Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

The Morning Briefing: Gun control

By | January 17, 2013, 12:56 AM PST

“The Morning Briefing” is SmartPlanet’s daily roundup of must-reads from the web. This morning we’re reading about weapon control and regulations.

1.) NRA promises ‘fight of the century‘ over Obama’s bold gun control plan. Barack Obama mounted the biggest challenge in two decades to America’s deeply ingrained gun culture on Wednesday, announcing a sweeping set of proposals to ban automatic weapons, limit magazines to 10 bullets, introduce universal background checks for all firearms buyers and increase scrutiny of mental health patients.

2.) 37,000 sign petition against NY gun-control law. Thousands of gun rights advocates signed a petition against New York’s new firearms restrictions Wednesday as opponents of the new rules said they expect legal challenges to the tightest-in-the-nation rules signed into law a day earlier.

3.) Don’t call it ‘Gun control‘. Language in politics can be a powerful thing, shaping perceptions and framing the terms of debate. When President Obama and Vice President Biden announced the administration’s new gun proposals Wednesday, they didn’t use the words “gun control” a single time. Instead, they spoke over and over about “gun violence,” “reducing gun violence,” and “gun-violence legislation.”

4.) Even If enacted, Obama’s gun control proposals won’t stop mass shootings. President Obama signed executive actions to limit guns and prevent future tragedies Wednesday, saying that there are “concrete steps we can take right now … to help reduce mass shootings.”
Unfortunately they may have only a marginal effect on preventing another mass shooting.

5.) This gun control fight is different because it is being led by parents. Almost from the moment the gunshots exploded though school hallways last month, we have been wondering if this was the one, the tipping point, the last straw that would finally bring change.

Photo Credit: jurvetson

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
38
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+8 Votes
+ -
Gun Violence Laws
Write it or Say it anyway you want. It is still gun "Control" and whatever they try to pass won't work for what they are trying to do. Statistics show different. Even the local police departments don't want it. Those that think controling the guns will work are just FOOLS!
Posted by foolmeonce
17th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
Gun Control
First the constitution mandates that the people be allowed to keep and use firearms. This is not for protection from foreign enemies but out own political groups. Forbidding people to own any weapon makes it more valuable to them, and they will get it any way they can, say like the Mexican drug cartels on the black market. The way to stop the wrong people from using a weapon is to make it usable only by the owner. This could be accomplished by electronically modifying of the firing mechanism, recurring the owner to be in close proximity to the weapon. Or use robotic guards in areas that require protecting.
Posted by randolphgarrison1@...
17th Jan
+7 Votes
+ -
Gun control
The framers of the US Constitution gave the citizenship the right to bear arms primarily so they could protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and replace said government if it became necessary. A government that is intending on removing those arms would make the founding father's of the US Constitution spin in their graves.
Posted by KSJS
17th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
The US Constitution is a compromise.
If you want to know what many people in the day were thinking just look at the NH State Constitution.

Specifically Articles 2a and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Believe it or not, the language in 2a was softened in 1982. It used to be blunter. Notice protecting the state is the last priority.

[Article.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
December 1, 1982

[Article.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Constitution
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So many seem to miss the part of "well regulated miltia".
Milita as defined by Websters;
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Does anyone think that even with a Bushmaster, any citizen stands a chance against the formal government? Look back at Poland and the Czech republics vs the Soviet Union.
The true defense against tyranny are the freedom of speech and habeas corpus. Sad to say that to defend us from terrorists, we've lost one.
Posted by harrim47
Updated - 17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
No...
...but that's not the point.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
RE Constitution
One phrase. If you read the Federalist Papers and all of the other letters back and forth to Adams, et. al. you'll understand KSJS' comment above is EXACTLY correct.
Posted by GregGold
17th Jan
+7 Votes
+ -
Control
It's all about control. Hitler started with gun control and used the reasons/excuses that there was too much crime and it would make the streets safer. First was registration. Then came confiscation. Many freedoms were then instantly abolished. A great horror in the peoples' own nation soon followed. There was no one left to stop it.

Look how our freedoms are being eroded and pecked at from all directions by the controllers of the liberal agendas?

Surveillance (all red light and traffic cams networked), other measures, like the ability to intercept any e-mail a government agent wishes. That's a search with no warrant.

Now they want to push even more gun control. Free unregistered ownership of rifles and guns and ammunition, unimpeded by the whims of socialists and would-be tinpot dictators, is really one of the things that still keeps this country free.

This is why, every time a mentally ill person or a criminal commits a horror, the liberals and socialists use it to screech up their noises, and go after the only thing blocking them from their goal of absolute control and compliance - guns. It is a freedom issue and freedom is not free. With a gun in every hand and an ammo box at every heel, my community and I can say "no". We are free. The police will not make combat with those who simply defend their rights, nor will the army.

As for the 2nd amendment, it protects our ownership of weapons that are in the same class as those carried by the footsoldier of the day. It's 2013, and today that is a rifle with a 20-30 round detachable mag. It is intended to be a force equalizer for the people's freedom. Not intended to be a permission to enjoy the flintlock and black power hobby.

Here is one for the conspiracy theorists: What if the back-room liberals and socialists are using various means to 'program' these nuts and criminals, so as to create horros and use them to advance their cause? Isn't it strange how all these crazies and criminals always end up deceased, frequently by their own hand or by 'suicide by cop', before anyone can interrogate them?

enough. No more restrictions. no more gun control. Fix the "crazy person" problem and the "criminals" problem and the bad acts will be reduced. The jails are full of the insane because there is no other place for them. No treatment.
Posted by opcom
Updated - 17th Jan
+6 Votes
+ -
Mass Shootings and Pharmaceuticals?
There seems to be some evidence that all the mass shooters have been or still were on Pharmaceutical Anti-depression drugs.
Bears further investigation.
Posted by kwickset@...
Updated - 17th Jan
-2 Votes
+ -
Hitler Eased Gun Rules
This one about Hitler taking guns away has been debunked. The earlier administration did restrict guns and Hitler allowed guns for everyone except certain people.
Posted by sboverie
17th Jan
+5 Votes
+ -
Yes, Don't call it gun control
Call it second amendment violations
Posted by sullivanjc
17th Jan
+11 Votes
+ -
How quick people forget what works and what does not work.
Just a quick reminder that the old federal assault weapons ban did nothing to stop Columbine.

Personally I think the root of the relatively recent trend toward massacre type violence has nothing to do with violent video games or the perceived ready access to assault weapons.

It has everything to do with poor parenting in an increasingly narcissistic society. Far too many parents are too selfish to have children. For too many, proper parenting has become all about schedule management so the parents do not have to deal with the kids.

What time do I ditch the kid in pre-school?

Why cant the school day be longer so I do not have to watch the kids?

Yes you are doing an after school activity like soccer or dance class because I do not have the time to deal with you.

The list just goes on and on.

Do not blame the video game when YOU use it as a baby sitter.

Many American parents spend too little time with their kids developing coping skills and helping them learn to deal with lifes daily trials. The guilt brought on by this neglectful parenting leads to parents being overbearing helicopter parents who bend over backwards to PROTECT their kids. Because of parental pressure, law suits in many cases, life in US schools has changed over the last 30 years. Not for the better.

Traditional school activities like giving out real report cards with real performance grades and honoring good students who excel have been watered down so as not to offend underperforming kids. School discipline is nearly nonexistent because of parental lawsuits leading to the elimination of long standing school discipline techniques like in school suspensions and after school detention. Both of which have been deemed to violate the students rights in several states.

Even sports have been tainted by this plague. In some cities kids sports like baseball and Pop Warner football now have no winners or losers declared for games. No one strikes out. Drops catches are counted as a catch. The EVERYONE IS A WINNER mentality has taken hold. Because of it we have created 2 generations of Americans who feel entitled to everything the world has to offer while putting in little or no effort to obtain it.

These are the same kids who think nothing of lashing out in a fit of 7 year old rage in a store because a parent failed to buy them something. And the parents give in to such violent outbursts. These kids learn early in life that they are entitled to whatever they want. That fits of rage are acceptable behavior and that fits of rage get results.

Be it a tantrum in a store or a mass shooting in a mall.
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Ain't no such things as gun violence, reducing gun violence,
or gun-violence legislation.

Because, common sense, and all manners of logic would tell anyone with any kind of brain inside their skulls, that, guns don't commit violence. Guess what commits "violence"?

But, democrats, and especially Obama and Biden, believe that, changing the wording, will help their attempts at redefining the problem, where they could then gain some credibility towards their attempts to legislate against gun ownership.

But, gun ownership is not a crime. In fact, passing laws against the right to own guns, would be the crime, since the supreme laws of the land would be getting violated by legislating against gun ownership. The right to bear arms is what the 2nd amendment is about, and that law states that, the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed". That forbids any new legislation, because it would be infringing, or going against the 2nd amendment.
Posted by adornoe
17th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
What is a totalitarian society, and how does a country become one?
"If someone were to ask you for an example of a totalitarian society, how would you respond? Most Americans would probably think of horribly repressive regimes such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, East Germany or North Korea, but the truth is that there is one society that has far more rules and regulations than any of those societies ever dreamed of having. "

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013010831714/life-and-science/culture-wars/america-is-being-systematically-transformed-into-a-totalitarian-society.html
Posted by adornoe
17th Jan
-6
Whilst all you preach about the right to bear arms...
Posted by Robynsveil  |  Below your threshold
+3 Votes
+ -
Who exactly *are* you defending yourselves against?
People like you.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Jan
-4 Votes
+ -
And I'm unarmed.
That's scary.
Posted by Robynsveil
17th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Actually, you are far better armed than I am.
"Whatever happened to democracy?"

We are not supposed to be living in a "democracy". We live in a representative republic bound by a constitution. At least, we are supposed to be. "Democracy" is never mentioned in the Constitution, (in fact, most of the framers are on the record against "democracy") and was never espoused in this country until about a century ago. "Democracy" is just a more civil word for "mob rule", or 2 wolves and 1 lamb voting on who's going to be for dinner.

You might not be armed personally, but the the agents of the state that would do your bidding in the name of "democracy' certainly are, as well as those who don't give a damn about law and order.

That is what is really scary.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 17th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Here's a solution that would definitely reduce the amount of "gun violence"
but more correctly, violence committed with guns.

Get rid of the idiotic "gun free zones". They absolutely don't work.

Arm all citizens with guns. That way, a would be criminal in possession a gun, would not only think twice, but 10 times or more, about going against a person or place where the poeple are as well-armed or better armed than that would-be criminal. Fewer crimes are committed where people are known to be armed, than in places where the criminal knows that, he's going to be unopposed and will have his way.

But, the reason for the citizenry possessing guns, is not about defending themselves against criminals. The biggest criminal that there could be against the citizenry, would be an oppressive government that could act against them, unopposed and with no danger to that tyranny. Guns were supposed to be the equalizer against tyrannical rule. That's why the 2nd amendment exists. But, that amendment has come to serve more than one purpose, and everybody should be allowed to possess them, after being deemed "responsible" enough to get them.
Posted by adornoe
17th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Obviously you did not read my post.
Or anything from the many people like me trying to be heard over the frantic shouts for pointless gun control laws that have a history of not working.

"Not a single gun-proponent has offered *ANYTHING* in the way of a solution to end the violence."

Or you are one of the poor parents in denial over the impact of your crappy parenting skills.

The gun is not the source of the violence. The person weilding it is the source.

To deny that the persons rage is behind the violence is to be another chicken little running around screaming the sky is falling.
Posted by Hates Idiots
18th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Actually, there have been several suggestions
Better mental health reporting being a big one. I understand the need for medical privacy, but mental health professionals MUST have a way to report to the authorities "this person may be dangerous and firearm use should be restricted".

Shared databases. Right now, you might be on the "do not sell guns to" list in TX, but you move to TN and there's no record of you there, so you're good to go. There needs to be a way for that information to be universal.

Up until the student last week (who was talked down by his peers), the only time a mass killer has been stopped is when met with equal force, aka a person with a gun. I may have missed some, but I believe that's the truth in the overwhelming majority of cases.

The biggest argument against gun control is that it simply doesn't work. Even in England, which is touted as a gun control success, murder & violent crime rates are up, only gun violence is down. The most recent solution I've heard coming from that side of the pond... banning kitchen knives. I suppose pointy sticks will be next.

We need to focus more on the violence aspect, and not as much on the guns. The saying that guns don't kill people, people do may sound trite & contrived, but it's the truth.
Posted by jred
18th Jan
+5 Votes
+ -
Databases don't work...
...or so I heard it said last week. No, not "gun ownership" databases, but "health" databases, so say the anti-gun crowd. It's funny how some databases are worthwhile or others are not, depending on your point of view.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 18th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
RE Actually
Actually, firearms misuse isn't down in the UK. The police, which in the past have not carried, are now doing so.
Posted by GregGold
21st Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
I wonder.
If strict gun control laws are the answer, why do they now need to carry guns?
Posted by Hates Idiots
21st Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: I wonder
Exactly my point.
Posted by GregGold
21st Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Just this morning...
...on one of the supposed "morning news" shows, they had a piece on the new Selena Gomez movie. Seems that another squeaky-clean Disney kid is following the cheap, tired misogynistic Hollywood script for young girls that wish to be "taken seriously" as "artists", by flushing away her wholesome image by transforming her into yet another teen slut.

Judging from the clips shown, it appears that her new movie features plenty of the expected cheap T&A, along with gratuitous gunplay by the young starlets.

Interestingly, the focus on the conversation was how she looked in a bikini. There was not a peep from anyone about the idea of Hollywood promoting a film featuring a young, hip, sexy teen-star running about recklessly with semi-automatic guns only weeks after Sandy Hook, and in the midst of the great gun debate.

So it seems that Hollywood will continue to promote vile images of reckless gun violence without judgement as the media will not hesitate to judge and label anyone who takes a stand on the 2nd Amendment as "dangerous".

Again, it's not legitimate gun owners who are truly dangerous.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
18th Jan
-6
In other words:
Posted by Robynsveil  |  Below your threshold
+3 Votes
+ -
No...
...what we are afraid of are people like you who are happy and willing to employ the state to take up arms against people who think differently from you!

Exactly who is more "free" or "brave"? Exactly how "free" or "brave" do you have to be in order to be part of the mob versus those who are willing to stand up against one, especially one that is much better armed?

I've now answered you twice.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 17th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
I'm still waiting.
You didn't answer this: Who's more "brave"? Members of the mob, or the citizens who stand up against it?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Actually, McGrew gave you the best answer available, and you are a danger,
because, you take the position that government is now taking, and government is the biggest danger there is to our freedoms.

You are apparently, incapable of understanding what the 2nd amendment is about, and how our rights are quickly being dwindled down to irreverence.

Apparent;ly, you didn't bother to read the link I provided above, so, I'm pointing you to that article again:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013010831714/life-and-science/culture-wars/america-is-being-systematically-transformed-into-a-totalitarian-society.html
Posted by adornoe
17th Jan
-5 Votes
+ -
And so arming ourselves to the teeth is the answer, is it?
"You are apparently, incapable of understanding what the 2nd amendment is about, and how our rights are quickly being dwindled down to irreverence."
That's what I find frightening: you revere your right to "bear arms" over children's right to live. Our rights have long ago dwindled down to irrelevance - or irreverence, whatever blows your skirt up, although "irreverence" doesn't make much sense unless we're meant to feel something akin to worship for an amendment - and the culprit isn't government. No, it's the apathy of citizens who don't know - or care - about their own country to realise what's happening. People who are aware and see what is happening would long ago have taken steps to correct the problems by electing officials who do the right thing. This whole "we will have to defend ourselves against a totalitarian state so we are going to hang on to our guns" is patently ridiculous and un-American (unsocial) and smacks of cowardice. What do you hope to solve? What do you hope to achieve?

Why am I talking to you?
Posted by Robynsveil
18th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Problem is that, ignorant people are incapable of making good and informed
decisions, and the democrats had decided, decades ago, that a dumbed-down citizenry would be easier to bend toward them, and so, education was rendered to becoming a device for the use of creating lemmings and a dependent society. People have become dependent and afraid of voting for those who might have a better chance at giving us a great economy, but who would reduce the "free stuff" that those people have been made to depend on.

People only vote for what's good for each, individually, and not for what's good for the country. That's why Obama was re-elected.

The gun issue is one that will not be resolved by just putting more controls over guns or gun owners. Connecticut has a ban on assault weepons, and it was also a "gun free zone", and none of that worked to stop the deranged killer.

And, the gun rights is not about defending ourselves against criminals; it's about being able to defend ourselves against government that becomes oppressive. That's a right which supersedes any attempts to sway the gun issie towards something entirely different.
Posted by adornoe
18th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Bans
During Prohibition, they banned alcohol. Did that work?

Since pre-recorded history, murder (not associated with war) has been "against the law" (banned). Has that worked?

How about illegal drugs? Illegal aliens? Drunk driving? Theft?

Have ANY bans worked? So, what makes you think they will work now??

Criminals are criminals precisely because they do NOT obey the law. Only honest people do that.

If these ludicrous bans get passed, who do you think will be hurt the most? Certainly not the criminals! We already know they care nothing about the law. These bans will only weaken, or worse, strip, our ability to protect ourselves and our families from the "wolf at the door".

When the Founding Fathers crafted the Bill of Rights, one of their biggest fears was an overpowering federal government, similar to the monarchial government they had just overthrown. They expected that nearly every able-bodied man would be part of the public "militia" for the defense of home and country. To that end, they felt that the people should be as well armed as the actual armies of that period. In this manner, if the federal government ever got to be "too big for its britches", the people would have the means to deal with that government for the "redress of grievances" as stated in the Declaration.

Currently, the people are NOT so armed as we do not have access to fully automatic weapons similar to the ones our infantry use. These have been highly regulated and controlled since 1934, again because of the actions of criminals! If medical facilities did a better job of keeping those agencies that need this information properly informed about people that might be "on the verge", we wouldn't need this mindless "knee-jerk" hysteria.
Posted by JTF243@...
17th Jan
-5 Votes
+ -
Oh, and I read the article.
Nothing about the issue at hand: gun violence.

All about hysterical right-wing preaching about things that can be managed differently without guns. Believe it or not: it's an option.
Posted by Robynsveil
18th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
Exactly how?
I'm interested in learning something new.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 18th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
The willingly blind, will never learn, and can never be swayed by the facts
Thus, your position.
Posted by adornoe
18th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
What's telling is...
...her failure to respond to me, especially after her snarky "You didn't answer this: what exactly *are* you afraid of?" comeback. If she is so certain of her position, it shouldn't be so difficult to respond.

Her silence speaks louder than anything she's actually said.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 18th Jan
+4 Votes
+ -
Mass media complicit ?
Most Americans are against gun control but the media says otherwise and anti-gun politicians and police chiefs in major cities ( those are political appointments ) .
Remember when the ATF said air-soft could be converted to real assault rifles or earlier when the LA police had the gun buy back claiming people turned in rocket launchers but they really were inert trainers or how the governor of NY arbitrarily passed new laws and changed the definition of an assault rifle ? .
Our ruling elite are like Czarist aristocrats and our institutions the french Estates .
Posted by cptfreakout
19th Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive