Armed guards protect Senate Democrats as they demand new gun-control laws

[Xan]

Is Gallup implying a whopping 95% of all households have guns?No background check.  Does the NRA acknowledge this is a problem?

55% of Republicans have guns and 40% of Democrats have guns.  Does that add up to 95% of the population?

[Pointedstick]

Is Gallup implying a whopping 95% of all households have guns?

Did you forget how to do basic math? Assuming there are 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans, the average gun ownership figure is 47.5%.

They already are. And as I pointed out earlier, the NRA has no problem getting more records into the system.

That may be true nowadays but where have they been since 1968?  Since we can't even get "common sense" legislation passed, who do you think is to blame?  It can't be the liberals because they're in a zeal to eliminate all weapons.

Please describe to me what "common sense" legislation means. Until you have defined this term, it is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword.

I want you to explain, in your own words, exactly what the "gun show loophole" is.

No background check.  Does the NRA acknowledge this is a problem?

Ah okay, thanks for acknowledging that it has nothing to do with gun shows. What you are really referring to is the ability for people to sell and loan each other small numbers of firearms without background checks.

Now, I want you to describe an enforceable method of requiring that all firearm transfers go through the background check system. I also want you to tell me how effective this law has been in reducing the transfer of guns to prohibited persons for thats that have already enacted it at the state level.

[mathjak107]

things are pretty strict and tightly regulated here in nyc , especially handguns .

private party deals on long arms can stll take place without an ffl dealer but  the party buying has to produce a copy of a recent background check .  no handguns can go through private party .

[Pointedstick]

things are pretty strict and tightly regulated here in nyc , especially handguns .

private party deals on long arms can stll take place without an ffl dealer but  the party buying has to produce a copy of a recent background check .  no handguns can go through private party .

If someone transfers a handgun to someone else without undergoing a background check, what is the mechanism by which the government would find out to punish the guilty parties?

[mathjak107]

i am not familiar  with the other states but in nyc it is not legal to buy a  handgun from anyone without a purchase authorization letter from nypd .

the buyer then has to go to 1 police plaza within 72 hours with the gun and purchase order and register it on their permit .

if you don't you bought and are in possession of an illegal handgun .

so they way it works is , i want to buy another handgun . i fill out a request form and file it with nypd .  in about a month i get a notice to come in and pick up the purchase order .

i buy the gun  and give the seller a copy of my purchase order.

i go back within 72 hours and show them my permit , purchase order and firearm .  they add it to my permit .

the seller goes to police plaza and brings them my copy of the purchase order and they remove it from their license .

anything else is criminal .

we have to wait 30 days to enter another request so you are looking at at least 2 months between buys .


you can only go up to 5 without installing a safe and furnishing photo's and proof and agreeing to an inspection .

[Pointedstick]

I understand how it works in NYC. I used to live right next door.

My point is, how does the government find out that someone has illegally transferred a firearm to someone else in a private sale? It's private. How are they gonna find out? If they don't find out, how are they gonna enforce the law? Is a completely unenforceable law worth anything?

And moreover, if you're a prohibited person/criminal knowingly purchasing a firearm for the purpose of committing crime, what do you care if the law says you need to undergo a background check? You're already planning to break the law; what's one more?

The only people who will follow this law are those interested in staying legal--the exact people you don't need to worry about.

[Libertarian666]

I understand how it works in NYC. I used to live right next door.

My point is, how does the government find out that someone has illegally transferred a firearm to someone else in a private sale? It's private. How are they gonna find out? If they don't find out, how are they gonna enforce the law? Is a completely unenforceable law worth anything?

And moreover, if you're a prohibited person/criminal knowingly purchasing a firearm for the purpose of committing crime, what do you care if the law says you need to undergo a background check? You're already planning to break the law; what's one more?

The only people who will follow this law are those interested in staying legal--the exact people you don't need to worry about.

As I recall, Mario Cuomo once said that he understood that criminals wouldn't follow gun control laws, but that at least they would keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens.

That's one of the very few times I ever agreed with him on anything. Not on his approval of that result, of course, but on the result itself.

[dragoncar]

Of course there is nothing inconsistent with the democrat position either-- police officers who guard them go through extensive training and background checks

[MachineGhost]

Did you forget how to do basic math? Assuming there are 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans, the average gun ownership figure is 47.5%.

Then why do you think I'm wrong?  Are you really going to nitpick a 2.5% difference from my 50%? 

[MachineGhost]

Now, I want you to describe an enforceable method of requiring that all firearm transfers go through the background check system. I also want you to tell me how effective this law has been in reducing the transfer of guns to prohibited persons for thats that have already enacted it at the state level.

Beats me, but if we can do the job with missles, nuclear weapons, military equipment, battleships, uranium, etc. it can be done with guns.  All it takes is deep intelligence and the political will and most likely without the NRA running interference at every step of the game.  BTW, a system doesn't have to be 100% perfect to be effective.  The point is to increase the difficulty at the margins.  That's "common sense".  So is allowing interstate concealed weapons permits just so you don't think I'm only on one side of the fence.  But do note it is a PERMIT or a LICENSE; its not unfettered "free market" access to whatever weapon your fancy desires.  Even Israel has gun control because you cannot trust people to not to go around shooting up everyone, everywhere under guise of "Its an Arab Palistinian! <insert Uzi sounds here>" given the nature of the volatile situation on the ground.

[MachineGhost]

The only people who will follow this law are those interested in staying legal--the exact people you don't need to worry about.

That's the point!  Criminals are criminals by definition.  Its for those non-criminals or proto-criminals that are on the margins.  You know, the ones that still have a devil and an angel on their shoulders so that the increased difficulty in acquiring a gun legally won't push them to listen to the devil.  If they're going to listen to the devil anyway, then they're already a criminal.  It's a mental thing (psychopath or sociopath?).

[MachineGhost]

Of course there is nothing inconsistent with the democrat position either-- police officers who guard them go through extensive training and background checks

I thought the Democrat position (the 47.5% ) was that they wanted ALL guns confiscated and made illegal like in Japan.  That doesn't seem to square with 40% of Democrats having guns in the household, however.

Gee, why do I suddenly get this feeling the media has been blowing up a small percentage of leftist extremists way out of proportion?

[Pointedstick]

Now, I want you to describe an enforceable method of requiring that all firearm transfers go through the background check system. I also want you to tell me how effective this law has been in reducing the transfer of guns to prohibited persons for thats that have already enacted it at the state level.

Beats me, but if we can do the job with missles, nuclear weapons, military equipment, battleships, uranium, etc. it can be done with guns.  All it takes is the political will and most likely without the NRA running interference at every step of the game.

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a very good understanding of this issue. I agree: you don't.

BTW, a system doesn't have to be 100% perfect to be effective.  The point is to increase the difficulty at the margins.  That's "common sense".

That is true, but it also requires that we logically think about just what our goal is. As I have pointed out, requiring that private transfers go through a gun store and do a background check does absolutely nothing to prevent people who should not have guns from getting ahold of them. Such a system will indeed be slightly effective--at subjecting normal gun owners to potential criminal penalties despite not actually doing anything immoral.

For example: did you know that taking someone shooting in Pennsylvania and Washington and handing them your handgun so they can fire it is 100% illegal? Probably all gun owners have committed this serious felony. Obviously this law cannot be enforced, so all it does is breed disrespect for the law, and allows the state to drop the hammer on anyone it wishes, anytime.

Do these people sound like marginal people just waiting to become hardened criminals? Does that sound like good policy to you? Because that's what the anti-gun forces want. They argue in bad faith. They say they want to "close the gun show loophole" (ooh, "loophole", that sounds bad, who could be against that!?! For the children!!!),  but then they write the law in such a manner as to make felons out of people taking their friends shooting. I believe that this is deliberate.

[MachineGhost]

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a very good understanding of this issue. I agree: you don't.

Your welcome!  I've never paid much attention to the nuances until recently.  What caused my sudden interest?  The increase in mass shootings by people with mental problems on mind-altering drugs that isn't tied into the background check system and that the background check system isn't fully implemented and isn't even instant (gee, I wonder why??? *cough* *cough*).

That is true, but it also requires that we logically think about just what our goal is. As I have pointed out, requiring that private transfers go through a gun store and do a background check does absolutely nothing to prevent people who should not have guns from getting ahold of them. Such a system will indeed be slightly effective--at subjecting normal gun owners to potential criminal penalties despite not actually doing anything immoral.

"Slighty effective" is still a win-win in my book.  Even .1% is a large number when applied to the total American population.

For example: did you know that taking someone shooting in Pennsylvania and Washington and handing them your handgun so they can fire it is 100% illegal? Probably all gun owners have committed this serious felony. Obviously this law cannot be enforced, so all it does is breed disrespect for the law, and allows the state to drop the hammer on anyone it wishes, anytime.

Do these people sound like marginal people just waiting to become hardened criminals? Does that sound like good policy to you? Because that's what the anti-gun forces want. They argue in bad faith. They say they want to "close the gun show loophole" (ooh, "loophole", that sounds bad, who could be against that!?! For the children!!!),  but then they write the law in such a manner as to make felons out of people taking their friends shooting. I believe that this is deliberate.

No I didn't, but that's not "common sense" in my book.  Does the way NYC deal with private sales make any sense to you or can you come up with a better approach?  If everyone spent less time defending turfs in the sand, more brain power would be freed up to think up innovative solutions.

[Pointedstick]

Your welcome!  I've never paid much attention to the nuances until recently.  What caused my sudden interest?  The increase in mass shootings by people with mental problems on mind-altering drugs that isn't tied into the background check system and that the background check system isn't fully implemented and isn't even instant (gee, I wonder why??? *cough* *cough*).

Please describe me how all the recent mass shooters obtained their weapons. I'll wait.

"Slighty effective" is still a win-win in my book.  Even .1% is a large number when applied to the total American population.

You are in favor of 0.1% of the currently free and law-abiding American population being thrown in prison for a bullshit offense?

No I didn't, but that's not "common sense" in my book.  Does the way NYC deal with private sales make any sense to you or can you come up with a better approach?  If everyone spent less time defending turfs in the sand, more brain power would be freed up to think up innovative solutions.

If indeed it is a problem (it's not) there is a braindead simple solution:
1. Make the background check system publicly accessible at no charge.
2. Pass a law making it possible to charge a person who transfers a firearm to someone else without using the background check system with accessory to whatever crimes the transferee goes on to commit.

Boom, done. Now there is no difference between "private" and "licensed" gun sales and everyone selling guns--dealer or private individual alike--has the same legal responsibility of care and ease of satisfying it.

But this system would not make it more expensive, burdensome, or legally perilous to acquire firearms, so anti-gun people would never accept it. This is because they're not actually out to reduce gun violence; it's only their secondary goal after the primary one of exterminating the gun culture, which they falsely believe is behind gun violence.

In case I am wrong, I would be willing to negotiate with them on what we should get in exchange for this concession. If they are not willing to give anything, well, that's not a very realistic way to negotiate, is it?

[Libertarian666]

Does the way NYC deal with private sales make any sense to you or can you come up with a better approach?  If everyone spent less time defending turfs in the sand, more brain power would be freed up to think up innovative solutions.

If indeed it is a problem (it's not) there is a braindead simple solution:
1. Make the background check system publicly accessible at no charge.
2. Pass a law making it possible to charge with conspiracy someone who transfers a firearm to someone else without using the background check system if the transferee goes on to use that firearm to commit crimes.

Boom, done. Now there is no difference between "private" and "licensed" gun sales and everyone selling guns--dealer or private individual alike--has the same legal responsibility of care and ease of satisfying it.

But this system would not make it more expensive, burdensome, or legally perilous to acquire firearms, so anti-gun people would never accept it. This is because they're not actually out to reduce gun violence; it's only their secondary goal after the primary now of exterminating the gun culture, which they falsely believe pretend is behind gun violence.

FIFY. 

[MachineGhost]

Please describe me how all the recent mass shooters obtained their weapons. I'll wait.

I'm assuming they didn't do it illegally.  Did they?

You are in favor of 0.1% of the currently free and law-abiding American population being thrown in prison for a bullshit offense?

You misunderstood.  I'm favor of making it more difficult for the proto-criminal on the margins to acquire weapons.  If even by .1%, that is still a reduction.

But this system would not make it more expensive, burdensome, or legally perilous to acquire firearms, so anti-gun people would never accept it. This is because they're not actually out to reduce gun violence; it's only their secondary goal after the primary one of exterminating the gun culture, which they falsely believe is behind gun violence.

I like it!  Doh.

In case I am wrong, I would be willing to negotiate with them on what we should get in exchange for this concession. If they are not willing to give anything, well, that's not a very realistic way to negotiate, is it?

But can you say the same about the NRA or the other extremist pro-gun organizations (like the one you mentioned) now or in the past?  To me, the whole situation feels a lot like the Israeli & Palistinian conflict...  both sides have blood on their hands.  No one is innocent.  Nor should you expect everyone else to feel as you do.  Does Wayne LaPierre?

So if 40% of Democrat household have guns, am I correct to suspect that it is only a minority fringe with the cultural cleansing impetus?

[Pointedstick]

You misunderstood.  I'm favor of making it more difficult for the proto-criminal on the margins to acquire weapons.  If even by .1%, that is still a reduction.

Can you describe such a proto-criminal? I'm having a hard time picturing this person in my mind.

I like it!  Doh.

Cool!

But can you say the same about the NRA or the other extremist pro-gun organizations (like the one you mentioned) now or in the past?  To me, the whole situation feels a lot like the Israeli & Palistinian conflict...  both sides have blood on their hands.  No one is innocent.  Nor should you expect everyone else to feel as you do.  Does Wayne LaPierre?

The NRA--and other gun rights organizations--are absolutely willing to negotiate. The last major bill was the focus of heavy negotiation, and the NRA and SAF managed to get provisions allowing interstate sale of firearms and restoring the gun rights of many veterans in exchange for requiring that private transfers use a background check. The bill was defeated in congress. But there was absolutely negotiation and willingness to bend. What the NRA and gun owners don't do is give up certain things with no concessions from the other side on things that we want, because that would be stupid. We have the political power; they don't. If they want something, they have to play ball with us. This is how politics works.

So if 40% of Democrat household have guns, am I correct to suspect that it is only a minority fringe with the cultural cleansing impetus?

I'm actually not sure. The democratic elite are pretty much 100% on the ban guns bandwagon, but the populist elements in the party are not. Not sure what the proportions are.

[Pointedstick]

Please describe me how all the recent mass shooters obtained their weapons. I'll wait.

I'm assuming they didn't do it illegally.  Did they?

Correct. Here are the details for how the last 10 mass shooters obtained their firearms:

Umpqua community college shooting - shooter was a young man on prescription medications who possibly had undiagnosed mental illness, who passed the background checks to purchase his guns because he had not been diagnosed with any mental illness and had never come to the attention of any government authorities and had no other disqualifying factors in his background.

Charleston church shooting - shooter was an angry, gullible, racist young man who passed the background checks to purchase his guns because there were no disqualifying factors in his background.

Isla Vista college shooting - shooter was a bitter young man with a persecution complex who passed the background checks to purchase his guns because there were no disqualifying factors in his background. Later, he came to the attention of the authorities after family members called the police on him, worried about inflammatory YouTube videos he had made, but the police officers who responded to the call forgot to check California's gun registry to see whether he had any guns and in any event, they left without concluding that he was a danger to himself or others. Human error.

Aurora movie theater shooting - shooter suffered from Schizophrenia but passed the background checks to purchase his guns because he had not been diagnosed with any mental illness and had never come to the attention of any government authorities and had no other disqualifying factors in his background.

Seal Beach hair salon shooting - shooter was an angry middle-aged man whose life was falling apart who legally bought his guns many years prior, passing the background checks because there were no disqualifying factors in his background. Shooter had his guns confiscated pursuant to a restraining order, but they were returned after the restraining order ran out (this is called "due process of law").

Tuscan political rally shooting - shooter suffered from Schizophrenia but passed the background checks to purchase his guns because he had not been diagnosed with any mental illness and had never come to the attention of any government authorities and had no other disqualifying factors in his background.

Carson City IHOP shooting - shooter was a Mexican immigrant whose life was falling apart; to this day the motive is still sort of unknown. Shooter legally passed the background checks to purchase his guns because there were no disqualifying factors in his background.

Binghamton Civic Center shooting - shooter was a naturalized Vietnamese immigrant who was a failure at life. Shooter was convicted of fraud in 1992, which for some reason did not disqualify him from becoming a citizen in 1995. Shooter passed the background checks to purchase his guns because there were no disqualifying factors in his background. Fraud is a nonviolent misdemeanor--not a disqualifying offense.

Geneva County shooting - shooter was a bitter young man who was a failure at life. Shooter passed the background checks to purchase his guns because there were no disqualifying factors in his background.

Carthage nursing home shooting - shooter was an angry man who was a failure at life who had purchased his guns years ago, passing the background checks because there were no disqualifying factors in his background.


Do you see a pattern here? A background check can't determine if a person is going to become a violent psycho in the future. How would you "strengthen background checks" to catch these people?

[mathjak107]

I understand how it works in NYC. I used to live right next door.

My point is, how does the government find out that someone has illegally transferred a firearm to someone else in a private sale? It's private. How are they gonna find out? If they don't find out, how are they gonna enforce the law? Is a completely unenforceable law worth anything?

And moreover, if you're a prohibited person/criminal knowingly purchasing a firearm for the purpose of committing crime, what do you care if the law says you need to undergo a background check? You're already planning to break the law; what's one more?

The only people who will follow this law are those interested in staying legal--the exact people you don't need to worry about.

the problem is not so much the person buying the illegal gun ,it is the seller . If the gun is sold legally there is a paper trail that gets the old owner off the hook if a crime is committed with it.

They find that gun you sold at a crime scene and tag your the last known owner.

[Pointedstick]

I was trying to go in chronological order but I think I forgot a few, like the ones that have taken place on military bases. Those guys bought their guns legally too.

[MachineGhost]

Can you describe such a proto-criminal? I'm having a hard time picturing this person in my mind.

Someone not a sociopath who still has inner fear at breaking the law, social taboos, etc..  It is environmental & legal resistance that makes performing overt acts of criminality difficult.  Hence the marginality.  Lets say some deranged mental idiot isn't a sociopath and finds it difficult to acquire guns legally when there's the appropriate deterrent level of licensing and regulation.  I don't believe we're at that point and that's a problem that should be patched.  We can't expect much more than a marginal influence at best because it is very easy to cross that invisible line between legality and illegality.

The NRA--and other gun rights organizations--are absolutely willing to negotiate. The last major bill was the focus of heavy negotiation, and the NRA and SAF managed to get provisions allowing interstate sale of firearms and restoring the gun rights of many veterans in exchange for requiring that private transfers use a background check. The bill was defeated in congress. But there was absolutely negotiation and willingness to bend. What the NRA and gun owners don't do is give up certain things with no concessions from the other side on things that we want, because that would be stupid. We have the political power; they don't. If they want something, they have to play ball with us. This is how politics works.

So you're saying the other side is unwilling to compromise on their utopian vision?  I'm not sure if I really believe that yet, but I can certainly believe that happens.  My impression is both gun-nuts and gun-elimination-nuts are ideologues not pragmatists.

[Pointedstick]

Can you describe such a proto-criminal? I'm having a hard time picturing this person in my mind.

Someone not a sociopath who still has inner fear at breaking the law, social taboos, etc..  It is environmental & legal resistance that makes performing overt acts of criminality difficult.  Hence the marginality.  Lets say some deranged mental idiot isn't a sociopath and finds it difficult to acquire guns legally when there's the appropriate deterrent level of licensing and regulation.  I don't believe we're at that point and that's a problem that should be patched.  We can't expect much more than a marginal influence at best because it is very easy to cross that invisible line between legality and illegality.

Then this person will simply do what he always does: a straw purchase. He has someone clean but lacking moral scruples buy the gun for him. It's already highly illegal but it's damn near impossible to prevent. It's the same old problem of needing to reliably intuit someone's future plans.

So you're saying the other side is unwilling to compromise on their utopian vision?  I'm not sure if I really believe that yet, but I can certainly believe that happens.  My impression is both gun-nuts and gun-elimination-nuts are ideologues not pragmatists.

In terms of politicians and political elites, that is exactly what I am saying. The anti-gun side uses mass shootings as political tools to try to force their favored policies without being willing to give up anything, which is arguing in bad faith. It is also unrealistic because they lack the political capital to go it alone and have so demonized the NRA that any compromise is anathema to them. They do not want to give us anything, ever, for any reason.

If they were truly willing to negotiate, probably we would have universal background checks for private sales in conjunction with national CCW reciprocity and the removal of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns from the NFA registry. That would be an eminently reasonable compromise that probably most gun owners would be in favor of and that the NRA and most gun groups would probably support.

Going even farther, we might have the elimination of the "sporting purposes" and "armor piercing" language from federal regulations, and end to all firearm import bans in exchange for mandatory training for CCW issuance. Would they want that? Noooooo. That would mean more guns and less political discretion over which ones can be banned via executive action.

Here's another: internet and mail order sale of firearms with at-your-door delivery (including a background check of course) in exchange for mandatory secure storage for any firearm not carried on the person for homes with children under 18.

Finally, here's a radical one: remove all the laws regarding machine guns, making them available for normal purchase (like they were before 1934) in exchange for a psychological evaluation by a non-government psychologist before you can buy your first gun. They would LOVE the psych eval thing but would they ever agree to this? Of course not! Machine guns! Think of the children!!!!!

I've laid out some potential compromises. When was the last time someone with anti-gun views did the same? Just try it some time. Ask a person with anti-gun views some time what they would be willing to give up to us in exchange for some gun control. You'll hear crickets.

[MachineGhost]

Finally, here's a radical one: remove all the laws regarding machine guns, making them available for normal purchase (like they were before 1934) in exchange for a psychological evaluation by a non-government psychologist before you can buy your first gun. They would LOVE the psych eval thing but would they ever agree to this? Of course not! Machine guns! Think of the children!!!!!

Eeek!  Lets use this as an example.  Couldn't we argue the 1934 ban was rather effective from today's standpoint?  I don't see gangbangers and other criminals going around acting this cavalier:



Violence by criminals with Tommy Guns was a huge, huge public interest problem during the 1920's.  Just ending Prohibition wasn't going to reform criminals or sociopaths into law abiding citizens.  Neither is expecting them to submit to background checks or psychological evaluation.  So was the ban effective in reducing the Tommy Gun problem?  I don't hear of it being used today to commit crimes.

[Pointedstick]

None of what you say is relevant from the perspective of political negotiation. Maybe the ban on new sales (note: new sales. Machine guns are still legal and current stock continues to be lawfully owned and transferred) was effective and reduced violence; maybe not. The point is that overturning it is one of our long-term goals because we want to be able to have widespread legal private ownership of machine guns. In order to get that done, we need more support than we currently have, which means we need to compromise, so we are willing to give something up to get it.

Can anti-gun people say the same thing? What are they willing to give up to get some of what they want? The answer is generally "nothing." That's the point I'm making. They're unrealistic and argue in bad faith. They want things they will never be able to have and chastise us for being unreasonable when they are the unreasonable ones because they are generally unwilling to compromise to get what they want and delude themselves regarding their political capital. They don't have much. And they don't want to believe it. But it's true. The actual number of people who passionately care about being anti-gun is extremely small. All of their financial support comes from wealthy celebrities and businessmen who agree with their cause. The number of people willing to write a small check for gun control is very, very small, it turns out.