Joe Manchin says on verge of gun deal

"It’s a big win for Democrats in that 16 Republicans crossed the aisle to even consider the gun legislation, but the vote is only the opening move in what could be a drawn-out floor fight that will center on a deal unveiled Wednesday by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that would require background checks on all commercial gun sales and end the so-called “gun show loophole.”

"Two Democrats - Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska sided with the Republicans and voted to continue the filibuster.
Sixty votes were needed to end the GOP filibuster and start debate on the gun bill.

Parents and family members of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting watched from the gallery as the roll call vote was held."

Read more: Senate gun control bill passes first test - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

American said:

Coming from you I have no doubt it's the worst thing ever.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

Columbine was carried out using 10rnd magazines, not 30rnd magazines. The shooters brought 18 10rnd mags and fired over 130rnds before it was over. Also, California had an assault-weapon ban in force at the time; the weapons used were not assault weapons. And one last thing, the legal owners of those weapons could pass NICS, so even if background checks were required at gun shows it wouldn't have made any difference.

Adam Lansa did not use all of his ammunition. He didn't kill himself because he was running out of amo, he killed himself because the police were arriving.

The complete ban on explosives didn't stop the CO shooter or Columbine, either.

Gun bans and and background checks aren't the answer. Targeting mental illness is the answer.

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear you are so cloudy on the facts:

1. Columbine is in Colorado (3 miles from where I am sitting at this moment), not California. A California ban on assault rifles is irrelevant.
2. I did not argue that large magazines were a part of Columbine; I argued that the background checks would have retarded their ability (made it much harder, not impossible) to obtain guns as they used a surrogate who purchased the guns at a gun show.
3. The idea of smaller clips is that few people are killed in one of these shooting... every time a shooter stops to reload, people have the opportunity to escape, or in the Tuscon incident, subdue the attacker.

We will never stamp out mental illness nor will we stamp out mass shootings. We can only hope to retard (slow or frustrate) the process. Making it harder will, by definition, eliminate SOME shootings and lower the number of deaths at those shootings.
\
The current gun bill will address mental illness in addition to closing some loopholes on gun acquisition. It will serve as A STEP in the right direction. Thinking the if you can't solve the problem completely that you should not take the step in that direction is nonsensical, as is the NRA position on the bill, which is contrary to 90% of the electorate. I doubt you could get 90% of the people to agree that they like their own mothers, much less agree on an element of legislation.

upsideguy said:

1. Columbine is in Colorado (3 miles from where I am sitting at this moment), not California. A California ban on assault rifles is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

See that's what I get for posting with a hangover.

There was a Federal assault weapons ban in effect. It applied to all states.

upsideguy said:

2. I did not argue that large magazines were a part of Columbine; I argued that the background checks would have retarded their ability (made it much harder, not impossible) to obtain guns as they used a surrogate who purchased the guns at a gun show.

Click to expand...

Background checks don't stop straw purchasers because straw purchasers can pass background checks. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold made and planted several explosives despite the extreme restrictions on explosives. Mass shooters don't just snap one day, go buy a gun and shoot a place up. They plan the event for a long time. Your ideas aren't addressing that.

upsideguy said:

3. The idea of smaller clips is that few people are killed in one of these shooting... every time a shooter stops to reload, people have the opportunity to escape, or in the Tuscon incident, subdue the attacker.

Click to expand...

Didn't work in Columbine. Doesn't work anywhere. The shooter either brings more of the small mags or makes/modifies/buys illegal extended mags. Mag limits are just retarded.

upsideguy said:

We will never stamp out mental illness nor will we stamp out mass shootings. We can only hope to retard (slow or frustrate) the process. Making it harder will, by definition, eliminate SOME shootings and lower the number of deaths at those shootings.

Click to expand...

Sure, but your strategy has already been tried several times and has failed every time. It doesn't work. Stop pursuing it. It doesn't work.

upsideguy said:

The current gun bill will address mental illness in addition to closing some loopholes on gun acquisition. It will serve as A STEP in the right direction. Thinking the if you can't solve the problem completely that you should not take the step in that direction is nonsensical, as is the NRA position on the bill, which is contrary to 90% of the electorate. I doubt you could get 90% of the people to agree that they like their own mothers, much less agree on an element of legislation.

Click to expand...

The bill is meant to be an incremental step to total gun ban. Nothing more. These policies make shootings worse every time they're enacted. You are part of the problem.

Catawba said:

You are thinking about the large capacity magazine ban. That is not being voted on, unless it is added as an amendment. The purpose of the background checks is to reduce the number of guns sold across the country with no questions asked.

Click to expand...

Why do questions need to be asked? Is anyone involved taking part in a crime?

Jerry said:

Sure, but your strategy has already been tried several times and has failed every time. It doesn't work. Stop pursuing it. It doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Here's an odd thought that just occurred to me.

Although those who promote gun control claim that they do so to reduce violent crime and promote public safety, history has so far rather overwhelmingly proven that it has the opposite effect. Yet there are those who continue to promote the same policies, which have already been proven to fail.

There is a well-known cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

If we are to assume that the insane must be prohibited from possessing firearms, then let us begin with those who have proven themselves to be insane by advocating for failed gun control measures.