Just recently, after the Orlando Shooting, the US Senate has thrown out four gun control bills, where 49 people were killed.

The Senate voted down legislation that would have closed a gun show loophole and expanded background checks.

Also rejected were

• A bill to ban suspects on terrorism watch lists from buying guns
• A bill that would allow the US Attorney General to delay a gun purchase by a known or suspected terrorist, but law enforcement would need to determine the charge within three days
• A bill that would alert the FBI to terrorism suspects who have purchased a gun, without blocking the purchase outright

Republicans are concerned that without enough "due process", law-abiding Americans wrongly named on watch lists would be prevented from buying weapons.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36563337

---

I can't even fathom their reasoning behind their decision. They disregarded a bill to STOP SUSPECTED TERRORISTS FROM BUYING GUNS! This is by far, the most dumbest thing I have ever encountered in my life.

How can you not pass that bill, after so many shootings at Schools and Clubs? Just sickening, these people need to get their head checked.

It seems to me that most americans who support guns genuinely think that owning a gun will protect them from incidents like these. It's hard to reason with that kind of fear. If I lived in a country where like every other person had a gun, I too would probably want to have one in my home if I lived in an area with lots of burglaries. But there's no way I would hold any delusions of being able to survive an attack in the public. Perhaps it doesn't take much to be on that watch list. Wasn't Maajid Nawaz on that list at some point for example?

But there's no way I would hold any delusions of being able to survive an attack in the public.

Plenty of crimes have been stopped due to civilians having access to guns. Most people would second guess robbing a store if they knew they'd be confronted by people with guns. Same goes for armored cars. You rarely hear about those being attacked because they have guns in them. In cities with strict gun laws like Chicago, you actually have more crime involving guns than you do in cities where gun laws are minimal.

As for terrorists, you're looking for soft targets, people who are vulnerable. If you eliminate soft targets or increase security around them, the likelihood of a successful attack will decrease.

I'm not saying guns aren't an issue, but the way most people view guns is shaped by what they see on mass media. I strongly think most people see something on Facebook or the likes and automatically view it as truth.

This is the thing, as Red mentioned, being in such a heavily armed country makes individuals feel extremely susceptible if they do not own a firearm. Imagine you were an innocent and law-abiding citizen raising a young family who was wrongfully prevented from owning a handgun. Knowing that gun-wielding individuals are all around you and shootings are commonplace, would you not fear for the lives of your young children and feel unable to protect them?

Acute attempts to restrict firearm purchases are going to affect these innocents more than anything and that is why these proposed laws are met with resistance. It is easy for someone who has not grown up around this mentality to criticize, but imagine lobbyists trying to ban you from using the internet. It would be a big deal, would it not? But to someone who has never touched a computer, it wouldn't matter much at all. These are masses who practically wear the second amendment like their DNA; it is just as much of a right to a vast majority of them as free speech is. Successful infringements on rights will always set a precedence and is often the beginning of much larger issues such as civil unrest. Problems like these are never simple.   

Aren't you more at risk of a gun-related death/injury by owning a gun rather than not owning one? There has been multiple cases of people killed or injured by freak accidents, such as toddler reaching into a mother's handbag and shooting her, or on that sort of level. Here's one case of when this happened

Moving on to the ban of suspects on terrorism watch lists from buying guns, I don't really see the big deal. If you're wrongly accused I guess that's somewhat of a bummer, but wouldn't you be able to purchase a gun once proved you aren't any threat? So what if it takes a few weeks, months or a few years? I'd much rather see this bill go through, knowing that an actual terrorist, who's on the list, can't purchase a gun.

In cities with strict gun laws like Chicago, you actually have more crime involving guns than you do in cities where gun laws are minimal.

IIRC, I heard somewhere that people are able to cross states, where there's less gun control laws, purchase guns there, and bring them back to Chicago, rendering the strict gun control utterly useless.

Regardless of the dismissal of the bills mentioned in the first post. I do strongly believe that Assault Rifles need to be banned in America, or at least limit it, such as having to store at a 'gun warehouse' or Police Station, or something along the lines of that. I really, really can't see a need for any citizen to own an Assault Rifle.

I think the ban of assault rifles, will perhaps, be more beneficial, as opposed to introducing those gun control laws mentioned in the first post. In my opinion/view, you'll have a higher chance of surviving/reacting against a terrorist/mad gun man with a handgun compared to an Assault Rifle.

Aren't you more at risk of a gun-related death/injury by owning a gun rather than not owning one? There has been multiple cases of people killed or injured by freak accidents, such as toddler reaching into a mother's handbag and shooting her, or on that sort of level. Here's one case of when this happened

This is the problem with incidents that hit the level of national or international news, it causes people to cherry-pick individual instances and issues while remaining ignorant to a much larger whole. For example, in 2013 there were 505 firearm deaths deemed "accidental" in the United States (only 30 of these were at the hands of someone under the age of 15). Let's contrast that with the fact it is estimated 100,000 Americans die every year due to doctors and nurses not properly washing their hands. A select group of people not taking proper precautions with their firearms pales in comparison to hundreds of other issues that do not see the "light of day". Remember that you can't measure the number of incidents that don't happen because of weapons, you can only measure the ones that do. In fact, a 2007 Harvard study concluded that more guns actually translate into less criminal activity. Are you more likely to rob a house that you know is waiting for you with firearms or one that isn't? Just as mass shootings are less likely to happen in a place like a police station and more likely in a school where firearms are banned.

Assault rifles are again another issue zoned in on while ignoring the bigger issue. I've already gone over assault rifle vs. handgun statistics in another post, but further on that people seem to fail to take into account the drawbacks of using a weapon such as an AR-15 for a killing spree:

-Rifle rounds travel at a high velocity and are more likely to travel cleanly through a body, doing less damage than other rounds which will tumble/fragment inside flesh
-The rounds are lighter and more likely to be stopped by objects (eg. doors/wallboard)
-It is far easier to grab the barrel of a rifle and redirect it than a pistol
-Assault rifles are harder to conceal
-These are semi-automatic weapons, not fully - you still fire one shot at a time

Laws banning or making it harder for certain groups or everyone in general to obtain a weapon will not slow down these murders (in fact, as more guns enter the United States market, homicide rates are actually going down). As is, it is easier to obtain a firearm illegally than going through the proper process. Let's not forget that these are criminals, by their very nature they are going the break the law. How will more laws stop them?

I just got a couple thoughts.

- It seems like some laws should be easy to pass but things are rarely that simple. Someone adds an addendum and someone changes some language and then one bill ends up doing ten things. Any simple news story of 'Lawmakers can't even pass X' should be taken with a grain of salt. It's easy for both sides to be at fault. I dunno what it's like for this particular case though.

- I'm cool with the desire to own guns for hunting or protection or recreation. Some expanded gun control laws like allowing concealed carry inside of bars make me reaaaally nervous and I'm against the NRA's seemingly absolutist stance of fighting every gun control law, but I'm fine with fighting some of the knee-jerk reactions.

- I'd like something to be done but I don't know what. Thankfully after the Sandy Hook shooting there was an executive order to allow the CDC to once again devote funding to study firearm violence after doing so was made illegal in 1996. A lot of gun safety advocates have their hearts in the right place but if their proposed gun safety measures won't work whats the point? Laws that don't work just waste buckets of money. I hope more systematic studying of gun violence is a step towards effective use of resources not hit-or-miss fixes.

- And lastly I don't own a gun and there's a good chance I never will(going to a firing range would be cool though). I know my uncle lives in a rough part of his city and he says he hears gunshots at night sometimes. If I were in his situation I dunno if I'd end up buying a firearm or not but I can understand the desire to own.

Anyway I guess I haven't said much of anything. I tend to empathize with both sides which makes it a pain to see these issues discussed in an 'us versus them' way.

Tbh, it's hard to get anyone to work together to make the laws. Most of the time neither party votes for the people, they vote for their lobbyist friends.

this is our fucked up government and world for u

Tbh, it's hard to get anyone to work together to make the laws. Most of the time neither party votes for the people, they vote for their lobbyist friends.

This is far too true and is possibly even a bigger issue than gun control itself.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=d000000082&year=2015

I was infuriated to learn about the lack of progress in this area of politics in my country. You have the democrats who refuse to accept the republicans proposals that they say are not even close to the fixes needed and they don't want the republicans to be able to say that they "did something" to halt further progress and you have the republicans blocking the democrats proposals because they're so deep into the NRA's pockets.

1) The legislation that closes gun show loopholes and expanded background checks is by far the most obvious peace of legislation that should have passed. I don't see a single thing wrong with it. If you need a background check to buy guns at a regular gun store, you should need background checks for buying guns at a gun show and online. Period.

2) The bill to ban suspects on a terrorist watch list from buying guns sounds good at first glance, but does have some merit behind the debate with it. Not only can it be easy to get on the list for little reasons here and there, but because you'd be just under investigation, stripping the right to buy guns could be seen as a violation of due process. I still think that the benefits outweigh the faults and either way, if a bill like this were to pass, revamping the system of the terrorist watch list could be the next step to get those concerns out.

3) The 3 day probable cause bill, while I do give credit for the GOP for offering a different idea than number 2 on here, I think is ridiculous. To think that the FBI would be able to find probably cause in 3 days, especially if the person in question wasn't a priority in the first place, is absurd. Much more time is needed and I think that 2 is a much better solution.

4) Alerting the FBI of a terror suspect buying guns, again, sounds like a great idea. I see no problem with it other than it doesn't solve the obvious issue that this terrorist in question now has weapons.

The problem is simply the republicans bowing down to the NRA's demands due to risk of losing their seat in the next election if the NRA were to back a different candidate. It's all about the money and gun sales. That, along with the misinformation about what exactly "gun control" means to the gun rights advocates. People hear "gun control" and instantly assume government control of firearms, which isn't the case. Again, this is the fault of the republicans. They constantly spread misinformation about the government going door to door and taking your guns or whipping out the Second Amendment to scare the public, all of which are completely false. Hell, the republican frontrunner has come out saying that the democratic frontrunner is out to abolish the Second Amendment just this year. It's petty, ignorant, partisan, NRA-bowing rhetoric.

And also to address Chicago... while it has some of the strictest gun laws in the country does have some of the highest gun related crime, most of those guns come from outside of the state in the first place. Secondly, I recommend turning to Australia. After their 1996 legislation reducing the amount of guns allowed to be sold by about half, they have no had a single mass shooting since. Not one mass shooting in 20 years now.

...Again, this is the fault of the republicans. They constantly spread misinformation about the government going door to door and taking your guns or whipping out the Second Amendment to scare the public, all of which are completely false. Hell, the republican frontrunner has come out saying that the democratic frontrunner is out to abolish the Second Amendment just this year. It's petty, ignorant, partisan, NRA-bowing rhetoric.

I've seen rhetoric about democrats 'taking our guns' that has been filled with what's basically delusional paranoia. When Obama was up for reelection there was a conference where the NRA Executive Vice President said some things.

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," ... "We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."

That is a high-quality brand of crazy talk and it makes it hard to even discuss the issue when one of the most powerful lobbies talks like that and gets people to believe in that.

In cities with strict gun laws like Chicago, you actually have more crime involving guns than you do in cities where gun laws are minimal.

Of course there is going to be an outlier ther always is but if you look at gun violence across all the states generally more guns results in more gun related crimes.

Im in no way saying that guns are bad, im a gun owner here in Australia and think our gun laws in some aspects are way too tight however a lot of things are done right like safety awareness tests, proper storage, police clearance and legitimate reason for ownership are all things which need to be fulfilled in most of the developed countries except in America. However in saying this is think some states are more stricter but it just blows my mind.

Quote from: Supercell900 on June 23, 2016, 02:15:50

...Again, this is the fault of the republicans. They constantly spread misinformation about the government going door to door and taking your guns or whipping out the Second Amendment to scare the public, all of which are completely false. Hell, the republican frontrunner has come out saying that the democratic frontrunner is out to abolish the Second Amendment just this year. It's petty, ignorant, partisan, NRA-bowing rhetoric.

I've seen rhetoric about democrats 'taking our guns' that has been filled with what's basically delusional paranoia. When Obama was up for reelection there was a conference where the NRA Executive Vice President said some things.

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," ... "We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."

That is a high-quality brand of crazy talk and it makes it hard to even discuss the issue when one of the most powerful lobbies talks like that and gets people to believe in that.

I couldn't agree more. It's all about scare tactics with complete disregard of facts and logic. It's all about driving sales up. Gun sales skyrocket after mass shootings in the U.S. and why? Because of the surge of wanting protection? No. Studies have shown that it's because of the rhetoric that gun control is coming up and "the government is out to get your guns." So, people go and buy firearms ASAP since they've been told all guns will be taken away and made illegal.