Obama's Executive Orders Against Guns

[54e]

How do we stop criminals from getting guns? How do other countries stop criminals from getting guns? Are we too far gone?

Criminals still get guns other places, and those places don't have 400 million guns in circulation. Yes, it far too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Since we cannot stop criminals from getting guns, then preventing the law-abiding from arming themselves is just stupid.

But the vast majority of those guns are in the possession of a relatively concentrated group of people (what one would likely call law-abiding, or "the good guys"). Surely they aren't the ones selling their arms to criminals?

[The Lone Alliance]

So a bunch of stupid "Feel good" things to make it look like he's doing something and something that won't magically fix anything.

Executive orders don't have the power to "magically fix" things. There is no magic fix.

That's the point. There is no magic fix. Even "Banning guns" won't fix things.

[insanity]No, because in America, freedom means more deaths since 2001 were caused by guns than by war![/insanity]

Many of them being criminals killing each other, people killing criminals trying to kill them, and people killing themselves.

And if gun deaths were done like a war style the first two on the above category would be listed on the enemy side.

[54e]

Executive orders don't have the power to "magically fix" things. There is no magic fix.

That's the point. There is no magic fix. Even "Banning guns" won't fix things.

Okay, so, political power plays aside, why take any action at all?

[Neu California]

That's the point. There is no magic fix. Even "Banning guns" won't fix things.

Okay, so, political power plays aside, why take any action at all?

To mitigate the problem? Even if it can't be fixed outright, like magic, the severity can at least be reduced

[54e]

Okay, so, political power plays aside, why take any action at all?

To mitigate the problem? Even if it can't be fixed outright, like magic, the severity can at least be reduced

That's my point, bucko

[Big Jim P]

Because it's obviously unsafe to let the mentally ill to get their hands on something that could very possibly injure or kill people, that's why.

No shit, but mental health has become a scapegoat for gun violence, which is ridiculous. Only 3-5% of violent acts are committed by people who are mentally ill. (source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20591996 )

Mentally ill people are wayyyy more likely to be victims of violence than vice versa. Stop fucking stigmatizing it.

Far less than 1% of gun owners are going to be involved in any form of gun violence, positive and negative combined. We need to stop stigmatizing them as well.

[Neu California]

To mitigate the problem? Even if it can't be fixed outright, like magic, the severity can at least be reduced

That's my point, bucko

Bucko? Really?

And, either way, it's a little hard to read inflection and the like on the 'net, so I had no real way of knowing that's what you meant.

[Geilinor]

No shit, but mental health has become a scapegoat for gun violence, which is ridiculous. Only 3-5% of violent acts are committed by people who are mentally ill. (source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20591996 )

Mentally ill people are wayyyy more likely to be victims of violence than vice versa. Stop fucking stigmatizing it.

Far less than 1% of gun owners are going to be involved in any form of gun violence, positive and negative combined. We need to stop stigmatizing them as well.

It's interesting how "moar guns" is accepted as the best solution to gun violence (I say gun violence because other violence rates in America are average for developed countries).

[54e]

No shit, but mental health has become a scapegoat for gun violence, which is ridiculous. Only 3-5% of violent acts are committed by people who are mentally ill. (source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20591996 )

Mentally ill people are wayyyy more likely to be victims of violence than vice versa. Stop fucking stigmatizing it.

Far less than 1% of gun owners are going to be involved in any form of gun violence, positive and negative combined. We need to stop stigmatizing them as well.

Sure, I actually briefly mentioned that in my first post. But I think you may have also misunderstood the statistic - I'm not saying 3-5% of mentally ill people commit violent crime. Just so we're clear.

[54e]

That's my point, bucko

Bucko? Really?

And, either way, it's a little hard to read inflection and the like on the 'net, so I had no real way of knowing that's what you meant.

Just a term of endearment. No big deal, no need to get offended

[Gun Manufacturers]

While I'm not a fan for the citizenry to have any weapons at all, I think we'd better leave alone the 'Muricans with their gunz n' shit. However, I do think there should be tighter laws around owning guns, not for the nationalists but for another possible muslim attack.

We in America thank 'Peuns like you for leaving us alone.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Well, I guess that makes sense, we do it to rape victims. Why not entire groups of people?

I'll fight for them without wielding a gun in the process.

I am not wielding a gun. We wield our vote, our wallets, and our computers to fight. Quite successfully I might add. We use our guns for defense.

Or punching paper, breaking clay pigeons, and ringing steel.

[Striton]

-

[Grinning Dragon]

Far less than 1% of gun owners are going to be involved in any form of gun violence, positive and negative combined. We need to stop stigmatizing them as well.

And the far less than 1% are the ones who kill mass loads of people. It's like if I said that far less than 1% of North Korea's weapons are nuclear (hypothetical). Would you be worried about ANY nuclear weapons being in Korea in the first place? I would. And same with guns. My hope is that the second amendment is finally repealed.

You do realize how extremely difficult it would be to repeal an Amendment such as the 2nd Amendment don't you?
And even, if it were remotely possible to achieve, there are 44 states that have their own version of a 2nd Amendment in their State Constitutions.

[Striton]

-

[Occupied Deutschland]

Far less than 1% of gun owners are going to be involved in any form of gun violence, positive and negative combined. We need to stop stigmatizing them as well.

And the far less than 1% are the ones who kill mass loads of people. It's like if I said that far less than 1% of North Korea's weapons are nuclear (hypothetical). Would you be worried about ANY nuclear weapons being in Korea in the first place? I would. And same with guns. My hope is that the second amendment is finally repealed.

Firearms, to state the astoundingly obvious for what seems the millionth time, are not nuclear weapons.
While your analogy itself is rather confusing, due to the DPRKs possession of nuclear weapons for pretty much a decade now and the rather astounding lack of any concern it brings (due to their not being capable of delivering them or, later, not having any reason to do so...Frankly it would be more worrying at this point if the Un dynasty fell in North Korea as it might release the nuclear arms they do possess into the hands of lesser known actors who don't have a vested interest in using them as a tool for domestic power-building).
A more appropriate analogy would occur at the level of individuals (as that is the level firearm violence takes place at). If you worry constantly about the people around you posessing a concealed handgun, you might wish to rethink your fear, as it is dramatically unreasonable absent other, much more concerning, risk-factors than other people's mere existence and theoretical capability to be carrying such a weapon at any time. At least, should you wish to not live in unreasonable fear. With the proliferation of unreasonable fears by daytime television, that is a goal many aspire to, so don't feel as if you're somehow special in that regard.

[Vallermoore]

Disarming people only disarms the good guys.

[Neu California]

Disarming people only disarms the good guys.

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Disarming people only disarms the good guys.

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

If you want a gun for illegal reasons you'll probably get it illegally.

[Neu California]

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

If you want a gun for illegal reasons you'll probably get it illegally.

If you want a gun for illegal reasons and it's easier to get it legally, then you'll probably get it legally. Path of least resistance, and all that

[Geilinor]

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

If you want a gun for illegal reasons you'll probably get it illegally.

"Probably" isn't the type of hard evidence people are looking for.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

If you want a gun for illegal reasons you'll probably get it illegally.

The guns used in San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Planned Parenthood and I believe the gun that shot Gabby Giffords were all bought legally.

EDIT: Also it's cheaper, easier, and not illegal to just exploit the many loopholes in our gun laws. I could get the gun from a gun show, I could buy it online from like craigslist, I could just buy certain parts and 3d print the rest, or I could simply just have a family member sell me their gun. Hell, it makes more sense to just get the gun legally, and that's why many do.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

If you want a gun for illegal reasons you'll probably get it illegally.

The guns used in San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Planned Parenthood and I believe the gun that shot Gabby Giffords were all bought legally.

EDIT: Also it's cheaper, easier, and not illegal to just exploit the many loopholes in our gun laws. I could get the gun from a gun show, I could buy it online from like craigslist, I could just buy certain parts and 3d print the rest, or I could simply just have a family member sell me their gun. Hell, it makes more sense to just get the gun legally, and that's why many do.

Hell, you don't even have to own the fucking things yourself, just have a close friend or family member who does and sneak one out the day you decide to start shooting people. Makes things even easier even if you yourself can't legally obtain any.

[North Calaveras]

Disarming people only disarms the good guys.

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

fucking silly, of course it disarms the good guys.

Laws are only FOLLOWED by law abiding citizens, so you have a shit ton of gun owners doing the right thing and because a few mad men kill people the entire gun community is thrown under the bus.

" Don't judge the majority for the acts of the minority" Guess that line is only used when it benefits certain people and not gun owners.

[Neu California]

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

fucking silly, of course it disarms the good guys.

Laws are only FOLLOWED by law abiding citizens, so you have a shit ton of gun owners doing the right thing and because a few mad men kill people the entire gun community is thrown under the bus.

" Don't judge the majority for the acts of the minority" Guess that line is only used when it benefits certain people and not gun owners.

Did you miss the word only? That's what I wanted the verifiable evidence for.

Also, most criminals will follow the law at least some of the time, so the statement that laws are only followed by law abiding citizens, as you said in your post, is utterly asinine.