Another gun thread: Interesting VOX article on using a TSA precheck style system for Gun "control" (1 Viewer)

[Gatorman]

TSA precheck, but for guns

Found this interesting enough that I thought it should be its own thread.  With the whole: good guy with a gun vs bad guy w a gun, wouldn't a system like this make more sense?  It will not solve everything, but I'd support it.

 

[John123]

TSA precheck is optional.  So this would be as well, right?

 

[Stealthycat]

flying isn't a Constitutional Right 

but a quick google found me the below 

https://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/20-years-after-911-has-the-tsa-done-its-job.html

Six years ago, an undercover sting by the Department of Homeland Security revealed that in 70 different instances at seven major airports, TSA agents failed to find fake explosives and weapons – including one strapped to the back of one of the undercover investigators – a whopping 67 times.

A federal watchdog group decided to follow up on that undercover investigation by doing the same thing at eight airports three months after the initial operation. Then-Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth testified that nothing has changed since earlier that year.

"In September 2015, we completed and distributed our report on our most recent round of covert testing. … While I cannot talk about the specifics in this setting, I am able to say that we conducted the audit with sufficient rigor to satisfy the standards contained within the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, that the tests were conducted by auditors within our Office of Audits without any special knowledge or training, and that the test results were disappointing and troubling.”

Roth said it was designed to test the TSA system as a whole. What he found was shocking.

“The failures included failures in the technology, failures in TSA procedures, and human error,” he said. “We found layers of security simply missing. It would be misleading to minimize the rigor of our testing, or to imply that our testing was not an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of the totality of aviation security."

So in 20 years, the legacy of the Transportation Security Administration is complex, to say the least. It is certainly the single biggest change in travel since the attacks.

Whether it’s all positive change remains to be seen.

 

[Gatorman]

TSA precheck is optional.  So this would be as well, right?

Basically.  Concept (in a nutshell) is you get "pre-qualified" to buy a firearm. This allows law enforcement (much like the TSA) to concentrate on those trying to acquire them illegally.  Also, TSA qualified people tend to be "more responsible" travelers.

 

[Gatorman]

flying isn't a Constitutional Right 

but a quick google found me the below 

https://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/20-years-after-911-has-the-tsa-done-its-job.html

Six years ago, an undercover sting by the Department of Homeland Security revealed that in 70 different instances at seven major airports, TSA agents failed to find fake explosives and weapons – including one strapped to the back of one of the undercover investigators – a whopping 67 times.

A federal watchdog group decided to follow up on that undercover investigation by doing the same thing at eight airports three months after the initial operation. Then-Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth testified that nothing has changed since earlier that year.

"In September 2015, we completed and distributed our report on our most recent round of covert testing. … While I cannot talk about the specifics in this setting, I am able to say that we conducted the audit with sufficient rigor to satisfy the standards contained within the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, that the tests were conducted by auditors within our Office of Audits without any special knowledge or training, and that the test results were disappointing and troubling.”

Roth said it was designed to test the TSA system as a whole. What he found was shocking.

“The failures included failures in the technology, failures in TSA procedures, and human error,” he said. “We found layers of security simply missing. It would be misleading to minimize the rigor of our testing, or to imply that our testing was not an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of the totality of aviation security."

So in 20 years, the legacy of the Transportation Security Administration is complex, to say the least. It is certainly the single biggest change in travel since the attacks.

Whether it’s all positive change remains to be seen.

If you wanted to say "I'm not going to read the article" you could have simply posted that.

 

[John123]

flying isn't a Constitutional Right 

but a quick google found me the below 

https://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/20-years-after-911-has-the-tsa-done-its-job.html

Six years ago, an undercover sting by the Department of Homeland Security revealed that in 70 different instances at seven major airports, TSA agents failed to find fake explosives and weapons – including one strapped to the back of one of the undercover investigators – a whopping 67 times.

A federal watchdog group decided to follow up on that undercover investigation by doing the same thing at eight airports three months after the initial operation. Then-Homeland Security Inspector General John Roth testified that nothing has changed since earlier that year.

"In September 2015, we completed and distributed our report on our most recent round of covert testing. … While I cannot talk about the specifics in this setting, I am able to say that we conducted the audit with sufficient rigor to satisfy the standards contained within the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, that the tests were conducted by auditors within our Office of Audits without any special knowledge or training, and that the test results were disappointing and troubling.”

Roth said it was designed to test the TSA system as a whole. What he found was shocking.

“The failures included failures in the technology, failures in TSA procedures, and human error,” he said. “We found layers of security simply missing. It would be misleading to minimize the rigor of our testing, or to imply that our testing was not an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of the totality of aviation security."

So in 20 years, the legacy of the Transportation Security Administration is complex, to say the least. It is certainly the single biggest change in travel since the attacks.

Whether it’s all positive change remains to be seen.

The TSA is security theater.  It's no better than what it replaced.  The single biggest reason we haven't had a repeat of 9/11 is one thing - Lockable doors on the cockpit.  That no one thought of that prior to 9/11 should be the scandal. 

 

[John123]

If you wanted to say "I'm not going to read the article" you could have simply posted that.

So name one mass shooting, such as Uvalde or Buffalo, that this new system would have prevented.  The Buffalo shooter could have been stopped with NY's Red Flag law but the state police failed in that regard.  The guns were bought legally as a result using the current background check system.  So, which mass shooting would this pre check system have prevented? 

 

[Max Power]

Having a concealed carry license is sort of like this with regards to buying a gun. I have to get vetted every 5 years with a mail in renewal, but I can head down to the local gun shop right now and walk out with almost anything. 

I'd support a pre check for NFA items, but only because the current process sucks

 

[Long Ball Larry]

the point of the article seems to be suggesting that the type of algorithmic approach used through TSA could be useful for gun background checks, not that the TSA pre-check is the best thing ever.

 

[timschochet]

If the new law or idea proposed has the potential, no matter how remote, of causing even the slightest inconvenience to gun owners, it will never be accepted. 

 

[Stealthycat]

If you wanted to say "I'm not going to read the article" you could have simply posted that.

I did read it

Did you read the article I posted about TSA ?

 

[supermike80]

Bummer.  If I click a vox article then my Google feed will offer me more vox articles.  I have zero interest in that source.  Guess I will have to skip this one 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would probably oppose this if were applied to shotguns and bolt-action hunting rifles -- too cumbersome, and those weapons aren't really threats for mass shootings.  For other guns, I don't think I would have a serious problem with this.  It sounds like a very rigorous background check, no?

 

[Stealthycat]

If the new law or idea proposed has the potential, no matter how remote, of causing even the slightest inconvenience to gun owners, it will never be accepted. 

except we agreed on age limits for guns, age limits for ammo, background checks, no weapons in schools, we have supported stand your gun laws, carry laws, IIRC there was support across the board on armor piercing bullets

lots of good common sense laws have been passed, the people/states have passed them

armed guards in all schools would easily pass - harder penalties on crimes using guns would easily pass - getting the US Fed Govt to prosecute everyone lying on background checks would easily pass, supporting our police and authorities would easily pass ... but the left will not support those things and so ... here we are

 

[Stealthycat]

I would probably oppose this if were applied to shotguns and bolt-action hunting rifles -- too cumbersome, and those weapons aren't really threats for mass shootings

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

more often than most think, shotguns are used and they'll be used more and more if that's the only weapons available and God help victims if shooters figure it out :(   

 

[-fish-]

So name one mass shooting, such as Uvalde or Buffalo, that this new system would have prevented.  The Buffalo shooter could have been stopped with NY's Red Flag law but the state police failed in that regard.  The guns were bought legally as a result using the current background check system.  So, which mass shooting would this pre check system have prevented? 

The article is suggesting an enhanced background check system.   

 

[timschochet]

except we agreed on age limits for guns, age limits for ammo, background checks, no weapons in schools, we have supported stand your gun laws, carry laws, IIRC there was support across the board on armor piercing bullets

I don’t normally respond to your posts and it won’t be a habit for me, but this is an absolute lie. The NRA fought every one of those proposals tooth and nail and continues to do so. You didn’t agree, you were dragged kicking and screaming and would reverse most of these if you could. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Bummer.  If I click a vox article then my Google feed will offer me more vox articles.  I have zero interest in that source.  Guess I will have to skip this one 

Yeah, Vox is utter left wing garbage.  Propaganda in it's purest form.

If you link to Vox as a source for a basis of your argument then you've already lost.  Even the guys at Pravda won't read anything from them.

 

[Gatorman]

Yeah, Vox is utter left wing garbage.  Propaganda in it's purest form.

If you link to Vox as a source for a basis of your argument then you've already lost.  Even the guys at Pravda won't read anything from them.

Please, by all means devalue the discussion bc you dont like who brings it up. Makes it much easier to live in your bubble. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Please, by all means devalue the discussion bc you dont like who brings it up. Makes it much easier to live in your bubble. 

Sorry, but I have to agree with @supermike80 here.  

Some sources just aren't reliable. Vox is one of those.  This is no different then if I had linked to Infowars.  That's how reliable Vox is.

No way on earth would you ever consider it either.  And I wouldn't blame you.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yeah, Vox is utter left wing garbage.  Propaganda in it's purest form.

If you link to Vox as a source for a basis of your argument then you've already lost.  Even the guys at Pravda won't read anything from them.

It can be.   In the other thread I linked to them because it was one of the few places I saw that had info about the mass shooter book I read.   Since I read the book, and knew they weren't misrepresenting the facts, I linked it.  

That said, I get your stance.   Similar could be said about links I don't click on because I dislike the source.  

 

[Gatorman]

Sorry, but I have to agree with @supermike80 here.  

Some sources just aren't reliable. Vox is one of those.  This is no different then if I had linked to Infowars.  That's how reliable Vox is.

No way on earth would you ever consider it either.  And I wouldn't blame you.

Yawn. It is a well written article that talks about a concept not likely to pass, but one that makes sense. 
 

it’s like saying I wouldn’t read the national lampoon bc PJ O’rourke was the editor. Give me a break. If Alex Jones had a good idea for something I might scoff at it at first, but if it made sense I’d listen. Trumps Israel policy went against conventional wisdom but in the end his “what are they going to do about it” diplomacy worked… (stop living in your bubble)

 

[supermike80]

Please, by all means devalue the discussion bc you dont like who brings it up. Makes it much easier to live in your bubble. 

I dont think skipping a vox article means I cant get opinions from both sides.  

 

[supermike80]

Yawn. It is a well written article that talks about a concept not likely to pass, but one that makes sense. 
 

it’s like saying I wouldn’t read the national lampoon bc PJ O’rourke was the editor. Give me a break. If Alex Jones had a good idea for something I might scoff at it at first, but if it made sense I’d listen. Trumps Israel policy went against conventional wisdom but in the end his “what are they going to do about it” diplomacy worked… (stop living in your bubble)

I'm not discounting the info.  Just don't want more from that source polluting my news feed.  And thats what happens when you click a link from a source and use Google news

 

[jm192]

Yawn. It is a well written article that talks about a concept not likely to pass, but one that makes sense. 
 

it’s like saying I wouldn’t read the national lampoon bc PJ O’rourke was the editor. Give me a break. If Alex Jones had a good idea for something I might scoff at it at first, but if it made sense I’d listen. Trumps Israel policy went against conventional wisdom but in the end his “what are they going to do about it” diplomacy worked… (stop living in your bubble)

I think the concept makes a lot of sense.

I think you've got to pass gun legislation before this is even on the table.  People don't want to hear about how you can make the gun buying process easier in the same conversation you're talking about making it harder.  

 

[ekbeats]

Last summer I went through the TSA pre-check process, and also went through the pistol permit process in CT.  The pistol permit process was far and away more rigorous and time consuming, and it wasn’t even close.  I did things as quickly as humanly possible, and from start to finish getting a pistol permit in CT takes a minimum of 6 months, several hundred dollars, and multiple multiple trips to state and local agencies.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don’t normally respond to your posts and it won’t be a habit for me, but this is an absolute lie. The NRA fought every one of those proposals tooth and nail and continues to do so. You didn’t agree, you were dragged kicking and screaming and would reverse most of these if you could. 

I'd have to research what the NRA's position was on each - I didn't mention the NRA you did

I said we/gun owners and its true, we supported ... had we not supported, the bi-partisan laws wouldn't never have been passed

But as for the NRA ... the Gun Control Act of 1968 ... At the time of its passage in 1968, NRA executive vice president Franklin Orth wrote in American Rifleman that "the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with".[22]: 95 [23]

House Resolution 17735, known as the Gun Control Act, was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968[10] banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns.[11][12]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/s558

39 Dem 31 Rep voted for  13 Dem and 4 Rep voted against 11 Dem and 2 Rep abstained

That's on the 1968 law .... do don't accuse me of lying when I have proof of how Republicans Voted, and what NRA commented on and as a gun owner, knowing how gun owners think. 

 

[The Z Machine]

Last summer I went through the TSA pre-check process, and also went through the pistol permit process in CT.  The pistol permit process was far and away more rigorous and time consuming, and it wasn’t even close.  I did things as quickly as humanly possible, and from start to finish getting a pistol permit in CT takes a minimum of 6 months, several hundred dollars, and multiple multiple trips to state and local agencies.

Is that a conceal carry permit or just to buy a handgun?

 

[ekbeats]

Is that a conceal carry permit or just to buy a handgun?

I am licensed to conceal carry.  The CT licensing laws are unbelievably convoluted, and I am embarrassed to admit that I don't even know if there is a difference between a pistol permit and a conceal carry permit.  I think they are one in the same.  I just know that the first part of the process was attending an NRA Training class, and the guy who ran the class gave me step by step instructions (verbally) of everything I had to do to get a pistol permit, which he said included conceal carry.  The NRA course was no joke.  If I didn't prepare for it in advance, no way I would have passed the written test at the end. I squeaked by.

After the written test I also had to pass a shooting test at an indoor range with the rest of the class.  The target was a body outline in black on a white piece of paper, about 30 feet away.  You were given 5 shots and you only had to hit the target once.  The instructor said it was a piece of cake and that he'd never seen anyone fail it.  Well, he never met me.  I had never held a gun, never mind fire one and hit a target, so I was nervous as hell.  I just had about 3 cups of coffee, and the sound of gunfire right next to me was so unnerving that I was literally jumping every time a shot range out.  On top of all that my eyesight sucks and I'm cross-eyed dominant, which the instructor said makes for terrible shooters.  And the damn Covid mask was fogging up my goggles.  It didn't feel as easy as he said it was.

My first shot doesn't even hit the paper, never mind the target on it.  Oof.  Now I'm so nervous I start shaking like a leaf.  Next shot - misses the paper again.  The instructor looks puzzled and asks me, "You are aiming at the target right in front of you, correct?"  Shot #3 hits the bottom of the paper but not the target.  Shot #4 misses the paper again, "missing high" according to the instructor.  How the hell he knew that is beyond me to this day.  With one shot left, the instructor asks the other 10 students in the range to hold off for a minute.  Now I'm nervous because everyone is looking at me with ####-eating grins on their faces.  But the lack of shooting around me really calms my nerves, and I stop shaking.  Shot #5 hits the right shoulder of the target - about one centimeter in the black.  The place busts out into laughter,  and as I walk out people start applauding and giving me high 5's.  

That was the hard part.  After that it was 6 months going back and forth to the local Town Hall and State Barracks.  This is why I'm so blown away when I hear about states where you can just buy a gun and get it in your hands within a week or so.  Crazy.

 

[Gatorman]

I'd have to research what the NRA's position was on each - I didn't mention the NRA you did

I said we/gun owners and its true, we supported ... had we not supported, the bi-partisan laws wouldn't never have been passed

But as for the NRA ... the Gun Control Act of 1968 ... At the time of its passage in 1968, NRA executive vice president Franklin Orth wrote in American Rifleman that "the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with".[22]: 95 [23]

House Resolution 17735, known as the Gun Control Act, was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968[10] banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns.[11][12]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/s558

39 Dem 31 Rep voted for  13 Dem and 4 Rep voted against 11 Dem and 2 Rep abstained

That's on the 1968 law .... do don't accuse me of lying when I have proof of how Republicans Voted, and what NRA commented on and as a gun owner, knowing how gun owners think. 

i think when you have to go back 50 years to prove your point, you’ve likely proven mine. Not reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is a more relevant vote and every gun safety vote since.  

 

[RCon]

I am licensed to conceal carry.  The CT licensing laws are unbelievably convoluted, and I am embarrassed to admit that I don't even know if there is a difference between a pistol permit and a conceal carry permit.  I think they are one in the same.  I just know that the first part of the process was attending an NRA Training class, and the guy who ran the class gave me step by step instructions (verbally) of everything I had to do to get a pistol permit, which he said included conceal carry.  The NRA course was no joke.  If I didn't prepare for it in advance, no way I would have passed the written test at the end. I squeaked by.

After the written test I also had to pass a shooting test at an indoor range with the rest of the class.  The target was a body outline in black on a white piece of paper, about 30 feet away.  You were given 5 shots and you only had to hit the target once.  The instructor said it was a piece of cake and that he'd never seen anyone fail it.  Well, he never met me.  I had never held a gun, never mind fire one and hit a target, so I was nervous as hell.  I just had about 3 cups of coffee, and the sound of gunfire right next to me was so unnerving that I was literally jumping every time a shot range out.  On top of all that my eyesight sucks and I'm cross-eyed dominant, which the instructor said makes for terrible shooters.  And the damn Covid mask was fogging up my goggles.  It didn't feel as easy as he said it was.

My first shot doesn't even hit the paper, never mind the target on it.  Oof.  Now I'm so nervous I start shaking like a leaf.  Next shot - misses the paper again.  The instructor looks puzzled and asks me, "You are aiming at the target right in front of you, correct?"  Shot #3 hits the bottom of the paper but not the target.  Shot #4 misses the paper again, "missing high" according to the instructor.  How the hell he knew that is beyond me to this day.  With one shot left, the instructor asks the other 10 students in the range to hold off for a minute.  Now I'm nervous because everyone is looking at me with ####-eating grins on their faces.  But the lack of shooting around me really calms my nerves, and I stop shaking.  Shot #5 hits the right shoulder of the target - about one centimeter in the black.  The place busts out into laughter,  and as I walk out people start applauding and giving me high 5's.  

That was the hard part.  After that it was 6 months going back and forth to the local Town Hall and State Barracks.  This is why I'm so blown away when I hear about states where you can just buy a gun and get it in your hands within a week or so.  Crazy.

In all seriousness, this seems like something that should give one pause before wanting to own a gun.  It also seems like something that should give society at large pause.  Not to be a jerk, but I would think eyesight and ability to shoot fairly accurately should be a requirement, no?

 

[Stealthycat]

i think when you have to go back 50 years to prove your point, you’ve likely proven mine. Not reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is a more relevant vote and every gun safety vote since.  

except we've seen the "assault" weapons ban didn't really make a huge difference and, we have 20-30 million more AR's than we did 20 years ago and crimes/murders have went down consistently  (until the last 2 years ) .....  if gun owners owning AR15's were the problem, ya'll would for sure know it

But no, the TSA checkpoint for guns? No, I don't see that as being reasonable at all

 

[KarmaPolice]

except we've seen the "assault" weapons ban didn't really make a huge difference and, we have 20-30 million more AR's than we did 20 years ago and crimes/murders have went down consistently  (until the last 2 years ) .....  if gun owners owning AR15's were the problem, ya'll would for sure know it

But no, the TSA checkpoint for guns? No, I don't see that as being reasonable at all

I think many that look at the stats and graphic linked in these threads disagree with this part.  

But, you will do your usual of pivoting to "it didn't stop anything". 

 

[[icon]]

If the new law or idea proposed has the potential, no matter how remote, of causing even the slightest inconvenience to gun owners, it will never be accepted. 

I'd be all for it if it's a simple as a persistent NICS check that lasts for an extended period and no records of transactions are stored.  

 

[Stealthycat]

I think many that look at the stats and graphic linked in these threads disagree with this part.  

But, you will do your usual of pivoting to "it didn't stop anything". 

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

lots of mass shootings during the ban - google murders and you'll see it didn't stop murders either

if counting hadn't changed on what is a "mass murder" or "school shooting" the numbers wouldn't have changed much either - and we already know for a fact counting changed

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-said-mass-shootings-tripled-when-assault/

The ban’s impact remains unclear

On the key policy question of whether the ban drove the decline, DiMaggio urged caution.

"It is pretty much impossible to prove cause and effect," he told us when his study came out in 2019.

Gun violence researcher Andrew Morral at RAND Corporation, a consulting nonprofit research group, said he and his colleagues don’t see strong evidence that the ban drove down deaths. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

SC, most of us can see the difference during the ban and the numbers after the ban and admit it made a difference. That's enough for many people    Like I said- you went right to the usual b.s. that it didn't "stop" anything.   That said, I am not for bans on guns currently, so it doesn't matter a ton to me either way, just saying evidence is there and I get the pov of people who are suggesting it.  

 

[ekbeats]

In all seriousness, this seems like something that should give one pause before wanting to own a gun.  It also seems like something that should give society at large pause.  Not to be a jerk, but I would think eyesight and ability to shoot fairly accurately should be a requirement, no?

It did give me pause.  But with practice at the range, a nice laser sight, and a new eyeglass prescription, I'm much better now.

I'm glad I went through the process.  I learned an awful lot about guns, gun laws, gun safety...  CT does it right.  Like I said, it's a rigorous process and takes 6-9 months to get a pistol permit.  The NRA course was top notch, and everyone I've met at the range and at gun stores have been extremely knowledgable and safety conscious.  And although I am licensed to conceal carry, I haven't done it and I don't plan to.  The exception would be if I went camping or on a hike.  I have good reasons for owning a gun.  I spoke about them before in here.

 

[The Z Machine]

Thanks for posting that @ekbeats. I too wish that it was equally difficult to obtain a handgun in other places.  I think there'd be far fewer on the streets. 

 

[BladeRunner]

If the new law or idea proposed has the potential, no matter how remote, of causing even the slightest inconvenience to gun owners, it will never be accepted. 

You may have a point if your side of the aisle didn't consistently rail against Voter ID. 

 

[Nugget]

It did give me pause.  But with practice at the range, a nice laser sight, and a new eyeglass prescription, I'm much better now.

I'm glad I went through the process.  I learned an awful lot about guns, gun laws, gun safety...  CT does it right.  Like I said, it's a rigorous process and takes 6-9 months to get a pistol permit.  The NRA course was top notch, and everyone I've met at the range and at gun stores have been extremely knowledgable and safety conscious.  And although I am licensed to conceal carry, I haven't done it and I don't plan to.  The exception would be if I went camping or on a hike.  I have good reasons for owning a gun.  I spoke about them before in here.

Thank you for sharing. I think CT has a pretty good process.  To get your CC is Kansas, you need to be 21. 

 

[RCon]

It did give me pause.  But with practice at the range, a nice laser sight, and a new eyeglass prescription, I'm much better now.

I'm glad I went through the process.  I learned an awful lot about guns, gun laws, gun safety...  CT does it right.  Like I said, it's a rigorous process and takes 6-9 months to get a pistol permit.  The NRA course was top notch, and everyone I've met at the range and at gun stores have been extremely knowledgable and safety conscious.  And although I am licensed to conceal carry, I haven't done it and I don't plan to.  The exception would be if I went camping or on a hike.  I have good reasons for owning a gun.  I spoke about them before in here.

Obviously, I haven't seen the amount you've practiced since, have no real knowledge on your sight issues, etc.  My comment was mostly on the initial story you wrote, which seemed on its own to indicate a fairly lackadaisical requirement.  Hitting a target once on five tries from 30 feet doesn't exactly seem terribly rigorous.

I've also never gone through the process, not even in CT.  For obvious reasons, I would be inclined to believe CT has more stringent laws than most states.

 

[quick-hands]

TSA precheck, but for guns

Found this interesting enough that I thought it should be its own thread.  With the whole: good guy with a gun vs bad guy w a gun, wouldn't a system like this make more sense?  It will not solve everything, but I'd support it.

So will tsa be standing outside my house when I decide I need to go out.

What do you think about the untrained west virginia lady who saved that birthday party couple weeks back?

 

[BladeRunner]

Obviously, I haven't seen the amount you've practiced since, have no real knowledge on your sight issues, etc.  My comment was mostly on the initial story you wrote, which seemed on its own to indicate a fairly lackadaisical requirement.  Hitting a target once on five tries from 30 feet doesn't exactly seem terribly rigorous.

I've also never gone through the process, not even in CT.  For obvious reasons, I would be inclined to believe CT has more stringent laws than most states.

Your post is exactly what we talk about when we say your side has no idea what you're talking about when it comes to guns.

People who have only listened to the talking points and have never touch or fired a gun for any amount of time want to make the rules around them. 

It's easy enough to go to the gun range a couple times and rent some weapons and work with them and then you'll start understanding them better where you can actually make an argument that comes from a background of knowledge.

It appears a lot of time that what most of you guys know about weapons is what you see in the movies.  That's like saying you know about cars because you've seen the Fast and Furious movies.

 

[Gatorman]

Your post is exactly what we talk about when we say your side has no idea what you're talking about when it comes to guns.

People who have only listened to the talking points and have never touch or fired a gun for any amount of time want to make the rules around them. 

I think that a lot of people who have been shot at (Specifically the parkland kids) do want to make rules about it.  The parents of the kids who have been shot at/killed do not want to see history repeat itself seem to want something done.  I, as someone who moves around in public would like to see something done.  Finally, those who do shoot guns all the time seem to want to do something about this (Range shooters, Cops, and former military) but one particular group seems to hold them back: REPUBLICAN SENATORS and the NRA.

I don't know how to fly a plane either but want rules in place to make sure they don't crash.  Most people have no medical or scientific training but have a lot to say on Mask mandates and vaccinations so perhaps you may be talking out of both sides of your mouth with this particular argument.

Me not having a full arsenal of weapons does not negate my wish to not be involved in a gunfight at a movie theater.  I'd prefer to simply be able to go to the movies.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Your post is exactly what we talk about when we say your side has no idea what you're talking about when it comes to guns.

People who have only listened to the talking points and have never touch or fired a gun for any amount of time want to make the rules around them. 

It's easy enough to go to the gun range a couple times and rent some weapons and work with them and then you'll start understanding them better where you can actually make an argument that comes from a background of knowledge.

It appears a lot of time that what most of you guys know about weapons is what you see in the movies.  That's like saying you know about cars because you've seen the Fast and Furious movies.

While I think it's fair to point out that people could learn from the other side,  I don't think it's a fair bar to set that says we can only debate and set rules for things we have intimate working knowledge of.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'd have to research what the NRA's position was on each - I didn't mention the NRA you did

I said we/gun owners and its true, we supported ... had we not supported, the bi-partisan laws wouldn't never have been passed

But as for the NRA ... the Gun Control Act of 1968 ... At the time of its passage in 1968, NRA executive vice president Franklin Orth wrote in American Rifleman that "the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with".[22]: 95 [23]

House Resolution 17735, known as the Gun Control Act, was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968[10] banning mail order sales of rifles and shotguns and prohibiting most felons, drug users and people found mentally incompetent from buying guns.[11][12]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/s558

39 Dem 31 Rep voted for  13 Dem and 4 Rep voted against 11 Dem and 2 Rep abstained

That's on the 1968 law .... do don't accuse me of lying when I have proof of how Republicans Voted, and what NRA commented on and as a gun owner, knowing how gun owners think. 

I just want to point out that the state of Maryland passed a Saturday Night Special law in 1988 (which was delayed by referendum to 1990) that mirrored an earlier 1971ish published NRA proposal.  The NRA fought this law "tooth and nail" despite more than once conceding that there were handguns of such low quality that they had no legitimate value and asserting that they refused to allow such guns to be advertised in it's own publication(s).  So a NRA stance from 1968 is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the NRA in 2022.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

On one hand I agree with the concept that individuals willing to go through a more vigorous periodic background check should be able to skip past background checks for each individual purchase.  And that the individual purchase background checks should be more uniform and consistent across the nation.

What gives me pause is how are they going to assign "risk" to individual to approve such "pre checks".   When the article says that the TSA criteria is classified that sets off red flags for me.  Would this be the same?  When someone is  disapproved for a "pre check" are they going to be told why?  Is this precheck just going to a big data pattern matching prediction model which ends up "black boxing" our inherent biases such that different individuals are treated very differently by the government for reasons no one has any clue exists?  These things are problematic to begin with (as in existing systems), but setting up a two tiered system amplifies the problems.

 

[Stealthycat]

I just want to point out that the state of Maryland passed a Saturday Night Special law in 1988 (which was delayed by referendum to 1990) that mirrored an earlier 1971ish published NRA proposal.  The NRA fought this law "tooth and nail" despite more than once conceding that there were handguns of such low quality that they had no legitimate value and asserting that they refused to allow such guns to be advertised in it's own publication(s).  So a NRA stance from 1968 is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the NRA in 2022.

NRA comments last couple of days - 

"The NRA is committed to real solutions to help stop violence in our communities.  We encourage our elected officials to provide more resources to secure our schools, fix … our severely broken mental health system and support law enforcement," the NRA said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Sunday. 

"The NRA will continue to oppose any effort to insert gun control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation," the NRA added in its statement. 

"As is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on ‘frameworks’.  We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review," the statement continued. 

A group of senators, including Republican Sen. John Cornyn and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, announced Sunday that they had come to an agreement on a "commonsense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country."

"Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons. Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense proposal into law," the senators said in a group statement. 

The proposal includes initiatives to support state crisis intervention orders; a national expansion of mental health services for children and families; expanding mental health programs in schools; enhanced review process for gun buyers under the age of 21; penalties for straw purchases; and additional funding for school resource officers. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

"The NRA will continue to oppose any effort to insert gun control policies, initiatives that override constitutional due process protections and efforts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves and their loved ones into this or any other legislation," the NRA added in its statement. 

Which is the exact opposite of the 1968 and 1971 positions mentioned.