Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Terry McMuffin
()
Date: February 25, 2016 12:50AM
Fails miserably...
Gun bills head to McAuliffe’s desk
By Laura Vozzella February 22
RICHMOND — A package of bills tied to Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s surprise gun compromise with Republicans cleared its last legislative hurdle on Monday and headed for the governor’s desk.
McAuliffe (D), who endured fierce pushback over the deal from erstwhile allies in the gun-control movement, promised to sign the bills.
“Today the General Assembly finalized its work on a bipartisan public safety agreement that will save lives,” he said in a written statement. “I look forward to signing this legislation into law.”
The measures expand the rights of concealed-carry handgun permit holders in Virginia in exchange for tighter restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers and voluntary background checks at gun shows.
McAuliffe, who ran for governor bragging about his F rating from the National Rifle Association, has billed the deal as a pragmatic compromise on a difficult issue.
But some of his allies in the gun-control movement renewed their criticism. “Governor McAuliffe let his constituents down, striking a deal with the NRA that will allow concealed-carry permit holders from across the country to avoid Virginia’s laws on who can carry hidden, loaded weapons in the commonwealth,” said Jennifer Herrera, Virginia director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “It was a giveaway to the gun lobby, and as a mother and a Virginian, I expect more from my leaders — and once again urge Governor McAuliffe to veto the concealed-carry bill.”
McAuliffe’s secretary of public safety, Brian Moran, hammered out the compromise with lobbyists for the NRA and one of the group’s chief allies in the legislature, Sen. Bryce E. Reeves (R-Spotsylvania).
[Five things that (kind of) explain Terry McAuliffe’s gun deal with the GOP]
The negotiations began after Reeves, often mentioned as a lieutenant governor candidate in 2017, and Sen. J. Chapman “Chap” Petersen (D-Fairfax) approached the governor. Reeves and Petersen were looking for a way to counter action taken by Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), who had revoked reciprocity rights with 25 states that have looser standards than Virginia.
Their eventual compromise not only reverses Herring’s move but extends reciprocity to every state but Vermont, which does not issue concealed-carry permits.
Gun-rights legislators and activists have roundly cheered the deal — underscoring the feeling among some gun-control advocates that they gave up more than they got.
“This bill not only restores Virginia’s existing concealed-carry reciprocity agreements, but will also expand such agreements with additional states,” Reeves said in a statement.
McAuliffe has said he was willing to expand concealed-carry rights in exchange for prohibiting people convicted of domestic abuse from possessing guns. They will have to give away or sell their guns within 24 hours of conviction but are not required to surrender their weapons to law enforcement. Gun-control advocates said that creates a dangerous loophole, because guns could be given to friends or relatives and then be reclaimed.
McAuliffe has emphasized another aspect of the compromise, which calls for posting a state trooper at every gun show to conduct criminal background checks for private sellers. The checks would remain optional, and critics note that federal law already allows private sellers to run checks through licensed dealers. Moran has said the new procedure will be simpler and quicker.
McAuliffe said the troopers’ attendance will “change the culture at gun shows in Virginia by providing all sellers with access to criminal background checks.”
Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group launched by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), has been especially critical of the compromise, launching a media campaign against McAuliffe in recent weeks.
[Bloomberg gun-control group has new target: Terry McAuliffe]
Just a few months ago, Everytown was so firmly in McAuliffe’s camp that it answered his call for help in the fall Virginia Senate races by bankrolling $2 million in attack ads. Republicans nevertheless held onto the chamber.
The governor has dismissed Everytown’s criticisms by characterizing his former ally as a group of meddling out-of-towners.
On Monday, rather than comment directly, Everytown issued the statement from Herrera of the Moms Demand Action group, an Everytown affiliate. The statement noted that Herrera is a volunteer and a Virginian.
Also weighing in was Jasper Hendricks III, director of Brown Virginia, which he described as a “statewide network of organizations representing people of color.”
“Our voices matter, our lives matter, and our relationship with your administration matters too,” he wrote in a letter to McAuliffe. “It is vital that in this debate you see communities of color as more than just photo opportunity props.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gun-bills-head-to-mcauliffes-desk/2016/02/22/b839174e-d9a6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
Gun bills head to McAuliffe’s desk
By Laura Vozzella February 22
RICHMOND — A package of bills tied to Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s surprise gun compromise with Republicans cleared its last legislative hurdle on Monday and headed for the governor’s desk.
McAuliffe (D), who endured fierce pushback over the deal from erstwhile allies in the gun-control movement, promised to sign the bills.
“Today the General Assembly finalized its work on a bipartisan public safety agreement that will save lives,” he said in a written statement. “I look forward to signing this legislation into law.”
The measures expand the rights of concealed-carry handgun permit holders in Virginia in exchange for tighter restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers and voluntary background checks at gun shows.
McAuliffe, who ran for governor bragging about his F rating from the National Rifle Association, has billed the deal as a pragmatic compromise on a difficult issue.
But some of his allies in the gun-control movement renewed their criticism. “Governor McAuliffe let his constituents down, striking a deal with the NRA that will allow concealed-carry permit holders from across the country to avoid Virginia’s laws on who can carry hidden, loaded weapons in the commonwealth,” said Jennifer Herrera, Virginia director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “It was a giveaway to the gun lobby, and as a mother and a Virginian, I expect more from my leaders — and once again urge Governor McAuliffe to veto the concealed-carry bill.”
McAuliffe’s secretary of public safety, Brian Moran, hammered out the compromise with lobbyists for the NRA and one of the group’s chief allies in the legislature, Sen. Bryce E. Reeves (R-Spotsylvania).
[Five things that (kind of) explain Terry McAuliffe’s gun deal with the GOP]
The negotiations began after Reeves, often mentioned as a lieutenant governor candidate in 2017, and Sen. J. Chapman “Chap” Petersen (D-Fairfax) approached the governor. Reeves and Petersen were looking for a way to counter action taken by Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), who had revoked reciprocity rights with 25 states that have looser standards than Virginia.
Their eventual compromise not only reverses Herring’s move but extends reciprocity to every state but Vermont, which does not issue concealed-carry permits.
Gun-rights legislators and activists have roundly cheered the deal — underscoring the feeling among some gun-control advocates that they gave up more than they got.
“This bill not only restores Virginia’s existing concealed-carry reciprocity agreements, but will also expand such agreements with additional states,” Reeves said in a statement.
McAuliffe has said he was willing to expand concealed-carry rights in exchange for prohibiting people convicted of domestic abuse from possessing guns. They will have to give away or sell their guns within 24 hours of conviction but are not required to surrender their weapons to law enforcement. Gun-control advocates said that creates a dangerous loophole, because guns could be given to friends or relatives and then be reclaimed.
McAuliffe has emphasized another aspect of the compromise, which calls for posting a state trooper at every gun show to conduct criminal background checks for private sellers. The checks would remain optional, and critics note that federal law already allows private sellers to run checks through licensed dealers. Moran has said the new procedure will be simpler and quicker.
McAuliffe said the troopers’ attendance will “change the culture at gun shows in Virginia by providing all sellers with access to criminal background checks.”
Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group launched by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), has been especially critical of the compromise, launching a media campaign against McAuliffe in recent weeks.
[Bloomberg gun-control group has new target: Terry McAuliffe]
Just a few months ago, Everytown was so firmly in McAuliffe’s camp that it answered his call for help in the fall Virginia Senate races by bankrolling $2 million in attack ads. Republicans nevertheless held onto the chamber.
The governor has dismissed Everytown’s criticisms by characterizing his former ally as a group of meddling out-of-towners.
On Monday, rather than comment directly, Everytown issued the statement from Herrera of the Moms Demand Action group, an Everytown affiliate. The statement noted that Herrera is a volunteer and a Virginian.
Also weighing in was Jasper Hendricks III, director of Brown Virginia, which he described as a “statewide network of organizations representing people of color.”
“Our voices matter, our lives matter, and our relationship with your administration matters too,” he wrote in a letter to McAuliffe. “It is vital that in this debate you see communities of color as more than just photo opportunity props.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gun-bills-head-to-mcauliffes-desk/2016/02/22/b839174e-d9a6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Admiral Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 12:04PM
This is the only rational thing Terry has ever done.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Commodore Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 12:20PM
Guns = Death & Mayhem, Stay away.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
what a pussy
()
Date: February 25, 2016 12:36PM
Commodore Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guns = Death & Mayhem, Stay away.
What's it like to go through life with such a profound fear of an inanimate object?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guns = Death & Mayhem, Stay away.
What's it like to go through life with such a profound fear of an inanimate object?
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Dead Commodore Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 12:54PM
Commodore Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lack of Guns = Death & Mayhem, Stay Armed.
FIFY
You're Welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lack of Guns = Death & Mayhem, Stay Armed.
FIFY
You're Welcome.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Commodore Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 01:04PM
Idiot. Those who keep a gun in the home are nearly four times as likely to die from a gunshot wound as those who do not keep a gun in the home. More likely to die from suicide, more likely to die from homicide, and of course more likely to die from accidental discharge of a weapon. Guns elevate risk, not safety.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
blah blah blah blah blah
()
Date: February 25, 2016 01:08PM
Commodore Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idiot. Those who keep a gun in the home are
> nearly four times as likely to die from a gunshot
> wound as those who do not keep a gun in the home.
> More likely to die from suicide, more likely to
> die from homicide, and of course more likely to
> die from accidental discharge of a weapon. Guns
> elevate risk, not safety.
Yeah? And people who ride horses are more likely to die from being thrown from a horse than people who don't ride horses. People who drive cars are more likely to die in an automobile accident than those that don't. People who ride bikes are more likely to die riding their bikes than those that don't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idiot. Those who keep a gun in the home are
> nearly four times as likely to die from a gunshot
> wound as those who do not keep a gun in the home.
> More likely to die from suicide, more likely to
> die from homicide, and of course more likely to
> die from accidental discharge of a weapon. Guns
> elevate risk, not safety.
Yeah? And people who ride horses are more likely to die from being thrown from a horse than people who don't ride horses. People who drive cars are more likely to die in an automobile accident than those that don't. People who ride bikes are more likely to die riding their bikes than those that don't.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Commodore Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 02:18PM
> Yeah? And people who ride horses are more likely
> to die from being thrown from a horse than people
> who don't ride horses. People who drive cars are
> more likely to die in an automobile accident than
> those that don't. People who ride bikes are more
> likely to die riding their bikes than those that
> don't.
You can count on one hand the number of people who ride horses, drive cars, or ride bicycles because they believe it will make them safer. Gun-stooges on the other hand believe such poppycock by the thousands.
> to die from being thrown from a horse than people
> who don't ride horses. People who drive cars are
> more likely to die in an automobile accident than
> those that don't. People who ride bikes are more
> likely to die riding their bikes than those that
> don't.
You can count on one hand the number of people who ride horses, drive cars, or ride bicycles because they believe it will make them safer. Gun-stooges on the other hand believe such poppycock by the thousands.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Commodore Oblivious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 03:26PM
Commodore Obvious is using tired and lame reasons liberals have been rattling on and on for years. As a gun owner and cc permit holder, I have gone through extensive back ground checks and have been permitted by the state to carry as the rules and regs dictate.
I'd be more concerned about people like Commodore Obvious. I have no idea of his competency, and might be a psychopath. There is no guarantee Commodore Obvious won't loose his shit and go on a killing spree. I am just glad I am there, permitted by my state of residence, to do something about Commodore Obvious if I am threatened with imminent danger to myself, family, or property as a last resort and with no other option.
I'd be more concerned about people like Commodore Obvious. I have no idea of his competency, and might be a psychopath. There is no guarantee Commodore Obvious won't loose his shit and go on a killing spree. I am just glad I am there, permitted by my state of residence, to do something about Commodore Obvious if I am threatened with imminent danger to myself, family, or property as a last resort and with no other option.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Bias in Thinking
()
Date: February 25, 2016 04:51PM
Commodore Obvious either has a tenuous grasp on statistics, or is purposely using them to mislead. Someone with a gun in their house who is not a gang member has a better chance of being hit by lightning than being shot by the gun. However, by posing the risk as Commodore Obvious does, it makes it seem like the risk is so high that it is unacceptable.
I realize Commodore Obvious and others are scared, and being frightened does change risk perception. Commodore Obvious should read "Thinking Fast and Slow" (by a Nobel prize winner) to discover how their risk perception is being warped. Then Commodore Obvious should take an elementary statistics course, and apply that knowledge and the learnings on bias to reach an unbiased view of the issue.
I realize Commodore Obvious and others are scared, and being frightened does change risk perception. Commodore Obvious should read "Thinking Fast and Slow" (by a Nobel prize winner) to discover how their risk perception is being warped. Then Commodore Obvious should take an elementary statistics course, and apply that knowledge and the learnings on bias to reach an unbiased view of the issue.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
CO, You're A Fucking Idiot
()
Date: February 25, 2016 05:40PM
Commodore Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idiot. Those who keep a gun in the home are
> nearly four times as likely to die from a gunshot
> wound as those who do not keep a gun in the home.
> More likely to die from suicide, more likely to
> die from homicide, and of course more likely to
> die from accidental discharge of a weapon. Guns
> elevate risk, not safety.
Suicide is a choice.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Idiot. Those who keep a gun in the home are
> nearly four times as likely to die from a gunshot
> wound as those who do not keep a gun in the home.
> More likely to die from suicide, more likely to
> die from homicide, and of course more likely to
> die from accidental discharge of a weapon. Guns
> elevate risk, not safety.
Suicide is a choice.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Commodore Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 05:42PM
Commodore Oblivious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Commodore Obvious is using tired and lame reasons
> liberals have been rattling on and on for years.
> As a gun owner and cc permit holder, I have gone
> through extensive back ground checks and have been
> permitted by the state to carry as the rules and
> regs dictate.
>
> I'd be more concerned about people like Commodore
> Obvious. I have no idea of his competency, and
> might be a psychopath. There is no guarantee
> Commodore Obvious won't loose his shit and go on a
> killing spree. I am just glad I am there,
> permitted by my state of residence, to do
> something about Commodore Obvious if I am
> threatened with imminent danger to myself, family,
> or property as a last resort and with no other
> option.
I frankly doubt you passed any exam at all for a CCW while suffering from such a serious paranoid imbalance as that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Commodore Obvious is using tired and lame reasons
> liberals have been rattling on and on for years.
> As a gun owner and cc permit holder, I have gone
> through extensive back ground checks and have been
> permitted by the state to carry as the rules and
> regs dictate.
>
> I'd be more concerned about people like Commodore
> Obvious. I have no idea of his competency, and
> might be a psychopath. There is no guarantee
> Commodore Obvious won't loose his shit and go on a
> killing spree. I am just glad I am there,
> permitted by my state of residence, to do
> something about Commodore Obvious if I am
> threatened with imminent danger to myself, family,
> or property as a last resort and with no other
> option.
I frankly doubt you passed any exam at all for a CCW while suffering from such a serious paranoid imbalance as that.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
Commodore Obvious
()
Date: February 25, 2016 06:45PM
Bias in Thinking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Commodore Obvious either has a tenuous grasp on
> statistics, or is purposely using them to mislead.
> Someone with a gun in their house who is not a
> gang member has a better chance of being hit by
> lightning than being shot by the gun. However, by
> posing the risk as Commodore Obvious does, it
> makes it seem like the risk is so high that it is
> unacceptable.
The relative risks were determined in this case by monitoring gun-related deaths at hospital ER's and then doing track-back work to determine the presence or absence of guns in the decedent's home. As the result, the data are as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. The fact that you don't like the story that the data so clearly tell is of course of no material consequence whatsoever. Guns in the home do not protect you. They instead put you at needless and greater risk.
> I realize Commodore Obvious and others are scared,
> and being frightened does change risk perception.
Yes, completely irrational fears are what cause intellectual weaklings to perceive themselves as being at risk for violent home invasions when the odds against such a thing are apt to be millions to one. A decent home security system will meanwhile introduce enough delay and commotion to deter all but the most well-trained Eastern European assassins, and all without any of the stupid risks to friends and family that guns introduce.
> Commodore Obvious should read "Thinking Fast and
> Slow" (by a Nobel prize winner) to discover how
> their risk perception is being warped.
How uninteresting.
> Then Commodore Obvious should take an elementary
> statistics course, and apply that knowledge and
> the learnings on bias to reach an unbiased view of
> the issue.
Commodore Obvious understands much, much more about statistics than you do. These have been at the core of a 40-year career. But maybe as a cocktail party exercise, you could tell me how many different ways you could wear four rings on the fingers of just one hand. Or perhaps you couldn't.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Commodore Obvious either has a tenuous grasp on
> statistics, or is purposely using them to mislead.
> Someone with a gun in their house who is not a
> gang member has a better chance of being hit by
> lightning than being shot by the gun. However, by
> posing the risk as Commodore Obvious does, it
> makes it seem like the risk is so high that it is
> unacceptable.
The relative risks were determined in this case by monitoring gun-related deaths at hospital ER's and then doing track-back work to determine the presence or absence of guns in the decedent's home. As the result, the data are as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. The fact that you don't like the story that the data so clearly tell is of course of no material consequence whatsoever. Guns in the home do not protect you. They instead put you at needless and greater risk.
> I realize Commodore Obvious and others are scared,
> and being frightened does change risk perception.
Yes, completely irrational fears are what cause intellectual weaklings to perceive themselves as being at risk for violent home invasions when the odds against such a thing are apt to be millions to one. A decent home security system will meanwhile introduce enough delay and commotion to deter all but the most well-trained Eastern European assassins, and all without any of the stupid risks to friends and family that guns introduce.
> Commodore Obvious should read "Thinking Fast and
> Slow" (by a Nobel prize winner) to discover how
> their risk perception is being warped.
How uninteresting.
> Then Commodore Obvious should take an elementary
> statistics course, and apply that knowledge and
> the learnings on bias to reach an unbiased view of
> the issue.
Commodore Obvious understands much, much more about statistics than you do. These have been at the core of a 40-year career. But maybe as a cocktail party exercise, you could tell me how many different ways you could wear four rings on the fingers of just one hand. Or perhaps you couldn't.
Re: McAuliffe's attempt at expanding gun control in VA
Posted by:
vM4CM
()
Date: February 25, 2016 09:41PM
Commodore Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bias in Thinking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Commodore Obvious either has a tenuous grasp on
> > statistics, or is purposely using them to
> mislead.
> > Someone with a gun in their house who is not a
> > gang member has a better chance of being hit by
> > lightning than being shot by the gun. However,
> by
> > posing the risk as Commodore Obvious does, it
> > makes it seem like the risk is so high that it
> is
> > unacceptable.
>
> The relative risks were determined in this case by
> monitoring gun-related deaths at hospital ER's and
> then doing track-back work to determine the
> presence or absence of guns in the decedent's
> home. As the result, the data are as solid as the
> Rock of Gibraltar. The fact that you don't like
> the story that the data so clearly tell is of
> course of no material consequence whatsoever.
> Guns in the home do not protect you. They instead
> put you at needless and greater risk.
No, it's based on a bullshit study of a very small sample that the author doesn't even claim for purposes as it's used by disingenuous anti-gun nuts. It included in its counts whether any gun was owned by any member of a home regardless whether that gun was involved in the event. It also counted guns in or AROUND a home so if somebody did a drive-by on a house, that was counted. It also found that a gun in the home posed less risk than such dangerous behaviors as living alone, drinking alcohol, and living in an apartment. lol
He also avoids citing the actual level of risk by citing it only on a relative basis. 4 times virtually zero risk still equals virtually zero risk.
Meanwhile, the BJS data for home robberies and intrusion shows that people who are armed are significantly less likely to be injured, are receive fewer and less serious injuries, and injure their assailant far more often than they are. As any thinking person would understand when considering the alternative cases of being armed vs unarmed in such a situation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bias in Thinking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Commodore Obvious either has a tenuous grasp on
> > statistics, or is purposely using them to
> mislead.
> > Someone with a gun in their house who is not a
> > gang member has a better chance of being hit by
> > lightning than being shot by the gun. However,
> by
> > posing the risk as Commodore Obvious does, it
> > makes it seem like the risk is so high that it
> is
> > unacceptable.
>
> The relative risks were determined in this case by
> monitoring gun-related deaths at hospital ER's and
> then doing track-back work to determine the
> presence or absence of guns in the decedent's
> home. As the result, the data are as solid as the
> Rock of Gibraltar. The fact that you don't like
> the story that the data so clearly tell is of
> course of no material consequence whatsoever.
> Guns in the home do not protect you. They instead
> put you at needless and greater risk.
No, it's based on a bullshit study of a very small sample that the author doesn't even claim for purposes as it's used by disingenuous anti-gun nuts. It included in its counts whether any gun was owned by any member of a home regardless whether that gun was involved in the event. It also counted guns in or AROUND a home so if somebody did a drive-by on a house, that was counted. It also found that a gun in the home posed less risk than such dangerous behaviors as living alone, drinking alcohol, and living in an apartment. lol
He also avoids citing the actual level of risk by citing it only on a relative basis. 4 times virtually zero risk still equals virtually zero risk.
Meanwhile, the BJS data for home robberies and intrusion shows that people who are armed are significantly less likely to be injured, are receive fewer and less serious injuries, and injure their assailant far more often than they are. As any thinking person would understand when considering the alternative cases of being armed vs unarmed in such a situation.