Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Moose. Bear. Wolves.

All of those things were hunted long before firearms came into the picture.

[Dontrike]

Moose. Bear. Wolves.

That's right, I remember in all the history books about how moose, bears, and wolves were unkillable up until the invention of the fire arms when we were finally able to take them down. Also, who hunts moose, bears, and wolves? Those are usually not something most hunters go out to slay, but the animals that they come across taking down smaller game like quail, various types of deer, turkeys, boars, and others like that and then the subsequent shitting of the pants when they do show up.

[ipaq]

Alright, which animal do you need to take down while hunting that absolutely needs a fire arm to do it?

"Semi Auto" to do it?

There fixed it for you.

[Breccia]

Disclaimer: I'm not from the USA, but from Finland.

Last time I was in Finland, I bought a can of cooked bear meat and the f*cking customs people seized it because they were actually worried about Mad Bear Disease.

I know that's off-topic. I just wanted to throw that out there.

EDIT: Actually Mad Bear Disease sounds fucking terrifying. But I'm 100% sure the Finns can handle that shit.

[Orbitus]

He supported some gun control, NRA gives him a 30 million, now he cannot even say the word gun after school shootings.

Possibly with the help of Russian donations to the NRA.

[Orbitus]

Wait, you can eat bear?! OK now I need to try it! I'm game for all game

- - - Updated - - -



This is really one of the most interesting bits of the Mueller investigation, it seems they have some indication that the NRA might have helped people launder money. Can you imagine getting rid of that shit?

Yep, I told my dad, who has a lifetime NRA membership, single issue voter, all about gun rights because someone told him Obama was coming to take his guns, and he didn't believe me that the NRA was under investigation now for taking Russian money to run ads for Trump. Even though you could clearly see that they doubled their spending from 2012 to 2016 for presidential ad buying.

[Breccia]

This is really one of the most interesting bits of the Mueller investigation, it seems they have some indication that the NRA might have helped people launder money.

While the status of the NRA's involvement with Russian money laundering is summarized in this Snopes article updated three days ago, the name you're looking for is Alexander Torshin. Torshin is a high-ranking Russian bank official with direct personal ties to Putin, and even before the NRA get-together he'd met the Trumps before. He's also under investigation as a high-ranking member of an international organized crime group.

While the FBI is on the case, I'm not sure if this officially part of the Mueller investigation or not. That technicality might matter.

[Vanyali]

Disclaimer: I'm not from the USA, but from Finland.

Yeah we hunt bears and wolves here. Last year 232 brown bears and from latest statistics from 2015-2016, 43 wolves were shot.





Yes large animals were hunted before the invention of fire arms, and do you know how they were killed back then? Single arrow from some shitty ancient bow won't kill large animals like moose or bear in one go, not to mention that hunting was fuck loads more dangerous back then. Hunter has the obligation of killing the animals they hunt as fast as humanely as possible. Thinking that hunters should go back to pre-firearm methods of killing animals means that you do not care about the suffering of animals, and that makes you a bad person. Simple as.

If you used a "single" arrow for a large animal you were suicidal or stupid - there's a reason people invented spears. They do a lot better against large animals, especially given how their their hides tend to be. Boar spears were a pretty big thing, as arrows are basically just irritants.

Additionally, a good bow hunter *could* kill an animal as fast as a shooter. And if you're hunting large game, or hunting as a sole means of feeding your family, there's really no other kind. The idea that guns are "better" when it comes to suffering really isn't that true.

[Vanyali]

Factually incorrect. Hunting anything larger than deer with a bow is borderline unethical, as the probability for just wounding the animal is much greater than if you were using a rifle of the correct caliber.

If you don't know where to aim / aren't as skilled with a bow compared to a gun, yes. But, again, when you start getting larger than a deer you're generally hunting with either hunting bows that are heavier (if you're using modern tech) and different arrowheads (broadhead vs. bodkin, for example) or spears. Both of which are just as effective as rifles, given that no hunter (particularly one that is hunting to feed their family and depends on a kill) really wants to wound an animal and have to a) chase it for miles, and hope you get there before anything else or b) piss off a moose even more with a non-lethal wound so it charges you.

[zenkai]

If you don't know where to aim / aren't as skilled with a bow compared to a gun, yes. But, again, when you start getting larger than a deer you're generally hunting with either hunting bows that are heavier (if you're using modern tech) and different arrowheads (broadhead vs. bodkin, for example) or spears. Both of which are just as effective as rifles, given that no hunter (particularly one that is hunting to feed their family and depends on a kill) really wants to wound an animal and have to a) chase it for miles, and hope you get there before anything else or b) piss off a moose even more with a non-lethal wound so it charges you.

You have never hunted in your life have you?

[Vanyali]

You have never hunted in your life have you?

If you're talking pre-modern techniques, no. But given I've majored in Anthropology and my particular focus has always been pre-modern, I know a fair amount. Yes, there are some cultures that seek to wound only so they can be followed and finished later. No, this is not how modern hunters prefer to do so, nor is it particularly efficient when you're walking in the dead of winter. Nor is it really optimal to wound it so it wanders for a few days, so getting a near-lethal shots has always been fairly important.

[Breccia]

So the What He Meant Was crowd came out today to say that Trump is actually for improved background checks. Specifically, this bill introduced after some murdering motherfucker got tired of beating his wife and shot up a church in Texas instead. Cornyn and Hatch are on board.

Obviously it was a long, long time ago that...no, it was November, shit these things just flow together. Anyhow, TheHill has an article about the bill at the time.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation on Thursday that would require states and agencies to produce plans for sending records to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) that would show if an individual is prohibited from buying a gun and verifying that the information is accurate.

The measure would also try to incentivize agencies and states to provide information by blocking bonus pay for political appointees in agencies that fail to upload records to the background check system and rewarding states that follow their implementation plans.

“For years agencies and states haven’t complied with the law, failing to upload these critical records without consequence. ... This bill aims to help fix what’s become a nationwide, systemic problem so we can better prevent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining firearms," Cornyn said in a statement.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation on Thursday that would require states and agencies to produce plans for sending records to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) that would show if an individual is prohibited from buying a gun and verifying that the information is accurate.

The measure would also try to incentivize agencies and states to provide information by blocking bonus pay for political appointees in agencies that fail to upload records to the background check system and rewarding states that follow their implementation plans.

“For years agencies and states haven’t complied with the law, failing to upload these critical records without consequence. ... This bill aims to help fix what’s become a nationwide, systemic problem so we can better prevent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining firearms," Cornyn said in a statement.

As with anything else from the What He Meant Was squad, I'll wait till Trump actually does something, before assuming it's a priority just because they say it is while Trump is golfing and tweeting.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, not a legal expert, but I think Cruz just tanked his only shot at avoiding the death penalty by saying he was sorry after the shooting. I'm moderately sure part of the insanity plea requires you don't know right from wrong. Apologies kind of destroy that.

Marco Rubio wants him executed and, while he's not technically in a position of authority here, one would assume he knows the facts of the case as much as anyone else, and he's a lawyer.

[Vanyali]

It isn't only about knowing how to aim. Any idiot can shoot at stationary target and hit.

The effective range from which you can shoot at large animal with a gun can be several times further than with a bow. Arrows are also significantly slower than bullets, and more effected by conditions like wind or tree branches or shrubs. And then if you cock up the first shot with bow, and just wound the animal, your follow up shots will be significantly less likely to hit when the animal is running away.

And who in their right mind would hunt fucking moose or bear with fucking spears? Throwing spears are fucking useless and even more prone to just wounding the animal than bows, and using the spear to impale charging animal requires the animal to be already attacking you. Have you ever been charged at by a moose by any chance?

Besides, if bows and spears are just at good at hunting as rifles, why not ban them as well?

http://newsok.com/article/5514566 (ignore the slant of this; just linking that people do it)
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/46/44/c...cold-steel.jpg
https://books.google.com/books?id=va...0moose&f=false


Yeah, moose are fucking terrifying. But they're still hunted with spears. Same with bears. Because spears have the weight behind them that arrows do not, and can actually penetrate for a kill or serious wound.

When I say "aim" I'm talking about all of those things as well. Not just the physical act of hitting a stationary target, but accounting for the wind, the distance, and all other factors that go into the shot. I thought that you'd realize that's part of aiming, but I guess not. Your point about cocking up a shot and having trouble with a reshoot goes for a gun as well - if you miss, you're going to have a lot of trouble with a second shot regardless of weapon choice.

as for "why not ban them"... spears are a bit more unwieldy to use against smaller prey (such as humans) for the untrained, as are bows. That being said, historically there have been crossbow restrictions (as they were easier than standard bows) and if mass murderers turn to the bow and get an insane amount of skill to hit and reload in roughly 15s then sure, ban them with guns. You'll note that I never said (and haven't said on this forum ever, to my memory) that guns should be banned though.

[Vanyali]

I don't really understand your point then, or if we are actually in disagreement over anything else beyond the difficulty of bow hunting.

What the US needs to do is:
-institute mandatory health and mental health checks on anyone who wishes to own a gun. *
-ban anyone with history of drug abuse (alcoholism, self medication with prescription drugs, hard drug use) from owning a gun. *
-no sales of guns to anyone without pre-approved permission from authorities, including between private persons. If you sell a gun to someone that does not have the proper paperwork=lifetime ban from owning guns
-mandatory gun safety training when applying for lisence
-mandatory gun laws and regulation exam when applying for lisence
-mandatory registration of guns that you purchase so that registry exists of people who own guns and which guns they own
-institute a grace period of 5-10 years during which previous gun owners can register their guns OR turn in legal/illegal guns for monetary reward(retailer list price+XX%) without facing repercussions. Illegal weapons are are destroyed on the spot after they are turned in. Antiquate weapons stored for auctioning.
-fines/prison for anyone found in possession of unregistered firearm after grace period. Depending on whether leaving them unregistered was unintentional or not (so no punishing people who find guns their grandpa had stored in the cellar or something)
-require gun owners to have bolted down gun safe of X size for every Y guns they own at their home, OR proof of gun storage purchased/rental from gun range or hunting club.
-Renewal of your gun license every 5-10 years, with paperwork from doctor *

*Enable people previously banned from owning a firearm if they can show that they have sorted out their problems, institute 2-3 year wait period after proof of being okay.

"But muh 2nd amendment..."

Fuck your 2nd amendment. Unregulated access to firearms is fucking dumb.

I was purely commenting on bow hunting in your post, nothing more.

That being said, what you've posted there is about how i feel about it, because an out-right ban won't fly here because of the gun crazies.

[Casterbridge]

It isn't only about knowing how to aim. Any idiot can shoot at stationary target and hit.

You'd be surprised how many in fact cannot, even at close range.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes large animals were hunted before the invention of fire arms, and do you know how they were killed back then? Single arrow from some shitty ancient bow won't kill large animals like moose or bear in one go, not to mention that hunting was fuck loads more dangerous back then. Hunter has the obligation of killing the animals they hunt as fast as humanely as possible. Thinking that hunters should go back to pre-firearm methods of killing animals means that you do not care about the suffering of animals, and that makes you a bad person. Simple as.

You said that a Firearm was needed to take down these animals...I was just pointing out that that statement was incorrect. I didn't say anything about the ethics of using other weapons.

[Auxora]

The only path to a solution for the gun issue that I see is a major weapons advance in tech. Basically along the lines of the same reason previous devices like knight armor became obsolete. If there were some amazing new advancement that defensively could make bullets drop to the ground mid-air, or something like a laser weapon that made all or most current guns obsolete, then that would be a chance for a paradigm shift in gun control. Then a law could be passed to much more strictly control the production and sale of those new weapons in a way closer to the way the rest of the world controls guns today.

Until then a talk of increased background checks or a ban seems moot when there are over 150M guns in the US currently. Congress could pass a complete AR-15 (and alias) ban on new production tomorrow and there would be millions around for generations. The price might go up a bit, but they would still be easily obtainable in the aftermarket. And rounding them all up isn't remotely practical unless the US went full Orwellian 1984 police state.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Firearm is needed in the same sense that you need jackhammer to remove concrete even when sledgehammer can get it done as well.

You should have just stuck with your ethics argument. Now we're back to efficiency and convenience as opposed to actual necessity.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Efficiency and being as ethical as possible go hand in hand when talking about killing game animals. The animal needs to die as fast as possible from the moment the hunter spots it. Being efficient is about needing only one shot that the animal won't even hear coming before being struck.

Well, that opens up the whole avenue about how ethical it is to kill an animal for sport in the first place.

But again, the point was that you said that hunting these animals was impossible without a firearm.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Nobody was talking about killing animals for sport, but for food.

Wolves and Bears are traditionally hunted for Sport. Those are the examples you used. If you're hunting primarily for food...there are much easier and less dangerous targets.