Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate; For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics - Polidicks

[quote][h2]Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate[/h2] (CNN) -- In a speech after the Colorado shooting Friday, President Barack Obama asked Americans to pray, reflect and remember what's important in life while the city of Aurora mourned the dead and wounded. "If there's anything to take away from this tragedy it's the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it's not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives," Obama said in Fort Myers, Florida, before returning to the White House. But Friday's shootings are likely to propel the issue of gun rights and gun safety into the national conversation again, even though the president did not address it on Friday and has largely avoided the subject while in office. [B]"President Obama has refused to even talk about guns. In a speech today he didn't even say the word 'gun.' The closest he came was 'gunman,' " Vice said. "Unfortunately the president has shown a lack of leadership in standing up to the gun lobby."[/B] Talk of gun rights was largely absent from Obama's speech in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting in 2009 and after then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot in Tucson, Arizona, last year. Obama mentioned gun safety only in passing after the Tucson shootings to describe the polarizing nature of the issue. [B]However, amid renewed discussions, the president penned an opinion piece two months after the Tucson shootings that acknowledged the importance of the Second Amendment and called for a "focus" on "effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."[/B] The president's three-step plan included enforcing existing laws, rewarding states that provide the best data about gun owners and a better system for background checks. "Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence," he wrote in the Arizona Daily Star. "But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." [B]But he did not go as far as he had on the campaign trail in 2008. As a candidate for president he adamantly declared he would not "take away your guns," while supporting a platform that included reinstituting the assault weapons ban, stopping destruction of background check documents and closing the federal gun show loophole.[/B] "If you've got a riffle, you got a shotgun, you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it away," Obama said in Pennsylvania in September 2008 after stressing the importance of "common-sense gun safety measures." Gun safety advocates have expressed disappointment with the president's actions since taking office, particularly over his failure to fight for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. They pointed out Obama signed bills into law that allowed loaded weapons in some national parks and on Amtrak trains and the destruction of background check documents. [B]Advocates at the Brady Campaign said the only step he took to support their cause was backing a rule requiring gun dealers who sell multiple rifles to individuals along the border with Mexico to report the sales to law enforcement.[/B] But they acknowledged their task is particularly difficult when the head of the Nation Rife Association, Wayne LaPierre, repeatedly attacks the president for working against the Second Amendment. "Obama has already signed on to destroy the Second Amendment and our freedom," LaPierre said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. "(He has) endorsed a total ban on manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns." White House spokespeople have been consistently vague when pressed on gun rights by members of the media. When asked Friday if the president would take steps to curb gun violence in the form of gun safety laws after the Aurora shootings, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "The president believes that we need to take common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them." "There has been progress in that regard in terms of improving the volume of quality of information in background check, but I have nothing new," Carney added. In July 2011, Carney said the president directed Attorney General Eric Holder and state leaders to identify measures that would improve safety and protect Second Amendment rights. "We expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future," Carney said. But no announcements have been issued. [B]Gun rights continue to divide Americans. A Pew survey released in April showed 49% of Americans found it more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% said it was more important to control gun ownership.[/B] The figures shifted when broken down by party ideology, race and sex. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats said it is more important to protect gun rights, while 72% of Republicans said the same. Sixty percent of men found it more important to protect gun rights and 39% of women found it more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns. Divides also exist among campaign contributions, according to filings with the Federal Elections Commission, which show an influx of cash disproportionately geared toward Republican candidates. In the 2012 cycle, presumptive Republican presidential Mitt Romney has received $126,440 from gun rights groups, compared to Obama's $2,300. That trend is consistent with the 2008 cycle, when Sen. John McCain collected $483,711 in such contributions and Obama received $25,987.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/obama-gun-debate/index.html[/url] [quote][h2]For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics[/h2] (CNN) -- The sun was barely up when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg used the Colorado massacre to scold President Obama and Mitt Romney for ignoring the gun issue. "This is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely," Bloomberg argued. [B]He has a point -- gun policy is a back burner debate these days, largely because Democrats who had pushed for tighter gun laws concluded it's bad politics.[/B] After the 1999 Columbine shooting, Democratic Vice President Al Gore played a central role in trying to pass ill-fated gun control legislation. On the campaign trail during his 2000 presidential run, he argued for "common-sense gun safety measures." Democratic strategists said they believe Gore and other Democrats lost critical votes in rural America by pushing for stricter gun laws. [B]So, Democratic Party leaders began to recruit candidates who could win those largely red districts and states, candidates who ran on support for gun rights. [/B] Jim Manley worked in the Senate for more than 20 years as a top aide to Democrats Sen. Ted Kennedy and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He witnessed the change up close. "Democrats finally figured out that this was an issue that they were getting walloped on in many Western, Southern states and many swing states," Manley said. "So they began a subtle shift to try to coordinate and/or get more pro-gun Democrats to run." [B]"For many Democrats, it's smart politics not to get into the gun control debate," he said. [/B] So, even though President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban in 1994 with fanfare, it lapsed in 2004 without much of a fight. Even after major tragedies shoved the gun issue into the headlines, there was some talk, but little action. The 2007 Virginia Tech massacre resulted in a minor change: beefing up background checks for the mentally ill. Last year's assassination attempt of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Arizona, produced only a few calls to make high-capacity magazines like those used in that shooting illegal. "There is no earthly reason for these weapons to have that kind of bullet capacity," argued Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, one of the few remaining anti-gun stalwarts. But Senate Democrats wouldn't hold a vote, and Giffords' Republican colleagues in the House said at the time new laws were useless. [B]"Bad guys are going to get guns, they're going to get clips and they're going to do bad things," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said then.[/B] In fact, the Democratic-led Senate hasn't voted on any gun legislation in three years, since defeating a GOP measure that would have required states to recognize each others' gun laws. Why? Many still point to the National Rifle Association [B]"The NRA is an extremely powerful organization and they deliver votes and they deliver money," said Manley, who now works for QGA, a public affairs group in Washington.[/B] In the wake of the Colorado movie massacre, the NRA issued a statement steering clear of gun politics. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the community. NRA will not have any further comment until all the facts are known," said Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs. Because gun issues are not at the forefront of the political debate, the NRA's clout isn't talked about as much as it was in the 1980s and 1990s, when gun policy was a hot topic. But the NRA is still active and not afraid to throw its weight around on topics that even tangentially involve gun policy. For example, earlier this summer the NRA warned vulnerable House members that it was watching their vote on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over the failed "Fast and Furious" gun-walking operation. NRA Executive Director Chris Cox has said his group supported the contempt vote because of the Justice Department's "obstruction of congressional oversight of a program that costs lives in support of an anti-gun agenda." At the end of the day, of those seeking re-election who voted in favor of contempt, more than half are listed in competitive districts by the Cook Political Report and rely on conservative support -- including endorsements and cash from the NRA -- to survive their tough political battles. [B]The NRA has reported more and more contributions to Democrats in recent elections -- from $236,330 in 2008 to $373,500 in 2010 --- still far less than the $911,250 the organization gave to Republicans that year.[/B] When it comes to presidential politics, the NRA and the Obama campaign both know full well that he could win or lose re-election in battlegrounds like Virginia and Ohio, where the NRA has significant sway over some swing voters. That's why the president is trying to heed the lesson of Gore and not go there when it comes to gun control. That hasn't kept the NRA from mobilizing members against him. "When we're done speaking out, sir, gun owners will have made the difference in key precincts in battleground states," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the organization's meeting in April. "You'll have us to blame for your defeat in November," he said, rallying the crowd.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html[/url]

Ugh. Making guns illegal is useless because criminals will still get a hold of them because they don't care about the law. Why is this so hard to follow?

Personally, I'm really glad Obama didn't say anything about guns during his speech on Friday. It wasn't about politics, it was about remembering and paying service to those that were lost. Bringing politics into it would be a despicable use of a tragic event.

[QUOTE=deanpfr;36870609]Ugh. Making guns illegal is useless because criminals will still get a hold of them because they don't care about the law. Why is this so hard to follow?[/QUOTE] In theory, making guns illegal would make the most sense. Of course it's impossible to implement a ban on guns since there's already a large stockpile of weapons in the US, and even if they were all removed, illegal weapons would both remain and continue to enter the country. The only reasonable action is to find a way to reduce the likely hood of people doing stupid things with the guns they already have.

Guns are a weak point for Democrats and liberals. One the one hand, we liberals are all about individual freedom where ever possilble. Obviously, the right to own guns is part of that. On the other hand, most liberals are of the "Why do people need all those guns anyways?" mindset. They see it more as a public safety issue. So if you are a pro-2nd Amendment Democrat or liberal you are kind of stuck in an awkward place, it's like being a gay Republican. There is no way for the President to say something about this without pissing some group off. If he makes even the most subtle hint of gun control- people are pissed. If he hints that gun ownsership is not the issue, that criminals are, then people will be pissed that he doesn't care about the victims. It's best for him to say as little as possible.

-

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36870717]Guns are a weak point for Democrats and liberals. One the one hand, we liberals are all about individual freedom where ever possilble. Obviously, the right to own guns is part of that. On the other hand, most liberals are of the "Why do people need all those guns anyways?" mindset. They see it more as a public safety issue. So if you are a pro-2nd Amendment Democrat or liberal you are kind of stuck in an awkward place, it's like being a gay Republican. There is no way for the President to say something about this without pissing some group off. If he makes even the most subtle hint of gun control- people are pissed. If he hints that gun ownsership is not the issue, that criminals are, then people will be pissed that he doesn't care about the victims. It's best for him to say as little as possible.[/QUOTE] To me it seems that gun politics isn't just a weak point for Democrats, it's their weakest. American culture and history is heavily saturated with the tale of guns. To erase guns out of society, you would have to virtually rewrite history, cinema and novels to place guns in a bad view in order to change the culture itself. Just think of all the westerns there are, a testament to American gun culture. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;36870750]Gun Control is probably on of the most ambiguous issues in politics. While it is proven that Gun Control reduces violence, people do not want their right to have tons of guns to be infringed upon, in case of war or revolution or whatnot (Americans tend to love thinking about worst case scenarios that involve killing things and being self sufficient).[/QUOTE] I've heard that gun control reduces gun violence some of the time, but not violence overall. Take away guns and people will find some other way to kill people. Taking away guns just makes those who abide by the law criminals. Also, some Americans tend to like to hunt with guns. We're not all survivalists hiding in a cave waiting for Big Brother to come get them.

I'm not surprised, it's a problem that really no one has found a viable solution to be able to even begin approaching it. Aside from stiffer regulations on licenses and gun acquisition there's really nothing we can do about it right now and we can't REALLY fault him on that because some whack-o snapped and shot a bunch of people.

Ironically, it's the same reason I steer clear of gun control debates on Facepunch. :v: Gun debates are bad debates.

[QUOTE=goon165;36870827]I'm not surprised, it's a problem that really no one has found a viable solution to be able to even begin approaching it. Aside from stiffer regulations on licenses and gun acquisition there's really nothing we can do about it right now and we can't REALLY fault him on that because some whack-o snapped and shot a bunch of people.[/QUOTE] I think the reason there's no viable solution to gun violence is because it's generally punishing the law abiding consumer with penalties when a criminal who doesn't care about law to begin with commits a gun crime. Go after the criminals, not make stricter laws on those who have done nothing.

[QUOTE=person11;36870750] While it is proven that Gun Control reduces violence[/QUOTE] It isn't

[QUOTE=goon165;36870827]I'm not surprised, it's a problem that really no one has found a viable solution to be able to even begin approaching it. Aside from stiffer regulations on licenses and gun acquisition there's really nothing we can do about it right now and we can't REALLY fault him on that because some whack-o snapped and shot a bunch of people.[/QUOTE] In a free society no law can prevent the lone nut.

If i was in that theater, with my 9mm- do you really think the killed/injured list would be that long? Gun bans and regulations only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals really dont care if their gun is legal- thats what makes them criminals/ they dont follow the law. After the fast/furious scandal obama is smart to stay away from mentioning gun regs.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36870897]I think the reason there's no viable solution to gun violence is because it's generally punishing the law abiding consumer with penalties when a criminal who doesn't care about law to begin with commits a gun crime. Go after the criminals, not make stricter laws on those who have done nothing.[/QUOTE] Hm, when you think about it like that it's the same reason anti piracy measures for video games don't work and just wind up shooting the consumer in the foot. Stricter systems aren't effective on the people they target because they circumvent all of it to begin with. [B]THESE ARE TRULY THE GREATEST PROBLEMS OF OUR GENERATION[/B]

[QUOTE=goon165;36870938]Hm, when you think about it like that it's the same reason anti piracy measures for video games don't work and [B]just wind up shooting the consumer in the foot.[/B] THESE ARE TRULY THE GREATEST PROBLEMS OF OUR GENERATION[/QUOTE] I never really noticed the similarity there before, but you're right. Also, nice pun slid in there. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36870937]If i was in that theater, with my 9mm- do you really think the killed/injured list would be that long? Gun bans and regulations only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals really dont care if their gun is legal- thats what makes them criminals/ they dont follow the law. After the fast/furious scandal obama is smart to stay away from mentioning gun regs.[/QUOTE] I have always felt that the best way to deter crime isn't the removal of guns, but actually giving them out more. If everyone (with in reason and training) carried a firearm, how many muggings would there be? How many home invasions would happen if every house had a gun (or two, or three) in them? It wouldn't kick muggings and home invasions into history, but I'm fairly certain it'll cut it down extremely.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36870937]If i was in that theater, with my 9mm- do you really think the killed/injured list would be that long? Gun bans and regulations only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals really dont care if their gun is legal- thats what makes them criminals/ they dont follow the law. After the fast/furious scandal obama is smart to stay away from mentioning gun regs.[/QUOTE] You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake. Who the fuck is going to arm himself for a night out to the cinema with friends or family.

This country's failing mental health care system is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Sadly people get so caught up in banning and outlawing whatever happens to be involved in a tragedy like this, and end up putting the blame in the wrong places. States across the country are cutting funding to mental health services, shuttering psychiatric hospitals, "consolidating" services by taking critical mental health services away from local communities, racial and ethnic minorities face significant gaps in access and quality of care, all the while [url=http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155] fewer than one-third of adults with a diagnosable mental health disorder receive treatment in a given year.[/url]

[QUOTE=Clavus;36870996]You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake.[/QUOTE] Despite the name, there's no such thing as "bullet proof" armor. It's all just bullet resistant. And I've yet to see a suit of armor that covers the body 100% If anything, it would have slowed him down at the very least.

Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire US. It also has one of the highest firearms-related crime rates in the country. ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C."]source[/URL]) Obviously simply banning firearms is not going to work.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871055]Despite the name, there's no such thing as "bullet proof" armor. It's all just bullet resistant. And I've yet to see a suit of armor that covers the body 100% If anything, it would have slowed him down at the very least.[/QUOTE] And who the hell would even dare pulling a gun while sitting in a theatre full of people, with gas spraying around and everybody panicking. It's a stupid argument. You can't expect civilians to prepare themselves for this scenario.

[QUOTE=Clavus;36871082]And who the hell would even dare pulling a gun while sitting in a theatre full of people, with gas spraying around and everybody panicking. It's a stupid argument. You can't expect civilians to prepare themselves for this scenario.[/QUOTE] Of course, now that this has happened, chances are people WILL start bringing guns with them into theaters just to be safe. Then the security guards theaters have started placing will find said guns and there will be dozens of misunderstandings that'll just make this situation even worse.

[QUOTE=deanpfr;36870609]Ugh. Making guns illegal is useless because criminals will still get a hold of them because they don't care about the law. Why is this so hard to follow?[/QUOTE] By this logic why make anything illegal?

[QUOTE=Clavus;36870996]You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake. Who the fuck is going to arm himself for a night out to the cinema with friends or family.[/QUOTE] Plenty of soft spots to shoot at. Been to the range enough im completely confident in my ability to put three shots grouped in the size of a half dollar. You might find the argument retarded- it doesnt make it less true. If i was in that theater- with my 9mm- theres a good chance he would have been stopped. Many other americans are well trained in the use of firearms as well. If you feel safe enough w/o a gun- good for you. But though the intentions of gun control may be good (who is against less crime?) it would cause more harm then good (because criminals dont follow the laws) Many ppl with a concealed carry permit have their guns with them all the time- its not that big of deal, its just a gun. Its not like your totting around a 1/2 ton surface to air missile...

[QUOTE=James*;36871104]By this logic why make anything illegal?[/QUOTE] The same argument is made for drugs. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Clavus;36871082]And who the hell would even dare pulling a gun while sitting in a theatre full of people, with gas spraying around and everybody panicking. It's a stupid argument. You can't expect civilians to prepare themselves for this scenario.[/QUOTE] I don't expect people to be prepared for that specific scenario. I expect people to be prepared for an unexpected scenario. Better to have a gun in your purse and not ever need it, than to go out and get mugged, raped or worse because you didn't have one. Sure one person in there armed against him probably wouldn't have evened the odds against him. But what if half that theater was armed? The man could have been the only casualty in that horrific event.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36870937]If i was in that theater, with my 9mm- do you really think the killed/injured list would be that long? Gun bans and regulations only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals really dont care if their gun is legal- thats what makes them criminals/ they dont follow the law. After the fast/furious scandal obama is smart to stay away from mentioning gun regs.[/QUOTE] You alone with your pistol would not have been able to stop Holmes, it would have taken several people firing together to bring him down or at least drive him away. Had someone opened fire on him he probably would have just targeted them first and even enjoyed it, it would have taken either a lucky or good shot for one person to stop the attack with a pistol. [QUOTE=Clavus;36870996]You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake. Who the fuck is going to arm himself for a night out to the cinema with friends or family.[/QUOTE] This is the real problem in America, at some point it became 'not ok' to wear a gun when you go out in public. People who open carry or conceal carry don't go out looking for or expecting a fight, done long enough the person wearing it stops noticing they have it on at all but never stop being aware that they have one. It wasn't until the 30s when prohibition was decided to be a good idea that gun crime and gun control became a thing. It's not the guns that cause the problem but the social issues that drive people to use them. If you're well off do you decide to go knock over a liquor store for some cash? If there's no law saying you can't buy something at will do you still go to a back alley to get it?

I love the smell of a gun debate thread on Facepunch in the morning Broke my merge, dammit

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36871122]Plenty of soft spots to shoot at. Been to the range enough im completely confident in my ability to put three shots grouped in the size of a half dollar. You might find the argument retarded- it doesnt make it less true. If i was in that theater- with my 9mm- theres a good chance he would have been stopped. Many other americans are well trained in the use of firearms as well. If you feel safe enough w/o a gun- good for you. But though the intentions of gun control may be good (who is against less crime?) it would cause more harm then good (because criminals dont follow the laws) Many ppl with a concealed carry permit have their guns with them all the time- its not that big of deal, its just a gun. Its not like your totting around a 1/2 ton surface to air missile...[/QUOTE] You are fucking kidding me. Are you really saying you "could've handled it"? You don't seem to realize that a theatre full of panicking people is not a shooting range. Armchair cowboys like yourself don't have any constructive arguments in this debate. And I'm deliberately steering clear of the actual gun control question. I'm making a point that arming everyone isn't going to make these problems go away, it's making them worse.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36871130]The same argument is made for drugs.[/QUOTE] Regardless of whether I think guns or drugs should be legal or illegal, it's a dumb argument

Clinton signed the AWB in 1994. And the Congressfolks that voted for it got swept out of office in huge numbers the following election. Our government is full of career politicians, and they don't want to lose their well paying job, so they're not likely to bring up something as suicidal as gun control. Not to mention gun ownership has exploded in America in the intervening 18 years.

[QUOTE=Clavus;36871166]You are fucking kidding me. Are you really saying you "could've handled it"? [/quote] If properly trained with firearms, if half those movie goers were armed, do you honestly expect that lone gunman had a chance to kill all those people? [QUOTE=Clavus;36871166] You don't seem to realize that a theatre full of panicking people is not a shooting range. Armchair cowboys like yourself don't have any constructive arguments in this debate.[/quote] "Armchair cowboys"? Yes, that is a constructive argument in a debate. For all you know, he's an expert marksman and owner of several guns. [QUOTE=Clavus;36871166]And I'm deliberately steering clear of the actual gun control question. I'm making a point that arming everyone isn't going to make these problems go away, it's making them worse.[/QUOTE] Deliberately steering away because there's no real argument that could win against the freedom of guns. Most of your "points" are "Do you really think that!? It's impossible!" instead of any actual logical argument.