New forms of gun control

[GeneCC]

Sorry if this was posted previously....

While the answer is multifaceted, one thing is clear, according to Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.

"We've got to do better."

Horwitz and other national experts, in town for a previously scheduled symposium on preventing gun violence, have some concrete ideas on where to start.

Universal background checks for gun purchases are a fundamental first step, they said. But background checks as they currently exist often target the wrong people. Violent misdemeanor convictions, for example, are a good predictor of future gun violence but don't stand in the way of legal gun purchases in Wisconsin.

Lautenberg did this with his "domestic violence misdemeanor" nonsense.... life time disability for being accused of shaking your fist during an argument.

People who lawfully bought guns after being convicted of two violent misdemeanors were 10 to 15 times more likely to later be arrested for murder, rape or aggravated assault than gun buyers without that kind of criminal record, according to a study conducted by Garen J. Wintemute, a physician and the Baker-Teret chair in violence prevention at the University of California-Davis School of Medicine.

"There are guns, and there are dangerous people, and when you put them together, you increase the risk," said Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine.

The experts would like to see people convicted of a single violent misdemeanor barred from buying a gun for 10 years.

People with two or more drunken driving convictions or misdemeanor drug convictions within five years should be barred from purchasing or possessing guns for five years, since alcohol and drug abuse are known risk factors for violence, according to the experts, all part of a coalition known as the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy.

People in crisis — mental health or otherwise — also need to be temporarily denied access to guns they already own, the researchers said.

To that end, the consortium recommends legislation to establish gun violence restraining orders. This would allow family members who believe their loved ones are at risk of harming themselves or others to petition a court and ask that their guns be seized until the crisis passes.

"We need to fire on all of these cylinders — and hope there is a piece of it that does prevent the 5-year-old from getting killed — instead of the default of doing nothing," he said.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/e...281933581.html

[GeneCC]

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (Ed Fund) was founded in 1978 as a 501(c)(3) affiliate organization of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The Ed Fund has engaged in a number of successful public education campaigns over the years aimed at reducing gun death and injury.

http://www.efsgv.org/

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is a 501(c)(4) organization that was founded in 1974. We seek to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.

Our organizational structure is unique among national gun violence prevention organizations. CSGV is composed of 47 national organizations working to reduce gun violence. Our coalition members include religious organizations, child welfare advocates, public health professionals, and social justice organizations. This diversity of member organizations allows us to reach a wide variety of grassroots constituencies who share our vision of non-violence.

For too long, progress on life-saving gun reforms has been stalemated by legislative gridlock. Our politicians, intimidated by the political power of the National Rifle Association, have refused to act in the wake of tragedy after tragedy. CSGV has a three-part strategy to break this gridlock:

1) We are taking an aggressive approach with political advocacy. Our message to elected officials is simple: “The era of no accountability is over. If you do the NRA’s bidding and put our loved ones in the line of fire, we will educate your constituents about your record.” This strategy involves the use of social media campaigns and hard-hitting TV, radio and print ads.

2) We are building personal relationships with legislators and challenging them to become dedicated, long-term advocates for sensible gun laws. The victims and survivors of gun violence on our staff are the leaders in this lobbying effort. We are also looking to facilitate the advocacy of state/local activists whenever and wherever we can.

3) We are the first gun violence prevention group to talk about the issue in terms of democratic values, and to use the term “insurrectionism” to describe the NRA’s treasonous interpretation of the Second Amendment. By exposing the hypocrisy of the NRA’s “freedom” message, we have reframed the debate and put them on the defensive.

http://csgv.org/about-us/

[GeneCC]

We are the first gun violence prevention group to talk about the issue in terms of democratic values, and to use the term “insurrectionism” to describe the NRA’s treasonous interpretation of the Second Amendment. By exposing the hypocrisy of the NRA’s “freedom” message, we have reframed the debate and put them on the defensive.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Yeah, right, "Treasonous"......


Gun control has fascist origins and fascist aims.

[GeneCC]

Expect Wolf and his buddies to try this crap here.....

Counters....


1. We don't abridge people's rights too often for misdemeanors. This campaign seeks to trivialize the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

2. The "Insurrectionist" argument is interesting - In the 20th century dictatorships that performed genocides ALWAYS disarmed their citizens first. The Nazis and Soviets were good examples.

Hitler's Nuremberg laws focused on Jews, disarming them of guns, knives and even clubs, before beginning genocide.

In contrast dictators like Saddam Hussein did not disarm his people. Iraqis owned automatic firearms. Saddam Hussein's mass killings were short and sharp.



3. The gun control lobby offers no guarantees of physical security once people are disarmed. Think about it - what do people who don't have access to firearms do when they are attacked or threatened? Dial 911 and die?

[c45man]

If I was an anti-gun zealot, I would be very angry with the establishment and leadership of the anti second amendment movement for doing nothing during the time period of the many states that adopted shall issue carry laws. That trend, more than any other, was the catalyst that lifted the firearm industry sales and development of new products through the roof. While firearm ownership became more mainstream than ever before, the antis were totally snowed under not able to do anything during the rise of over 40 states with shall issue carry policy now on the books.

The antis are just starting to react, but are faltering on a national level. Sure, they were able to get even more anti-gun legislation in the armpit states, but breaking the trend in firearm sales through legislation has been their failure, despite the vast amount of money being donated to the antis by the usual list of perverts. Such an agenda, would of been easier to accomplish with a lot less money if the sleeping dopes were able to stop the tidal wave of shall issue permit laws

[pennlineman]

They've already shifted their attention from the national level focusing their attention on states that would make easier individual targets.

[Bang]

"We need to fire on all of these cylinders — and hope there is a piece of it that does prevent the 5-year-old from getting killed — instead of the default of doing nothing," he said.

There you go, folks. The sum total of a "solution" arrived at by a group of "national experts", at the expense of the law-abiding as usual. Any expert not embarrassed by that lame "hope" is the epitome of arrogance.

Hope....where have I heard that magic before....

5 and 10 years.... prediction....based on history...those terms would be increased in short order.

What makes these "experts" experts??

[raxar]

I find it interesting that every piece of anti legislation is called "a good first step". The Brady bill was "Just the first step", the AWB was "Just the first step".

[ATBackpackin]

I find it interesting that every piece of anti legislation is called "a good first step". The Brady bill was "Just the first step", the AWB was "Just the first step".

And yet when you call them out on that they'll deny it until they're blue in the face.

[LenP]

So someone uses a mix of alcohol and cars to commit a crime, but instead of banning them from using those for five years, we ban them from buying a gun? On what planet does that make any sense?