Universal Background Checks: Senate supposedly near a deal

[ArfinGreebly]

Are you suggesting that the GCA is the CAUSE of the increase in gun violence? Seems to me to be a correlation at best but not a cause by any stretch. A lot of things have changed since then, a lot of things have stayed the same. Did gun violence spike in 1968? I think you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing case that the GCA is THE cause. It may or may not have contributed.

Here are a couple of timelines showing violent crime (not gun violence) as a function of time. This one shows the increase beginning around 1963, prior to the GCA.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dcrime.htm

So, am I understanding your position correctly or have I misread it?

This is business troubleshooting 101.

Things are running fine.  Yay.  You keep things the way they are.

Things are no longer running fine.  Boo.  You look for what changed.  You roll back the changes.

There will always be someone willing to tell you that "the changes were necessary" or that "reverting things won't make any difference" or possibly that "things are so different now, we dare not take them back where they were."

Fail.

You revert the changes.  You return things to the way they were when things were running fine.

Now, there's a common false argument that targets some unrelated change -- like equal rights for [insert race here] -- and assert that since you want to roll things back you must want oppression for [insert race here].  It's false logic of course.  If you're fixing the customer flow in a restaurant by rolling back the [new] seating arrangements that screwed things up, you're not also proposing to do away with improved sanitation.

The issue is guns and gun ownership and gun rights and things pertaining thereto.  And, while it's easy to argue that "correlation =/= causation" you don't sit and squabble about the "reasonableness" of it all.  You just roll it back.

There was an event that triggered the GCA 1968, and it wasn't a mass shooting.  It was a bunch of black people standing up for their rights and doing it with openly carried guns.  This terrified the politicians, so they did the only thing they know how to do:  make a law, and try to structure it so that it impacts the target group without actually naming them.

They wanted to ensure that guns would only get into the hands of the "right people," but they couldn't actually articulate who the "wrong people" were.  And, of course, as happens any time you paint with too a broad brush, you screw things up for everyone.

But you can never just admit you were wrong and repeal the law.  Everyone knows that laws are infallible.  If it isn't working, then clearly what's needed is some more laws to help out the poor overworked law that's struggling to make things right.

And so, more than 20,000 laws later, it's worse than it ever was, and the only thing politicians can think of is . . . MORE LAWS, DAMMIT!!

On the other hand, anyone trained in business analysis would immediately ask, "why the hell do we have all these stupid laws; they're not working, so why do we have them?"

[Ben]

I still can't find anything about New York doing this. Either way, it is wrongheaded at least. Confiscating one type  of gun because of its looks is very misguided. In terms of the California confiscation, they seem to have only done so to individuals who were convicted criminals.

Incorrect. While CA is currently in the news regarding using their firearms registration database to confiscate from convicted criminals, the confiscation most of us are referring to dates back to Roberti-Roos, which was not aimed at convicted criminals. In fact it was specifically aimed at those Californians who followed the law and registered their weapons. They used the registration database to send out confiscation letters after deeming that weapons they originally said were legal were changed to illegal status. See here:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer2.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer3.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer4.gif

Further, regarding confiscation from "only criminals", what is a criminal? This is where confiscation heads towards shaky ground. The photocopied letters above indicate that those who registered their "assault weapons" would not be criminals, but then the specific type of rifle was made illegal and they became criminals. For all I know, tomorrow California could pass a law making it illegal to own a lever action rifle. If I don't turn mine in, I become a criminal. There have also been numerous cases of people being wrongly accused of domestic violence in nasty divorces, etc. that have lead to confiscation.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I still can't find anything about New York doing this. Either way, it is wrongheaded at least. Confiscating one type  of gun because of its looks is very misguided. In terms of the California confiscation, they seem to have only done so to individuals who were convicted criminals.

Is it the general position that NO ONE, not even convicted violent criminals, the criminally insane and so forth should be restricted?

Not Canadian but that is the joke, nice job picking it out.

I shortened your post because this is getting long. I was not asking aboot what should or shouldn't be banned, I originally asked aboot registration. In terms of the things you listed, they ARE regulated. We DO take extra precautions to limit and monitor access to the control of dams, power grids and so forth. We don't do it because it will eliminate 100% of the potential disasters, we do it to reduce the risk, ie the number of likely disasters, that's all we CAN do.

That feeds back to my original question about background checks. If someone with a history of violent crime or mental illness couldn't LEGALLY buy a firearm because they couldn't pass the mandatory background check, wouldn't that be a good thing? You would still pass yours, and it may limit the #of dangerous people, not law abiding citizens, from having weapons?

The obvious retort is "criminals won't subject themselves to the checks, they will steal the guns or buy them illegally" Of course this might be true, might be only because these are the brightest and most stable people we are talking about here, but is the difficulty of stealing or purchasing a firearm illegally easier or harder than going through legal channels? I would think it's much harder. Again, background checks won't eliminate ALL crazies from obtaining firearms but it will almost certainly make it more difficult.

Sorry that's so long. I do want to stick to background checks. (and for those who haven't read the whole thread, I DO NOT support confiscation, or idiotic legislation that bans/restricts guns bases on their looks or capacity)

My little quibble, and you will note that AG addressed this already.

Why do we trust those "prohibited persons" to be free in the first place, if we don't trust them to have a firearm?

IMHO, you can blame a lot of the rise in crime rates with an increase of repeat offenders who are released from custody. We also have had a complete dismantling of sucured mental health facilities that once housed those who where unstable.

The whole concept of "gun laws" and any other regulations for the "commen good" that restricts everyones freedom for the sake of a few is approching the issue from the wrong side.

The point being made is that any laws along these lines are pointless for there proposed purpose and only good for one thing, a restricted population.
We oppose being a restricted population.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

This is business troubleshooting 101.

Things are running fine.  Yay.  You keep things the way they are.

Things are no longer running fine.  Boo.  You look for what changed.  You roll back the changes.

There will always be someone willing to tell you that "the changes were necessary" or that "reverting things won't make any difference" or possibly that "things are so different now, we dare not take them back where they were."

Fail.

You revert the changes.  You return things to the way they were when things were running fine.

Not a Fail. You are assuming that you CAN revert. in a closed system like a business or a manufacturing process, sure, you can return to the way things are. What you can't do is reverse changes in demographics, changes in international exchange rates that change the shape and scope of your economy, and you can't rewind time and undo the war in Vietnam you got involved in. What's done is done.

You fail when you assume that life and a globally evolving economy/shifting workforce/changing international policies are like a video game and we can just start over.

You can't wipe a global hard drive, and we don't live in a vacuum.

[ArfinGreebly]

See, that's what I'm talking about.

Bring up a bunch of irrelevant points and use them to justify the "can't be undone" mantra.

BS.

The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back.  Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment?  Sure.

But you know what?  We lived through the repeal of Prohibition 1.0, and we would survive the repeal of Prohibition 2.0 as well.

Quit stacking stoopid like cord wood and return the liberty that's been stolen.

There is no argument that you can make that will persuade me that there's a downside to ceasing the charade of artificially and capriciously creating criminals over victim-less crimes.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

See, that's what I'm talking about.

Bring up a bunch of irrelevant points and use them to justify the "can't be undone" mantra.

BS.

The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back.  Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment?  Sure.

But you know what?  We lived through the repeal of Prohibition 1.0, and we would survive the repeal of Prohibition 2.0 as well.

Quit stacking stoopid like cord wood and return the liberty that's been stolen.

There is no argument that you can make that will persuade me that there's a downside to ceasing the charade of artificially and capriciously creating criminals over victim-less crimes.

The points I brought up are to illustrate that your outlook of "rolling things back to the way they were" is far too simplistic.

Also, in case you or others haven't read the whole thread or if I didn't make myself clear, I do not support the banning of guns or the confiscation of guns.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

See, that's what I'm talking about.

Bring up a bunch of irrelevant points and use them to justify the "can't be undone" mantra.

BS.

The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back.  Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment?  Sure.

But you know what?  We lived through the repeal of Prohibition 1.0, and we would survive the repeal of Prohibition 2.0 as well.

Quit stacking stoopid like cord wood and return the liberty that's been stolen.

There is no argument that you can make that will persuade me that there's a downside to ceasing the charade of artificially and capriciously creating criminals over victim-less crimes.

Just to get your personal view, do you think anyone (including convicted violent criminals and the criminally insane) should be allowed to purchase firearms?

Do you think we should have ZERO restrictions on weapons purchases? In other words, if I had the means, would you be ok with me having ICBMs in my backyard and a metric ton of c4 in my garage?

Would your answer change if I were your neighbor? What if I were your neighbor and you knew that I heard voices in my head that told me to do things?

[CuriousAbootGuns]

The useless legislative house of cards that is gun law can be rolled back.  Would there be a certain amount of chaotic adjustment?  Sure.

I think I didn't respond to this very well. It COULD be rolled back, of course it could. What I mean to say is that once you have returned all of the laws to the way they began, you would not have exactly the same dynamic as you started with.

[zxcvbob]

Just to get your personal view, do you think anyone (including convicted violent criminals and the criminally insane) should be allowed to purchase firearms?

Do you think we should have ZERO restrictions on weapons purchases? In other words, if I had the means, would you be ok with me having ICBMs in my backyard and a metric ton of c4 in my garage?

Would your answer change if I were your neighbor? What if I were your neighbor and you knew that I heard voices in my head that told me to do things?

How did we get from repealing GCA'68 (and the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1967 or 68, I don't remember which it was) to nukes in one step?  But since you asked a ridiculous question, I'll give you an appropriate answer: "Yes."  I would be OK with my neighbor having an ICBM if she could afford it.  You'll have to also repeal at least NFA'34 first, and I don't see that happening any time soon.  (though I wish they'd take silencers off the NFA list)

As far as the violent felons and criminally insane, what are they doing walking around instead of being locked-up?

I think we'd have a lot lower recidivism rate if we allowed ex-cons to defend themselves, vote, and to earn an honest living, rather than branding them as 4th class citizens, well-to-the-rear of illegal aliens.  Have they paid their debt to society or not?

[Ron]

There is no compelling reason to add more gun laws.

For all practical purposes crime is falling. Oddly almost in unison with the spreading of conceal carry laws.

From what I have read it could very well be falling due to demographics, we have fewer folks in the age group that commit the most crimes.  

Universal background checks on all firearm sales is a non solution for a problem that doesn't even exist.

Here is a nice video for you C.A.G

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

[CuriousAbootGuns]

How did we get from repealing GCA'68 (and the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1967 or 68, I don't remember which it was) to nukes in one step?  But since you asked a ridiculous question, I'll give you an appropriate answer: "yes" I would be OK with my neighbor having an ICBM if she could afford it. 

As far as the violent felons and criminally insane, what are they doing walking around instead of being locked-up?

I think we'd have a lot lower recidivism rate if we allowed ex-cons to defend themselves, vote, and to earn an honest living, rather than branding them as 4th class citizens, well-to-the-rear of illegal aliens.  Have they paid their debt to society or not?

Yeah, the nukes were out of left field, I was just being a jerk.

In terms of people walking around who are insane or felons or whatever is an interesting question...and it hinges on your second point that is have they or have they not paid their debt? If we give punishments and set people free when they have paid their debts, it would seem to imply they should have all the same rights as you or I. Not an easy question. I am coming from the point of view that there they are walking around, like it or not that's what we have at the moment, and how do you deal with that?

The better question and perhaps the best way to tackle that isn't restricting their freedom once they are out but instead having a conversation about whether they should be out in the first place? Different topic I think, but an important one.

[zxcvbob]

I was just being a jerk.

You'll fit right in here.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

You'll fit right in here.

I thought I might

[Ron]

Lawful gun owners are not committing the preponderance of violent crimes.

As a matter of fact if lawful gun owners were committing more than a small percentage (low single digits) I would be surprised.

Creating more laws that inconvenience and hinder the 90+ percent and fail to address the actual violent crime problem makes no sense. Unless there is a different motive for the restrictions than what is bandied about (saving the children!)

[RoadKingLarry]

Convicted violent criminals and those adjudged as insane should fall into 2 categories. They either are or are not a danger to society. If they are still a danger to society they should not be allowed to walk amongst free society. If they are not a danger to society their rights should not be infringed.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Yeah, the nukes were out of left field, I was just being a jerk.

In terms of people walking around who are insane or felons or whatever is an interesting question...and it hinges on your second point that is have they or have they not paid their debt? If we give punishments and set people free when they have paid their debts, it would seem to imply they should have all the same rights as you or I. Not an easy question. I am coming from the point of view that there they are walking around, like it or not that's what we have at the moment, and how do you deal with that?

The better question and perhaps the best way to tackle that isn't restricting their freedom once they are out but instead having a conversation about whether they should be out in the first place? Different topic I think, but an important one.

Cold but true, one would think many of the violent ones would get mostly ... uhhh... sorted out during that adjustment phase.

But the point, which has come up time and again, that if we trust someone to be out in society, then we should be able to trust them with a gun, *is* a very big part of the topic.
Gun control doesn't stop criminals or criminal acts. Yet, lawmakers persist in implimenting them. At the same time, prison sentances are reduced for violent offenders, the jails are overflowing with nonviolent offenders and the mental health system has deterated to "mainstream EVERYONE" wiether it's good for them or not.

The selling point of gun control laws is reducing crime. Guess what? It doesn't actually do anything.
If you want to reduce crime, then do something that actually might work. Guess what *might* reduce crime (and I'm talking all crime, not just "gun crime") ?
Getting criminals off the streets.

You want to know what makes *me* rant? This total failure to understand that if we, as a society, really want to reduce crime, we need to stop wasting time with the BS "gun control" arguement and focus on what really causes crime. Addressing issues like poverty, social stratification, a cultural disrespect for law, mental health resources and all this hippie feel good BS about making everyone feel "special" are going to do a hell of a lot more then any gun control law.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I think I didn't respond to this very well. It COULD be rolled back, of course it could. What I mean to say is that once you have returned all of the laws to the way they began, you would not have exactly the same dynamic as you started with.

Curious, you're right...  You wouldn't have the exact same dynamic that you started with...  I'm gonna be *really* blunt here, because I think it helps to make the point....

There would, at first, be a serious uptick in violence...  The vast majority of it would be gang wars, etc...   The only tragedy I see in that is that innocents may get caught in the gunfire.   Seriously, my position on this has become, "Let the bastards kill each other off, arrest the survivors."

It has nothing to do with racism (which liberals will scream about) or being bloodthirsty (which again liberals would scream about) or anything along those lines...   What it *is* about is that there is a subset of society that simply does not care about the law.   Those would be known as criminals.   And frankly, if they killed each other off, this world would be a much better place.  

To put it bluntly, yes.  I don't think that there should be many (if any) restrictions on weapons.   When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, it was not uncommon for private citizens to own not only smoothbore muskets, but also rifles, and even cannons.  The exact same weapons that our fledgling nations military had.  Will some people abuse those weapons?  Possibly.   Odds are, they won't get to abuse them more than once.  

But I'm digressing...  

I'll try to keep it short...   The simple fact is that the same exact conditions never exist.  However, that doesn't mean that you can't right a wrong.  Prohibition didn't work.   However, that didn't change the fact that even though the exact conditions of society weren't the same, Prohibition was still repealed, and while there was an adjustment period, it was the right thing to do.

And yes...  If you could afford an ICBM, more power to you.  Frankly, MAD works regardless of scale...  If you knew that if you launched that ICBM there might be one incoming on your location, I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't be launching it.  

And yes, an ICBM might be an extreme example.  But if you really want a metric buttload of C4, more power to ya.   Just don't blow up your neighbors...  If you want a Mk19 grenade launcher? Great!  Have fun with it...  Just don't blow up your neighbors....   Want a howitzer, or a gatling gun?  Heck, an AC-130 if you can afford it?   Sweet!   Can I come hang out???  I promise not to blow up the neighbors....

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Lawful gun owners are not committing the preponderance of violent crimes.

As a matter of fact if lawful gun owners were committing more than a small percentage (low single digits) I would be surprised.

Creating more laws that inconvenience and hinder the 90+ percent and fail to address the actual violent crime problem makes no sense. Unless there is a different motive for the restrictions than what is bandied about (saving the children!)

To your last point, I actually think that many if not most of the gun control advocates are very sincere in there intentions. They really believe that additional control will make a difference. I just think a LOT of it, like banning guns that look a certain way is simply the result of ignorance. Even those who want an outright ban on all guns and universal confiscation I think are probably genuinely convinced that it would be effective. They are wrong, but like most people, once you have convinced yourself you are right, it becomes very difficult to change your position or admit fault.

But I hear a lot of people say that the pro gun-control crowd is EVIL or whatever (not saying you think so) and this strikes me as being every bit as misguided as those who say that gun owners and enthusiasts are evil or that guns themselves are evil. It's hyperbolic and I think it has almost no place in a rational discussion.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

But if you really want a metric buttload of C4, more power to ya.   Just don't blow up your neighbors...  If you want a Mk19 grenade launcher? Great!  Have fun with it...  Just don't blow up your neighbors....   Want a howitzer, or a gatling gun?  Heck, an AC-130 if you can afford it?   Sweet!   Can I come hang out???  I promise not to blow up the neighbors....

  made my day

[birdman]

Can you imagine the stack of form-4's and form-1's you'd have to submit for an AC-130 (with all its ammo)?

You'd be financing your own wing at martinsburg!

[zxcvbob]

To your last point, I actually think that many if not most of the gun control advocates are very sincere in there intentions. They really believe that additional control will make a difference.

You do know that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have concealed weapons permits, right?  She is from San Francisco (carries a .357 Magnum revolver) and he's from New York, neither of which gives permits to ordinary people.  They don't want to get rid of guns, they want to get rid of YOUR guns and my guns.  In their minds only the elites and ruling class should be armed -- and the police and the career criminals, of course.  it'll be a freakin' utopia... just like Mexico or Somalia.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Can you imagine the stack of form-4's and form-1's you'd have to submit for an AC-130 (with all its ammo)?

You'd be financing your own wing at martinsburg!

Holy Gawd! I just googled AC-130....WTF?!

Might I suggest a bake sale to raise the funds for one? It will be like it's all of ours...we'll just keep it at my place

[Viking]

I believe that the majority of all gun control advocates (the "low level" ones, the foot soldiers whatever you want to call them) are (in a way) well-meaning but deluded and too often engaging in some sort of magical thinking where they ascribe mind control powers to certain weapons. I also believe that the absolute majority of those in power who fight for gun control are outright evil and sociopathic. Evil, because ultimately, it isn't about guns, it's about control, and they sure love to control things. Sociopathic, because they want to deny others the effective tools to defend themselves, all while they enjoy armed bodyguards, which to me is a clear sign of lacking empathy.

You do know that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have concealed weapons permits, right?  She is from San Francisco (carries a .357 Magnum revolver) and he's from New York, neither of which gives permits to ordinary people.  They don't want to get rid of guns, they want to get rid of YOUR guns and my guns.  In their minds only the elites and ruling class should have arm -- and the police and the career criminals, of course.  it'll be a freakin' utopia... just like Mexico or Somalia.

Like I said. Sociopathic control freaks.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

You do know that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have concealed weapons permits, right?  She is from San Francisco (carries a .357 Magnum revolver) and he's from New York, neither of which gives permits to ordinary people.  They don't want to get rid of guns, they want to get rid of YOUR guns and my guns.  In their minds only the elites and ruling class should have arm -- and the police and the career criminals, of course.  it'll be a freakin' utopia... just like Mexico or Somalia.

Being a hypocrite doesn't make you evil. And just because I think some limitations on weapons are acceptable doesn't by any stretch mean I agree with her on an outright ban. The fact that she carried in fear as she put, and wants to ban other people from having guns while having one herself only supports my claim that much of the proposed action is based on fear, be it rational or irrational.

[wacki]

I applaud what you did, but its still just urinating into the wind.

I will urinate upwind from you for demoralizing his efforts.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2