Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Myth Busting (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Background checks work - the people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    who submit to them often (always?) pay for them, ie, they are taxed to buy a gun, and maybe ammo, too?

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 09:08:05 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  How do background checks work? (6+ / 0-)

      If we're concentrating on mass shootings, it looks like they don't. If we're talking about over 50% of the firearm related homicides (which are undertaken by an already criminal element in society), it looks like they don't.

      •  Let's start with the basic concept of BC and (0+ / 0-)

        work from there.

        I think we agree that BCs can stop people who should not have a gun from getting a gun.

        So, on that basis, the concept of the BC is a good one.

        The question becomes how strong is that background check - and here is where there is a lot of room for improvement, and I would venture, cooperation from gun safety and gun rights advocates.

        For example, if mental healthcare (and other similar info) information could be more easily transmitted to a background check system, this could stop more people intent on doing harm, and in particular, in the mass shooting situations.

        Look at these mass shootings:

        1. Tucson - mental health is an issue
        2. Aurora - mental health is an issue
        3. Navy yard - mental health is an issue
        4. Va Tech - mental health is an issue
        5. Newtown - mental health is an issue
        6. Schools - if not mental health, then there often are warning signs of a similar nature
        7. Suicides and murder suicides - mental health is often an issue
        8. Homicide, crimes committed with guns - criminal background is an issue

        If you had a tough background check system that - like automobiles - required licensing and registration, and authorities were more able to share information with the system, perhaps 18 year olds must be accompanied by an adult when purchasing and maybe the adult submits to a BC as well - that system could be a vast improvement. Look to states that have tough background check systems to see how effective the have been. Try some of these ideas in states (the laboratories for democracy) and see what works, the pitfalls, the thorny issues of sharing mental health info, etc.

        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

        by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:53:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that BCs can temporarily inconvenience (5+ / 0-)

          those who try to buy a firearm. It's not a fix, it's a bandaid.

          I also don't agree with mental health playing into anything unless it's been adjudicated in court.

          •  You can't know with 100% certainty that (0+ / 0-)

            people who fail a BC eventually are successful in getting a gun.

            Yes, in states that have weak laws and/or states that a subject to weak laws in other states (ie, trafficking) getting a gun is made easier. The answer is to tighten up the laws across the board.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:12:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  ... and if you look at each or those mass (0+ / 0-)

            shootings you will find mental health, ie, seeing a counselor and/or past history is a factor. I say we try to plug more of that info into the background check system. Thorny issue, but worth trying, seeing that most of these mass shootings are done by people with serious mental health issues. Would also make sense for those who are suicidal to protect them from themselves and others.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:15:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't agree with mental health being put (3+ / 0-)

              into your records unless due process is involved (court system).

              •  Room for improvement: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                high uintas

                I agree with Obama's proposal that, if I am understanding them correctly, don't require due process:

                1. Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous.  Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications.  For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness.

                2. Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons.  In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands.  The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm.  Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.  

                http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

                "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Firearms and ammunition are already subject (6+ / 0-)

      to the relevant local sales tax in the jurisdiction where purchased.  Anything more is just an attempt by your crowd to drive up the cost of firearms ownership and will be opposed tooth and nail by my crowd.

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 09:18:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You pay to get a drivers license, you pay for a (0+ / 0-)

        fishing license, you pay for a hunting license, and you pay for many other similar licenses/services via government - why not pay for a gun license that includes the cost of a background check?

        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

        by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:54:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most of us have done exactly that..... (4+ / 0-)

          .... I hold gun licenses in multiple States.

          To answer your question on "why not", because anti-gun jurisdictions like New York City will price the license absurdly high so as to deter people from following through with it.

          Cost of a Glock Pistol: ~$600
          Cost of a two-year NYC pistol license: $340

          Really want to keep pushing the car analogy?  Here you go:

          Cost of my 2012 Honda Civic LX: $17,500
          Registration cost equivalent to NYC 2yr pistol license: $9,916.67
          Actual NYS Motor Vehicle Registration Fee: $55 for 2 yrs

          Oh, and the cost for a pistol license anywhere in NYS except the 5 boroughs, which run the exact same background checks and operate under the exact same state law: $115 for life

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:00:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So it sounds like NYC is an anomoly? And (0+ / 0-)

            most licensing fees are relatively fair - ie, $115 for life in NYS outside NYC seems more than reasonable. Or am I misreading this?

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:03:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  *shrug*, 'relatively fair' rather depends on your (3+ / 0-)

              personal financial situation, doesn't it?

              $115 for Crookshanks the single guy who makes good money: No problem.

              $115 for Crookshanks' Mom, who supports a 15 year old on a machinist salary: Out of the question.

              Most jurisdictions only license carry, not ownership, New York is unique in licensing both.  Carry licenses range from $26.00 (to PA) to $62.50 (Utah) to $120 (Louisiana) to $340 (NYC) in my experience.

              The PA fee seems reasonable, since all they're doing is querying law enforcement databases to see if you have a criminal background.  That doesn't cost several hundred dollars.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:25:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  We do pay for a firearm license. It's called (4+ / 0-)

          the concealed carry permit.

          •  That's a CC permit - not all owners have one. (0+ / 0-)

            My point is about ALL owners.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:08:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not all owners need one. (4+ / 0-)

              This is what you said:

              You pay to get a drivers license, you pay for a (0+ / 0-)
              fishing license, you pay for a hunting license, and you pay for many other similar licenses/services via government - why not pay for a gun license that includes the cost of a background check?
              Drivers license: driving a car in public.
              Fishing/hunting license: taking of wild game (public resource)

              Both are analogous to a concealed carry permit, not an ownership permit.

              •  The point is to get everyone to go through a BC (0+ / 0-)

                and to make the requirements to buy a gun tougher and universal.

                What ever it takes - be that at the point of purchase, registration, licensing, etc. - to get someone to go through a tough BC (and one that the buyer pays for).

                "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:19:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't agree with you. (3+ / 0-)

                  That's really all there is to this convo.

                •  And most people I know (4+ / 0-)

                  Including gun owners would be OK with that if it's easy and inexpensive. Make it a requirement to do a background check on any transfer then put a system in place where you can perform that check online or at an FFL for $10 with no record of the check retained. Problem solved, people would support it, we're done.

                  Except most on the other side have no interest in stopping there.

                  •  I'd like tougher UBC system and limits on high cap (0+ / 0-)

                    mags to 10, ban certain people from owning (abusers, criminals, severely mental ill), CC permitting in person, annual licensing, expand mental healthcare services, raise the minimum wage, put more $$ in public education, slash prison budgets, stop putting people in prison for petty "crimes" and turning them into unproductive members of society.

                    That's all.

                    I don't think it's problem that can be easily solved with a better background check system - unless that system is very, very tough. And doing a lot of the above would benefit in so many other ways - reducing crime and gun crime/violence, one of them.

                    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                    by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:42:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Some lines in the sand for me (5+ / 0-)

                      Never support a mag limit. Silly feelgood measure that does a bunch of nothing except make many people's standard magazines that came with their firearm from the factory illegal.

                      Abusers, criminals (felons), and the mentally ill already barred from ownership.

                      I'm fine with CC permitting requiring in person visit. I think there are maybe, one or two states that don't require it, every other state already does.

                      •  High cap mag to 10 wouldn't be necessary if (0+ / 0-)

                        other measures were in place — tough UBC, crack down on trafficking, straw purchases, get them out of criminal and unstable hands. But until that happens, we keep seeing them turn up in mass public square shootings - and, it is a fact that forcing someone to reload introduces an oppty to stop them from more shots, creates oppty's to run.

                        I think it's interesting that since Newtown, I don't think we have seen a pubic mass shooting situation with a semi-auto and a high cap mag. I think it's been mostly shotguns. I wonder if the focus on the issue has caused those intent on such stuff to avoid the semi-autos and high cap mags because it might tip people off.

                        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                        by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 12:01:37 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Lot of factors I am sure (3+ / 0-)

                          Several off the top of my head.

                          AR-15s, AKs etc... are expensive. Prices have dropped Post the 2013 panic buying, but a cheap AR is $800. A cheap AK is $600. I can go to my local pawn shop and buy a pump shotgun for $200.

                          "High capacity" mags are unreliable. Most people I know who have them consider them a novelty. Now I am distinguishing a "high capacity" mag like a 100 round drum from a "standard" mag, which on an AK or AR is 30 rounds. My AK came from the factory with two 30 round mags.

                          Shotguns are also just so common. Where I live you could break into 10 houses and 7 of them would have a shotgun around somewhere. Maybe 1 of them would have an AR or AK.

                          MOST shootings of all kinds (including Gabby Giffords) are done with handguns, where these days the "standard" mag is going to be 10 or 12 rounds unless it's a small carry model that may be 5 or 7 rounds.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site