Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Shows - Regulate Them, or Ban Them! (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who has ever... (10+ / 0-)

    ...taken the stance "GUNZ FOR EVERYWUNZ"?

    Firstly, it's appalling spelling and grammar -- one would think that you are trying to stereotype those who might disagree with you as, perhaps, uneducated or ignorant.

    Secondly, no one, not even the dreaded NRA, has ever taken the stance that everyone, regardless of, say, age, background, legal status, etc., should have unfettered access to firearms.

    So, that being the case, exactly what is it you're going for here?

    Stereotypes and inaccurate portrayals of the stances that people take don't really get you very far in an adult discussion.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:06:42 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So please, list those you agree should NOT (0+ / 0-)

      have guns per the laws of your state (Oklahoma?).

      Or will this just be another of your obfuscation bullshit tactics?

      "Gosh, no, we don't approve of people getting shot but we JUST KNOW having guns easily available from gun shows had NOTHING to do with it."

      **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

      by glorificus on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:43:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Violent felons... (5+ / 0-)

        ...those who have been adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others, those who have been convicted of domestic violence, I could go on, in fact.

        So, yeah, this latest attempt to paint me as holding a stance that I do not hold is just as dishonest as the last time you did so.

        And what this statement:

        "Gosh, no, we don't approve of people getting shot but we JUST KNOW having guns easily available from gun shows had NOTHING to do with it."
        ...has to do with anything I am rather unsure, as I've never said anything along those lines -- your quotation marks notwithstanding.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:57:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm enjoying all the RKBAers being on the (0+ / 0-)

          defensive. They are much less aggressive, and acting as though they might agree with reasonable curbs on gun ownership.

          I'm not deingrating intelligence or education, but I find their spirits less than appealling. And looking at past verbal massacres they've perpetrated I do think this is an act.

          I hope it lasts a long time, but doubt it will.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:23:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who's on the defensive? (5+ / 0-)

            You are simply attributing to people stances that they do not take and statements that they have not made.

            Pointing out these outright falsehoods is not "being on the defensive," at least, not in any meaningful usage of the phrase.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:31:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, do you* favor background checks at gun shows (0+ / 0-)

              and for private sales?

              *theatre goon

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:00:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You'll have to clarify. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, PavePusher, KVoimakas

                Your question is not particularly clear.

                Are you asking if I support background checks at gun shows?

                If so, then yes -- those conducted by licensed dealers, as is already the case.

                Are you asking if I support background checks for private sales at gun shows?

                If so, then meh.  I'm rather ambivalent on that one -- I don't necessarily support it, but I wouldn't waste a lot of effort opposing it, either.  Provide it at a nominal cost and make it part of the agreement for the gun show to operate, then I wouldn't actively oppose it.

                Are you asking if I support background checks on all private sales, no matter where they occur?

                If so, then no.  It is unenforceable (at least, not without tossing out the rest of our civil liberties, such as protections against unreasonable search and seizure) and it is already illegal to provide a firearm to anyone that you have any reason to suspect is a prohibited possessor.

                I don't support any law that is unenforceable on its face -- rather, I would prefer to see stricter enforcement of those laws already on the books, and harsher punishments actually meted out to prohibited possessors found to be in possession of a firearm.

                You know, punishing people for crimes they've actually committed, rather than trying to restrict the Civil Rights of those who have committed no crime, but might do so, someday, maybe.

                I realize that's a pretty long answer, but I tried to hit the most reasonable ways you may have meant the question -- it would be unfortunate if you, perhaps, tried to ascribe a stance to someone that they did not take.  Such can be seen as intentionally dishonest.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:24:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just curious. Given 40% of weapons are (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus

                  acquired privately--some number at gun shows where private sellers, background check or not--are allowed.

                  Doesn't it bother you that this number is so high and that since we know criminals get their guns SOMEHOW, that this might be an important practice to stop?

                  In CA, one can only buy one handgun/30 days [there are a couple of exceptions]. Waiting period for everyone/thing is 10 10 days after NICS pass. ALL private sales must go through FFL [some exceptions].

                  It seems to me these rules go a long way to help both discouraging impulse buying/use AND weeding out those who really shouldn't be buying weapons such as violent felons etc.

                  What do you think?

                  202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                  by cany on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:30:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've never seen it demonstrated... (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cany, rockhound, PavePusher, KVoimakas

                    ...that requiring a background check on private sales would have any impact on crime.

                    All I ask is for there to be some evidence that we could reasonably conduct such background checks, with no negative impact on other Civil Rights, and have them actually do some good.

                    If that could be provided, I'd support it.  Until then?  Not so much.

                    If I'm not mistaken, the violent crime rate in California is very similar to other states, where  there are no similar regulations.  That being the case, how does it help?

                    In other words, you refer to restrictions that do not exist in places with similar crime rates, if not lower crime rates.  That being the case, why should one support such restrictions?  How can one even show that they have any impact on crime in the first place?

                    As I stated earlier, I would much prefer enforcing/strengthening the punishments given to those found to be in violation of the law, rather than creating new laws that can't be seen to have any impact on crime.

                    I would always prefer to punish the person who commits a crime, rather than trying to limit the rights of others who have not.  I realize that not everyone agrees with me on that stance, but I truly support the idea of "innocent until proven guilty," rather than, "everyone might be guilty, sometime, maybe, so let's get rid of their rights."

                    Further, it is already illegal, background check or no, for someone to provide a firearm to anyone that they have any reason to believe is a prohibited possessor, as are "straw sales."

                    I would prefer to enforce those laws than creating new ones.  

                    I also realize this is a pretty long and rambling answer, but your question wasn't one that's easily and quickly answered.

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:45:19 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It was just evidenced in the gun show busting of (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      glorificus

                      guys that bought private there, then were stopped, they had them illegally (previous legal problems), and the weapons were confiscated.

                      WHERE, exactly do YOU think criminal guns originate? They didn't necessarily start out with a clean owner, as we see above.

                      A NICS check would have found the buyers in the example above unable to buy their weapons.

                      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                      by cany on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:56:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Any number of places. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rockhound, PavePusher, KVoimakas

                        A large percentage are stolen.  Some are purchased by those straw purchasers I mentioned earlier (who would pass any background check -- that's the whole point), and I'll freely admit that some are sold by private sellers.

                        Of course, no background check will catch those who ignore the law and sell the guns anyway.  So, if I really wanted a firearm and knew I couldn't pass the background check, I'd go to someone I know won't conduct the check -- almost the definition of a black market.

                        That's part of the reason I say it's unenforceable, it's too easy to get around for those who choose to do so, and there's no realistic way to prevent them from doing so.

                        My response to the instance in this diary (and in any similar instances) is that both the possessors and those who provided the firearms to them should be prosecuted -- and not allowed to plea the charges down to something minor, as is so often the case in these instances.

                        Punish those breaking the laws to the fullest extent of the law, every time.  That is the response I'd like to see taken to these cases.

                        Well, there are others, but I'm trying to stick with the specifics you've brought up.

                        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                        by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:06:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This isn't an effective answer, imo: (0+ / 0-)
                          That's part of the reason I say it's unenforceable, it's too easy to get around for those who choose to do so, and there's no realistic way to prevent them from doing so.
                          Since we don't know, for sure, what will and won't work, we need to try everything. You know good v. perfect.

                          When you speak of stolen weapons, where is the data for that? I haven't seen data that shows the percent of weapons used in crime that are stolen. And I don't particularly buy that on its face.

                          The FACT is, 40% of guns go to people through private sales, MOST w/o background checks (because most states don't require br checks on private sales, gun show or not). THAT is the main problem we need to deal with immediately. This would include, obviously, a requirement that NO ONE can sell at ANY gun show anywhere w/o a background check.

                          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                          by cany on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:20:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  But that's the thing... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cany, KVoimakas

                            ...we have tried some of these things, and they didn't work.  That being the case, it's not that we need to try everything -- we've done so, they haven't worked, we should move on.

                            Waiting periods, for instance, have been tried, and have never been shown to be effective -- with the exception that, at one time, the waiting period was used to conduct background checks.  Now, that is not necessary.

                            Places where private sales have to go through a background check have shown no decrease in crime.  Texas, for instance, has a lower incidence of violent crime than does California -- no background checks for private sales in Texas.  (link to rankings)

                            As for how many firearms were stolen and used in crimes, I've seen estimates from 10% to 50%, so it depends on whose numbers you prefer.  I can't find those cites at the moment, so feel free to dismiss that portion of my argument, if you choose.

                            Again, if we're going to focus on gun shows, I'm not going to strongly oppose conducting background checks on all sellers there.  It's trying to expand that to all private sellers that it get problematic -- a lot of effort for no demonstrated return.

                            I still much prefer enforcing the law, rather than creating new ones.

                            Limit plea-bargains, strongly prosecute straw purchasers and those who have possession of firearms when they are prohibited from doing so.

                            Additionally, focus law-enforcement on those areas where crime is most prevalent -- focus on gang activity.

                            End the failed "War on Drugs" and strengthen our social safety nets.

                            These are the tactics that have been shown to lower violent crime.  Supply-side gun controls have never been shown to do so.

                            That being the case, should we continue to try efforts that haven't worked, or increase those that have been shown to work?

                            But, that's all for another day -- it's getting on to my bed time.  Thank you for the discussion, it's always nice when people can disagree without being disagreeable.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:55:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But what you want tried.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon
                            (back-ground checks for all sales at gun shows) has been tried in some states, and there's no evidence that it reduces crime.
                            Since we don't know, for sure, what will and won't work
                          •  And of course you oppose it because what, we (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            glorificus

                            don't know?  Because studies weren't done because gun folks didn't WANT studies.

                            Come on. How is it going to harm you or anyone else to be run through a check if you are legit? Geebus.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:22:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow, formatting fail for my comment.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            sorry about that.

                            Actually, we do know.

                            Such restrictions have not affected crime rates where they've been tried.  The stats are freely available.

                            Anyone can run any study they want, any time they want.  Go for it, no-one will stop you.  It is a false claim to say that anyone is stopping such studies.

                          •  So where are the studies on CA? I haven't seen (0+ / 0-)

                            them.

                            And yeah, the formatting lately has been odd. Has happened to me a number of times recently.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:05:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not true. Tiahrt Amendments have (0+ / 0-)

                            tied up ATF reporting, I don't know about FBI.

                            Tiarht Amendments, bought and paid for by the NRA, have stopped the CDC from doing more research on guns.

                            So your last sentence is incorrect.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:23:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please cite the part of the Tiahrt Amend..... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            that "stops the CDC from doing more research on guns".

                          •  This is from an interview Terry Gross of (0+ / 0-)

                            Fresh Air did with Tom Diaz, who has a book coming out on how guns and the NRA have become such a problem in this country. I know you don't really care, you are just being a jerk, but this snippet gives the outline.

                            GROSS: You mentioned that there are restrictions on the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control's ability to do gun-related research. Do I have that right? And if so, can you explain what those restrictions are?

                            DIAZ: Again, it's another one of these funding restrictions. There was a period of time when the CDC was sponsoring what's called peer-reviewed research about gun death and injury, what were the causes, and it was getting uncomfortably close to the question of proliferation of firearms and particular kinds of guns.

                            So the NRA's supporters on the Hill actually wanted to abolish this particular unit of the CDC and were calmed down and persuaded to simply make a funding restriction, which essentially says the CDC cannot do any research related to gun control.

                            The bolded funding restriction was accomplished using a Tiarht Amendment. A similar amendment was used to muzzle the ATF.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:08:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You haven't supported your assertion. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            I'll help you, here's a direct link to the text of the law, courtesy of MAIG, so you can't complain about the source: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/...

                            Please explain what part keeps anyone from running a study.

                            Now, a source you can complain about, explaining the Amendments: http://www.examiner.com/...

                            And another: http://www.nssfblog.com/...

                          •  You are the source I do not consider credible. (0+ / 0-)

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:56:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But gosh, Google is my friend. (0+ / 0-)

                            Starting with the third paragraph in the middle column. If you don't want to believe it, I'm sure you won't.

                            http://www.dcurbanmom.com/...

                            I don't expect any sort of acknowledgement from you as I don't think you have that much integrity.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:06:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are quoting a posting... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            ...on a message board.

                            What was asked for is a citation of the law that you keep referring to.

                            You don't seem able to provide that citation.  PavePusher provided a link to a site which contains the actual text of the law in question, and you seem to be unable to provide the text which says what you say it says.

                            And you seem to wonder why people question your integrity.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:57:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not going looking for the law. I'm confident (0+ / 0-)

                            it exists.

                            RKBAers seem to find the 1) right to buy guns without background checks and 2) massacre first-graders and others in the Second Amendment.

                            I don't have a problem with RKBA questioning my integrity. I consider the source.

                            I'm amazed at their lack of heart or soul.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:22:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, you refuse to support your assertions... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            ...and continue to insist that people accept those assertions -- even when you are shown to be factually incorrect.

                            And you wonder why people question your integrity.

                            The irony there is pretty stunning, really.

                            Especially when you insist upon including falsehoods such as:

                            RKBAers seem to find the 1) right to buy guns without background checks and 2) massacre first-graders and others in the Second Amendment.
                            This is simply yet another lie on your part.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:56:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here in the reality based dKos (ha!) just saying (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm lying means little.

                            When a RKBAer stands behind a statement that contradicts the assertions I made, I might reconsider.

                            And just saying I'm lying doesn't count.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:05:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You've actually got a point there. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound
                            And just saying I'm lying doesn't count.
                            This is why, when I've pointed out that you are lying, I have directly quoted the lie and gone into some detail exactly how it is a lie.

                            I'm helpful that way.

                            Really, it's very simple -- stop making false statements and they will not be called out as such.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 04:18:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So do you think all the deaths by guns of (0+ / 0-)

                            people in America every day is just fine?

                            Be helpful and don't duck the question, just answer "yes" or "no."

                            Because I'm becoming convinced RKBAers don't care enough to do anything to stop those deaths.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 02:58:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Our gun violence rate, has risen and fallen (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      glorificus

                      since the CA laws were instituted in 2000 (I believe that was the year). They get amended, cleaned up and added to regularly (as will be done in 2013).

                      I don't think you can suggest (or not) that CA laws don't/do make a difference. I don't think there's data to explain the changes either way.

                      The laws CA have, BTW, are frequently those in other states are promoting.

                      Regarding this:

                      "everyone might be guilty, sometime, maybe, so let's get rid of their rights."
                      Let me just say this broadly; CA laws at this point DON'T violate anyone's rights. There has been no court decision dismantling their constitutionality. So I don't think that block quote can even be said by anyone dealing with current law.

                      The biggest point to me is this: We should be doing what we need to do to lower gun violence of all types, and not ONLY in terms of gun laws, but certainly including gun laws.

                      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                      by cany on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:02:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Now here I agree completely... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rockhound, PavePusher, KVoimakas
                        The biggest point to me is this: We should be doing what we need to do to lower gun violence of all types, and not ONLY in terms of gun laws, but certainly including gun laws.
                        It would appear that we only differ on what we each think will actually lower violence.  Such is almost always the case, with almost any subject -- people agree that something should be done, but they disagree on exactly what.

                        As an aside, in reference to my quote:

                        "everyone might be guilty, sometime, maybe, so let's get rid of their rights."
                        ...I meant that in a more broad, general sense than in reference to any laws specific to CA.  Sorry of that was unclear.

                        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                        by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:12:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  So, with those background checks, how did (0+ / 0-)

                  the felons twigg writes about get their gun(s)?

                  Doesn't OK have mandatory background checks at gun shows?

                  **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                  by glorificus on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:49:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  That's it, tg? Just violent felons? (0+ / 0-)

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:06:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, KVoimakas

            You might note that I went on to state:

            ...those who have been adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others, those who have been convicted of domestic violence, I could go on, in fact.
            For the most part, I'm happy with the criteria put forth in the NICS fact sheet, but it seemed a pretty large amount to copy/paste.

            I do specify violent felons, however, as I don't believe that a lot of the people currently labeled as "felons" should lose any of their rights, including this one (for instance, someone busted for pot shouldn't be lumped in with violent offenders, in my opinion).

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:29:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  gerrilea went to great length about saying (0+ / 0-)

          my Jeff Yahoo example was silly because Jeff may not have been near a gun show that weekend, and

          Another variable is that Jeff could just as easily see his neighbor shoveling and run him down with his car, the Jeff you imagine is crazy out of control after all. He could take after him with an aluminum baseball bat or sic his dog on him.
          I think the above block quote makes my case. YMMY

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:01:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site