@ Tex Fischer, You are mistaken on so many levels. You incorrectly say that the Manchin-Toomey amendment "would have required states to send all criminal records of the violently mentally ill to NICS”. In fact there is no requirement to do so in the amendment. Furthermore, the amendment specifically excludes mental health records provided to NICS from the regulations under HIPAA. (see sec 117 of the amendment). I fail to see your objection “increased paperwork hassle” that you would have to suffer in exercising your second amendment rights.
Are you suggesting that “violently mentally ill” should be permitted to purchase and possess firearms?
In your next paragraph you ask “what good would it be to create another commission”. Please check out the amendment co-sponsored by Portman and supported by Paul. It creates several commissions, and task forces and paperwork.
Manchin did say that his legislation would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy, however he went on to say that ‘this is about trying to avert the next Newtown type tragedy’. That is the greater point. What can we do going forward to try to avert the next tragedy.
In your next paragraph, you say that something has to be done to stop senseless violence but you fail to make or back any proposals. You are factually incorrect about an assault weapons “ban” in Connecticut. But you are still missing the point. It’s not about Newtown CT, or Virginia Tech etc, it’s about the increasing tendency to solve problems with a firearm. Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Chadron and others only highlights this tendency.
People are going to be angry at their neighbors, spouses will cheat, road rage will continue, mentally unhinged people will continue to be a problem. The suggestion that we should add more guns to the mix, does that sound like a good prescription?
Lastly, Portman voted against even having a discussion (debate) on gun legislation, do you think he was right in doing so?
Portman’s vote on the Leahy amendment is a clear message. He voted against increasing the jail time for convicted gun traffickers. There is no excuse for that.
@Hman, I understand your frustration, if lawmakers were infallible they might be able to pass the perfect laws the first time.
Let's take the Brady Law and the provision that dangerously mentally ill persons should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Seems like a good idea...yes?
The 1994 federal law never anticipated that some states would comply with that concept, while others would reject it. Subsequently they find that Ohio accepts the concept and provides records for 27,000 Ohioans, but Indiana only reports 3,000 Indiana residents.
On a per capita basis, the obvious conclusion is that there are 4 times as many dangerously mentally ill in Ohio than Indiana. (on a similar basis there are 230 times as many Ohioians that are dangerously mentally ill as compared with Kentucky)
Common sense tells us that those comparisons aren't valid, however the data (based on records provided) is exactly true.
So the lawmakers propose to change the law so that the states will report these people.
Why should the federal government be involved at all? Because the dangerous person in Ohio can travel to Kentucky to use his gun.
It's not so much a matter of creating "one more law" as it is trying to improve the existing law to accomplish the original intention.
@Slicemaster: There are gaps, gaps that should be worked on, beside the obvious gun show and internet loophole.
for example: On January 8, 2011, Jared Loughner shot and killed six people and critically wounded 13 others in Tucson, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had a troubled past that included a drug-related arrest, an admission of drug use to the U.S. Army and suspension from community college for a pattern of disturbing behavior—these things that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. Because his records were submitted to NICS system by Arizona, he passed background checks and bought firearms on two separate occasions, including the Glock 19 he used in his attempt to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords.
@SLicemaster, Background checks make it more difficult for criminals and other dangerous individuals to acquire firearms. Not only do background checks prevent prohibited buyers from walking away from a licensed dealer with a gun, and discourage some from even attempting a purchase, they block them from buying at a preferred source – a licensed gun dealer – where the largest selection of new firearms that criminals desire is available. The Brady Law is an important obstacle that helps keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Approximately 1.9 million attempts to purchase have been rejected by NICS.
But there are gaps, gaps that should be worked on, beside the obvious gun show and internet loophole.
States have to submit records to the background system, The State of Virginia learned a tragic lesson in that regard.
Seung Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech marking the worst mass school shooting in US history. More than a year earlier, a judge had found Cho to be mentally ill—a determination that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. But the records documenting his profound mental illness were never submitted to NICS, and Cho was able to pass several background checks before buying the guns he used in the mass shooting.
Rea, The whole effort around universal firearm background checks is to keep the inanimate gun out of the hands of "messed up" people. That was the centerpiece of the legislation that was voted on last week.
If you agree with the goal of keeping guns out of the possession of "messed up" people, can you suggest an alternative method?
Reports: Gun deaths dropped steeply
@Bonezuk,
Did you look at the first page of the report (NCJ241730)?
The graphic on the first page shows dramatically that the firearm homicides rate dropped most rapidly between 1993 and 2000.
Better look at the report.
May 9, 2013 at 10:05 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Vote yes on charter amendment
@ Tex Fischer,
You are mistaken on so many levels. You incorrectly say that the Manchin-Toomey amendment "would have required states to send all criminal records of the violently mentally ill to NICS”. In fact there is no requirement to do so in the amendment. Furthermore, the amendment specifically excludes mental health records provided to NICS from the regulations under HIPAA. (see sec 117 of the amendment).
I fail to see your objection “increased paperwork hassle” that you would have to suffer in exercising your second amendment rights.
Are you suggesting that “violently mentally ill” should be permitted to purchase and possess firearms?
In your next paragraph you ask “what good would it be to create another commission”. Please check out the amendment co-sponsored by Portman and supported by Paul. It creates several commissions, and task forces and paperwork.
Manchin did say that his legislation would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy, however he went on to say that ‘this is about trying to avert the next Newtown type tragedy’. That is the greater point. What can we do going forward to try to avert the next tragedy.
In your next paragraph, you say that something has to be done to stop senseless violence but you fail to make or back any proposals. You are factually incorrect about an assault weapons “ban” in Connecticut. But you are still missing the point. It’s not about Newtown CT, or Virginia Tech etc, it’s about the increasing tendency to solve problems with a firearm. Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Chadron and others only highlights this tendency.
People are going to be angry at their neighbors, spouses will cheat, road rage will continue, mentally unhinged people will continue to be a problem. The suggestion that we should add more guns to the mix, does that sound like a good prescription?
Lastly, Portman voted against even having a discussion (debate) on gun legislation, do you think he was right in doing so?
Portman’s vote on the Leahy amendment is a clear message. He voted against increasing the jail time for convicted gun traffickers. There is no excuse for that.
May 5, 2013 at 11:31 a.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
@Hman,
I understand your frustration, if lawmakers were infallible they might be able to pass the perfect laws the first time.
Let's take the Brady Law and the provision that dangerously mentally ill persons should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Seems like a good idea...yes?
The 1994 federal law never anticipated that some states would comply with that concept, while others would reject it. Subsequently they find that Ohio accepts the concept and provides records for 27,000 Ohioans, but Indiana only reports 3,000 Indiana residents.
On a per capita basis, the obvious conclusion is that there are 4 times as many dangerously mentally ill in Ohio than Indiana. (on a similar basis there are 230 times as many Ohioians that are dangerously mentally ill as compared with Kentucky)
Common sense tells us that those comparisons aren't valid, however the data (based on records provided) is exactly true.
So the lawmakers propose to change the law so that the states will report these people.
Why should the federal government be involved at all? Because the dangerous person in Ohio can travel to Kentucky to use his gun.
It's not so much a matter of creating "one more law" as it is trying to improve the existing law to accomplish the original intention.
April 28, 2013 at 8:06 a.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
@Slicemaster:
There are gaps, gaps that should be worked on, beside the obvious gun show and internet loophole.
for example: On January 8, 2011, Jared Loughner shot and killed six people and critically wounded 13 others in Tucson, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had a troubled past that included a drug-related arrest, an admission of drug use to the U.S. Army and suspension from community college for a pattern of disturbing behavior—these things that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. Because his records were submitted to NICS system by Arizona, he passed background checks and bought firearms on two separate occasions, including the Glock 19 he used in his attempt to assassinate Congresswoman Giffords.
April 26, 2013 at 10:54 p.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
@SLicemaster,
Background checks make it more difficult for criminals and other dangerous individuals to acquire firearms. Not only do background checks prevent prohibited buyers from walking away from a licensed dealer with a gun, and discourage some from even attempting a purchase, they block them from buying at a preferred source – a licensed gun dealer – where the largest selection of new firearms that criminals desire is available. The Brady Law is an important obstacle that helps keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
Approximately 1.9 million attempts to purchase have been rejected by NICS.
But there are gaps, gaps that should be worked on, beside the obvious gun show and internet loophole.
States have to submit records to the background system, The State of Virginia learned a tragic lesson in that regard.
Seung Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech marking the worst mass school shooting in US history. More than a year earlier, a judge had found Cho to be mentally ill—a determination that should have barred him for life from possessing a firearm. But the records documenting his profound mental illness were never submitted to NICS, and Cho was able to pass several background checks before buying the guns he used in the mass shooting.
April 26, 2013 at 8:05 p.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
@Hman,
While you are working on isolation of messed up people, can the rest of us work on keeping guns out of their hands?
April 25, 2013 at 4:14 p.m. permalink suggest removal
An experiment in gun safety
Rea,
The whole effort around universal firearm background checks is to keep the inanimate gun out of the hands of "messed up" people.
That was the centerpiece of the legislation that was voted on last week.
If you agree with the goal of keeping guns out of the possession of "messed up" people, can you suggest an alternative method?
April 25, 2013 at 9:14 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Concealed-carry classes, permits on rise in Valley
Ytown
What are you talking about in your post #113?
Can you offer some specific examples of gun crimes that are not being prosecuted?
April 24, 2013 at 5:05 p.m. permalink suggest removal
UPDATED | Second bombing suspect in custody
@dmacker,
You said:" Statistics show that criminals usually steal their guns."
Actually that is another myth. Can you source that, or just make it up?
April 23, 2013 at 10:56 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Nation must respond to Boston attack with focus and resolve
Disgusting comment!
April 23, 2013 at 10:42 p.m. permalink suggest removal