
The President's Plan to Reduce Gun Violence - Pr0
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
======
drallison
I get an invalid cert diagnostic.

You attempted to reach www.whitehouse.gov, but instead you actually reached a
server identifying itself as a248.e.akamai.net. This may be caused by a
misconfiguration on the server or by something more serious. An attacker on
your network could be trying to get you to visit a fake (and potentially
harmful) version of www.whitehouse.gov.

~~~
zerovox
I think that's because we've been linked to a non-secure page by https instead
of http. I would have thought the servers should forward you on to the correct
page without a cert error though

~~~
Cushman
By putting https in, you're forcing your browser to authenticate the server
_before_ making an HTTP call. At the time that you see that cert error, the
server has no idea what you want yet.

~~~
rachelbythebay
Modulo SNI, of course.

~~~
Cushman
I stand corrected, the server may know the HTTP host. Thanks :)

------
Cushman
Not to get too political, but as a progressive who generally supports gun
control, can someone explain to me why an "assault weapons" ban keeps coming
back? Based on the metric of political capital:lives saved, it seems like
_terrible_ policy.

~~~
jlgreco
At the very least I hope they at least define it in terms of things that
actually matter, not cosmetics.

Most of the criticism I hear about "assault weapon" bans, aside from the
standard criticism of gun laws in general, are that the things used to define
"assault weapon" are largely irrelevant to functionality and that the
definition amounts to "guns that look frightening".

It seems to me this is a valid criticism that should be taken seriously by
both sides of the aisle.

~~~
rdl
Yeah. I'd like to see guns categorized into three main functional categories.

General (bolt, rimfire of all types, shotguns, probably lever -- and
suppressors)

High rate of fire (semiautomatic, particularly semi with detachable magazine
-- semi with 5-10rd integral magazine might be general or general+). Fully
automatic or burst might be considered HRF+. (there is honestly not a huge
difference in performance in most plausible civilian shooting scenarios
between a semiautomatic rifle and a fully automatic rifle. Outside suppression
for movement, I've never wanted fully auto, including when the weapon I had
was fully auto -- except for fun, or if it was mounted on a vehicle). This
should include both imported auto and post-1986 auto. 922(r) should also be
removed.

Concealable (centerfire handgun, SBR, SBS, AOW)

Have a licensing scheme for purchase and possession, but not registry of
individual weapons within that class. If you have a HRF license you can buy
any number of HRF or General or General+ all at the same time without
reporting anything other than "HRF or lower" during the purchase. It's unclear
how HRF and Concealable interact (maybe revolvers or fixed-small-magazines
only if you only have a concealable license).

It's unclear what level of training, background checks, etc. would be needed
for each. I'd be inclined to raise the purchase/possession requirements for
handguns and HRF weapons to the same as concealed carry permits are today in
many states, with an actual course of fire, 1-2 days of training, etc., but
there would need to be a requirement that such training be reasonably
accessible and straightforward.

It's acceptable to me if it takes 3-6 months and ~$500 to get a license to
purchase HRF weapons and concealable weapons, provided basic rimfire weapons,
shotguns, and bolt-action rifles are available with essentially an NCIC and
<$25 fee on top of sale price.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Considering that probably a significant majority of firearms are
semiautomatic, it seems like you could simplify it a lot by just having one
class of permit and requiring it for everything.

~~~
rdl
There are a lot of rimfires (.22lr especially), especially used by minors,
competitive shooters, etc. Most shotguns are actually not semiautomatic.
Revolvers are a substantial number of handguns, if not a majority, especially
for women, first time gun owners, etc.

Part of the point of a progressive licensing system (which I think we should
_also_ have for cars, and if we legalize vs. decriminalize drugs, for drugs),
is that you can get into the early levels first, build up experience, and then
go for the more advanced stuff. It's undeniable that guns have safety-to-
others implications, like cars, unlike things like video games, books, etc.,
so there's a compelling case to regulate them.

I think there are also cases of imminent threat where someone has a reasonable
home defense argument for a gun, and allowing a 12ga or 20ga shotgun purchase
by any 18+ non-felon fairly quickly solves that. People can disagree about
whether CCW or home ownership of guns help or hurt, but it's pretty clear that
home defense is a stronger case than concealed carry on the street. If you're
unskilled, a home defense shotgun is a great choice; I could probably teach
someone with zero familiarity with guns to become a credible home defense gun
owner with a shotgun (including legal concepts, etc.) in 15 minutes on a range
and an hour or two in a classroom. Couldn't do that in less than 2-3 days with
a handgun for street carry from the same starting point.

~~~
hga
How much of that 15 minutes at the range and an hour or two in a classroom for
shotgun teaching is devoted to weapons retention?

~~~
rdl
That's a problem if you move with the weapon to try to clear something. I
don't think I'd feel comfortable even bringing that up (except to say it is a
horribly bad idea, and demonstrate how hard it is)

Most CCW holders shouldn't even be moving around with a handgun (which is
generally much easier for weapon retention) in a home defense environment.
That's more like 3-4 days of range time and 2 days of classroom.

~~~
hga
So what is a homeowner going to do when they hear a sound in the night?
They're not sure enough that it's a intruder to call the police, but they'd
like to get back to sleep, make sure the children aren't getting molested,
etc.

And WRT to the latter, while of course no one is recommending they clear a
building with any weapon, if they have to rescue a child, if there are
multiple intruders, if they'd like to make a phone call (e.g. 911) while
having the weapon fully ready, there are power/flash and sound issues,
over/vs. under-penetration (OK, there are no great solutions there) ... I
think shotguns are a terrible idea. Not my insight BTW, picked it up from
Massad Ayoob in his _The Truth About Self-Protection_.

------
jamesbritt
It's very clever but doesn't really do anything for me.

The first time I hit the space bar I get text rendered over an image, and it's
hard to read.

Further page-downs trigger the video, but there's no obvious place to look for
what's causing the sound since the video is not centered on the page. It's off
to the side, and either close to the top or the bottom of the screen.

It's much like someone handing something to you to read, and then as soon you
try to read it they start talking to you.

Video keeps playing even if I've moved further down and the video is mostly
off-screen.

I appreciate people trying to do something a little more engaging but it's not
done well enough here to offset the annoyances. It distracts from the content.

~~~
chill1
Running latest version of Chrome here... The videos play when they come into
view. They immediately stop playing when they leave view. I actually don't
mind that. The videos themselves are each pretty short, so they don't seem
like they'd be too distracting if trying to read the content.

~~~
aggie
The videos should delay starting until they are most of the way on the screen
already, otherwise they are a distraction as I finish reading the text above
them and they are just peeking out from the bottom of the screen. Stopping
when they leave the screen works nicely though.

------
rdl
I must be the only person in the world who hates autoplaying video and
particularly audio. At least the President's voice is normal and inoffensive,
not like some of the preroll ads which run on other sites and autoplay.

------
gnu8
I wonder if this use of very advanced web technology is calculated to limit
who can view their message. Perhaps they only want affluent, urban,
technically savvy liberals to view their message, while excluding lower income
rural people who use IE 6. This may seem like a paranoid theory, but the Obama
campaign would certainly have the data and expertise to support such an
effort.

------
Bockit
I think it's great that page content is getting more love lately, e.g., this
and the recent NYTimes snowfall article [1].

Based on choppiness when scrolling, it does seem however that browsers still
have a way to go in performance. I look forward to when scrolling a page like
that is as smooth as butter on any device / browser combo.

[1]: <http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/>

------
alxndr
Auto-playing video is weeeeird.

~~~
shitlord
Yeah, I didn't like that either. I guess I just don't like having any websites
play sound... reminds me of the late 90's.

------
rhizome
What PR agency does the poster work for? Their 42-day old account has many
many submissions, all for mainstream publications.

------
seanwoods
Takes a long time to load for me, and it's a bit jerky.

I often feel like all these HTML5 effects are not needed to convey the
message.

(However, it's cool that the videos start playing on the scroll event.)

------
technojunkie
HTML5 effects mixed with XHTML doctype? Oh noes!

~~~
bentruyman
A proper <doctype> wouldn't have any effect here.

------
argumentum
Astonishingly annoying.

------
evan_
The "poster"s for the three talking-head videos about halfway down are
enormous .png files when they should be tiny .jpg files.

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/shootings/ANNE...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/shootings/ANNETTE.png)

------
mattupstate
Astonishing bit of HTML5? If you want to see astonishing HTML5 work go to
<http://www.chromeexperiments.com/>. The Obama administration has done far
better and astonishing web work than this piece.

------
owenjones
I imagine I will get a good bit of downvotes for this but I would not mind if
the Government took away all the guns.

------
theoj
An astonishing bit of HTML5 that doesn't work well on the latest version of
Google Chrome, unfortunately.

------
j2kun
It's impressive! Come on, the white house doing something technologically
modern? That's amazing!

------
afandian
"Astonishing bit of HTML5" in that it's choppy and does things I don't want?

------
martinced
It's more like an astonishing piece of propaganda ; )

Meanwhile drones are happily killing lots of people on other continents and
that is ok.

Because the state has the monopoly of violence.

And it is slowly trying to disarm its own citizens as to be sure that the day
people realize they're governed by an oppressive government they won't be able
to do anything about it.

How many deaths in 2012 due to complication related to obesity? How many due
to guns? How many due to road accidents?

Find your priorities and pick up the good fights. The ones taking away the
only thing preventing a dictatorial government from being impossible to revolt
against ain't one of them.

~~~
bithive123
Somehow I doubt handguns and rifles offer much protection against drones. Your
thinking is muddled and you seem kind of paranoid.

~~~
coley
They wouldn't. The drone comment, and protect ourselves comment were separate
ideas. I think he's trying to bring to light that our country completely
stopped for a month after Sandy Hook, but we ignore all of the innocent
lives(including children) that get taken by drone strikes.

Assault weapons don't stand a chance against drones, but I'm willing to bet
they out number them and have a lot more trained operators.

My AR-15 was around $900 when I bought it(~2 years ago). Now the same gun is
going for $1000+, and there's not even new legislation yet. If these weapons
get banned, the criminals that all ready own them will see a gain in their net
worth.

I don't see how raising the value of 'criminal' assets is going to help
anyone.

Paranoid is an easy answer. A much more difficult answer is that our country
has used it's excessive force on the unarmed before. What's to stop them once
their governing body(the citizens) is unarmed?

~~~
bithive123
Guns may help individuals defend themselves from other individuals (who may or
may not be working for the government) in specific interactions (being mugged
/ taken to the gulag) but surely their raw numbers don't make The Citizenry
safer from government oppression. That has to come from somewhere else;
leading many people to conclude that "having guns" doesn't protect us from the
government any more than "holding leaders accountable" or "having an educated
populace".

