US President calls for tighter gun law enforcement

Source: Stuff.co.nz

Two months after the shooting of a US congresswoman, President Barack Obama has called for more stringent enforcement of existing gun laws, citing the ''awful consequences'' of gun violence in American society.

In an op-ed essay in The Arizona Daily Star, Obama says legislation to bolster criminal background checks for gun buyers hasn't been properly implemented, with too many states providing ''incomplete and inadequate'' information.

He suggested rewarding states that provide the most comprehensive information to the criminal background database.

''We should make the system faster and nimbler,'' the president added. ''We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.''

Read more: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/4766787/US-President-calls-for-tighter-gun-law-enforcement

---

Nothing about this in the American media.

Anyway, here's the article itself, courtesy of Electric Monk in the comments:

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

and an earlier thread about it here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x628237

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the mentally unstable and politically dubious.

one can be pro-gun and not a gun nut

one of the above can be objectively determined and the other is purely subjective.

Rights should not be withheld based upon subjective measurements

that testing for such instability should be an ongoing practice.

Politically dubious. By that I do no mean Republican, but those whose political i.e. radical leanings (example threats and other forms of intimidation against the state or elected officials/citizenry) would make them a serious threat to themselves and others.

If you disagree then you go right ahead.

why just stop at firearms? how about doctors? lawyers? plumbers? cab drivers? anyone who has a license? many people who are licensed/certified have access to devices/machinery/skills that are capable of doing physical injury.



and whose lens do you use to view and define "radical". One man's "radical" is another man's mainstream. Plus "radical" doesn't mean violent.

There are some here (and at the other end of the political spectrum) who have some, frankly, radical and extreme views whose most violent thing that they do (or will ever do) is beat some eggs for and omelet yet your requirement could (and probably would) strip them of their 2nd amendment rights.

Do I favor background checks? yes
Do I favor waiting periods? not really but something "reasonable" could probably be worked out
Do I favor outright bans? no, they are ineffective, kind of like closing the barn door after the cows escape.
Do I favor new regulations? not until the current laws on the books are enforced AND they effectively target the criminal use of firearms. Throwing more regulations and requirements on law abiding citizens to punish them for a line that they will probably never cross seems to be a waste of time.

A federal firearm regulation I DO agree with is the NFA of 1934.

Among the highlights:

While someone *may* want to have an automatic weapon or a SBR, they really should have to jump through a lot of hoops (and they do) to obtain one. (pass the federal background checks AND get the local chief LEO to sign off)

Ditto for a suppressor (Although they are cool as hell to shoot and they aren't anything like the movies)

Things like hand grenades, explosive missiles, explosive artillery shells and other destructive devices have no place outside of a museum and thus are also heavily regulated

push back

yup

Obama talks a good talk, but what's he going to actually do about it? Issue an executive order?

He couldn't get gun control legislation passed when the Democrats were in control, he actually EXPANDED concealed carry in national parks thanks to pro-gun Democrats in the House and Senate.

You really think prospects for gun control are any better now?

One of them is trying to recover from a GSW to the head, another helped wrestle down the shooter, and a third said it was over before they could figure out where the shooting was coming from.

Just FYI.

The potential for a gun-orgy shoot off increases exponentially with these kinds of NRA friendly bills.

Merely that people are entitled to the right to defend themselves if they choose.

They probably realized on some level that adding more gunfire to a crowd situation would only make it worse: No clear shot without risking injury to others, or appearing to others as being a shooter.

It's a straw man often brought up by people who are anti-choice on guns.

Who said it?

Let's see some links.

(NoTimeToulouse will now either move the goalpost or simply not reply.)

:rofl:

Nice dodge BTW, but it's still a FAIL.

Again, nice try on our part.

..."the All safe if All armed crowd."

I see.

There was only one person on the scene armed, who came out of the supermarket after the gunman had already been tackled.

In any event, people carrying weapons for self-defense aren't supposed to be acting as deputized law enforcement. Trying to find a shot in that kind of situation, with a panicking crowd of people around you and potentially between you and the target, would be extremely difficult.

Gabby was armed, but was shot first.
Joe Zamudio (multiple spellings on his name) was armed, and got there during the tackle, after leaving a pharmacy.
I thought that judge Roll was armed as well, but I can't find anything to back that up.

You are correct about the difficulty of getting a clean shot in a chaotic environment, especially in a situation where
some shooters might be defensive, and some might be offensive.

First I've heard of that. However, a gun isn't a magic shield. You sort of have to see your attacker coming to be able to do anything about it, armed or not.

Yes, she was armed, but she was shot before the argument started... she was the first shot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they love to say we don't need more gun laws, just to enforce the ones we already have. Well that seem to be what the president is saying, but somehow, I doubt the NRA or the majority of the gun nuts will embrace it. (and by gun nuts, I don't mean all gun owners)

And frankly, I'm not sure anything could have been done about it. Yes, the shooter was behaving erratically. But his behavior didn't rise to the level of involuntary commitment under current laws--and that's a good thing, unless we want more just slightly unusual people being treated as insane by our legal system.

The best thing that can be done to prevent a repeat of Arizona is to counter the radical right wing's eliminationist rhetoric.

He was forbidden from going back to the local community college unless he passed a psych evaluation.

Got any idea how *hard* it is to get to that point... at a community college...?

That's not "slightly unusual", you pretty much have to be "batshit insane" (I'm not sure that diagnosis is in the DSM, though).

Oh, and under AZ laws, that *could* have led to involuntary commitment, had somebody stepped up (in AZ, a total stranger can basically say "uhm, he's crazy", and put those wheels in motion).

That kind of red flag (that is, the college flagging him) should have led to his guns being "grabbed". This is what the NRA fears, though, that their insane and unhinged members will be tagged... there's a reason the phrase is "gun nuts", not "gun archivists" or "gun historians".

Anyways, as Tom Tomorrow puts it:

Gun control IS a lost cause in this country now.

But we can do something about the massacres by improving our mental health system and catching those people in time.

I suspect that as the emotions subside and people realize they have never been safer from violent crime they will start expending their energy on more important things like health care and education.

So, as a pro-gun-rights progressive, I will now go get in the rhetorical trenches with the far right, and see if I can dispell some of their bullshit with facts and reason.

I consider this a call to arms, that I can truly get behind, for those of us law-abiding gun owners to 'do the right thing' so to speak. Stringent background checks and timely records replication between state and local criminal records databases and NICS, or state and local medical records that would preclude gun ownership are something we can all get behind.

The President needs our support on this. Let's do this thing.

For instance, "We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing". If this means making NICS checks available to private sellers, excellent. If it's required to be available for a relatively low cost (no more than $25) all the better. If we're talking about eliminating private sales without the NICS--the so-called "gun show loophole," which actually means all private sales, it just presents massive problems in terms of enforcement. Mostly because it CAN'T be enforced--there will always be person to person private transactions. But making the NICS available as an option to anyone who wants to use it would go a long way towards weeding out potentially shady sales.

That said, the Arizona shooter didn't get his weapon through a private sale, and neither did the Virginia Tech shooter. They were both cases where gun laws could do nothing, but better mental healthcare could and would have shown that they had problems in need of treatment.

Should is not "WILL".

With a gun acquired illegally, or a different weapon altogether.

I don't think a gun law or two would have stopped him.

Whatever was at the root of his motives.

In the US, we are required, by law, to let the insane run the streets, unless there is immanent danger.

We do, however, check their vision if they want to drive.

Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

I think we ought to err on the side of caution when it comes to locking up non-violent but seemingly crazy people who have committed no crimes.

shooting and others.

Mental health services and addiction treatment for anyone who requests it. Cost prohibitive help is likely what kept the AZ shooter's mother from seeking help for him years ago.

This is more bad ideas upon earlier bad ideas. The overwhelming portion of our gun crime is attributable to socioeconomics and occurs within only a few geographic areas. The remainder can't be prevented without turning America into a police state.

A country that is completely safe is a prison.

I think we need studies on why it is that a small but sizable minority are so afraid of everyone else that they think they need to carry lethal weapons with them at all times.

Most people aren't that afraid or paranoid, and if we could discover why some people are so gripped with fear, maybe we could help them live their lives like the majority of people: unarmed and unafraid.

We have guns only out of "fear?"

You need to rework that strawman.

So what fear compels you to think you need to carry a lethal weapon when most people live their lives unafraid and gun-free?

I look forward to your answer.

What was he waiting for, the results of some poll? Before you laugh, I suspect that is the case. The alternative theory that he was waiting to get his political team together for his re-elections can not support a delay of two months. Obama had to say something about that shooting at the time of the shooting NOT two months later when it is off everyone's front page. Obama should be talking about the situation in Japan, but I suspect he will not for he wants to see how the American voters view what is happening in Japan.

Part of the problem is Obama admires Reagan, and Reagan made sure he stayed on message i.e. he controlled the agenda, he did not react to events. Obama is following the same mode, he is trying to run an agenda to get re-elected and that means ignoring anything NOT related to that agenda. The shooting in Arizona was an event out side Obama's agenda, thus it took Obama two months on how to fit it into his agenda (Which included the results of polls, and I suspect the first set of polls done right after the shooting did not fit his planned agenda, thus the long delay is writing this article). Is suspect the same results in regards to what is happening in Japan, a long delay till Obama determines what the American Voter wants, and then Obama will do what his re-election team thinks will get him re-elected.

In a nut shell, that is the biggest problem with Obama, he does NOT lead, he does NOT take Chances, he present himself as the person who will get the American Voter want the American Voter wants. The problem is these two events, the Arizona Shooting and the Debacle in Japan demands leadership, good bad or indifferent. Do something TODAY, while the situation is hot, not two months from now when it is long forgotten.