My "Gun Ban" Rant....

[Anthony O.]

I live in Texas, born in Texas and I make it no secret I have a liking for guns and knives. I own them, I carry them, I shoot guns both for recreation and competition.



So unless you're a monk with a vow to not watch TV, listen to radio, read print nor surf the web you'll know that the huge hot topic is "gun control". Many people want or feel the need to take guns away from people under the banner of "It's to protect everyone!" That line of arguing is a bunch of crap............I won't even get into how many liberal gun haters want to totally remove guns from every American but what I do want to touch on is the stupid line of arguing from the gun haters that goes like this......



"Do you really need a magazine that holds 30 bullets?"



"Who needs high capacity magazines?"



"Who needs 30 bullets to hunt with?"



Well quickly one may reply,



"If my enemy (thief, rapist, murderer, tyrannical government) has 20 bullets I want 30. If they have 30 I want 60. I may have a home invasion where numerous inavders must be shot. If I am left with only 7 rounds then my family and I are in trouble"



"To question just who needs 30 bullets to hunt with? Has never been hog hunting. Piss a hog off or worse wound one they will charge you and have a good chance of mauling you or killing you. So you'll want as many bullets in your gun as possible." (In Texas ranchers put a bounty on wild hogs. Not so much for eating purposes but to keep the population under control. Many Texas ranchers/farmers are literally over run with wild hogs and they are destructive....and mean)



Lastly to deal more directly with a high capacity magazine ban making them illegal cause they can "kill lots of people" I would like to ask all supporters of this type of ban.....Just how fast can you LEGALLY drive on the roads?



65mph is I believe the national average, some states allow higher speeds, like 75 or 80 mph. Yet why do people buy cars that can go 150mph plus? I mean you can't LEGALLY drive on public roads at those speeds. So why not make all cars go only 70mph? Why do car makers make cars with such high horse power engines when, again, LEGALLY you can't use it to its full potential. Far more people are killed in car accidents then with guns.....especially ar-15 semi-automatic rifles.



Can you imagine the federal government making laws to limit cars to only 70mph? Car owners and car makers would freak. They would argue, "Why must my choice of driving pleasure be limited because some nut case wants to speed and either injure or kill himself or others? I'm a law abiding driver who likes a fast car!"



New York, Chicago and other gun restricting states are not any safer today because of their strict laws. Not one criminal in New York said yesterday, "Wow....I can't have a high capacity magazine anymore? That sucks!" No, but what they are saying is, "Less people carrying guns means more opportunity for me!"



Obama is clueless as to how to properly FIX anything. Simply pathetic and sad is his approach. I always knew he was not gun friendly and was just waiting for the right event to take place to push and start his attack on gun freedoms and so it starts.



I fear things in the coming months will get tense between states and the feds.



End of rant

 

[Nth Degree]

You make good points and I agree with them. I will say that there are some good orders included in his executive orders too. Making it harder for people who are not supposed to have guns (convicted felons and mentally ill) and having better enforcement and harsher penalties for those who provide guns to those people is a good thing. Unfortunately it is knee-jerk reaction politics.



In similar fashion, I heard today about a law that has been created in NC limiting the length of a tether for a dog in the back of a truck. All because ONE moron didn't realize his dog had jumped or fallen out and was dragged to death. The man is facing animal cruelty charges. So it already carries a penalty and it should be common sense. Why a new law has to be created rather than simply educating people on the danger is beyond me.



Which leads me to the following:

I will point out that it is a slippery slope as to what types of guns are allowed/prohibited. We are not allowed to use, possess or create chemical or nuclear weapons, though they are "arms". Weapons of that magnitude were never even considered at the time that 2nd Amendment was ratified.

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

All I wish is that people on both sides of this issue would stop being so radical and divisive, and come together to think and collaborate productively on reforms that actually make sense for the greater good of the entire population. Hopefully we can all agree that the one thing that absolutely CANNOT happen is for things to stay the same as they've been. All we're doing right now is spinning our wheels and wasting time/effort/energy trying to fight for things that will never be amicable, and that does more harm than good.

 

[peacemaker]

The events that happened recently, especially the elementary shooting is really a sad and tragic event. More so than any other school shooting in history. The public is demanding the government to do something.



What do you propose is a better solution that can actually work and the public will accept? I understand your side, but you are a small percentage of the 315 million people in the united states. Something needs to get done.



I don't disagree with everything you said, but I don't agree with your analogy and parts of what you said about the pres. I do agree that making magazine clips smaller isn't going to do much. You need to remove them from bad hands; not an easy task. I agree that hunters should have larger clips. That is a matter of safety. For home safety, I don't agree. Then again, I can see most of Texas siding with you on the home safety front. That's just my opinion.

 

[Anthony O.]

You make good points and I agree with them. I will say that there are some good orders included in his executive orders too. Making it harder for people who are not supposed to have guns (convicted felons and mentally ill) and having better enforcement and harsher penalties for those who provide guns to those people is a good thing. Unfortunately it is knee-jerk reaction politics.



In similar fashion, I heard today about a law that has been created in NC limiting the length of a tether for a dog in the back of a truck. All because ONE moron didn't realize his dog had jumped or fallen out and was dragged to death. The man is facing animal cruelty charges. So it already carries a penalty and it should be common sense. Why a new law has to be created rather than simply educating people on the danger is beyond me.



Which leads me to the following:

I will point out that it is a slippery slope as to what types of guns are allowed/prohibited. We are not allowed to use, possess or create chemical or nuclear weapons, though they are "arms". Weapons of that magnitude were never even considered at the time that 2nd Amendment was ratified.

I do agree that there are many weapons, those which fire projectiles and those which are edged, that have no place in the public arena. My beef is with people wishing to out right ban guns based on a high emotional feeling. I was horrified by the tragic events at Sandy Hook, as with any senseless shooting but to use that to push political agendas is just wrong....republican, democrat or any party.....it's wrong.



Let's face the facts here. There are certain individuals who will seek to kill others. For some twisted reason they want to do this. If they don't have guns they will have a knife, a bat, a car, a bomb, etc.



Think back to the shooting at Aurora, as tragic as it was what if he had no guns but instead several Molotov cocktails and through them all around the theater?



An evil crazed person can walk into a school with a baseball bat and no one will think twice...."Oh it's a dad bringing his son a baseball bat"....No, it's a loon wanting to take out as many kids as possible.



If people want to kill they will find a way. It's a horrible reality so people everywhere should always be vigilant. No one wakes up and thinks, "Today there's going to be a mass killing at (insert your place)"



Anthony

 

[Anthony O.]

The events that happened recently, especially the elementary shooting is really a sad and tragic event. More so than any other school shooting in history. The public is demanding the government to do something.



What do you propose is a better solution that can actually work and the public will accept? I understand your side, but you are a small percentage of the 315 million people in the united states. Something needs to get done.



I don't disagree with everything you said, but I don't agree with your analogy and parts of what you said about the pres. I do agree that making magazine clips smaller isn't going to do much. You need to remove them from bad hands; not an easy task. I agree that hunters should have larger clips. That is a matter of safety. For home safety, I don't agree. Then again, I can see most of Texas siding with you on the home safety front. That's just my opinion.

Your opinion is very much welcome and thanks for chiming in. It's open, reasonable debate that gets things done.



Actually I would say the most horrific mass killing involved a certain individual and his blowing up a school with dynamite. Killing over 38. It's called the Bath School Disaster. No "assualt rifle"....just good ol dynamite.



In regards to home owners not having large magazines I will respond with this.



As an avid gun owner I seek to train in a responsible and realistic manner. It's very much unrealistic to think that a small caliber bullet will stop/kill an intruder. Now add to that small caliber a moving target and an adrenaline rush, increased heart rate, tunnel vision....trust me here, you're going to want more than 6 bullets.



Also there may be more than one intruder. You shoot and down the first one but there is another intruder. Your 6 bullets are spent but your adrenaline is not allowing you to reload another 6 bullets as quickly as needed. What happens then?



If there is an intruder in my house I want as many bullets as needed to put down as many intruders as possible before I, my wife or kids have to reload. Hence the reason why home owners protecting life and property need more than 6 bullets.



Anthony

 

[Old Man]

As the current mayor of Chicago said, "Never let a crisis go to waste".



I have to disagree on the executive orders. More laws on firearms, magazine capacity, et al, won't deter a criminal from kicking down your door and killing you. People that are law-abiding are just that-with or without a gun. Out of the millions of law-abiding gun-owners in this country, what percentage have committed any crime? None, (they obey the law). But they're the ones to be publicly vilified and punished for the acts of criminals.



There are plenty of laws on the books concerning the people that shouldn't have firearms. Maybe they should actually send people to jail for breaking them. Criminals don't obey the law. Go ahead, write more laws, they won't obey those either. As far as the mentally ill, why is it that we never find out about how many of these criminals are on psychotropic drugs? Legal drugs prescribed by doctors. That would be a great news story.



Given that the media is virulently hoplophobic and will support any gun-control measure,(as they have shown themselves to be), we will continue to be divided on this issue. There will not be any kind of logical, rational discussion because the media won't allow it. I would love to see a debate between Wayne La Pierre and the President. No tele-prompters allowed. No softball questions.



How did Prohibition work out? Made millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of the pen. The American public didn't want it, but that didn't stop the few in power that did.



BTW, there is no mention of hunting in the 2nd Amendment. That Amendment is there to prevent governmental tyranny.



I find it amazing that people are willing to give up their rights so easily. Patriots fought and died for them and no one seems to care anymore.



That's my rant. No offense meant to anyone.

 

[Dan]

I don't think there are easy answers but I do think the high-cap and assault weapon ban might eventually help. It certainly isn't going to hurt any school kids. The NRA is delusional, armed officers at schools...right If a nutjob is prepared to kill children, he will have ZERO problem shooting the officer first.



The bigger problem is mental illness and people making threats that are just let go. IMO, ANY sort of threats need to be dealt with. I don't care how bad of a day you've had, you shouldn't be able to make remarks about killing people without it being taken seriously.

 

[Accumulator]

Dan- Even though you and I have disagreed about stuff in the past without any problems, I still want to say that I hope this comes across as reasonable discussion and not just some :argue Topics like this often get, uhm...contentious.

I don't think there are easy answers but I do think the high-cap and assault weapon ban might eventually help...

I don't see how :think: The nuts are always going after unarmed, easy targets and the mag cap/type of weapon is of minimal significance in those cases. Where it *is* of significance is when opposing an armed adversary...such as a nutjob running amok or people doing a home invasion.



I'm opposed to regulating tools, in favor of regulating behaviour. Criminals can *always* get whatever they want. From machine guns to heroin, illegal stuff is easily available to those unconstrained by society's rules.



As Anthony pointed out, when it comes to defending one's self/family/etc., the kind of weapons that are under discussion can be the *exact* right tools for the job, and I don't want law-abiding people to be deprived of the ability to defend themselves in the most effective manner. My local PD has agreed that if my home is targeted my wife and I will have to deal with it, and we want the best tools for the job.



This isn't just hypothetical talk to me; even though I live in a "safe, low-crime" area friends and family have been the victims of home invasions, stuff most people only see in movies. The people who hit *my family home* (fortunately nobody was home) when caught were found to be heavily armed and equipped with (stolen) ballistic armor...so my father could've fought 'em off with six/ten/twenty rounds of target ammo? I don't think so.

The NRA is delusional, armed officers at schools...

I don't follow...armed guards work fine in all sorts of settings, from airports to courtrooms. If I had a kid in school, I'd *want* a properly trained, armed guard there.

If a nutjob is prepared to kill children, he will have ZERO problem shooting the officer first.

Not if the officer is properly trained. The nutjobs are invariably of quite modest ability and wouldn't last long at all in a firefight with somebody competent. The thought of going against a dangerous adversary might deter them (in which case they'll go victimize some place else where the chance of "a fair fight" is slim, if they want to kill, they're gonna kill unless they're removed from society).

The bigger problem is mental illness and people making threats that are just let go. IMO, ANY sort of threats need to be dealt with. I don't care how bad of a day you've had, you shouldn't be able to make remarks about killing people without it being taken seriously.

I agree with you 100% there :xyxthumbs



IMO there is simply zero chance that nobody knows these people are walking timebombs. People just stick their heads in the sand because it's easier than accepting the reality of the situation, let alone doing something about it.

 

[Dan]

Accumlator, I don't think the high cap ban will have *ANY* sort of immediate effect. It will take decades for those magazines to become hard for criminals to get.



How many documented cases are there where a person has needed more than 10 rounds to stop a home invasion vs school shootings? Anyone know of any statistics like that?



Regarding the guard, how hard do you think it would be to wait around and take them out. The DC snipers certainly set excellent precedent for laying low and popping of people who had NO IDEA about what was going on.

 

[dooyaunastan]

Any politician saying that the constitution is out dated needs to be removed from office. "Shall not be infringed" is as concrete as it gets. The liberals are in la-la land, look at every single nation in the course of history that the public has been disarmed. Where did they end up? Dictatorships. Spare England, and look at their crime rates. They're police don't even have guns, they're civilians don't have guns, and gang-bangers are running around the place like it's a smorgasbord of who wants what.



Why must there be a new solution? This is usually something suggested by those in favor of gun control, and my question is, okay instead of suggesting a silver bullet to fight the monster, why don't you actually craft the silver bullet and show us all how it's done? Oh, ban 30 count magazines? Okay, so someone will have 5-10 less bullets for their AR. They make up for that in carrying 1-2 extra magazines. Oh, ban AR's entirely? Gun control supporters have this delusion that everything's going to be okay and that nothing will backfire and that our government is strictly concerned for our well-being. Ha!

 

[Accumulator]

Accumlator, I don't think the high cap ban will have *ANY* sort of immediate effect. It will take decades for those magazines to become hard for criminals to get...

Yeah...no matter what anybody would *like*, there are just too many of 'em out there. It'll be interesting to see how the new NY regs play out and what kind of results they'll get.

How many documented cases are there where a person has needed more than 10 rounds to stop a home invasion vs school shootings? Anyone know of any statistics like that?

I bet it hasn't happened very often. Just like school shootings don't happen very often. But that doesn't mean the one-in-a-million won't happen to *me*...like the situation my father might've found himself in. I mean, sure..how many robbery teams have mil-spec hardware?!?



IMO (and who really knows...) the whole school-massacre thing is a unique situation. This is a drive to primarily *kill kids*. Very specific type of directed hatred. I honestly believe that in the absence of guns/archery tools/etc. the killers would still find a way to accomplish their goal. Make schools secure and then what...playgrounds? Libraries?

Regarding the guard, how hard do you think it would be to wait around and take them out. The DC snipers certainly set excellent precedent for laying low and popping of people who had NO IDEA about what was going on.

Sure, it could happen that way. Just like "killing a cop for his gun" is always on the table. But again, killing a *trained* pro isn't all that easy compared to shooting kids.



On the people with "no idea what was going on"...I could go on a rant about situational awareness as it's a *big* deal to me In the time it takes to think "what the...?!?" stuff has already happened, from car crashes to muggings to all sorts of terrible things. Most people never see anything coming and don't respond both appropriately and immediately when it happens.



Hey, I'm glad we're not at each other's throats over this. I know people on both sides of the topic who go nuts if somebody doesn't agree with them.

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

Actually I would say the most horrific mass killing involved a certain individual and his blowing up a school with dynamite. Killing over 38. It's called the Bath School Disaster. No "assualt rifle"....just good ol dynamite.

That is correct. I live only about 15-20 miles away from Bath (in fact I have family that grew up there), and every time a school shooting takes place the local media brings up the fact that the explosion at the high school there is still the deadliest mass killing at a school in US history.

I'm opposed to regulating tools, in favor of regulating behaviour.



As Anthony pointed out, when it comes to defending one's self/family/etc., the kind of weapons that are under discussion can be the *exact* right tools for the job, and I don't want law-abiding people to be deprived of the ability to defend themselves in the most effective manner. My local PD has agreed that if my home is targeted my wife and I will have to deal with it, and we want the best tools for the job.

To go along with your point about regulating behavior, that's where I think some reasonable restrictions could come into play. I don't know any sort of exact statistics, but I would be willing to bet that a lot of high-cap magazines and assault-style weapons fall into the wrong hands as a result of negligence on the part of the owners -- not having their guns secured in a locked safe while unattended, etc.



So the way I see it, mandatory background checks, mandatory training including both operational skills and safety, and adherence to certain standards with regard to the handling, transport, and storage of such weapons are far from unreasonable things to ask for. If someone who is law-abiding wants to own those types of weapons I'm fine with that, but in my view they absolutely MUST take the responsibility for having them seriously. Making people jump through a few additional yet reasonable hoops to get them only serves to deter those who are lazy and won't do their due diligence to prevent their guns from falling into the wrong hands from purchasing them. Assault weapons and high-cap magazines are not for the casual owner (and for the record, I feel the same way about high performance cars); owners should be required to learn how to handle them properly at their limits if they want to have them.

Accumlator, I don't think the high cap ban will have *ANY* sort of immediate effect. It will take decades for those magazines to become hard for criminals to get.

Thing is, the high cap ban will only apply to civilians; the military and even local law enforcement agencies will still be able to purchase and possess them (as well they should). This means the high cap magazines will never go out of production, and no matter how much we might like to think otherwise there will always be ways for them to fall into the wrong hands even if they're not sold directly to civilians.

 

[Dan]

Thing is, the high cap ban will only apply to civilians; the military and even local law enforcement agencies will still be able to purchase and possess them (as well they should). This means the high cap magazines will never go out of production, and no matter how much we might like to think otherwise there will always be ways for them to fall into the wrong hands even if they're not sold directly to civilians.

How easy is it to get grenades? When is the last time someone used them to kill civilians in this country?

 

[Anthony O.]

Any politician saying that the constitution is out dated needs to be removed from office. "Shall not be infringed" is as concrete as it gets. The liberals are in la-la land, look at every single nation in the course of history that the public has been disarmed. Where did they end up? Dictatorships. Spare England, and look at their crime rates. They're police don't even have guns, they're civilians don't have guns, and gang-bangers are running around the place like it's a smorgasbord of who wants what.



Why must there be a new solution? This is usually something suggested by those in favor of gun control, and my question is, okay instead of suggesting a silver bullet to fight the monster, why don't you actually craft the silver bullet and show us all how it's done? Oh, ban 30 count magazines? Okay, so someone will have 5-10 less bullets for their AR. They make up for that in carrying 1-2 extra magazines. Oh, ban AR's entirely? Gun control supporters have this delusion that everything's going to be okay and that nothing will backfire and that our government is strictly concerned for our well-being. Ha!

Yes, disarm citizens and a tyrannical government will have its way with those citizens. Now for the moment I do not believe we are that close to a total gun ban nor a recall (amendment) to the 2nd Amendment BUT what is being set in place is a stepping stone to perhaps get to that place.



America is being more and more "liberalized" and those areas which were once defined by true lines of "yes" and "no" on both the moral and ethical fronts has now become an ever widening tide of "grey".



So while I may not have to worry about the "feds" coming into Texas to confiscate my "illegal" weapons today it just might be the next generation that will have that to worry about.



Anthony

 

[Anthony O.]

I am a patriotic American who sees gun ownership as a right BUT that right should NOT be given to those who have shown themselves to be of a questionable mind.



I have been to far too many shooting ranges both public and private and have seen complete idiots who should not ever.....ever handle, fire nor own a gun. If you're an avid gun shooter you know of the same types of people. I mean just go to youtube and type in "Gun Fail" and you'll see the stupidity out there.



Those though are a small number of idiots compared to the vast number of responsible gun owners. If you believed the words of the gun haters you would think that there are rampant gun fights going off every day in every state and in every city. Fact is there are hundreds of thousands of ar-15's in circulation out there and the ones used in a murder or crime is astonishingly miniscule.



So lets focus on what truly is the problem and it would seem that this is a "mental health" issue more so than a gun issue. Again if a loon whats to kill he or she will kill with whatever might be at his or her disposal or reach.



Anthony

 

[Junebug]

What if all your neighbors hated you, and every chance they got, they would harm you, kill your family, what would you do? Let's see, maybe train your family to shoot and have people ready to respond with force in any school, mall, etc. Think this is just saying what if? No, I am referring to Israel. We could learn a few things from them.

 

[Junebug]

Let me add, my wife is an elementary school teacher, been one for 27 years, and she was mad as hell with the lame stream media for detailing all their procedures they have in place for lock downs. Why not just put a map out front and a invite the next copy cat killer in. The whole gun free zone is nothing but a sham, what if a teacher or maintenance guy, coach, etc had a concealed pistol and shot that sub human coward in Conn, but noooooo, can't have that. Hell, that's the one thing these punks fear. Didn't he kill himself when he heard the cops coming, pure coward. Ask yourself, when was the last time some nut tried to shoot up a police station, biker clubhouse, deer camp,

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

How easy is it to get grenades? When is the last time someone used them to kill civilians in this country?

I'm not sure, but grenades are suited to an entirely different sort of scenario and aren't necessarily as versatile or precise as an assault rifle. Depending on the particular criminal's goals or reasoning behind carrying out an ambush, a grenade might be a less attractive tactical tool.

 

[Nth Degree]

Any politician saying that the constitution is out dated needs to be removed from office. "Shall not be infringed" is as concrete as it gets.

Thomas Jefferson, himself, stated that there should be a revolution every 20 years. I don't think he meant to scrap it all and start from scratch, but that the laws should evolve with the times. The constitution is constantly having to be "interpreted" in areas of current technology like internet and social media. It is a necessary to have the laws evolve to keep up. But in this case, I agree with the preservation of the right to bear arms.



This came from a friend so I cannot confirm the facts, but it certainly puts things in perspective.



"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! "

I am a patriotic American who sees gun ownership as a right BUT that right should NOT be given to those who have shown themselves to be of a questionable mind.



So lets focus on what truly is the problem and it would seem that this is a "mental health" issue more so than a gun issue. Again if a loon whats to kill he or she will kill with whatever might be at his or her disposal or reach.

This is where I think many conservatives are so focused on being anti-Obama and claiming that HE is taking away their rights that they fail to look at the facts. He has asked Congress to review the gun restrictions and has expressed his "opinion". I have pasted the 23 executive orders below. I am curious to know exactly which ones are found to be out of line.





1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.





And I agree that it is good that this can be discussed rationally and calmly.