White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings - Polidicks

[quote] White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings By Philip Rucker, Published: January 5 The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions. A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said. To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda. The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support. “They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.” The gun-control push is just one part of an ambitious political agenda that Obama has pledged to pursue after his decisive reelection victory in November, including comprehensive immigration reform, climate-change legislation and long-term deficit reduction. Obama also faces a reshuffling of his Cabinet, and a looming debate over the nation’s debt ceiling that will compete for his time and attention in the coming months. Seeking expansive mandate In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Simply coming up with one or two aspects of it really falls short of the magnitude of the gun issue in the country,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. Wexler was among a dozen law enforcement leaders who met with Biden and other administration leaders in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The Dec. 20 summit, which stretched an hour beyond an allotted one hour, included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Biden “wanted to talk to us about the assault-weapons ban, automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines,” said Hennepin County (Minn.) Sheriff Richard Stanek, president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association. The vice president said the White House group would consider a variety of proposals — from requiring background checks for all gun buyers to creating a new database that would allow the ATF to track all gun sales, according to participants. Stanek said the meeting also included significant discussion of mental-health issues, violence in video games and movies, and the poor quality of information contained in databases used to conduct criminal background checks before issuing gun permits. Some of the options the administration is considering may not ultimately be included in Obama’s package. A White House spokesman said Biden’s group was in the midst of its review and has made no decisions on its final recommendations. The White House is also developing strategies to navigate the rocky and emotionally fraught terrain of gun politics once final policy decisions are made. The administration is quietly talking with a diverse array of interest groups, including religious leaders, mental-health professionals and hunters, to build as broad a coalition as possible, those involved in the discussions said. The president is expected to face fierce opposition from the NRA and its allies in Congress, including most Republicans and some Democrats. But Biden signaled to those involved in the policy discussions that the White House is not afraid of taking on the NRA, the nation’s largest gun rights group. At the Dec. 20 meeting, according to Stanek, when one law enforcement leader suggested focusing on only the most popular proposals, Biden responded: “Look, what I’m asking you for is your candid opinion and ideas about extreme gun violence. Leave the politics to the president. That’s our job with Congress.” NRA officials declined a request for comment. In response to the shooting in Newtown, Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, called for installing armed police officers in every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said at a news conference Dec. 21. One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores. Timing is imperative Obama’s advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate. “This is not something that I will be putting off,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview broadcast last Sunday. At the White House meeting, Stanek said, “the vice president indicated that there was a very short timeline for him to get back to the president with his recommendations because the American public has a short memory.” Already, three weeks after the Newtown shooting, gun-control advocates are growing impatient with a legislative process that is just beginning. “As we get involved in these ad nauseam debates over the Second Amendment, our children are still at risk,” said Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “Debating is not the action verb we need to protect our children.” With the start of the 113th Congress last week, several lawmakers filed bills to address gun violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who co-wrote a 1994 assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, plans to introduce legislation this month that would ban the sale or manufacture of about 120 firearms, including semiautomatic rifles and military-style handguns, as well as ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The expired federal assault-weapons ban prohibited the manufacturing of 19 models of semiautomatic guns classified as assault weapons, including certain rifles and shot guns. The law also banned ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. But it did not ban the sale of previously manufactured assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. Since the law’s sunset, efforts in Congress over the past decade to reinstate the ban have faced stiff opposition from the NRA and the firearms industry and have never passed. Adler, who has submitted recommendations to Biden’s group, said he has told administration officials that they need to pursue multiple measures to increase their chances of success. “We can’t put all our protection-effort eggs in one basket with one piece of legislation,” he said. “We’ve got to do more than that.” © The Washington Post Company [/quote] [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html[/url]

I wonder how the Newtown shooting would have affected the election had it happened a month or two before November and how the administration would be dealing with it, whoever's administration it be.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39115054]I wonder how the Newtown shooting would have affected the election had it happened a month or two before November and how the administration would be dealing with it, whoever's administration it be.[/QUOTE] Probably would have ended correctly. The time the election swoops by it should have calmed down or been drowned out by the election it's self. All we can hope is that the congress throws up the bill and the president veto's it and the senate doesn't get the votes. Anyone who does decline a gun ban bill generally decreases there chance of winning the next election when it comes from them cause there opponent will just make attack ads using that.

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;39115069]Probably would have ended correctly. The time the election swoops by it should have calmed down or been drowned out by the election it's self. All we can hope is that the congress throws up the bill and the president veto's it and the senate doesn't get the votes. Anyone who does decline a gun ban bill generally decreases there chance of winning the next election when it comes from them cause there opponent will just make attack ads using that.[/QUOTE] I'm thinking not, right now. The election just happened. The next election is a long way away and the American public has long term memory loss. A vote for gun control today may not be remembered or considered important by time the next election comes, especially if other issues such as the economy is more pressing at that time.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39115093]I'm thinking not, right now. The election just happened. The next election is a long way away and the American public has long term memory loss. A vote for gun control today may not be remembered or considered important by time the next election comes, especially if other issues such as the economy is more pressing at that time.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure if I recall correctly gun ban hype always gets hotter and hotter every time the debate comes up to politicians. This time it's heated up enough that it looks like bans could pass through but at the same time I think we are just looking at another blow over. What's really upsetting me is the bias in the news media to any political affiliation or agenda. I can't watch a news channel without it pushing a certain idea or bias.

Gun debate in...

3

2

1. How come they couldn't of done this after the cinema shooting, did we really have to wait for a young children massacre so someone could poke the politicians with a fork ordering them to wake up?

Background checks and mental health checks, I'm ok with. I don't think I'd want to be apart of some national database though. Making schools gun free zones is still a silly idea considering what happened at Sandy Hook. Armed teachers wouldn't be too bad. We trust pilots and air marshals when they're in a muti-million dollar passenger jet filled with explosive fuel. We trust millions of cops and soldiers. We can trust teachers too. Not all teachers have to be armed, but if they want to be, give a them a program that helps them out.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39115949]1. How come they couldn't of done this after the cinema shooting, did we really have to wait for a young children massacre so someone could poke the politicians with a fork ordering them to wake up?[/QUOTE] Because democrats wanted to wait until the election so they wouldn't scare off any undecideds. That being said, it's a terrible idea to push legislation as a result of tragedies. Sure, Newton was a horrible thing, but literally millions of people have died since then from more preventable causes, and we are not doing anything about it because heart disease, smoking, and automobile accidents are not currently hot topics. The only sensible way to create legislation is to do it in response to statistics, not headlines.

If you don't know much about "assault weapons" and why they shouldn't be banned, please watch this. [video=youtube;ysf8x477c30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30[/video]

[QUOTE=Sector 7;39116245]Because democrats wanted to wait until the election so they wouldn't scare off any undecideds. That being said, it's a terrible idea to push legislation as a result of tragedies. Sure, Newton was a horrible thing, but literally millions of people have died since then from more preventable causes, and we are not doing anything about it because heart disease, smoking, and automobile accidents are not currently hot topics. The only sensible way to create legislation is to do it in response to statistics, not headlines.[/QUOTE] well it was only until 9/11 that aeroplane companies started listening to pilots about secured doors on flights

[QUOTE=Sector 7;39116245]Because democrats wanted to wait until the election so they wouldn't scare off any undecideds. That being said, it's a terrible idea to push legislation as a result of tragedies. Sure, Newton was a horrible thing, but literally millions of people have died since then from more preventable causes, and we are not doing anything about it because heart disease, smoking, and automobile accidents are not currently hot topics. The only sensible way to create legislation is to do it in response to statistics, not headlines.[/QUOTE] 66.9% of homicides are committed using a firearm. [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] Note: I'm on the fence, but this isn't a rare occurrence, this happens all the time. That being said, it shouldn't be a reaction to this, but to state that this is lesser than other things, that's silly. Not to mention just because we're working on gun control doesn't mean we're not working on the things you listed. This isn't a matter of Either-Or.

[QUOTE=Zally13;39116321]66.9% of homicides are committed using a firearm.[/QUOTE] Well, sure. But are you trying to solve the homicide part or the firearm part? Because if you were trying to solve the homicide part, your first priority should be fighting poverty and ending the war on drugs, not restricting access to assault weapons (which are used in less than 1% of violent crimes.) Killing sprees [i]are[/i] a rare occurrence. They are statistical anomalies. You're more likely to be killed by terrorists than by madmen trying to shoot up a building. You might hinder a rampage or two by enacting sweeping restrictions on firearms. [i]Maybe.[/i] If everything works just as planned and the bill makes sense - not reliable prospects given the political climate. But this shaky reassurance comes at the cost of billions of dollars of industry and local business, billions of dollars towards resources for a new "war" for the police to deal with, and our civil liberties. I'm not being dramatic, here; every time we make a new law we sign away our right to do one thing. We can't just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. We should be making laws after careful, lengthy risk assessment based on reliable statistics. Instead, people are pushing for assault weapons bans because the public has been worked up into a frenzy by a few media conglomerates who are trying to make a buck. Twenty-six people died in Newton. That's a tragedy. Over thirty people are killed [i]every twenty-four hours[/i] by drunk drivers in the US alone. Their deaths are no less tragic, but [i]nobody cares about them.[/i] We aren't clamoring for a new alcohol ban or legalized vigilante action. We've been fooled into thinking that mass murderers are a national problem that can only be solved through federal intervention. As insensitive as it might sound, rampage violence is statistically insignificant and any efforts to reduce it are going to be a waste.