world

Gun control must include background checks, Democrats tell Trump

42 Comments
By HOPE YEN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


42 Comments
Login to comment

Isn't this obvious to anyone with a measurable intellect?

Now, if Massacre Mitch would stop obstructing legislation that's already been passed by the House, we might get somewhere. Then again, we know Moscow Mitch is more concerned with his party than actually doing his job.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

It would seem that gun control in the US is coming down to people can own a gun if the government says you can. That is not gun control. Gun control means, no guns. It doesn’t matter how hard the US tries to control guns. Unless they ban them outright there will be no changes to the amount of gun related mass-murders. Gun control means, NO GUNS!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Can't wait to hear about how the Democrats want a general gun ban as if they would suggest background checks to purchase banned items. (eyeroll).

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Can't wait to hear about how the Democrats want a general gun ban as if they would suggest background checks to purchase banned items. (eyeroll).

What?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Well, that didn't take long.

@Do the hustle Please explain to me how Canadians, the Swiss and Australians have guns and gun control at the same time if gun control means "no guns". Background checks are hardly new in America, are gun control, yet, Americans still own guns. How is this possible? Is this the Twilight Zone?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There can be guns. Hunting rifles have their place. Handguns and assault rifles are the problem. Semi-automatic guns are the problem. All guns should require some sort of action between shots, and ammunition should be highly regulated, and highly taxed. Background checks for all, and harsh penalties for anyone caught breaking the gun laws. Citizens who wish to own a gun should be required to go through training and certification, which must be renewed periodically.

That's a sane gun policy.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Nothing will be passed until the moron is out of office and the Senate flips, the true reality.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Background checks are already required, and have been for many years, so what are the Democrats talking about? They want to pass laws that are already on the books? Stupid.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Automatic weapons have been outlawed since 1934. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Military rifles are not available to the general public in the US. The problem is cultural, not guns. After WWII thousands of surplus military rifles were sold to the public and many times as that large capacity magazines which were never used in any of these mass shootings. Suddenly the last two decades crazy people have started getting weapons and doing these shootings. Are the ideas coming from Manga, and related publications?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Background checks are already required, and have been for many years, so what are the Democrats talking about? They want to pass laws that are already on the books? Stupid.

I couldn’t agree more. I guess they need to arbitrarily give the illusion that they’re doing something constructive.

Nothing will be passed until the moron is out of office and the Senate flips, the true reality

If the Democrats want to lose in future elections regardless of who’s in office, they can try. Sure, they have that right.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

We need Trump to revitalize the USA, the Democrats have been destroying it for the las few decades and giving away US property like the canal zone and destabilizing the middle east like Carter did by destroying the Shaw's rule.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

The bill would expand background checks to cover private

I think this bill is important regardless of laws, Democrats, or Republicans. Right now the sale of gun laws does not cover private sales. That means you can buy a legal gun from someone without a background check or any other regulations.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Background checks are already required, and have been for many years, so what are the Democrats talking about?

Closing loop-holes i.e. expanding and enhancing background check use. You see all that print under the headline? Its not filler.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.

For the future I suggest just doing a cut and paste from the pundit spin sites you get your information from. It will help you to not get so dizzy after all that spinning. Now, to help you out: Assault rifle is a military classification of firearm. Assault weapon is a legal classification of firearm in America. The terms are intangible classifications but both terms are in actual use and one is as real as the other even if the term "assault weapon" is extremely nebulous and confusing and based more on cosmetics than practicality. That said, cosmetics count for a lot among gun nuts. How many pink rifle mass shootings do you know of? Or even all wood stock with duck engraving shotgun mass slayings?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Weak tea. Gun control must include banning all weapons of war from US streets.

It's right there in the 2nd Amendment: a well regulated militia means just that;

WELL REGULATED!!!!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Gun registration of all guns and their owners. Ban on certain types of guns. Minimum age of ownership. Background checks by all states. Banning gun sales at gun fairs. Banning internet sales and private sales. All guns must be sold to a gun dealer. Gun owners to be given tests for ability and must pass the test. Driver are requires to take a test, why not gun owners?

If all else fails, ban all guns.

Lives Matter Not Guns.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Very few gun purchases don't got through background checks. It isn't like even 5% do that. It is less. All retail firearm sales have background checks.

I don't know anyone against closing the loophole for private sales/gun show private purchases by forcing a licensed 3rd party dealer be involved. This is commonly done today pretty much everywhere already for a nominal fee - about $30-80 - to cover the paperwork involved.

Let's get to having 40 hrs of training for all handgun licenses. More is needed for driver's education, why would at least the same standard be required for a handgun? Same for any semi-automatic firearm. Make the training and licensing a requirement. Long guns with 4 or fewer rounds and shotguns wouldn't need a license. They are seldom used in illegal activities according to FBI statistics.

And while we are at it, make the law require all firearm related incidents be reported to the FBI using the same standards, so a single, accurate, view of the issues is built. Hard to make good decisions with crappy data.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

How about the hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year? There needs to be more done about that, for example prohibiting the storage of guns in vehicle, and increased security measures for dealers.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The gun nutters live in a state of constant fear - they've been bamboozled into believing that they need their guns to protect themselves from their own government - which means our nation's law enforcement, and from "the immigrants"....

The steady diet of Russian-influenced propaganda from the far-right media feeds this fear - just watch a few minutes of Fox News.

Their argument is boiled down to its most simplest - we want all guns, the other side wants no guns.

No expanded background checks means they don't even care if a terrorist went to a gun show and purchased an AR15, a 120 round two-drum magazine, and all the ammo he wanted.

They've been conditioned to worship their guns above all else - even their own children.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Nothing will change. See ya at the next shooting.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nothing will change. See ya at the next shooting.

Just read the comments by the Leave Our Guns Alone supporters on this page. Let's sum them up... arrogance, Martian reasoning, misrepresentation of the situation in other countries, we're willing to consider any change but only as long as there aren't actually any changes.

Yep. See ya at the next shooting.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's understandable that background checks are necessary in the grand scheme of things regarding gun control, but haven't a lot of these mass shootings been carried out by shooters who had no prior convictions and just seemed to suddenly snap?

If that's the case, then background checks are kind of like putting a bandage on a cancer and expecting it to heal. It's not enough by a long shot.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

stormcrow,

Yes. That’s why the democrats want background checks included with any gun-control measures which Trump is due to announce his support of this week.

At this point, I think they should just take what they can get.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland: ". Background checks for all, and harsh penalties for anyone caught breaking the gun laws."

Surely this would make the US as undemocratic as China. You say China is undemocratic because they hold RIOTERS to account.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

An IQ test would not be a bad component.

I agree it's more than just laws, it's a problem of a broad culture that runs right the way through history and entertainment to be a big component of the national myth. There needs to be sufficient consensus to change that culture, and it needs to be total.

Whereas gun nuts are right to say most are responsible owners and not the cause of the problem (except for providing the 100,000s of stolen guns), you're not going to get the rest of society to give them up unless they do too.

"They've got them, so we'll have them too".

The US needs to study how Japan dealt with the situation and accept that it is even possible.

Most people won't know but Japan pretty much once had the most guns in the world and many of the best guns available at that time. It's said one daimyo had more guns than the entire British Army at that time.

It could pretty much take the model of how they were removed, and apply it.

Unfortunately, there are just too many people taking too many bucks out of the equation, without having to pay for the consequences; and the NRA - as the militarized wing of the Republican Party - is just too useful a political tools for them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Back ground checks are ok if they are looking for real reasons to decline a gun permit such as previous felonies not because they posted something on facebook somebody didn't like.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

But I always post my felonies on Facebook!

Have you researched what difference that would actually make? I suspect it's next to none.

Easier just not to have any, except those required for work, eg police, defence, extreme animal control etc.

At the very least, the US should start by banning them entirely from metropolitan areas. As in Japan, zero tolerance, heavy sentences, gang bossed held responsible for underlings.

Use the military to clear cities block by block. There actually pretty good scanning technology to make it easier these days.

Popcorn manufacturers will make a fortune out of the entertainment value of doing so.

But, seriously, study up on how Japan did it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Use the military to clear cities block by block. 

Start with San Francisco and Baltimore.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Zichi has some ideas.

Gun registration of all guns and their owners.

Some firearms require registration with the Federal govt and a Federal license to own. Not all do. There are laws about this.

Ban on certain types of guns.

There are bans on certain types of guns today. That is law.

Minimum age of ownership.

This is already law.

Background checks by all states.

This is already law. 2 loopholes exist which less than 5% of all gun sales go through, which should be closed.

Banning gun sales at gun fairs.

Or just make background checks and 7-day waiting periods work the same as they do for internet sales today which forces a 3rd party, with a license to sell, be used.

Banning internet sales and private sales.

Internet sales have to go through a 3rd party by law today. Making private sales do the same needs to be law so background checks and waiting periods are enforced.

All guns must be sold to a gun dealer.

That violates existing laws.

Gun owners to be given tests for ability and must pass the test.

Agreed, but I don't want just a test. I'd like to see mandatory training and renewable license for all handguns and firearms with more than 4 round capabilities. Say 40 hrs of training to get a license renewed every 10 yrs. I would have single shot rifles and shotguns used for game hunting excluded.

I'd like to see mandatory trigger locks and gun safes for every firearm in a home. Criminal charges to the owners when anyone unauthorized either harms themselves or others after gaining access.

Enforce the current laws.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lots of ignorance shown in comments about US Gun laws and the 2nd Amendment. Banning all firearms has been overruled by the SCOTUS in prior lawsuits. It is effectively impossible to get the 2nd Amendment modified. To modify any US Constitutional Amendment requires another Amendment be passed by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. 13 states can prevent any Amendment. See why it cannot be altered now?

The POTUS has ZERO, nothing, nada, to do with Amendments.

The USA isn't all cities. Most of the country is rural and rural people have very different needs for firearms than citified people. They hate the govt meddling in their daily life. There aren't any police out there. The closest sheriff might be 90 minutes away. They might share their land with very dangerous animals. It isn't like a Japanese or European city. I've come face to face with many dangerous animals in neighborhoods. Never needed a firearm, but I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one if a black bear or boar is charging. Buck deer can be very dangerous certain times of the year.

I won't pretend to tell city people how to be safe. Why do they feel the need to dictate what country people need to be safe?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Americans are not allowed to smoke or drink before 20 years but they can own guns before that.

Federal Law: Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Americans are not allowed to smoke or drink before 20 years but they can own guns before that.

Let's not have the facts get in the way - until they do.

Age 20 has little to do with US laws. That's a Japanese important age, not US.

18 is the legal adult age for smoking (buying tobacco products) in the vast majority of states.

If you are enlisted in any US military, you can legally buy alcohol at age 18, on base, and consume it at home on on base. Some states still have 18 as the legal age under very common exceptions.

21 is the legal drinking age, but it was 18 in the 1980s before the Federal Highway Administration illegally started withholding highway funds to states that didn't up the legal age to 21.

Alcohol used in religious events is excluded by any age limits.

Some states have age 21 as the age limit for buying a gun. Most have age 18. Parents can gift their kid firearms at different ages, depending on the state. Think I got my 22 rifle at age 12, just before a family hunting trip.

In high school physics, there was 1 day when we were asked by the school to bring our firearms to class for a conservation of energy demonstration. This was a public school in the rural mid-west. We shot at different things - cans, milk jugs, and a dead hog previously gutted, to see how different firearms worked. The teacher brought a few handguns, rifle and shotgun so everyone could shoot them, if they liked. Not everyone chose to shoot anything, but about 50% did use his .38 revolver. I still remember that day as lots of fun.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In the developed world America has the highest rates of gun homicides which cost the country $229 billion every year. America has the most mass shooting in the developed countries. America has the highest numbers of school mass shootings.

As of August 31, 2019, 297 mass shootings have occurred in 2019. This averages 1.2 mass shootings per day. In these shootings, 1,219 people were injured and 335 died, for a total of 1,554 victims.

But none of that matters to the gun nutters.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Shootings are concentrated in just a few counties in the US. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. But even within those counties the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas.

Murder in the US is concentrated in cities. It is almost only a city problem, not rural. There are exceptions in California and Arizona and Texas - border areas. Why are the murder rates higher in rural border areas? It really looks bad in California. Ineffective law enforcement there or some other reason?

A map:

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/09/1862/1048/cprc-map.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Notice all the white counties? ZERO murders.

54% of all counties in the US have ZERO murders - that's over have the country. 69% of counties have 1 murder or less.

That's murders by any method - poison, gun, knives, vehicles, whatever.

Stay away from the 5% of counties where 68% of the murders happen, which is really, really, easy, and live your life happily. Even in those 5%, murders are extremely concentrated.

Look at that map. Perhaps you can understand better why people in South Dakota don't see firearms as a huge issue that Californians see it. BECAUSE SD doesn't have a gun problem.

Facts don't make for good emotional claims. Sorry.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Congressional Democratic leaders warned President Donald Trump on Sunday that any proposal on gun control must include a House-passed bill to expand background checks for gun purchases — or else risk no legislation at all.

Then there will be no legislation at all. Elected Democrats are demanding that elected Republicans do whatever the elected Democrats tell them to do. Unfortunately for the elected Democrats, their arguments are simply unbelievable/unconvincing. These elected Democrats are setting their own legislation up for failure, and are already holding themselves blameless for their own failure.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Gun homicides happen in every one of the states with Alaska at highest rate. The states with the more relaxed gun laws also have higher gun homicide rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

Mass shootings have happened in nearly all states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

The Looser a State's Gun Laws, the More Mass Shootings It Has

https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the-more-mass-shootings-it-has/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@theFu

A map ...

Although we probably don't share the same politics or position on this topic, your point pretty much confirms my position which would be start by completely banning them from metropolitan areas.

Clearly doing so would lead to a huge reduced of all related deaths, and make a policing easier too.

Personally, I think the whole 2nd Amendment debate has been bent way out of shape - and I'm acutely conscious of it all - hence, if you want to play at being a militia man, I want with a militia HQ outside of the city, basic training for all, and regular public service.

Your map though rings alarms bells not just because it is Fox News but because it is John Lott, author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’, and of the so called "Crime Prevention Research Center".

It's actually a guns right advocacy organisation. Lott is deep into Koch sponsored far right activism and has a reputation for poor statistical analysis and outright fraudulent misrepresentation.

It's actually this hive of logical, academic and political corruption that I am more against than the guns.

https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

pacificwest - Your map though rings alarms bells not just because it is Fox News but because it is John Lott, author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’, and of the so called "Crime Prevention Research Center".

And here in lies the biggest problem with trying to reach any kind of a compromise between the two sides over what is, and is not, gun control. Both sides object to, or chose to ignore the statements, and beliefs, of the other side. These same types of arguments have been ongoing for over 50 years.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Guns and anti guns are not two sides of a coin. They are different coins!

Lives Matter Not Guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichi - Lives Matter Not Guns.

Guns are only inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are not dangerous, or useful, unless they are being wielded by human beings. Identifying would-be monsters BEFORE THEY BECOME MONSTERS is the key to preventing violence. Identify, and properly deal with, those who advocate/threaten violence before they murder one, or four, or more people/children/police officers/women/students/men/co-workers/random strangers.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The majority of developed countries have almost banned civilian gun ownership as in Japan or have gun laws greatly restricting gun ownership as in Australia and countries like New Zealand which have increased their gun laws since the mosque shootings.

But in America with the highest gun homicide rates and mass shootings nothing changes never.

Shame because

Lives Matter Not Guns

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then you'll need to amend the U.S. Constitution to nullify the 2nd Amendment. And your side simply does not have the votes to do that.

Or you'll need to establish a new government that allows Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. to share a single legislature. And, again, your side does not have the votes to make that happen.

Blaming an inanimate object for the monstrous actions of it's human user has been ineffective for centuries. The "because I feel like it" argument hasn't, and isn't, going to convince the opposition that you understand all of the issues involved.

Beto O'Rourke just made a huge political mistake by claiming that he would, as President, confiscate legally owned firearms. After claiming that it is the AR15 and AK47 that are dangerous, he then described the effects of the bullets that are fired from these weapons. Since those same rounds are fired by many other types of firearm actions (actions meaning how the firearms are reloaded), it can be assumed that Beto expects to confiscate all firearms that could uses those same rounds. After his government registers all of those firearms in order to identify the owners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites