useless question unless it can be directed somewhere to make an impact. And do you dis allow a person who presents with mild depression - maybe caused by something like a divorce or job lose - from the legal ability to buy a handgun? No sure I know the answer but would like to see a more well rounded explanation for ALL the 23 issues as some are too vague.
I agree! But I feel that we could turn that around if we focused our efforts on controlling the violence rather than the gun.I agree that we need to focus our attentions more on the causes of violence rather than on the tool used (guns) to commit the violence. But I don't think we are anywhere near the point of no return in terms of curbing gun violence. I have actually seen a large decrease over the last couple of decades - at least in terms of criminal activity - and think it can be reversed even further. How? As you say, by focusing more of our time, money and efforts on looking into, and doing something about, what causes violence in the first place.
Let's hope it stops here.
#3 makes me laugh - and in not a funny way. Here in IL, you need a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card before you can even buy ammo or rent a gun at a range, let alone buy a gun. You have a background check run by the state police. The individual counties are supposed to share info (court orders for those found mentally incompetent or not guilty by reason of insanity) with the ISP for the FOID card program. Only 1-2 counties out of the state do this on a regular basis.
Compliance is going to be an issue.I would imagine they would probably have some sort of data base available to all agencies that did background checks to buy a firearm.
But the issues I have with such a database is exactly WHAT will be on it? What will be considered mental illness? What other factors of a person's health will be in the database (age, sight, hearing, diseases, weight, disabilties?). Probably none of those but the mental health thing left so open ended does scare me a bit. Will that mean that any person who has ever gone to a Dr for depression or taken meds for it will be on that data base, or will that just be for people who have been committed to a mental health facility at some point in their lives? I'm very curious to see how that goes - as well as how much access to your private medical records these govmint agencies have when applying for a permit to buy a gun. Will any new mental health regulations require that a person who has suffered some minor mental health issue in the past, have any guns they already own be confiscated? I'm all for a mental health check being part of a larger criminal background check, but do feel there need to be reasonable limits as to what "mental health" means.
Yesterday, after NY Mayor Cuomo's speech, a talk show host brought up several points: one being that those who do have very minor depression may not seek treatment because of the possibility they will go on some gov database and/or not be able to purchase any guns, or may have their current ones confiscated. And that was especially true for returning military veterans who may have mild depression and want to talk to someone. Currently, if you visit a military mental health Dr., you have to sign a form that will allow them to release to a government agency any info you may disclose during treatment that they think may cause you to be harmful to yourself or others, or are a national security risk. So knowing that, I'm sure many active duty and vets won't seek help if they knew it could impact their right to own or buy firearms. There were tons of other points too but too many to talk about here.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 5:03pm
The devil if there is one (is an exorcism needed or not?) on these types of things is always in the details.
:devil::devil::devil:
The devil if there is one (is an exorcism needed or not?) on these types of things is always in the details.
But with oh so many ways to kill yourself available, why ask that question in specific?
I can actually see a little reasoning behind that. Most people who try to commit suicide with pills fail. Most people who try to commit suicide with guns succeed. Everybody these days has pills and a bed sheet or rope or whatever that they could hang themselves with so there isn't really anywhere to take the questioning. I don't necessarily approve of the questioning and I really wonder what might come from it, but it doesn't seem to be 100% nonsense if a patient is suicidal.
readaholic713
1-16-13, 7:18pm
Much of this seems like common sense and reinforcement of current laws, but it still upsets me how wrong the psychology is behind this kind of stuff. Guns are not the cause of these mass shootings. It's as simple as that.
Much of this seems like common sense and reinforcement of current laws, but it still upsets me how wrong the psychology is behind this kind of stuff. Guns are not the cause of these mass shootings. It's as simple as that.
They're not the cause, just tools used to carry it out. Explosives are not the cause of bombings, but explosives are very regulated. And not many complain about that.
For the most part, this list seems like an order from the President that various agencies that report to him simply do their job.
I wish they had also ordered that the NICS system be made available for access to private sellers, he could order that today I think. I'd even be happy to pay $10/call into it.
These seems to be only superficial and to start the ball going. There will be a lot of challenges, and most include actual acts by congress to regulate firearms.
I'm a little confused by #16 - in what instances would a doctor be asking about the guns in a patient's home? Is this the doctors place? Maybe there is something obvious there that I am just not getting, but.....my instinct is I don't like it. Rob
Guns in homes are a big public health issue; many accidental shootings are a result of not locking them up. It's appropriate for a physician to ask about this, and to follow up with safety info about keeping it locked, etc. IMHO, ditto for alcohol. When our kids wanted to go to the home of a new friend, we called the parents to get to know them a bit, met them in person ideally, and ALWAYS asked if they had guns in the home & alcohol in the home. If the answer was affirmative, we asked if they were secured and out of the reach of children. We did not let out kids go to homes that didn't have these secured, just like we didn't let them ride their bikes without a helmet.
I think as many people die from falls on stairs as from accidental shootings. What is your national health initiative to address this risk?
Guns in homes are a big public health issue; many accidental shootings are a result of not locking them up. It's appropriate for a physician to ask about this, and to follow up with safety info about keeping it locked, etc. IMHO, ditto for alcohol. When our kids wanted to go to the home of a new friend, we called the parents to get to know them a bit, met them in person ideally, and ALWAYS asked if they had guns in the home & alcohol in the home. If the answer was affirmative, we asked if they were secured and out of the reach of children. We did not let out kids go to homes that didn't have these secured, just like we didn't let them ride their bikes without a helmet.
Redfox - You asking those questions as a parent is perfectly legitimate.
A doctor acting as an agent of the government is a totally different thing in my opinion.
Redfox - You asking those questions as a parent is perfectly legitimate.
A doctor acting as an agent of the government is a totally different thing in my opinion.I completely agree. I don't think the dr's agenda for asking that very specific question is for general safety issues. If it were, then the Dr would ask a whole lot more questions that relate to many more things that cause accidents and deaths in the home - for children and adults. Do you have a pool? Is it gated? Do you lock cabinets where drugs and chemicals are stored? Etc... Dr don't generally ask those questions. And don't generally have a place to report those kinds of findings like they would for a person with a gun (some govmint database) which is used to collect data/info on those who already own firearms as part of a program for determining mental illness for future firearms purchases as well as ownership. And as for myself, I would consider such a question to be invasive UNLESS the Dr felt I had a mental illness severe enough to make me dangoerous to myself or others. Otherwise they need to stick to basic mental health questions. I had my annual physical today at the VA hospital and the questions they asked (and asked everyone) were along the lines of finding out my mental health state (am I depressed? Suicidal? homicidal? Do I use drugs or alcohol? Do suffer from PTSD symptoms? Have I been abused? Is someone violent in my household? Do I live in a stressful situation? Am I in stable housing or do I worry my house, job, financial situation will worsen and I become homeless? Etc... All appropriate questions to determine someones mental health.
Plus the executive order wasn't about Drs asking if your guns were locked up in a safe way, it was about asking a person if they had guns.
jennipurrr
1-18-13, 6:30pm
I can actually see a little reasoning behind that. Most people who try to commit suicide with pills fail. Most people who try to commit suicide with guns succeed. Everybody these days has pills and a bed sheet or rope or whatever that they could hang themselves with so there isn't really anywhere to take the questioning. I don't necessarily approve of the questioning and I really wonder what might come from it, but it doesn't seem to be 100% nonsense if a patient is suicidal.
I believe this is more of a Mars/Venus issue rather than accessibility issue. Rarely does a woman attempt suicide with a gun even when one is available.
In addition to suicide, there are other reasons a doctor may have a legitimate reason for asking about guns in the home. In mental health it is the practitioner's duty to determine if someone is an imminent danger to self/others, so if someone is making threats about shooting someone I could see guns being in the house a pertinent question (in a line of more detailed questioning about intent, etc) to make that determination. I am not sure if medical doctors outside of mental health also have this requirement.
The HIPPA thing (2) kind of bothers me. I wonder exactly what mental health restrictions preculde someone from buying a firearm. While I TOTALLY agree certain mentally ill people should not have access to weapons, how are we now defining that? Is this going to stigmatize mental health treatment even further? I have met many young men who would not seek mental health treatment who very much needed it, often for "mild" issues such as depression, sometimes for much more severe issues, because they feared it would disqualify them from the military should they ever choose to join. Is the same thing going to happen to mental health treatment and guns?
I would imagine they would probably have some sort of data base available to all agencies that did background checks to buy a firearm.
But the issues I have with such a database is exactly WHAT will be on it? What will be considered mental illness? What other factors of a person's health will be in the database (age, sight, hearing, diseases, weight, disabilties?). Probably none of those but the mental health thing left so open ended does scare me a bit. Will that mean that any person who has ever gone to a Dr for depression or taken meds for it will be on that data base, or will that just be for people who have been committed to a mental health facility at some point in their lives? I'm very curious to see how that goes - as well as how much access to your private medical records these govmint agencies have when applying for a permit to buy a gun. Will any new mental health regulations require that a person who has suffered some minor mental health issue in the past, have any guns they already own be confiscated? I'm all for a mental health check being part of a larger criminal background check, but do feel there need to be reasonable limits as to what "mental health" means.
Yesterday, after NY Mayor Cuomo's speech, a talk show host brought up several points: one being that those who do have very minor depression may not seek treatment because of the possibility they will go on some gov database and/or not be able to purchase any guns, or may have their current ones confiscated. And that was especially true for returning military veterans who may have mild depression and want to talk to someone. Currently, if you visit a military mental health Dr., you have to sign a form that will allow them to release to a government agency any info you may disclose during treatment that they think may cause you to be harmful to yourself or others, or are a national security risk. So knowing that, I'm sure many active duty and vets won't seek help if they knew it could impact their right to own or buy firearms. There were tons of other points too but too many to talk about here.
A bit confused here. You say the problem is the mental health and not the weapon. However, you don't want no stinking doctor/government official/ nobody asking about, or evaluating, or judging your mental health.
So, are you basically saying 'move along folks, nothing to see here'?
This is a reasonable list. If a doctor, a regular doctor becomes aware of a patients depression, if they know there is a gun in the house, perhaps he will speak with a family member, or become more actively involved with getting the patient outside help, where otherwise he might just prescribe some drugs and 'wait and see'.
Frankly i don't' think he went far enough, but I realize these aren't 'new laws' but more directives. Congress is the ones to make the new laws and I don't really seeing that happening. I would still love to see registrations of every sale, public, private, gun shows, etc...Every one. Something like 40% of gun sales are 'under the table' so to speak. Make every sale traceable, and every gun accounted for. That, I believe, will help stem a lot of the gang banger gun sales.
A bit confused here. You say the problem is the mental health and not the weapon. However, you don't want no stinking doctor/government official/ nobody asking about, or evaluating, or judging your mental health.
So, are you basically saying 'move along folks, nothing to see here'?
No, I didn't say that a Dr couldn't evaluate my mental health at all - I actually said the complete opposite - I said I thought the type of questions my Dr asked me were very relevant and acceptable to determining my mental health. What I said, is that unless I have signs of actually HAVING a mental illness (and no you can't determine that for me peggy :-)!) - one that would be severe enough to require treatment - I don't think asking if I had guns was an appropriate question at all. Asking if I was suicidal IS appropriate. Asking if I had thoughts of harming myself or others IS appropriate. Asking if I was under high stress IS appropriate. Asking if I was in a dangerous or abusive relationship IS appropriate. Asking if I have guns - with no reason to ask that - is not.
This is a reasonable list. If a doctor, a regular doctor becomes aware of a patients depression, if they know there is a gun in the house, perhaps he will speak with a family member, or become more actively involved with getting the patient outside help, where otherwise he might just prescribe some drugs and 'wait and see'.
With HIPPA, as it currently is, a Dr can not talk to family members or disclose any of your medical issues at all to anyone - unless they present an immediate danger to themselves or others. I think removing that stipulation via executive order (which I think was on the list of 23 Gregg posted) my mean that a person who has mild depression may not even go to a Dr if they believe that Dr can contact the family - or worse, the Govmint. I know your hubby works at the VA hospital and is a 30 year career military Vet. He probably knows how hard it is for vets to look into getting mental health treatment even now, but by removing the stipution that your Dr can't blab to everyone and anyone about your issues and treatment, even if of the mildest form, there will be many more vets (and civilians) that will forego mental health evaluation and treatment. There is a BIG difference between a person (many who are on these SL forums) who have taken a few anti-depressants to get thru a tough time in their life, and between someone with clinical depression, paranoia, delusions, etc... People who need in-patient hospitalization for treatment. The first group of people I don't see as a threat to anyone (and probably not themselves either) and therefore I see no reason for a Dr to know if they have guns or not. Those people - never committed for mental health issues and likely never will be - deserve the same level of privacy in their lives as the rest of us do.
But we do agree on one thing Peggy - I also feel that ALL gun sales should be required to be registered (at least those with multi-shot capacity - yes I know you can modify a single shot to a multi-shot firearm or even full auto). I would also like to see a licencing program with required safety and practical training for each and every fire arm a person owns. I have no problem with that (although I know that many other gun owners on this board have different opinions on that). Those kinds of regulations are sensible to me - just like requiring training, a licence, and vehicle registration to drive a car or do many other things. And just think of all the private jobs that can be created with licensing and training requirements. Can't outsource your local gun range for your all your training requirements!
I believe this is more of a Mars/Venus issue rather than accessibility issue. Rarely does a woman attempt suicide with a gun even when one is available.
Never thought of that. Don't want to mess up our pretty faces and make-up :-)? Well, as a female gun owner, I probably would choose to use a gun over other things (beauty and vanity be damned!!). And I do believe that the availability of having a gun at home would probably make suicide easier for many people. However, I believe that if a person is truelly suicidal, then they will find a way to kill themselves so I don't think preventing suicides is a legitimate argument for banning firearms - especially semi-auto rifles or high capacity magazines. I don't think anyone would ever commit suicide by those anyways. One single shot handgun, shotgun or rifle, and one round of ammo, is all that would be needed and I don't believe anyone plans to ban those. Totally agree with you about the HIPPA thing. It bothers me a lot that everyone may lose that dr-patient confidenciality for even the mildest depression or anxiety issues.
With HIPPA, as it currently is, a Dr can not talk to family members or disclose any of your medical issues at all to anyone - unless they present an immediate danger to themselves or others. I think removing that stipulation via executive order (which I think was on the list of 23 Gregg posted) my mean that a person who has mild depression may not even go to a Dr if they believe that Dr can contact the family - or worse, the Govmint. I know your hubby works at the VA hospital and is a 30 year career military Vet. He probably knows how hard it is for vets to look into getting mental health treatment even now, but by removing the stipution that your Dr can't blab to everyone and anyone about your issues and treatment, even if of the mildest form, there will be many more vets (and civilians) that will forego mental health evaluation and treatment. There is a BIG difference between a person (many who are on these SL forums) who have taken a few anti-depressants to get thru a tough time in their life, and between someone with clinical depression, paranoia, delusions, etc... People who need in-patient hospitalization for treatment. The first group of people I don't see as a threat to anyone (and probably not themselves either) and therefore I see no reason for a Dr to know if they have guns or not. Those people - never committed for mental health issues and likely never will be - deserve the same level of privacy in their lives as the rest of us do.
But we do agree on one thing Peggy - I also feel that ALL gun sales should be required to be registered (at least those with multi-shot capacity - yes I know you can modify a single shot to a multi-shot firearm or even full auto). I would also like to see a licencing program with required safety and practical training for each and every fire arm a person owns. I have no problem with that (although I know that many other gun owners on this board have different opinions on that). Those kinds of regulations are sensible to me - just like requiring training, a licence, and vehicle registration to drive a car or do many other things. And just think of all the private jobs that can be created with licensing and training requirements. Can't outsource your local gun range for your all your training requirements!
Yes, I agree that the occasional depression doesn't really pose a risk, generally. But Just because doctors can ask doesn't mean they WILL ask. This directive just gives them the right to ask if they are concerned, and report to the proper authorities if they become very concerned. Not really a slippery slope. You go to a doctor because they know you and your health. I think most of them can be relied on to know the difference between simple, temporary depression due to , whatever, and clinical chronic, dangerous depression. Just as they know the difference between a sprain and a broken bone. It is their job after all.
And if they do report concerns to someone what do you think would happen? I don't mean the NRA fear-mongered version of what would happen, but the real world consequence? Do you think they would 'confiscate' your guns? Have you ever heard of anyone who wasn't a criminal or actual danger having their guns confiscated by the government? Of course not, because that is really just a NRA scenario put forth to scare, and not a reality based scenario.
Do you think they would 'confiscate' your guns? Have you ever heard of anyone who wasn't a criminal or actual danger having their guns confiscated by the government? Of course not, because that is really just a NRA scenario put forth to scare, and not a reality based scenario.
I think the events at Ruby Ridge and Waco involved this very scenario. Attempts to confiscate weapons based upon the government's interpretation of their target's perceived danger.
Ruby Ridge particularly affected me--probably because they shot the dog and because as far as I could tell Randy Weaver was a threat to nobody. Ugly business.
Of course not, because that is really just a NRA scenario put forth to scare, and not a reality based scenario.
Andrew Cuomo would disagree with you.
According to Cuomo...
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said, echoing the sentiment of many other pro-gun control advocates before him, while noting: “I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”
The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-on-gun-control-confiscation-could-be-an-option/
And if they do report concerns to someone what do you think would happen? I don't mean the NRA fear-mongered version of what would happen, but the real world consequence? Do you think they would 'confiscate' your guns? Have you ever heard of anyone who wasn't a criminal or actual danger having their guns confiscated by the government? Of course not, because that is really just a NRA scenario put forth to scare, and not a reality based scenario.If their goal wasn't to 1) confiscate guns or 2) prohibit me from buying guns or 3) make a watch dog list of gun owners who went to a mental health Dr for any reason - then what would be the goal of even asking that very specific question (do I own guns?) in the first place? Especially if I did not have a severe mental illness and appeared to be a threat to myself or others? His job is to determine if I am mentally ill, and if so, if I am a threat to myself or others. If so, then he can confine me to a mental hospital for treatment - and thus I will automaticly be put on whatever government watch list to prohibit me from owning firearms there is or will be. Now if a DR felt I WAS mentally ill and a danger to myself or others, he can ask if I had ANY weapons or objects in the home that I was thinking of using to harm myself or others - including poisons, drugs, Lizzie Bordens ax - then that's OK. If I was thinking of harming others, then that is his prerorgative to find out and report to the authorities. It is then the authorities prerogitive to determine what, if any, kinds of weapons I had - be they guns or an ax - and deal with them. "Lizzie Borden had an ax..." Ah, such sweet children's nursery rhymes :-)!
Have you ever heard of anyone who wasn't a criminal or actual danger having their guns confiscated by the government?
Perhaps you are unaware of history.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/pic5.jpg
The NYC long gun registry led to confiscation, including knocks on doors by the police confiscation unit.
Illinois, with Chicago's quite famous CAGE firearms confiscation unit.
The Cleveland registry, while I was living there, led to confiscations.
More recently, Katrina.
Plenty of other examples, in the USA and elsewhere, if you look around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo
To me the logic is the same as the logic for registering cars.
--We don't say people can't drive a car/truck/motorcycle
--We say that the people who have been shown to be responsible drivers get to drive cars/trucks/motorcycles
--We say that we need to collect information on the cars/trucks/motorcycles that people are driving freely
--We say that people can drive cars/trucks/motorcycles but not tanks, unless they are in the military
I don't get it. Why can't the same logic apply to guns without a lot of uproar?
Registration schemes typically are expensive, and don't seem to solve many crimes. They don't appear to be cost effective - several civilized Western nations have phased out their registries after noting they were spending millions/billions of dollars on the programs, but not accomplishing anything. IMO, registration systems are feel-good programs that waste money, impose bother on lawful owners, and deter people from exercising their rights. They serve no useful purpose, and tend to lead to confiscation over time.
The car analogy is a bit off the mark - why do we register cars anyways? Typically, for tax revenue, not because we are *really* concerned about who owns cars... Oh, and on that tank thing, yes, you *can* own and drive a tank as a civilian, I have friends here with barns full of wonderful armored vehicles of all sorts. They own warplanes too...
Registration schemes typically are expensive, and don't seem to solve many crimes. They don't appear to be cost effective - several civilized Western nations have phased out their registries after noting they were spending millions/billions of dollars on the programs, but not accomplishing anything. IMO, registration systems are feel-good programs that waste money, impose bother on lawful owners, and deter people from exercising their rights. They serve no useful purpose, and tend to lead to confiscation over time.
The car analogy is a bit off the mark - why do we register cars anyways? Typically, for tax revenue, not because we are *really* concerned about who owns cars... Oh, and on that tank thing, yes, you *can* own and drive a tank as a civilian, I have friends here with barns full of wonderful armored vehicles of all sorts. They own warplanes too...
So make registries less expensive, OR abolish registries for guns AND vehicles. But there's clearly a big disconnect at play here. Personally, I vote for knowing that Adam Lanza's semi-automatic weapon can be traced directly to his mother, or that the vehicle that hits my kid and escapes has some tag with which to identify it.
They did trace his weapon, took almost no time at all.
They did trace his weapon, took almost no time at all.
Exactly. Because it was registered.
And that had what effect on solving the crime?
When it comes to threats to society, knowledge is power and even something as mundane as data is power:
The model here is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the precursor to which began collating information on road deaths in the mid-sixties. Before then, there were lots of road fatalities, and lots of theories about what caused them, but few hard facts. By collecting detailed information on every road death—such as the make, model, and year of the car; the speed at which it was travelling; and which seats the passengers were sitting in—the N.H.T.S.A. transformed policy making. “We know what works,” Hemenway explained in a 2004 interview. “We know that speed kills, so if you raise speed limits, expect to see more highway deaths. Motorcycle helmets work; seat belts work. Car inspections and driver education have no effect. Right-on-red laws mean more pedestrians hit by cars.”
Since the late nineteen-sixties, when policy makers started getting serious about preventing road deaths, the annual number of motor-vehicle fatalities relative to the total population has been cut in half. With better data and better policy, there is no reason why we shouldn’t see a similar reduction in gun fatalities, which are currently running at about thirty thousand a year. (About a third are homicides; most of the rest are suicides.)
--John Cassidy, The New Yorker
When it comes to threats to society, knowledge is power and even something as mundane as data is power:
I am no threat to society. So why do you need to know what firearms I own?
Whereas society, frankly, is a great threat to individuals. So why should indivuduals trust "society" with such information?
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
bae, I think you're awesome and I'm sure you are no threat to society. But you live on a little island, so maybe this is where state's rights come into play. For every one of you who live somewhere on an island off the West Coast, in NJ there are probably two who are capable of doing harm with a similar inventory of firearms.
I want to know, what is it taking away from you to simply provide the government with information about your firearms? I understand that you value your privacy and your liberty, but to that end, frankly, your posts on this forum make you just as vulnerable to some government interference, whether you like it or not.
It's like the day I was in ShopRite looking in the deli case and a well-intentioned gentleman told me that I was foolish to turn my attention away from my purse, which was sitting in my shopping cart away from my gaze. Whenever someone says that to me, I want to say, "why--are you going to steal it?"
If you have nothing to lose from sharing information with your fellow citizens, why does it bother you?
If you have nothing to lose from sharing information with your fellow citizens, why does it bother you?
Maybe you should start a thread advocating abolition of the 4th Amendment and see what the reaction is? If people have nothing to hide then why should we restrict the government from looking wherever and knowing whatever they want?
I do not advocate repealing the 4th amendment. I'm in favor of instituting reasonable measures to ensure the safety of our citizens, which, in my mind, includes registering firearms. If you take on the responsibility of owning a weapon, you should be wiling, in return, to simply provide the data necessary to allow the government to make prudent policy decisions and ensure justice.
ETA: Please tell me if I'm wrong, but most guns are secured to a) hunt b) protect homeland/family and c) kill people with malicious intent.
Perhaps you think that if you bought a gun to hunt or protect your family it's none of the government's business. But you have nothing to lose really (unless you convince me) by simply registering your gun as easily as you you register your car.
On the other hand, if those fall under category C have unregistered guns, they have everything to gain by concealing their ownership to the government.
So it comes down to whether or not your giving up a little information to the government is a bigger risk to your individual liberty than the reward to the society as a whole for being able to have that information available for the common good. As I said earlier, when it comes to things that kill like guns or cars, I vote for access to data.
So it comes down to whether or not your giving up a little information to the government is a bigger risk to your individual liberty than the reward to the society as a whole for being able to have that information available for the common good.
I don't disagree, and that was kind of my point really- there are two sides to weigh. Surely the police could stop more crime without the burdens of the 4th amendment, but we in effect choose more crime to protect our liberties. So far we know what the burdens are, but we haven't heard what the benefits of registration are. Could registration numbers be removed from a gun? How often do shooters leave behind the gun? How did this work in Canada? Are enough guns stolen that criminals get what they want without buying from people who would enforce a registration requirement on transfer?
This is the crux really- some ideas might sound good but when you drill down it ends up that there isn't much benefit, just burdens on law abiding people. If we can come up with ways to get a real benefit that doesn't infringe on fundamental rights and outweighs the burdens then I'm all for it. I haven't seen enough about registration to know how all this balances out.
Personally, I vote for knowing that Adam Lanza's semi-automatic weapon can be traced directly to his mother
They did trace his weapon, took almost no time at all.
Exactly. Because it was registered.
And that had what effect on solving the crime?
+1 because that's the really point. Like Yos said above, a huge investment is required for a minimal (if any) benefit. Adam Lanza is unfortunately a good example. His mother jumped through all the hoops of the very strict gun laws in CT prior to purchasing her guns. They were registered. Lanza then acquired the guns from her illegally. To some people the water is muddied since it was his mother and not the next door neighbor who owned them, but the guns were nonetheless stolen. The registration, the tough laws, all the hoops did nothing to prevent the Sandy Hook shootings. Placing ALL the burden on citizens who are already law abiding will simply never have a high level benefit because almost none of those people or their guns will ever be involved in a crime. The guns we need to go after are not registered now and will never be regardless of any new registration requirements because the owners don't care about laws.
I don't feel particularly threatened by registration. Most of the guns I own were purchased through licensed dealers (a couple were inherited) so records of my ownership already exist so further registration would change nothing. It is extremely likely that no crime would ever be solved from that registration because it is extremely likely that none of those guns will ever be used in a crime. Besides, unless the crook steals it from me and then drops it at the scene, how would anyone ever know? No, all that would do is produce the same result that came about in Canada. A huge expense and a failed experiment. We just can't afford to keep turning down dead end roads.
catherine
1-21-13, 11:34am
Then I suppose this comes down to whether or not you believe that collecting any kind of data is useful in making reasoned policy decisions. Maybe we should disband the CDC because who cares how many people are getting the flu, or how efficacious certain drugs are in treating cancer? Maybe we should take controls off of controlled substances, because people are just going to get drugs illegally anyway. If that's how you feel, I can't argue because we're in two different places philosophically.
I believe that if you get information, you can better assess social threats and how to remedy them.
I believe that if you get information, you can better assess social threats and how to remedy them.
As a general statement I agree with you catherine, but I also believe that not all information is created equal. If we were to amass a great deal of information about the guns and gun owners who were involved in crimes I think we would learn a lot and be able to address the problems through very specific legislation. In that quest I will back you all the way. The policy of throwing gigantic and expensive nets over everything and everyone with the hope of catching a very small percent who are the bad guys while at the same time catching ALL the good guys is what doesn't make sense.
Along the lines of the car example you posted above, we now know that seat belts and lower speed limits save lives and that inspections and driver's ed don't. We know that because the NHTSA did a detailed study of auto accidents. The NHTSA didn't go around to people's garages to see what kind of car was sitting there that was NOT involved in an accident because that information would have held no value just the same as tracking guns and gun owners who are not involved in crimes will tell us nothing. If we simply compile as much information as possible from the gun crimes that are committed I believe very clear trends will emerge rather quickly and we can then go after those problems. The key is to gather the information about what is actually causing the problems. We need to identify the bad guys and go after them. Unless, of course, you think all gun owners are bad guys, but I don't really think you do.
Then I suppose this comes down to whether or not you believe that collecting any kind of data is useful in making reasoned policy decisions.
No one is flatly opposing, only asking what the pros and cons are.
Could we cut down on underage drinking if we required serial numbers and registered sales on all alcohol containers? Maybe, but we don't.
A lot of people objected here when the govt started reviewing people's activities, like checking out library books, under the Patriot Act. Why, it's just information? Who could object to just collecting information? Well, a lot of us did.
Some people are concerned about confiscation. Registration is seen as an enabler to that.
I only buy and sell from retailers so this woudn't affect me at all, but that's not the test I apply, because once you drop your principles and start down the slope of ignoring harm to others, well, they get to you eventually.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.