Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overni (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Here are some facts:

The “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that allows private citizens, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records. These “private sellers” often sell guns at the thousands of gun shows that take place every weekend across the country. But, private sales of guns also take place daily between individuals as people sell guns to family members, friends and strangers without any requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.

• Federal law requires federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) to conduct background checks on all buyers to make sure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. Dealers must conduct background checks whether at their primary place of business, or at a gun show. Dealers also keep buyer records in the event a gun is recovered in a crime and ATF needs to trace its serial number to its owner.
• Private sellers are not required to conduct background checks or keep records. In fact, federal law prevents private sellers from access to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
• Many criminals, knowing they can bypass background checks by purchasing from private sellers, use gun shows and individual sales as their source for obtaining guns.

The gun show loophole facilitates

sales to criminals:

• 30% of trafficking: One ATF study found that over 10,000 crime guns traced in a year were connected to gun shows – about 30% of all crime guns traced that year.
• “Gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.” according to the ATF.
• Columbine: All four guns used in the Columbine schoolmassacre were bought at gun shows without background checks.
  
• New York City’s investigation of gun shows: In 2009, the City of New York sent undercover investigators to gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada to find out if private sellers and federally licensed gun dealers at the shows would engage in illegal sales practices. They found that 74% of sellers approached by investigators, who verbally indicated they were legally prohibited from having guns, were willing to make the sale.

Widespread support for closing the

gun show loophole:

• A majority of NRA members support closing the loophole: In a poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, 69% of NRA members and 85% of non-NRA gun owners supported background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.
• 87% of Americans favor a requirement that everyone who sells guns at gun shows conduct criminal background checks on all purchases, according to a bipartisan 2008 poll.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/

Would background checks have prevented the sale of the Columbine guns?

Maybe. Who knows? It might have helped.

I don't like using anecdotes like that, though, to prove my points. The 30% figure is far more important, IMO.

 

[dozer]

We're almost to the point in this thread where the gun nuts offer up mental health as the excuse and guns for everyone as the solution.

 

[Stinger Ray]

?? The second part of tommyboy's first sentence, which I agreed with, is "or acquired illegally." Meaning most guns used by criminals are acquired illegally. Which is absolutely true. It is illegal for a felon to purchase a firearm. But this law is impossible to enforce, because THERE ARE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS for private sales. That doesn't make these sales any less illegal; it just means nobody knows about them.

You don't read well. You stated you agreed with the second sentence below which doesn't have anything to do with guns being "acquired illegally". I have posted the two sentences below.

Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals.

 

[timschochet]

Other than Ditkaless Wonders, none of the rest of you have provided any rebuttal to my arguments whatsoever. A few of you have made false assertions without any statistics to back them up (the most amusing of these was Joe T, who provided a link which only weakened his own position.) I have now provided statistics to back up my own position, and I'm happy to provide more.

The main argument that most of you seem to be making is that universal background checks won't do any good. This argument is belied by both the statistics and by a certain amount of common sense, IMO; however, I'm not going to say that it's not impossible. The fact is we won't know if universal background checks will be effective until they are actually in place. I have every reason to think they will be. but as I wrote before, if they're not we can always scrap them later on. But it makes NO sense not to try.

Of course, the other argument which the NRA makes, and which DW alluded to (but did not make himself) is that background checks are themselves an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and a threat to personal liberty. Nobody has yet to make this argument in this thread, though it has been made here in the past. Personally I think it's a ridiculous assertion, but you're welcome to make it if you want.

 

[timschochet]

?? The second part of tommyboy's first sentence, which I agreed with, is "or acquired illegally." Meaning most guns used by criminals are acquired illegally. Which is absolutely true. It is illegal for a felon to purchase a firearm. But this law is impossible to enforce, because THERE ARE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS for private sales. That doesn't make these sales any less illegal; it just means nobody knows about them.

You don't read well. You stated you agreed with the second sentence below which doesn't have anything to do with guns being "acquired illegally". I have posted the two sentences below.

Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals.

LOL. Read what I wrote again. I wrote that the first part of the first sentence was false, the second part of the first sentence I agreed with, and the second sentence was completely false. I think it's YOU who doesn't read well.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Other than Ditkaless Wonders, none of the rest of you have provided any rebuttal to my arguments whatsoever. A few of you have made false assertions without any statistics to back them up (the most amusing of these was Joe T, who provided a link which only weakened his own position.) I have now provided statistics to back up my own position, and I'm happy to provide more.

The main argument that most of you seem to be making is that universal background checks won't do any good. This argument is belied by both the statistics and by a certain amount of common sense, IMO; however, I'm not going to say that it's not impossible. The fact is we won't know if universal background checks will be effective until they are actually in place. I have every reason to think they will be. but as I wrote before, if they're not we can always scrap them later on. But it makes NO sense not to try.

Of course, the other argument which the NRA makes, and which DW alluded to (but did not make himself) is that background checks are themselves an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and a threat to personal liberty. Nobody has yet to make this argument in this thread, though it has been made here in the past. Personally I think it's a ridiculous assertion, but you're welcome to make it if you want.

Where have you proven your belief that background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns? Or is your belief now what you agreed with in Tommy Boys post that background checks won't have an impact on crimes by criminals?

 

[timschochet]

Hey Stinger:

tommyboy wrote:

Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals.

I responded:

The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.

Tell me exactly where I contradicted myself, again?

 

[timschochet]

Other than Ditkaless Wonders, none of the rest of you have provided any rebuttal to my arguments whatsoever. A few of you have made false assertions without any statistics to back them up (the most amusing of these was Joe T, who provided a link which only weakened his own position.) I have now provided statistics to back up my own position, and I'm happy to provide more.

The main argument that most of you seem to be making is that universal background checks won't do any good. This argument is belied by both the statistics and by a certain amount of common sense, IMO; however, I'm not going to say that it's not impossible. The fact is we won't know if universal background checks will be effective until they are actually in place. I have every reason to think they will be. but as I wrote before, if they're not we can always scrap them later on. But it makes NO sense not to try.

Of course, the other argument which the NRA makes, and which DW alluded to (but did not make himself) is that background checks are themselves an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and a threat to personal liberty. Nobody has yet to make this argument in this thread, though it has been made here in the past. Personally I think it's a ridiculous assertion, but you're welcome to make it if you want.

Where have you proven your belief that background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns? Or is your belief now what you agreed with in Tommy Boys post that background checks won't have an impact on crimes by criminals?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Hey Stinger:

tommyboy wrote:

Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals.

I responded:

The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.

Tell me exactly where I contradicted myself, again?

Where has it been proven that background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Read the article:

McCarthy noted that Chicago cops have seized 1,500 illegal guns so far this year, but the people caught with the weapons are all too often back on the street all too soon.

“It’s like running on a hamster wheel,” McCarthy said of the effort to grapple with the problem. “We’re drinking from a fire hose, seizing these guns, and people are back out on the street. They’re not learning that carrying a firearm is going to have a serious impact on their lives.”

McCarthy invoked the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old who was killed by a stray round in 2013, just days after performing at Obama’s second inauguration. McCarthy noted that her suspected killer had been at liberty despite having been convicted of illegal gun possession just two months before.

“If he’s not out on the street, Hadiya Pendleton is out there being an honor student and continuing on with her life,” McCarthy said.

This is all on the judges.

Who are they? The article does not say.

Who are they? The people protesting and all the people who want changhe probably do not even know their names.

How many people convicted of illegal possession have been released by which judges? No one knows.

Do you think any of the Chitown politicians from Emanuel to Barrack Obama and all the ivory tower pundits and influence peddlers who speak on this issue will talk about the judges who are actually making this possible? Do you think they will seek to have their names in headlines or have them removed?

No.

But folks that's why this is happening.

Oh by the way the Obama administration is granting clemency to people convicted of drug offenses. Guess who a great far portion of the people committing these murders are? Drug dealers, distributors and buyers.

Deal with what is actually happening here.

 

[timschochet]

Hey Stinger:

tommyboy wrote:

Most guns used by criminals are stolen, or acquired illegally. Background checks, private gun registries and more restricted gun laws merely constrain legal gun owners and have no effect on criminals.

I responded:

The first part of your first sentence is simply false; if you don't believe me on this, check out Joe T's link. The second part of your first sentence is correct; I am attempting to suggest a way to make it more difficult to do so. Your second sentence is false.

Tell me exactly where I contradicted myself, again?

Where has it been proven that background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns?

OK, so you're going to pretend that you didn't just screw up in attempting to point out my supposed contradiction? Fine. Let's move on then.

I already answered your question: it has NOT been proven, not to my satisfaction. Had you bothered to read my earlier post, you would have read the following:

The fact is we won't know if universal background checks will be effective until they are actually in place. I have every reason to think they will be. but as I wrote before, if they're not we can always scrap them later on. But it makes NO sense not to try.

 

[timschochet]

Read the article:

McCarthy noted that Chicago cops have seized 1,500 illegal guns so far this year, but the people caught with the weapons are all too often back on the street all too soon.

“It’s like running on a hamster wheel,” McCarthy said of the effort to grapple with the problem. “We’re drinking from a fire hose, seizing these guns, and people are back out on the street. They’re not learning that carrying a firearm is going to have a serious impact on their lives.”

McCarthy invoked the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old who was killed by a stray round in 2013, just days after performing at Obama’s second inauguration. McCarthy noted that her suspected killer had been at liberty despite having been convicted of illegal gun possession just two months before.

“If he’s not out on the street, Hadiya Pendleton is out there being an honor student and continuing on with her life,” McCarthy said.

This is all on the judges.

Who are they? The article does not say.

Who are they? The people protesting and all the people who want changhe probably do not even know their names.

How many people convicted of illegal possession have been released by which judges? No one knows.

Do you think any of the Chitown politicians from Emanuel to Barrack Obama and all the ivory tower pundits and influence peddlers who speak on this issue will talk about the judges who are actually making this possible? Do you think they will seek to have their names in headlines or have them removed?

No.

But folks that's why this is happening.

Oh by the way the Obama administration is granting clemency to people convicted of drug offenses. Guess who a great far portion of the people committing these murders are? Drug dealers, distributors and buyers.

Deal with what is actually happening here.

I think you make good points here. It doesn't, however, contradict the fact that private gun sales without background checks are a big part of the problem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Read the article:

McCarthy noted that Chicago cops have seized 1,500 illegal guns so far this year, but the people caught with the weapons are all too often back on the street all too soon.

“It’s like running on a hamster wheel,” McCarthy said of the effort to grapple with the problem. “We’re drinking from a fire hose, seizing these guns, and people are back out on the street. They’re not learning that carrying a firearm is going to have a serious impact on their lives.”

McCarthy invoked the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old who was killed by a stray round in 2013, just days after performing at Obama’s second inauguration. McCarthy noted that her suspected killer had been at liberty despite having been convicted of illegal gun possession just two months before.

“If he’s not out on the street, Hadiya Pendleton is out there being an honor student and continuing on with her life,” McCarthy said.

This is all on the judges.

Who are they? The article does not say.

Who are they? The people protesting and all the people who want changhe probably do not even know their names.

How many people convicted of illegal possession have been released by which judges? No one knows.

Do you think any of the Chitown politicians from Emanuel to Barrack Obama and all the ivory tower pundits and influence peddlers who speak on this issue will talk about the judges who are actually making this possible? Do you think they will seek to have their names in headlines or have them removed?

No.

But folks that's why this is happening.

Oh by the way the Obama administration is granting clemency to people convicted of drug offenses. Guess who a great far portion of the people committing these murders are? Drug dealers, distributors and buyers.

Deal with what is actually happening here.

I think you make good points here. It doesn't, however, contradict the fact that private gun sales without background checks are a big part of the problem.

They are not mutually exclusive.

If people turned their attention towards the judges, and if judges put people away - read the article, this is what the victims and people on the ground are saying is the problem - and if the murder rate went down, wouldn't you be good with that?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim:

private gun sales without background checks

How does that affect murders committed by people holding unregistered, maybe even unowned at all, guns?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way I probably agree with you, I don't think any felon, anyone with a violent criminal record (say spousal battery), or a psychiatric discharge and diagnosis history should be allowed to buy a gun.

Problem is most of the murderers in that Chiraq article are not buying their guns legally, they may not even have bought them, and they're maybe "mental" but definitely not crazy.

 

[Joe T]

Tim must be off his medication today.

Would be nice if everyone ignored his ridiculous assertions. It's clear he can't be reasoned with.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The Columbine guns were of two sources. Robyn Anderson purchased three of them. She did so at the Tanner gun show. She would have passed a background check had one been required. The fourth gun was purchased by the boys from a Mark Maynes. They were too young to lawfully purchase the item, yet it was sold to them. The propane, which proved ineffective in their hands was lawfully purchased.

 

[RCon]

Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.

You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.

I never wrote that most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales. We have no idea what the number is, because FEW RECORDS ARE KEPT OF PRIVATE SALES, which is, of course, the whole problem. Some experts project that at least 40% of all gun sales are performed through private means and thus without background checks, but there is no way to know how accurate that figure is. We can only guess that it is highly significant when it comes to making guns available to felons, as common sense would suggest.Your assertion that anyone who holds this position is either an idiot or fishing is yet another example of the bizarro world that many gun rights people seem to live in.

Re: the bolded, I think the problem is that your common sense doesn't really match the rest of the intelligent people of the world. You have no data whatsoever regarding this assertion. I don't have any data that shows otherwise, but then, I'm not suggesting that "common sense" should lead us all to conclude that private sales are or aren't a significant part of sales to criminals. Don't tell us what common sense should suggest; even you must be aware that your common sense is wildly different than most other intelligent people.

 

[RCon]

DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.

It absolutely would necessitate universal gun registration, if you want to enforce the law requiring background checks.

Person A owns a gun. Person A wishes to sell it to Person B. Person A says "bah, screw the background check, I don't have time", so he just hands it over for $50 in cash. Person B now commits a crime with said gun. What happens next?

 

[RCon]

No one understands you. You have yet to address how background checks prevent straw transactions which still get guns into the hands of criminals.

I'd suggest this is one thing he's got right. If all guns are registered, and all sales are recorded, and criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, government would be able to go after those straw purchasers. Sure, the first time, the straw purchaser could later claim "my gun was stolen", but that's not going to fly a second, third, and fourth time. Eventually, those straw purchasers would be "outed" as criminals themselves and prosecuted.

 

[Dr Oadi]

DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.

It absolutely would necessitate universal gun registration, if you want to enforce the law requiring background checks.

Person A owns a gun. Person A wishes to sell it to Person B. Person A says "bah, screw the background check, I don't have time", so he just hands it over for $50 in cash. Person B now commits a crime with said gun. What happens next?

They both go to prison for the rest of their life and society is better off!

 

[Enderdog]

It's looking like the people of New York largely ignored the state's requirement that they register their guns under the SAFE Act.

 

[[icon]]

It's looking like the people of New York largely ignored the state's requirement that they register their guns under the SAFE Act.

 

[Dr Oadi]

It's looking like the people of New York largely ignored the state's requirement that they register their guns under the SAFE Act.

Confiscate their illegal weapons and lock them up for two decades. Society will be safer!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Columbine guns were of two sources. Robyn Anderson purchased three of them. She did so at the Tanner gun show. She would have passed a background check had one been required. The fourth gun was purchased by the boys from a Mark Maynes. They were too young to lawfully purchase the item, yet it was sold to them. The propane, which proved ineffective in their hands was lawfully purchased.

There are two kinds of situations that drive the gun debate - the mad gunman scenario as in Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc., and the murder rate in cities like Chicago where scores of people get shot and killed every month. They're both important but to me the latter should be the priority.

 

[Kal El]

We're almost to the point in this thread where the gun nuts offer up mental health as the excuse and guns for everyone as the solution.

Personally, I feel guns should belong only in the hands of responsible owners. Hunters, for example. Still, it can't be argued that mental health, or the lack thereof, is a serious issue, especially when it comes to committing any type of violence.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We're almost to the point in this thread where the gun nuts offer up mental health as the excuse and guns for everyone as the solution.

Personally, I feel guns should belong only in the hands of responsible owners. Hunters, for example. Still, it can't be argued that mental health, or the lack thereof, is a serious issue, especially when it comes to committing any type of violence.

Absolutely - I'm surprised no one has discussed the "Guns Everywhere" law in Georgia.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/index.html

This sounds like a terrible idea.

 

[Kal El]

We're almost to the point in this thread where the gun nuts offer up mental health as the excuse and guns for everyone as the solution.

Personally, I feel guns should belong only in the hands of responsible owners. Hunters, for example. Still, it can't be argued that mental health, or the lack thereof, is a serious issue, especially when it comes to committing any type of violence.

Absolutely - I'm surprised no one has discussed the "Guns Everywhere" law in Georgia.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/index.html

This sounds like a terrible idea.

In a way, I do think it will prevent some crime, because I have heard criminals don't like victims who are armed (insert lame amputee joke here), but this could be trouble. Still, I was raised in a family of hunters, so I was taught responsible weapon handling from an early age, and I would imagine that a sizable chunk of gun owners everywhere would do the same. I know that in order to receive a hunter's safety permit, you have to pass a class, which is pretty intensive.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.

You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.

I never wrote that most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales. We have no idea what the number is, because FEW RECORDS ARE KEPT OF PRIVATE SALES, which is, of course, the whole problem. Some experts project that at least 40% of all gun sales are performed through private means and thus without background checks, but there is no way to know how accurate that figure is. We can only guess that it is highly significant when it comes to making guns available to felons, as common sense would suggest.Your assertion that anyone who holds this position is either an idiot or fishing is yet another example of the bizarro world that many gun rights people seem to live in.

Re: the bolded, I think the problem is that your common sense doesn't really match the rest of the intelligent people of the world. You have no data whatsoever regarding this assertion. I don't have any data that shows otherwise, but then, I'm not suggesting that "common sense" should lead us all to conclude that private sales are or aren't a significant part of sales to criminals. Don't tell us what common sense should suggest; even you must be aware that your common sense is wildly different than most other intelligent people.

First off, even if my opinions were absolutely unique, I would still stand by them if they made sense to me. I can't help what the rest of the world is thinking. But in any event, in this instance you're wrong anyhow. The strong majority of Americans and agree with me on this issue- and that includes the majority of law enforcement (who I would regard on this issue as "intelligent people") and even the majority of NRA members. So your premise is false.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We're almost to the point in this thread where the gun nuts offer up mental health as the excuse and guns for everyone as the solution.

Personally, I feel guns should belong only in the hands of responsible owners. Hunters, for example. Still, it can't be argued that mental health, or the lack thereof, is a serious issue, especially when it comes to committing any type of violence.

Absolutely - I'm surprised no one has discussed the "Guns Everywhere" law in Georgia.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/index.html

This sounds like a terrible idea.

In a way, I do think it will prevent some crime, because I have heard criminals don't like victims who are armed (insert lame amputee joke here), but this could be trouble. Still, I was raised in a family of hunters, so I was taught responsible weapon handling from an early age, and I would imagine that a sizable chunk of gun owners everywhere would do the same. I know that in order to receive a hunter's safety permit, you have to pass a class, which is pretty intensive.

Hey I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think anyone should have a gun at a school except a guard. There are lots of situations like that.

 

[timschochet]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

 

[Kal El]

We're almost to the point in this thread where the gun nuts offer up mental health as the excuse and guns for everyone as the solution.

Personally, I feel guns should belong only in the hands of responsible owners. Hunters, for example. Still, it can't be argued that mental health, or the lack thereof, is a serious issue, especially when it comes to committing any type of violence.

Absolutely - I'm surprised no one has discussed the "Guns Everywhere" law in Georgia.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/us/georgia-governor-signs-gun-bill/index.html

This sounds like a terrible idea.

In a way, I do think it will prevent some crime, because I have heard criminals don't like victims who are armed (insert lame amputee joke here), but this could be trouble. Still, I was raised in a family of hunters, so I was taught responsible weapon handling from an early age, and I would imagine that a sizable chunk of gun owners everywhere would do the same. I know that in order to receive a hunter's safety permit, you have to pass a class, which is pretty intensive.

Hey I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think anyone should have a gun at a school except a guard. There are lots of situations like that.

That's probably for the best, because what's to stop a kid from finding a teacher's gun and going off the deep end? I think another effective idea is teaching kids about the consequences of their actions.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

Feels like an ivory tower idea.

In New Orleans nearly all the people killing each other have guns (perp and victim), and yes many people in nicer safer neighborhoods have guns but guess what they are largely untouched by the whole thing.

What we need are more police. Whether it's urban violence or the madman gunner type, a quick police response makes a difference. The sick sob at Sandy Hook offed himself as soon as the police showed up.

One of the best things Clinton did was dedicate funds to local police forces, crime went down everywhere during that period. I think tougher prosecution helped too.

 

[timschochet]

Agree with all of that. But since the law is in place, might as well see if the NRA theory about more guns in the hands of private ciitizens making us safer is correct.

 

[tommyGunZ]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

No they don't. We have more guns in America than any other country on earth. We don't have the least gun violence. We already know the answer to that question. Unfortunately, the 2nd amendment exists and is impossible to change in current political climate.

 

[Kal El]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

Feels like an ivory tower idea.

In New Orleans nearly all the people killing each other have guns (perp and victim), and yes many people in nicer safer neighborhoods have guns but guess what they are largely untouched by the whole thing.

What we need are more police. Whether it's urban violence or the madman gunner type, a quick police response makes a difference. The sick sob at Sandy Hook offed himself as soon as the police showed up.

One of the best things Clinton did was dedicate funds to local police forces, crime went down everywhere during that period. I think tougher prosecution helped too.

I'm not entirely sure more police would be better, but I definitely support better trained police. Stop trying to catch people in speed traps, and work at preventing or at least cutting back crime.

 

[tommyGunZ]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

Feels like an ivory tower idea.

In New Orleans nearly all the people killing each other have guns (perp and victim), and yes many people in nicer safer neighborhoods have guns but guess what they are largely untouched by the whole thing.

What we need are more police. Whether it's urban violence or the madman gunner type, a quick police response makes a difference. The sick sob at Sandy Hook offed himself as soon as the police showed up.

One of the best things Clinton did was dedicate funds to local police forces, crime went down everywhere during that period. I think tougher prosecution helped too.

The problem is that we don't have enough people in jail already?

 

[Chaka]

Good grief!

 

[tommyGunZ]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

Feels like an ivory tower idea.

In New Orleans nearly all the people killing each other have guns (perp and victim), and yes many people in nicer safer neighborhoods have guns but guess what they are largely untouched by the whole thing.

What we need are more police. Whether it's urban violence or the madman gunner type, a quick police response makes a difference. The sick sob at Sandy Hook offed himself as soon as the police showed up.

One of the best things Clinton did was dedicate funds to local police forces, crime went down everywhere during that period. I think tougher prosecution helped too.

I'm not entirely sure more police would be better, but I definitely support better trained police. Stop trying to catch people in speed traps, and work at preventing or at least cutting back crime.

Yep. Perhaps this is how folks on the left and right can meet in the middle and pass legislation that would help prevent crime. Start with the minimum wage bill - nothing lowers crime like reducing poverty.

 

[Kal El]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

Feels like an ivory tower idea.

In New Orleans nearly all the people killing each other have guns (perp and victim), and yes many people in nicer safer neighborhoods have guns but guess what they are largely untouched by the whole thing.

What we need are more police. Whether it's urban violence or the madman gunner type, a quick police response makes a difference. The sick sob at Sandy Hook offed himself as soon as the police showed up.

One of the best things Clinton did was dedicate funds to local police forces, crime went down everywhere during that period. I think tougher prosecution helped too.

The problem is that we don't have enough people in jail already?

That's another problem. Jails are overcrowded, and not much real rehabilitation takes place inside the walls. It's simply a human cage at this point. We have to figure out how to rehabilitate criminals, stop throwing people in prison for stupid reasons, and change the violence culture.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

Feels like an ivory tower idea.

In New Orleans nearly all the people killing each other have guns (perp and victim), and yes many people in nicer safer neighborhoods have guns but guess what they are largely untouched by the whole thing.

What we need are more police. Whether it's urban violence or the madman gunner type, a quick police response makes a difference. The sick sob at Sandy Hook offed himself as soon as the police showed up.

One of the best things Clinton did was dedicate funds to local police forces, crime went down everywhere during that period. I think tougher prosecution helped too.

The problem is that we don't have enough people in jail already?

No, I don't believe that.

I'm just speaking that under Clinton some crimes or prosecutions got federalized.

i will tell you how that matters: at least here in NO back then we had terrible DA's, terrible judges who got (get) their campaign donations from criminal defense attorneys (and who knows who else) and most importantly victims and citizens were afraid to prosecute. It was very much the revolving door discussed in that "Chiraq" article. The feds came in and brought professionalism and some real force to back up citizens who were trying to save their neighborhoods and do the right thing.

Clinton also funded the police. Right now we are at under 1000 for a city our size, imagine that. Under Clinton we had around 2000 at least (though that was pre Katrina), it made a big difference, there was a quicker response and again murder went down.

In NO, right now, a judge can have someone released from jail with a phone call and he doesn't even have to be the judge on the case. Know someone who knows a judge? One call, that's all.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The Columbine guns were of two sources. Robyn Anderson purchased three of them. She did so at the Tanner gun show. She would have passed a background check had one been required. The fourth gun was purchased by the boys from a Mark Maynes. They were too young to lawfully purchase the item, yet it was sold to them. The propane, which proved ineffective in their hands was lawfully purchased.

There are two kinds of situations that drive the gun debate - the mad gunman scenario as in Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc., and the murder rate in cities like Chicago where scores of people get shot and killed every month. They're both important but to me the latter should be the priority.

I agree that legislating based on exceptional circumstances generally leads to bad law.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Good morning. Not surprised that so many of you disagree with me, but I'm a bit surprised by the level of vitriol. Oh well.

Vitriol or not, I stand by my comments. Would closing the private sales loophole make it impossible for bad guys to purchase guns? Of course not. But it would make it much more difficult, and thus reduce gun violence. That's what most law enforcement says, and I find their arguments on this compelling.

Is the NRA responsible in part for greater gun violence in this country? Well, they spend millions of dollars fighting reasonable proposals like removing the private sales loophole. And though they are always saying that the existing laws need to be enforced, they spend more millions attempting (successfully I might add) to weaken the ATF. So yes, I believe they are in part responsible. If that makes me asinine, so be it.

You really think most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales? You are either fishing, an idiot with no grasp of simple logic, someone posts on subjects after doing absolutely zero research, or all three.

I never wrote that most guns acquired by criminals are through private sales. We have no idea what the number is, because FEW RECORDS ARE KEPT OF PRIVATE SALES, which is, of course, the whole problem. Some experts project that at least 40% of all gun sales are performed through private means and thus without background checks, but there is no way to know how accurate that figure is. We can only guess that it is highly significant when it comes to making guns available to felons, as common sense would suggest.Your assertion that anyone who holds this position is either an idiot or fishing is yet another example of the bizarro world that many gun rights people seem to live in.

Re: the bolded, I think the problem is that your common sense doesn't really match the rest of the intelligent people of the world. You have no data whatsoever regarding this assertion. I don't have any data that shows otherwise, but then, I'm not suggesting that "common sense" should lead us all to conclude that private sales are or aren't a significant part of sales to criminals. Don't tell us what common sense should suggest; even you must be aware that your common sense is wildly different than most other intelligent people.

First off, even if my opinions were absolutely unique, I would still stand by them if they made sense to me. I can't help what the rest of the world is thinking.But in any event, in this instance you're wrong anyhow. The strong majority of Americans and agree with me on this issue- and that includes the majority of law enforcement (who I would regard on this issue as "intelligent people") and even the majority of NRA members. So your premise is false.

I would suggest that what you can reasonably say about law enforcement is that the majority of the heads of law enforcement departments publicly agree with me.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As far as the Georgia law goes, like Saints I'm uncomfortable with guns at schools.

But you know what? It's done, so let's see what happens. If gun crime in Georgia actually goes down, that will be more significant than any philosophical stance on this issue. (Same if it goes up.) Facts trump opinions.

No they don't. We have more guns in America than any other country on earth. We don't have the least gun violence. We already know the answer to that question. Unfortunately, the 2nd amendment exists and is impossible to change in current political climate.

I agree the ongoing debate has been so toxic, so polarizing that we are unlikely to see the second amendment changed any time soon, though I would like to see some changes. Perhaps the best we can do at this time, on this issue, is to try to reason politely. Few minds are insulted into change. I try to remember that those whose views differ from mine are not necessarily evil, out to do me harm, or inherently stupid. Most are good and well meaning persons trying to find solutions, most.

 

[Chaka]

The government of today has no right to tell us how to run our lives because the government of 200 years ago already did!

 

[MaxThreshold]

Have we solved the gun problem yet? I'm confident the FFA has come up with a solution.

 

[RCon]

DW, thanks for another very thoughtful post. I don't understand, though, why universal background checks would necessitate universal gun registration. I am not opposed to the latter, but I know that it is something that many gun owners are extremely fearful of. In the latest proposed legislation after Sandy Hook, there were provisions set in that background checks need not be reported after they were performed to some federal authority- the idea was not to have anything that felt like registration. But the bill failed anyhow.

It absolutely would necessitate universal gun registration, if you want to enforce the law requiring background checks.

Person A owns a gun. Person A wishes to sell it to Person B. Person A says "bah, screw the background check, I don't have time", so he just hands it over for $50 in cash. Person B now commits a crime with said gun. What happens next?

*bump* for timschochet

I'd be more likely to support universal background checks if there was a way to do it without having every gun registered with the government. I don't see a way to do that, though.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry I missed your question the first time around, Rich. I believe that most gun owners are law abiding, and will comply with background checks voluntarily once they're imposed. However, if that is not the case, then I will concede the point that you and DW are correct and we will need to have universal gun registration. If so, so be it. There is nothing wrong with registration, it imposes no Infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, and it will help us fight crime.

 

[RCon]

Sorry I missed your question the first time around, Rich. I believe that most gun owners are law abiding, and will comply with background checks voluntarily once they're imposed. However, if that is not the case, then I will concede the point that you and DW are correct and we will need to have universal gun registration. If so, so be it. There is nothing wrong with registration, it imposes no Infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, and it will help us fight crime.

It doesn't matter if "most" gun owners are law abiding and will comply. Unless "all" gun owners comply, every single time, you need universal gun registration in order to enforce the law for even one gun owner who doesn't abide by it. We already know that "all" gun owners aren't law abiding.

As far as infringing on the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure. I'll defer to others with more knowledge. I can say that I'm not entirely comfortable with the government having a record of every gun in the country, serial number, who owns it, etc. Because of that, I have a hard time getting behind universal background checks, because I know it won't do any good without universal registration.

 

[Kal El]

Sorry I missed your question the first time around, Rich. I believe that most gun owners are law abiding, and will comply with background checks voluntarily once they're imposed. However, if that is not the case, then I will concede the point that you and DW are correct and we will need to have universal gun registration. If so, so be it. There is nothing wrong with registration, it imposes no Infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, and it will help us fight crime.

It doesn't matter if "most" gun owners are law abiding and will comply. Unless "all" gun owners comply, every single time, you need universal gun registration in order to enforce the law for even one gun owner who doesn't abide by it. We already know that "all" gun owners aren't law abiding.

As far as infringing on the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure. I'll defer to others with more knowledge. I can say that I'm not entirely comfortable with the government having a record of every gun in the country, serial number, who owns it, etc. Because of that, I have a hard time getting behind universal background checks, because I know it won't do any good without universal registration.

Let's not forget that in order to get that information, the government will have to wade through a logistics nightmare, and we all know how efficiently the government runs when it's not faced with problems.