Obama calls for improved gun background checks

[Hot Mega]

In an op-ed Sunday for the Arizona Daily Star, President Obama cited the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson, Ariz. to illustrate the need for improved background checks for those seeking to purchase guns.

Obama noted that Jared Lee Loughner, indicted on 49 charges related to the Tucson shooting spree that critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and left six others dead, was declared unfit for service by the Army and unstable by his community college, yet he was able to purchase a gun.

"He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others," Obama wrote of Loughner. "But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded."

The president also touted his support for gun rights in an attempt to pre-empt criticism he's pushing for comprehensive gun control. He also noted that the conflict between supporters of gun rights and gun control can create deep political divisions.

"However, I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few--dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example--from getting their hands on a gun in the first place," Obama wrote.

He then called for tougher enforcement of current background -check requirements, rewards for states that provide quality data and improvements to the technology used to run checks.

Continued at link...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110314/ts_yblog_theticket/obama-calls-for-improved-gun-background-checks

Sensible right?:dunno: (But watch the knee-jerkers.....)
:condom:

 

[PirateKing]

*doesn't read paragraph*

:cussing: Obamers tryin ta take away ur gerns!!!



In all seriousness though, I was expecting this. Although it does little to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

 

[Facetious]

CBS NEWS Reports....




Goody gumdrops, Mega

 

[Hot Mega]

CBS NEWS Reports....




Goody gumdrops, Mega

Agreed.

Now we just need to find out what was behind the thinking of V'O5 and Arbusto when they authorized 'Project Gunrunner' '05.

Got any facts to that Face? (Of course you don't).

 

[tiger1977]

Enforce the laws on the books now. Don't try & enact new ones to curb violence if you're not following the current ones.

 

[Hot Mega]

Enforce the laws on the books now. Don't try & enact new ones to curb violence if you're not following the current ones.

Point out the article, statute, code or law on AZ's books that would have kept a firearm out of the hands of Loughner. A man for which a reasonable case against his sanity could have been made.

 

[tiger1977]

Point out the article, statute, code or law on AZ's books that would have kept a firearm out of the hands of Loughner. A man for which a reasonable case against his sanity could have been made.

So are we going to start having people have psychological tests before purchasing a firearm? It gets too intrusive into personal lives if that's the case.

 

[Hot Mega]

So are we going to start having people have psychological tests before purchasing a firearm? It gets too intrusive into personal lives if that's the case.

Point out the article, statute, code or law on AZ's books that would have kept a firearm out of the hands of Loughner. A man for which a reasonable case against his sanity could have been made.

So in response to this^^, you can't point to any (or at least you're unaware of any)?

You don't have to psych eval everyone who wants to purchase a firearm. But we should be including documented instances where a person mental fitness is questionable in NICS. That's just common sense. Neither Loughner nor this guy, nor this guy should have been able to just walk in some place and legally buy a firearm with what was on the record concerning their mental backgrounds.

 

[Cheekychick]

It's way tooo late, BO.

 

[tiger1977]

So in response to this^^, you can't point to any (or at least you're unaware of any)?

You don't have to psych eval everyone who wants to purchase a firearm. But we should be including documented instances where a person mental fitness is questionable in NICS. That's just common sense. Neither Loughner nor this guy, nor this guy should have been able to just walk in some place and legally buy a firearm with what was on the record concerning their mental backgrounds.

I do not know anything about AZ gun laws.

As for mental instability being a restriction, there needs to be a documented history of it before denying a person a firearm. An eval form 1 or 2 doctors is not enough evidence to disallow the purchase. And the timing of the evals by doctors needs to be recent in order for them to be admitted into the laws of purchasing a firearm.

 

[D-rock]

So in response to this^^, you can't point to any (or at least you're unaware of any)?

You don't have to psych eval everyone who wants to purchase a firearm. But we should be including documented instances where a person mental fitness is questionable in NICS. That's just common sense. Neither Loughner nor this guy, nor this guy should have been able to just walk in some place and legally buy a firearm with what was on the record concerning their mental backgrounds.

So you're saying that somebody shouldn't even have to be considered and ruled officially mentally unstable in a court of law they would have to just have suspicious things reported about them? Isn't this in effect just making it so people are considered guilty until they somehow prove themselves innocent? That seems to go against every legal foundation pretty much all liberated and free Western nations operate under. Anything that doesn't rule somebody mentally unfit beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law shouldn't be allowed, not when we are talking about inherent rights. There is too much abuse that could happen against somebody's human and constitutional rights which should always take precedent in a situation like this. Nearly all of our rights have the chance of increasing the chance of guilty or evil people going free, hurting others in the future, or not being convicted, but we have because protection of the innocent is the greater concern and the greater good.

 

[CunningStunts]

The problem here, as I understand it, was the same with the Virginia Tech shooter: medical records are confidential. So if these guys are diagnosed as a possible danger, the law enforcement databases are precluded from having that info, therefore when these people go to buy a gun, they look "clean.":dunno:

 

[FrostyBoy]

I've been a rabid 2nd Amendment guy all my life but I'm really on the fence with background checks. I think this is where the pro-gun lobby needs to choke on a compromise. Not any compromise, mind you. But a compromise nonetheless.

 

[Hot Mega]

The problem here, as I understand it, was the same with the Virginia Tech shooter: medical records are confidential. So if these guys are diagnosed as a possible danger, the law enforcement databases are precluded from having that info, therefore when these people go to buy a gun, they look "clean.":dunno:

That's the point. How can it be in a society theoretically ran by people with a modicum of common sense that individuals with records of mental defect are able to simply walk in a local retailer and legally buy a firearm?

 

[CunningStunts]

That's the point. How can it be in a society theoretically ran by people with a modicum of common sense that individuals with records of mental defect are able to simply walk in a local retailer and legally buy a firearm?

I guess I was pointing out that in theory, mentally unstable people shouldn't be able to buy a gun legally. But medical records are confidential for a reason, and opening them up may make good sense in cases like this, but it certainly opens up the door for abuse of private information.

So I agree in theory, but the government could fuck up a wet dream, so I guess I would have to see exactly HOW they would accomplish this and under what circumstance. :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

I guess I was pointing out that in theory, mentally unstable people shouldn't be able to buy a gun legally. But medical records are confidential for a reason, and opening them up may make good sense in cases like this, but it certainly opens up the door for abuse of private information.

So I agree in theory, but the government could fuck up a wet dream, so I guess I would have to see exactly HOW they would accomplish this and under what circumstance. :2 cents:

The how aside. Suggesting it's something that shouldn't be on the table is nonsensical.

 

[CunningStunts]

The how aside. Suggesting it's something that shouldn't be on the table is nonsensical.

I agree.

But then again, felons aren't supposed to have guns either, and they seem to have no problem getting them on the black market... just another aspect of the problem that is tough to beat. :2 cents:

That's twice in a week we've agreed on a issue... why do I get the feeling something very bad is about to happen?

 

[Hot Mega]

I agree.

But then again, felons aren't supposed to have guns either, and they seem to have no problem getting them on the black market... just another aspect of the problem that is tough to beat. :2 cents:

The point is, you may not legally purchase a firearm with a record as a convicted felon. However, you may 'legally' purchase a firearm with a record of mental illness.

How upside-down is that??

If nothing else we ought to be at least making sure people with clear evidence they're mental threats aren't legally purchasing firearms. I don't care about the black market right now. Why should I when we haven't even closed the loopholes allowing insane or mentally unfit people from legal purchases??

 

[Ulysses31]

We shouldn't listen to anything this man says until he shows us his birth certificate

 

[HeartBroker]

That lunatic wouldn't have been deterred from obtaining a gun even if he couldn't purchase one legally.

Responsible gun ownership, enforce laws already in place and get psychopaths off the streets.

(A good start)