Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  logic: bank robbing is bad (5+ / 0-)

    There are laws against bank robbing.

    People rob banks anyway.

    Therefore we shouldn't waste our time with laws against bank robbery.

    Silly.

    •  False equivalency (8+ / 0-)

      You have right to own a gun.
      You don't have a right to rob a bank

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:22:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  false argument (5+ / 0-)

        You don't have the right to own absolutely ANY gun.  That right can be, and already has been, restricted. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute, any more than the 1st Amendment is.

        And criminals do NOT have the right to own a gun, in any case. And the argument here is about criminals with guns.

        The argument goes:

        Criminals getting guns/robbing banks is bad.

        Criminals get guns/rob banks anyway.

        Therefore we shouldn't waste our time with laws against criminals getting guns/bank robbery.

        Still silly.

        •  Wasn't an argument, its a statement of facts (7+ / 0-)
          Therefore we shouldn't waste our time with laws against bank robbery
          .

          Its hard to pin someone down when theyre being sarcastic. Hard to know what their point is
          Can I assume from that that youre being sarcastic? it seemed a good conclusion.
          Can I also assume from that that what youre saying is that, if we can make laws against bank robbery we can make them against---and where's where you get a little murky---gun owership? Or are you saying just a certain type of gun? You're not specific at all.

          So I went with the  logical inference that you were saying that if we can pass laws against bank robbery we can pass them against all guns or certain guns.

          False equivalency there, pal, getting a law against guns or a certain gun is a lot different than getting a lw agist bak robbery because---and follow this closely---you have a right to won a gun in this country (unless a felon or other restruictions BUT YOU DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO ROB A BANK!
          Got it? gun ownership: a right (with certain restrictions)
          Bank robbery: no right, under ANY restrictions.
          Its false equivalency to compare creating laws against gun ownership and bank robbery. Not the same thing at all. No argument just a simple statement of facts

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:58:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The laws against (6+ / 0-)

      bank robbery allow for the after the fact punishment of those who rob banks. They do not impose any sort of barrier to someone who actually wants to, you know, rob a bank.

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

      by happy camper on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:47:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  punishment after is a barrier (0+ / 0-)

        because it deters an action that will have negative consequences.

        fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

        by mollyd on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 07:09:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  and the laws stopping criminals from getting a gun (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes

        also allow after the fact punishment of those who get guns illegally.

        Just like laws stopping murder (which do not impose any sort of barrier to someone who actually wants to, you know, kill someone). Same with burglary.  Or driving too fast. Or fraud. Or parking in a handicapped spot.

        Heck, that's what ALL laws do---they allow society to punish people after they are broken. NO law, of any sort, can prevent people from doing something they are determined to do anyway.

        But you'd have one heck of a hard time arguing to me that there wouldn't be even MORE murders or robberies or burglaries or people driving too fast or parking in handicapped spots if there were NO laws against them.

        That is precisely why the whole "laws don't stop people from doing X, therefore there should be no law against X" argument is so idiotic.

        •  Once they have the gun (4+ / 0-)

          they have it. There's no way to tell that a crime was committed. If you rob a bank, there's a trail of evidence left behind. If you park in a handicapped spot, your car is there for all to see. Speeding? The cops might spot you, or a citizen with a cell phone might report you.

          None of this is true if someone possesses an illegally obtained gun. It's like an illegal drug transaction--there's no victim, so nobody is going to complain, and once it's over, there's no way to tell it ever happened. Makes the law far harder to enforce, and far less effective.

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

          by happy camper on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:33:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joy of Fishes

            There are all sorts of things in my house that could be used to commit a crime. The point is that I am not constrained from owning them.

            If I were a criminal, I could not possess a gun without the mere possession being a crime.

            We would catch many of those folk before they robbed a bank, and make the risk of ownership much higher for all of them.

            Slice by slice.

            There isn't a single solution, and only the gun lobby is demanding that we either find one, or do nothing.

            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 08:47:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg

              As I note elsewhere, "if laws don't stop people from doing X anyway, then there's no point in having a law against X", is an idiotic argument.

            •  How? (4+ / 0-)
              We would catch many of those folk before they robbed a bank
              How will we catch them? Random stops? Checkpoints? People cannot possess marijuana without it being a crime either, yet tens of millions do so, and they are not caught.

              Victimless crimes--and mere illegal possession of a firearm has no victim--are very difficult to stop, since there is no victim to file a complaint. It's the reason prostitution and drug use are impossible to curb. Sure, a few will be caught randomly, but the streets of any major city are full of folks with illegally obtained guns--as well as drugs and hookers--who will not be detected unless and until they actually do something to draw attention to themselves.

              I am not advocating for no laws, or for doing nothing. I am saying don't expect much from measures that experience tells us will be so difficult to enforce.

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

              by happy camper on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 09:00:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The same way we catch (0+ / 0-)

                people with outstanding warrants.

                It's not rocket science.

                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 09:51:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Someone with (5+ / 0-)

                  an outstanding warrant is known to the police. They have a warrant with the name, address, and probably the phone number, of the miscreant. Their name is on a list at headquarters, so if they get pulled over for failing to signal a turn, they're busted.

                  Someone who has purchased a gun on the black market, or a bag of weed, or who used the services of a prostitute last night, is not known to anyone, except the other parties to the transaction, and they aren't likely to tell.

                  You're a smart guy, twigg, you know all this. Catching people with unregistered guns will happen when they commit some other crime, or at random.  

                  IMHO, registration is not going to give us what we all want: a reduction in violence.

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

                  by happy camper on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 10:47:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, it's the word "unregistered" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper

                    that I am struggling with.

                    There is no reason that a society like ours should tolerate unregistered guns.

                    The sooner we start registering them, the quicker we will get a handle on the criminal element.

                    I do not accept that registration is either onerous or intrusive, and that is where we differ.

                    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 10:57:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Bureau of PreCrime. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Otteray Scribe, theatre goon

                Didn't you get the memo/movie?

          •  that's why we need trackable paperwork for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joy of Fishes

            every gun throughout its lifetime. We do it with cars. Every time you sell a car (whether at a dealer or privately), the transaction is recorded, the paperwork goes with the car, and the car can always be traced back to its owner.

            So when Joe Bankrobber gets caught with a gun with X serial number that is supposed to belong to a grandmother in Peoria, he'd better be able to explain why he has it instead of her. Or he goes to jail for having an unregistered gun. And if Grandma reports her gun as stolen, that's another charge tacked on.

            Track the gun from cradle to grave.  Easy to do, since every illegal gun was legally manufactured in a factory at some time and has a serial number on it. Use it.

            And before someone pipes up with "but criminals can make their own guns !!!!" and posts the photo of the AK-47 made from a shovel, I'll respond by saying "I'd be very very very happy if every criminal had to manufacture his own gun.  Very happy."

        •  We already have laws about using guns to harm... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, Otteray Scribe

          others outside of lawful defense.

          But at least you've demonstrated that you actually now know what the purpose of laws is.

          And yet... again the Strawman(tm).  That thing needs a nap and new stuffing.

    •  The concept of laws.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, Otteray Scribe

      I explained above.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • International (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site