Skip to main content

View Diary: America has never had a Background Check System for Gun Purchases (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep, Requiring Background Checks Sure Stopped (14+ / 0-)

    All those pot and meth and cocaine sales.

    Look, if it somehow makes folks feel better, require all sales be vetted through a FFL holder, it adds some aggravation and cost to legitimate sales, but people will get used to it, just don't delude yourselves that it will keep a single firearm out of the hands of a single criminal or nut who wants one. It won't.

    EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL on the table to ban or restrict firearms falls into the "make folks feel good" category, and none of them will prevent a single crime or mass killing. I wish I could offer ya'll a magic formula that would do the trick, but there simply ain't one.

    People kill people, always have and show every indication they always will. Make it marginally harder to get a gun and they'll work a little harder and still do what they do. Make it very difficult to get a gun and they'll use something else, whether it's swords or gasoline or improvised explosives or toxic gas or breaching a levee during a flood. Until you can figure out a way to change or eliminate the very small percentage of people who have or develop a desire to kill (and we can't even reliably identify them until they kill), all you'll ever do is nibble at the margins.

    Sorry for the dose of reality...

    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by The Baculum King on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:11:04 PM PST

    •  That isn't "reality" (22+ / 0-)

      It is defeatism and a prescription for doing nothing.

      It is bullshit that has no place in a reasoned debate.

      It is an argument that suggests that any proposal that is not a complete solution should not be tried, or enacted, because on it's own it won't work.

      So it condemns every future generation to more death and carnage.

      Every proposal has it's place. They are all the thin end of a wedge that will lead to enhanced public safety.

      Your pessimism will not be allowed to win the day.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:16:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see no way to implement the kind of checks (13+ / 0-)

      that would actually work.  I have no problem with background checks; however, the problem is the very small percentage of bad guys who make a very big splash.   That is the point I was trying to make above.  No problem with it if it were equitable and uniform, but at what cost and how in hell would it be enforced? It would be a heck of a lot cheaper and more cost effective to legalize pot.  

      In my line of work, I am often consulted to determine if someone is dangerous or not.  Such as after sending a threatening email, are they safe to be allowed to return to work.  The simple fact is, there is no reliable way to predict whether someone is dangerous or not.  The vast majority of people with psychiatric problems are as dangerous as a bar of Ivory soap.  Persons convicted of non-violent felonies are no more likely than the average person on the street to commit an act of violence.  

      Federal Judge Walter Nixon was impeached for perjury for lying to FBI investigators.  Same crime Martha Stewart was convicted of. Judge Nixon was sentenced to time at the Federal Prison.  After he got out, a friend invited him to go bird hunting, and he did.  He was turned in, and had to spend a bunch more time in Federal Prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was quail hunting on private land for chrissakes.    However, an armed robber will kill you for fifty cents and prison is often just a revolving door for those felons.  There is an unbelievably vast black market for firearms for persons who are not allowed by law to own them legally.

      High capacity magazines are not responsible for most deaths by firearm.  Suicides use a single bullet 100% of the time, so a simple single shot weapon will do the trick.  Most murders use from one to three bullets.  The number of murders in which multiple rounds are used are very rare.  That is why they make headlines.

      It is not defeatism to point out the realities of the situation.  Now if somebody has a plan that can actually be implemented and workable, and that will reduce crime, I am all for it.  But let us not go whistling past the cemetery. As has been said many times, the devil is in the details.  Any competent Social Psychologist will tell you very quickly that a century of peer reviewed published research on the subject shows prohibitions on items, services or products a substantial number of people want, will not succeed. Ever. Look how well the 18th Amendment worked out.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:43:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Supply and demand (0+ / 0-)

      If the black market is hindered, prices will go up, and higher prices mean fewer sales.

      If I understand correctly, you are thinking of mass murders? The mention of gas and breaching levees suggests that. Those are exactly the kinds of killings people are reacting to, but not the ones that make up the bread and butter of daily US murders.

    •  I want to make it harder to kill someone. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, Bisbonian

      I'm sorry but even if we make it slightly harder to kill someone it's worth it. So I'm having trouble passing a background check,now I have to try something else to kill the person I want dead, let me leave as big as trail as possible and maybe that will make it easier for me to get caught and maybe it will defer the next violent offender just a little. Call it a ripple effect. Just like the idiot in traffic breaks three hours ahead of me and screws up my commute, maybe my gun problems slow up the next guy just enough to make him think twice.

      •  So, Assuming 10% of Guns Change Hands per Year (9+ / 0-)

        You are willing to impose roughly $30 on each of 30,000,000 transactions by other people to "maybe that will make it easier for me to get caught and maybe it will defer the next violent offender just a little".

        Pretty generous with other people's money. For no demonstrable gain.

        Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

        by The Baculum King on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 02:06:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. And more. Lives count more than weapons. (0+ / 0-)

          "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

          by Bisbonian on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:16:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A LOT of Things Will Save More Lives (4+ / 0-)

            With a lot more certainty and at less cost.

            Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

            by The Baculum King on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:20:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But you keep arguing against many of them. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus

              Thereby limiting the options.  Oops.

              "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

              by Bisbonian on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:31:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Argue Against Dumb Shit That Accomplishes (4+ / 0-)

                Nothing positive and criminalizes otherwise law-abiding citizens. Show me a single thing I've argued against that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually improving things.

                Largely what we're looking at is people who don't like guns using the "saving lives" bullshit to try to get their way, and to Hell with how many citizens they fuck over to get it.

                Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

                by The Baculum King on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:37:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well you have spent this entire (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Bisbonian

                  thread arguing against background checks that would be effective ...

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:36:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, arguing against this one measure... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and explaining, in quite some detail, exactly why he believes that it would not only work, but be detrimental.

                    I didn't see him, at any point, arguing that we do nothing whatsoever.

                    I'm certainly not directing this at you, personally, but it is not at all uncommon, when someone argues against one particular suggested measure, then someone claims that they are against everything.

                    That is very often not the case.

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

                    by theatre goon on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:48:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So bring up another possible solution (0+ / 0-)

                      and see what happens.

                      "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

                      by Bisbonian on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:33:21 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I do it all the time. (0+ / 0-)

                        For instance, I have several times stated that I support most of the executive orders that President Obama has discussed regarding gun control (with the possible exception of the opening of mental health records -- that one may not fit with existing law, depending upon specifics).

                        I have gotten quite a bit of agreement with that statement, from other gun-rights supporters.

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

                        by theatre goon on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:01:32 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  What happens? (0+ / 0-)

                        I can tell you what happens from my experience taking seriously a comment to propose other possible solutions. I had someone say great, add all that in addition to, rather than instead of, the harsh and ineffective proposals I was arguing against. No desire to discuss compromises, no acknowledgement of my points, no willingness to admit that anything but outright bans of AR-style semiautomatics was a possible solution.

                        I also received a so-what-are-you-doing-about-it remark, which I again treated in good faith (despite my suspicions to the contrary). I responded that I write my elected officials (actual letters, not just emails) and I make proposals.

                        And that was it. Never mind that I was doing exactly what the commenter was doing, i.e., arguing in an online forum: no, I had to justify myself as being an extraordinary advocate or else my opinions were meaningless and I should shut up and accept whatever anti-gun ownership legislation was proposed.

                        But that was a useful experience, as have been the other dialogues I attempted to engage in here and elsewhere.  I realized something important: I don't have to propose other solutions.* It is for the people proposing new laws to justify them; further, they need to do so with more than emotional appeals or snide remarks about gun owners being rednecks/small-penised/militia nuts/etc.

                        When someone who will be affected by new laws explains clearly and honestly what his or her objections are, the onus is in people like you to present evidence supporting your position in like fashion. If you cannot or choose not to (and I mean general you here, not necessarily you specifically), then you rightly remove your argument from serious consideration.

                        * That said, I do want to at some point see a rational discussion about revising gun laws in this country. But that would mean anti-gun ownership people engaged in genuine compromise. In other words, they would have to accept that in some areas, the laws would become more relaxed in exchange for being tighter in other areas. That would also mean at least considering a sea change in the law: chucking out almost everything and starting over with a new body of legislation.

            •  TBK, have you ever published a list of (0+ / 0-)
              A LOT of Things Will Save More Lives
              ??

              If not, please do so.

              *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

              by glorificus on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:38:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Using that logic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, KVoimakas, PavePusher

        we should reduce the national speed limit to 35 mph. Think of all the lives that would be saved.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:32:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  here is the reality . . . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian, twigg

      Every gun that is purchased or stolen by a criminal was legally manufactured at some point in time.  Nobody is manufacturing illegal guns for criminals.

      So the ONLY way to dry up the supply of guns that are purchased/stolen by criminals is to dry up the legal gun manufacturing which supplies them. That means banning the manufacture of some types of guns, and restricting the manufacture of others.

      THAT is what the NRA is really afraid of, since the NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun users.

    •  No, there are ways to push down the murder rate (10+ / 0-)

      Everything from reducing the GINI index from 3rd world kelptocracy levels to removing lead paint from housing at state expensive will reduce the murder rate, as will improving the status of women (reduces intimate partner violence).  Decriminalizing drugs would also do wonders as 1/3rd to 1/2 of the murders in the US are drug related.  

      Passing feel good legislation won't do anything about these underlying issues.  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:37:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yeah, those laws against murder sure stopped (0+ / 0-)

      people from murdering each other.

      What's the use for them anyway?

      /snark

    •  "...but people will get used to it, just ... (0+ / 0-)

      ...don't delude yourselves that it will keep a single firearm out of the hands of a single criminal or nut who wants one. It won't."

      Not a single one? Ridiculous. I lived in a neighborhood of Los Angeles for 20 years where I could walk a few blocks and acquire an illegal firearm within 24- to 48-hours if I wanted to. But that doesn't mean everybody who can't acquire a gun legally (underage people, felons, dangerously mentally ill) will find it easy to do so if tougher laws are in place. Making it harder will mean some people won't.

      Of course, some criminals will steal guns. And some will sell guns to other criminals out of the trunks of their cars. But we can make this more difficult. We can prosecute more cases. We can exact heavier penalties for those who get caught.

      The idea that we shouldn't pass laws because some people will still get guns is as nonsensical as saying we shouldn't pass anti-theft laws because there are still two million burglaries every year.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 10:37:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Law (30)
  • Environment (30)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Economy (21)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site