Obama’s Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action
WASHINGTON — The centerpiece of a plan for stemming gun violence that President Obama announced last month largely amounts to this: an updated web page and 10,000 pamphlets that federal agents will give out at gun shows.
In a tearful display of anger and sadness in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama ordered steps intended to limit gun violence and vowed to clamp down on what he called widespread evasion of a federal law requiring gun dealers to obtain licenses.
But few concrete actions have been put in motion by law enforcement agencies to aggressively carry out the gun dealer initiative, despite the lofty expectations that Mr. Obama and top aides set.
Obama administration officials said they had no specific plans to increase investigations, arrests or prosecutions of gun sellers who do not comply with the law. No task forces have been assembled. No agents or prosecutors have been specifically reassigned to such cases. And no funding has been reallocated to accelerate gun sale investigations in Washington or at the offices of the 93 United States attorneys.
The absence of aggressive enforcement is a reminder of the limits of Mr. Obama’s executive authority, even as he repeatedly asserts the power of the Oval Office to get things done in the face of inaction by a Republican Congress.
Even the National Rifle Association, which fights anything it perceives as a threat to gun rights, has not sued to block Mr. Obama’s actions, and gun groups profess little reason for concern. “Nothing, from what we can see, has changed,” said Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group.
Administration officials say that with Congress unwilling to take any legislative action, the White House’s plan goes as far as Mr. Obama can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental illnesses.
“The actions the president announced last month represent the maximum the administration can do under the current law,” said Eric Schultz, the deputy White House press secretary, “namely increasing mental health treatment and reporting, improving public safety, managing the future of gun safety technology and, of course, enhancing the background check system.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/obamas-lofty-plans-on-gun-violence-amount-to-little-action.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 143. (Read 450471 times)
If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.
Right! Military and police are people. The only difference they have is, they have better training in using guns, and they have more guns.
If military and police who are people just like us have guns, why not the rest of us? Military and police kill more people than the rest of us could ever think of killing.
If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.
I gotta admit. Guard dogs can be very noisy, just before they die.
Being noisy at an appropriate time is all I would ask of a guard dog. After that 'I've got things covered' so to speak. In this modern age of technology there are substitutes for a guard dog which don't have some of the dis-advantages that dogs do. I consider my alert systems to be even more important than my guns in terms of an over-all protection system.
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
Who said you needed to poison them? Most "guard dogs" will be perfectly happy to ignore you for a few slices of bologna. Luckily you can't disable a firearm with bologna (unless you can get it inside the gun some how I would assume, I have never attempted to stop a firearm with lunch meat).
WTF? xD
Anyway, guard dogs are really good for sure! But it's up to personal choice, you can't take a guard dog just to replace your dog!
I mean, it's alive and got feelings and all. You're not going to just but it in your garden to protect you!
And yeah as you explained rather well, it's not as reliable as a gun xD
I gotta admit. Guard dogs can be very noisy, just before they die.
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
Who said you needed to poison them? Most "guard dogs" will be perfectly happy to ignore you for a few slices of bologna. Luckily you can't disable a firearm with bologna (unless you can get it inside the gun some how I would assume, I have never attempted to stop a firearm with lunch meat).
WTF? xD
Anyway, guard dogs are really good for sure! But it's up to personal choice, you can't take a guard dog just to replace your dog!
I mean, it's alive and got feelings and all. You're not going to just but it in your garden to protect you!
And yeah as you explained rather well, it's not as reliable as a gun xD
Did we seriously started to suggest to replace guns by dogs? xD
Well seems rather obvious why it's not a solution, and the first one being that your gun isn't going to shit on your sofa and won't cost you a fortune of vet and food!
Moreover, your gun doesn't need to sleep and can't get sick and doesn't take lots of place.
Not saying dogs are bad, but they have nothing to do with this debate I believe xD
Well seems rather obvious why it's not a solution, and the first one being that your gun isn't going to shit on your sofa and won't cost you a fortune of vet and food!
Moreover, your gun doesn't need to sleep and can't get sick and doesn't take lots of place.
Not saying dogs are bad, but they have nothing to do with this debate I believe xD
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
Who said you needed to poison them? Most "guard dogs" will be perfectly happy to ignore you for a few slices of bologna. Luckily you can't disable a firearm with bologna (unless you can get it inside the gun some how I would assume, I have never attempted to stop a firearm with lunch meat).
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
...
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
From seemingly valid research that I've read, in an area like mine (rural, and most people owning defensive firearms) criminals studiously avoid occupied homes. This matches my personal experience. When I lived in the Bay Area and my rural property was not obviously occupied there were a lot of problems. Now that I live here full time and the word is out, no problems at all. The problems I did have were in at least one case from professional criminals who knew what they were doing and had scouted ahead of time.
Anyway, the study says that dogs are a near perfect proxy for a human occupied home in terms of how likely criminals are to attempt an assault. I would suspect that to some extent a criminal would be worried that the presence of a dog would increase the likelihood of encountering a locked and loaded homeowner or a similarly configured neighbor. So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
Right. And contrary to the movies, criminals are not particularly bright. Otherwise they would shoot the dogs. After all, it doesn't take much to make a silencer.
The dangerous criminals are the ones in government, trying to make us think that gun control is the way to go. After all, they already steal our money in the form of taxes. Why not make us complete slaves so that they can live off more of our labor... maybe all of it.
These criminals should move to Northwestern Africa where it is easy to buy slaves who are already trained into complete submission.
...
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
From seemingly valid research that I've read, in an area like mine (rural, and most people owning defensive firearms) criminals studiously avoid occupied homes. This matches my personal experience. When I lived in the Bay Area and my rural property was not obviously occupied there were a lot of problems. Now that I live here full time and the word is out, no problems at all. The problems I did have were in at least one case from professional criminals who knew what they were doing and had scouted ahead of time.
Anyway, the study says that dogs are a near perfect proxy for a human occupied home in terms of how likely criminals are to attempt an assault. I would suspect that to some extent a criminal would be worried that the presence of a dog would increase the likelihood of encountering a locked and loaded homeowner or a similarly configured neighbor. So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
BTW, people who think their Glock or Mossberg will save them from violent home invasions have no imagination.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
"No imagination" LOL. You apparently won't even "imagine" admitting there are countless instances of barking dogs NOT being a deterrent, let alone "keeping intruders busy" for longer than the few seconds it takes to feed them meat and/or corral them off. Barking rarely correlates with escalation to defensive/territorial biting, and anybody who hasn't lived in a dog-free bubble knows that.
Hell, I would even say houses with barking dogs are the safest places to target, if known to be 24/7/365 barkers; nothing will seem out of the ordinary when they bark at actual invaders instead of, for example, just leaves falling off trees (yes, I've lived next to a dog like that).
For further reading, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf , or The Wolf Who Cried Boy
Get the right dog, train it. My dog detects strangers within 20-30 ft of my house. Only barks when there is danger (in his mind). You would not want to challenge him even if you were packing. He would finish any intruder in matter of seconds. Before you could squeeze that trigger he would be tearing your aorta apart. I've seen him in action once with porcupine, it was less than a second affair. I was standing 10-15 ft away looking at it, but could not understand what happened. Before I realized what happened, the porcupine was lying next to my leg dead. I remember a big jump, few moves left/right and boom, game over.
If your dog is as dangerous to apples as he is to oranges, I'm afraid your last post on this subject will be saying you're going to prison, after it killed an innocent, and your admission to training an autonomous lethal weapon was Exhibit A.
I hope we'll just be able to laugh at this someday, and not lament the loss of another bitcoiner because background checks were false positived, medical history was abused to disqualify for having sneezed or another irrelevant malady, and/or interviews with psychologists/psychiatrists were politically abused in a repeat of history.
My dog did not need training. He is a good watchdog and will attack anyone who attacks me.
Autonomous lethal weapon? What are you talking about? I guess you hate dogs.
A simple fact is that it is always better to go into a gun fight with a gun in your hand. So if you preach banning of guns you are preaching killing of innocent people who cannot defend themselves. Banning gun laws only apply to people who obey the laws. Criminals don't obey them.
You still should control who is allowed (by law) to own a gun but you cannot control who gets the gun illegally.
My advise was to get a good watchdog dog and a dog for personal protection (like German Shepherd). What is wrong with that?
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
BTW, people who think their Glock or Mossberg will save them from violent home invasions have no imagination.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
"No imagination" LOL. You apparently won't even "imagine" admitting there are countless instances of barking dogs NOT being a deterrent, let alone "keeping intruders busy" for longer than the few seconds it takes to feed them meat and/or corral them off. Barking rarely correlates with escalation to defensive/territorial biting, and anybody who hasn't lived in a dog-free bubble knows that.
Hell, I would even say houses with barking dogs are the safest places to target, if known to be 24/7/365 barkers; nothing will seem out of the ordinary when they bark at actual invaders instead of, for example, just leaves falling off trees (yes, I've lived next to a dog like that).
For further reading, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf , or The Wolf Who Cried Boy
Get the right dog, train it. My dog detects strangers within 20-30 ft of my house. Only barks when there is danger (in his mind). You would not want to challenge him even if you were packing. He would finish any intruder in matter of seconds. Before you could squeeze that trigger he would be tearing your aorta apart. I've seen him in action once with porcupine, it was less than a second affair. I was standing 10-15 ft away looking at it, but could not understand what happened. Before I realized what happened, the porcupine was lying next to my leg dead. I remember a big jump, few moves left/right and boom, game over.
If your dog is as dangerous to apples as he is to oranges, I'm afraid your last post on this subject will be saying you're going to prison, after it killed an innocent, and your admission to training an autonomous lethal weapon was Exhibit A.
I hope we'll just be able to laugh at this someday, and not lament the loss of another bitcoiner because background checks were false positived, medical history was abused to disqualify for having sneezed or another irrelevant malady, and/or interviews with psychologists/psychiatrists were politically abused in a repeat of history.
My dog did not need training. He is a good watchdog and will attack anyone who attacks me.
Autonomous lethal weapon? What are you talking about? I guess you hate dogs.
A simple fact is that it is always better to go into a gun fight with a gun in your hand. So if you preach banning of guns you are preaching killing of innocent people who cannot defend themselves. Banning gun laws only apply to people who obey the laws. Criminals don't obey them.
You still should control who is allowed (by law) to own a gun but you cannot control who gets the gun illegally.
My advise was to get a good watchdog dog and a dog for personal protection (like German Shepherd). What is wrong with that?
It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas.
no, it is not....It is. Roads are open, no control, no border. You get the same rights, the same possibilities. You can open a bank account, buy a house, work...
Just the civic duties and rights which are not the same. You wouldn't have the right to take an election for example, and some works are forbiden to stranger too, like being a judge or working at the government.
But it's more or less all the same.
Could it have a link with the problems Europe is facing concerning migrants that can't be controled?
You should enforce your national borders, then maybe think about giving lessons to the USA.
It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas.
no, it is not....It is. Roads are open, no control, no border. You get the same rights, the same possibilities. You can open a bank account, buy a house, work...
Just the civic duties and rights which are not the same. You wouldn't have the right to take an election for example, and some works are forbiden to stranger too, like being a judge or working at the government.
But it's more or less all the same.
BTW, people who think their Glock or Mossberg will save them from violent home invasions have no imagination.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
"No imagination" LOL. You apparently won't even "imagine" admitting there are countless instances of barking dogs NOT being a deterrent, let alone "keeping intruders busy" for longer than the few seconds it takes to feed them meat and/or corral them off. Barking rarely correlates with escalation to defensive/territorial biting, and anybody who hasn't lived in a dog-free bubble knows that.
Hell, I would even say houses with barking dogs are the safest places to target, if known to be 24/7/365 barkers; nothing will seem out of the ordinary when they bark at actual invaders instead of, for example, just leaves falling off trees (yes, I've lived next to a dog like that).
For further reading, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf , or The Wolf Who Cried Boy
Get the right dog, train it. My dog detects strangers within 20-30 ft of my house. Only barks when there is danger (in his mind). You would not want to challenge him even if you were packing. He would finish any intruder in matter of seconds. Before you could squeeze that trigger he would be tearing your aorta apart. I've seen him in action once with porcupine, it was less than a second affair. I was standing 10-15 ft away looking at it, but could not understand what happened. Before I realized what happened, the porcupine was lying next to my leg dead. I remember a big jump, few moves left/right and boom, game over.
If your dog is as dangerous to apples as he is to oranges, I'm afraid your last post on this subject will be saying you're going to prison, after it killed an innocent, and your admission to training an autonomous lethal weapon was Exhibit A.
I hope we'll just be able to laugh at this someday, and not lament the loss of another bitcoiner because background checks were false positived, medical history was abused to disqualify for having sneezed or another irrelevant malady, and/or interviews with psychologists/psychiatrists were politically abused in a repeat of history.
Quote
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
BTW, people who think their Glock or Mossberg will save them from violent home invasions have no imagination.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
"No imagination" LOL. You apparently won't even "imagine" admitting there are countless instances of barking dogs NOT being a deterrent, let alone "keeping intruders busy" for longer than the few seconds it takes to feed them meat and/or corral them off. Barking rarely correlates with escalation to defensive/territorial biting, and anybody who hasn't lived in a dog-free bubble knows that.
Hell, I would even say houses with barking dogs are the safest places to target, if known to be 24/7/365 barkers; nothing will seem out of the ordinary when they bark at actual invaders instead of, for example, just leaves falling off trees (yes, I've lived next to a dog like that).
For further reading, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf , or The Wolf Who Cried Boy
Get the right dog, train it. My dog detects strangers within 20-30 ft of my house. Only barks when there is danger (in his mind). You would not want to challenge him even if you were packing. He would finish any intruder in matter of seconds. Before you could squeeze that trigger he would be tearing your aorta apart. I've seen him in action once with porcupine, it was less than a second affair. I was standing 10-15 ft away looking at it, but could not understand what happened. Before I realized what happened, the porcupine was lying next to my leg dead. I remember a big jump, few moves left/right and boom, game over.
Of course there are dogs that bark for 'no reason'. They are not stupid dogs, their owners don't know how to read them, clueless how to interact with dogs, so that poor dog tries over and over to talk to their owners, but nobody is home :-).
Of course, having that Glock close by 'just in case' is a good idea.
BTW, people who think their Glock or Mossberg will save them from violent home invasions have no imagination.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
"No imagination" LOL. You apparently won't even "imagine" admitting there are countless instances of barking dogs NOT being a deterrent, let alone "keeping intruders busy" for longer than the few seconds it takes to feed them meat and/or corral them off. Barking rarely correlates with escalation to defensive/territorial biting, and anybody who hasn't lived in a dog-free bubble knows that.
Hell, I would even say houses with barking dogs are the safest places to target, if known to be 24/7/365 barkers; nothing will seem out of the ordinary when they bark at actual invaders instead of, for example, just leaves falling off trees (yes, I've lived next to a dog like that).
For further reading, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf , or The Wolf Who Cried Boy
Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.
Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?
Background checks, medical history, maybe interviews with psychologists/psychiatrists...
BTW, people who think their Glock or Mossberg will save them from violent home invasions have no imagination.
Get one small dog as a watchdog and a German Shepherd to keep intruders busy. B&E kids will not enter your house if they hear big dog barking, even if they are armed. They will go down the street to find an easier target.
Sure if you still want to buy a piece for "protection", np.
It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas.
no, it is not....Actually... It is. There is no border, no control, and a Spanish passport allows you to live and work in France/Germany/Italia and every other country in Shengen.
You wouldn't have the right to vote though. But that's the only main difference. You could just decide to go here and live there, your kids could got to French school and all...
You wouldn't have to ask permission to anyone. EU is really closed to Federal State country but without any government
But it doesn't mean it'll stay this way. When you see the result of the first waves of migrants, I got the idea the borders won't stay oppen for long!
A country gotta protect itself. Especially if the population isn't armed!
Jump to: