Skip to main content

We have this national debate prompted not by the actions of responsible gun owners, but by the unregulated behaviour of the grossly irresponsible.

In this instance I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the legislators who are not simply failing in their duty to protect the citizens who elect them, but failing miserably, and failing willfully.

I understand that individuals will take a view on the matter of gun control, or the lack thereof. Indeed they can and do express those views ad nauseum, as do their opponents. There can be few reading articles such as this one who are not aware of the strong feelings this debate brings forth.

However, those individual views and divided opinions are just that; views and opinions. There are some facts out there that are undeniable, one of which is that a principle source of illegal weapons are the unregulated gun shows, and the simple fact that the organisors of these shows will not restrict traders who attend.

On Saturday December 30th, at a gun show in Oklahoma, three men who all had feloniy convictions, and/or pending felony cases walked into a gun show and bought a gun. They were captured by an observant police officer. Curiously, the suspicion of purchasing a gun illegally wasn't good enough to stop the car they left in, they had to use the pretext of an illegal right turn ... clearly the most egregious offence that day.

From News Channel 6 - Tulsa:

Video Here

According to a police report, David Lee Jackson, 22, Midarreon Cook, 21, and Daveon Jackson, 21, were spotted by officers purchasing a firearm with cash at a gun show being held at the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds on Saturday, December 30.
Having followed the men from the show, and made the traffic stop ...
Officers checked the three out and found David Jackson had prior felony convictions in Oklahoma County for possession of controlled substance and marijuana with intent and possession of an offensive weapon while committing a felony, as well as a burglary 2 case. David Jackson also had pending charges for possession of a controlled substance with intent, concealing stolen property, possession of a firearm, drug paraphernalia and obstructing an officer.
There is always the argument raised that if we ban guns, or regulate them tightly then only the criminals will have guns. Maybe ... and if so, this is probably where they are getting many of them.

What is criminal here is the absolutely criminal ease with which weapons can be purchased, for cash, with no questions asked at a public show.

These three guys were caught which, quite frankly, does not fill me with any confidence at all because it simply leaves me wondering how many were not.

Take a look at the video .... They could have walked out with any number of weapons.

The Legislators have no excuse other than cowardly self-interest in their failure to act in this matter. They are not supporting freedom. They are not promoting the rights of citizens. They are running, cravenly, from the fear of not being re-elected.

Well I have news for them. We do not send them to Congress, or to State Legislatures, to get re-elected. We send them there to govern, and to keep us safe.

They are failing.

--

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You really can't ban gun shows, (0+ / 0-)

    But you can deal with (and do away with) the gun show loophole.

  •  Ok, so you'd like NICS on all sales at gun shows? (5+ / 0-)

    Is that what you're suggesting?

    It's January. Still 3 months until riding weather. :-(

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:53:26 AM PST

    •  I would like to see an end (10+ / 0-)

      to Gun Shows.

      However, I am, at heart, a guy who appreciates a compromise.

      So I would think that an effective background check, and a thirty day wait even for gun show sales, would go some way to help.

      Riding season hasn't ended yet :)

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

      by twigg on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:55:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. And if you don't, how can you suggest you (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hannibal, mrblifil, stevej, hnichols, Crider

      care about the murdered men, women and children killed with those guns?

      NICS needs improvement, of course, but your attitude of GUNZ FOR EVERYWUNZ is killing people every day.

      **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 06:58:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My attitude of guns for everyone? (9+ / 0-)

        I don't think everyone should own a gun. I know people who choose not to own one and I salute their decision.

        I can suggest I care for all victims of violent crime because instead of focusing on only one aspect, I suggest various societal improvements that

        A. Actually stand a better chance of passing than gun control
        and
        II. Will impact all violent crime (and possibly non-violent crime)
        and
        3. Will provide other worthwhile benefits besides crime reduction.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:05:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Weaseling your words here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hnichols, SoCalSal
          I don't think everyone should own a gun. I know people who choose not to own one and I salute their decision.
          Which means that everyone who wants a gun should be able to own one - as the previous commenter said your position is guns for everyone.
        •  I know people who choose not to own one (2+ / 0-)

          LOL, the way you say that it is like people who say that they know folks who abstain from sex until they are married, and they totally respect them, but think they are nuts anyway.

          •  Neither of my parents own firearms. (8+ / 0-)

            I don't think they're nuts any more so than any kid thinks their parent is nuts.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:26:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't (8+ / 0-)

            and KV has never made me feel like he thinks I'm nuts. He knows why I support the 2nd. What is your point again?

            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

            by high uintas on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:50:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The point simply is that (0+ / 0-)

              the implication of the choice of words "choose NOT to own one",is that the default position, i.e the norm is "to choose to own them", and that therefore the non owners - i.e the 75% of the US population and the 95% of the rest of the industrial world are engaging in aberrant ways.

              Maybe its the difference between English and American.

              •  You're just messing around with language (5+ / 0-)

                to make a silly point. Here we have a choice to do all kinds of things or not to do them, owning guns is one of them.

                "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                by high uintas on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:23:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you believe language is not important? (0+ / 0-)

                  No-one chooses not to own guns, since one is not born with a gun, or has one forced upon them by the Government unless they declare a conscientious objection.

                  One chooses to own guns, since doing nothing would mean you do not own guns.

                  But for the devotees of the feast of the gun, I really believe that they think those with a different opinion are misguided. Constructions as the one highlighted serve to reinforce that feeling.

                  Choosing words and sentence construction is important, as the wrong choice can easily alienate people,

                •  Been thinking more about this (0+ / 0-)

                  Gun owners in the USA make up about 25 % of the population, not a dramatically different percentage from the tea partiers.

                  Like the Tea party folks, who claim to want their "America" back, the underlying assumption in KV's choice of words/construction is that he is right, and others are wrong.

                  KVoimakis can say that he personally chooses to own guns, but he cannot imply that everyone else has to opt out of his world view. In the same way that the Teaparty folks cannot insist that their vision of America (Palin's real America) is the only correct one.

                  Both KV and the Teaparty are guilty of intolerance of any views that differ from their own, and this is the reason why his language is a "tell".

                  •  You better get the correct percentages before (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, PavePusher, KVoimakas

                    'thinking about it'.

                    47% of US households have a gun in the home, including 40% of Democratic households.

                    Speaking of 'tells', what does someone whom dedicates an entire sub-thread to his misinterpretation of a benign word, while comparing a person to the Teaparty, and calling him 'intolerant', by using false percentages as a justification, and, with a mind-blowing lack of self-awareness, says "Choosing words and sentence construction is important, as the wrong choice can easily alienate people" tell you?

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:47:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  % of households is different from % of population. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      peterfallow

                      ...Cheers.

                      •  And if you had clicked the link (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon, KVoimakas

                        you would have found 34% of population---which is different from the wrongly claimed 25%.

                        I would also argue that % of households is the more relevant % to use.

                        ......Cheers

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:18:02 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  1/2 of American households has a gun in it. If 4 (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon, KVoimakas

                        people live there and yet the one gun is only registered to one person...then you would get a 25% ownership rate by definition of population.

                         However, in that same home with only one true "owner" on paperwork and for a poll....you will most likely have a partner or spouse who are also aware that gun is in the house and supports the owner's right to have it.  That partner and/or spouse might even use it or be the one who picked it out or even gave it to the "owner".  In that same household the other 2 people living there would most certainly also know the gun is there and would also most likely support it being there.  

                        Hence, the 47% percent of households that actually have a gun in it, is much more an accurate gauge when we are using numbers data to determine support of gun ownership.

                        I own guns and my husband, until very recently, was never the buyer and thus for a poll would have not been considered a "gun owner". However, he uses them as much as I do and hunts way more than I do.  He is even more a supporter of a completely unlimited 2A than myself.  Yet, he would have never shown up on a poll, if just using that 25% number.

                        •  "if 4 people live there..."..See the problem? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          peterfallow

                          ..."if" is the problem in that comment.

                          Why did you and your husband engage in straw purchases?

                          Cheers.

                          •  Ummmm They were not straw purchases, (0+ / 0-)

                            as it is not illegal for me to buy guns for myself and allow a spouse to borrow and/or use it for lawful purposes, per federal law....as long as they are legally allowed to possess a gun.

                             I bought the gun for me and I own it and he uses it sometimes.  Thus, not straw purchases.  

                            As for the other:

                            "if 4 people live there..."..See the problem?
                            ..."if" is the problem in that comment.

                            The average household size in America is 4 as of 2011 per the US Census Bureau.  So no, don't see the problem in using the average.
                          •  ok, I'll put it another way... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            peterfallow
                            1/2 of American households has a gun in it. If 4 people live there and yet the one gun is only registered to one person...then you would get a 25% ownership rate by definition of population.
                            That's one perspective on the numbers at hand. However, it's a mistaken perspective, and that's not the way that numbers work over populations as large as the US. There's really no argument here, it simply doesn't work that way.

                            Additionally, your assumption that everyone in a household uniformly supports gun ownership by a member of the household is just that - an assumption. That assumption likely doesn't hold up in the real world.

                            You're welcome to visit the googles to confirm or refute my comments, tho' please don't ask me to do your research for ya...meant friendly...

                            Cheers.

                          •  ok there are 311,591,917 people in America today (0+ / 0-)

                            that includes children etc.  There are currently 310 firearms in American hands at last count. Granted some people own more than one, and some people own many.  However, we know that 47% of American households own at least one gun.  This is all provable data.

                              It doesn't even make mathematical sense that only 25% of the adult population support the ownership of guns in some way....this is the point that I was making.  If you are counting kids etc in the population numbers, then ok, I will agree with that....but to assume that only 25% of the adult population supports the ownership of guns when 1 in 2 households has at least one...makes no sense.

                          •  your argument that everyone in every household... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            peterfallow

                            ...with a gun owner supports the gun ownership of that member of the household makes no sense.

                            You might note that I didn't claim that no one in the household supports, simply that it's likely an inaccurate assumption that everyone in the household supports.

                            Cheers.

                          •  Likely the kids have no real opinion, however if (0+ / 0-)

                            they are brought up around guns and their parents support ownership then the chances are much higher that they will accept ownership rights as a given as adults.

                            But....How many homes do you figure there are that have at least one gun owned by someone in the home and yet the other adult(s) in the home are adamantly opposed to its existence in the home?

                            Ok now take it even a step further....  the other adult(s), who know there is a gun in their home and allow it to be there.....but somehow also hate the gun in their own home but also believe that gun ownership should in some way be illegal.

                            You really believe that these cases exist in a high degree?....high enough in fact to cut down that 47% percent rate of homes who own a gun almost in half of people who actually support the right to have it there?  Doesn't make sense.

                          •  how many women suffer spousal abuse? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            glorificus

                            ...please think that through before you respond again.

                            Cheers.

                          •  I did for years with my 1st husband.....and most (0+ / 0-)

                            likely the fact that my abuser knew I was armed.....saved my life on more than one occasion.  

                            In answer to your question....lots of men and women suffer spousal abuse and no one really knows how many as many cases go unreported.

                            So now then, back to the topic at hand......

                          •  no, let's not dismiss... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...a major motivation why individulals in a household where a gun owner lives might not support the idea that the gun owner has a firearm. Especially in light of the assumption that you put forward - that everyone in every household does.

                            It may be helpful to understand that your own particular experience is not universal.

                            Cheers.

                          •  Ok so again...the same question, you can consider (0+ / 0-)

                            all cases, if you like....children in population numbers, spousal abuse cases, a gun owning bagger living with a progressive liberal etc......all cases...

                            Do you still feel like that out of the 47% of homes in America...1 in 2 mind you.... who presently own at least one fire arm, and considering the 310 million fire arms owned my American citizens...the same as 1 gun per person even counting children.... would still be cut down by such a degree that only 25% of Americans really believe in real, true 2A gun ownership...or that it's even close to that amount??

                            Even though poll after poll still shows that number to be higher, often way higher, than even the 47%, no matter how it's worded??

                            Americans, for the most part, believe in the 2A.  They believe in gun ownership.  It is just a fact.  They might be receptive to regulations and even stronger control and they might not even own a gun themselves but there is no way that only 25% of Americans believe in the removal of that right....or anything close to that.

                          •  Gallup's 47% sounds suspect... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and that's what you are basing your assumptions on - a poll.

                            And on top of it being a poll, it's a self-reporting poll. Conducted by a company whose reputation is continually sliding downhill due to the inaccuracies of their polling.

                            You seem to think that you are presenting facts. You're not presenting facts. You're offering opinions. Opinions that seem to be based on a poll, your own personal inclinations, and an incomplete understanding of the math involved.

                            That's a strategy that has limited utility when trying to make a convincing argument.

                            Cheers.

                          •  First thing, my last comment I incorrectly (0+ / 0-)

                            worded a part of it, I said the opposite of what I meant:

                            When I said the following:

                            Americans, for the most part, believe in the 2A.  They believe in gun ownership.  It is just a fact.  They might be receptive to regulations and even stronger control and they might not even own a gun themselves but there is no way that only 25% of Americans believe in the removal of that right....or anything close to that.
                            I should have said this...It was just a type o....I used bold to indicate the change:
                            They might be receptive to regulations and even stronger control and they might not even own a gun themselves but there is no way that only 25% of Americans believe that we have a right to own a gun...or anything close to that.
                            Ok, sorry about that and now on to your last comment:

                            the 47% is not just a Gallup poll finding, although their poll backed it up....it is a average that is used from numerous statistical data that include the US census bureau, background checks for gun purchases that collect address data, NICS, CWL applications and also other polls, that span the number from 39 to over 50%.

                            Naturally, no one can accurately pin point it and it is mostly an average.  It is known that not all gun owners would honestly answer a poll question about gun ownership and not all gun purchases require background checks (private sales are exempted in most states) and/or states that don't require any type of gun ownership registration.  Naturally, there is also the criminal element to consider, these are made up of people who are not allowed to own a firearm for whatever reason but still do, and likely they will go under the radar mostly in total... so the number of households that actually own a gun could be quite higher than any data would or could accurately pick up.

                             Remember the data used is only from those willing to answer and/or those who buy and sell with background checks and/or those who are legally allowed to own one.  So from there, we can gauge it to be around 1 in 2 homes in America but it is true that this is just an average.

                            However, what we are talking about is the attitude of gun rights.  How many people believe that Americans have the right to own a firearm versus how many believe there should be some sort of national ban of guns. Poll data can more accurately gauge this as it is an opinion based idea rather than a simple "Do you personally own a firearm?"  Poll after poll has shown a high percentage of people who believe in the 2A, even with some restrictions, and even after mass murders and/or policy debate over the issue when politically it has come to the forefront. Even people who say they don't own a firearm themselves, still a high percentage of those regard the 2A as a legal right and wish to see it stay as such.

                            I could list a few polls for you, even very recent ones right after the latest murders, but this information is readily available for your own research...and you can use your own preferred polling outfits.  They all say basically the same thing.  People are ok with some restrictions, perhaps even banning full on assault weapons (made up term but whatever)....but you won't find a large percentage anywhere of Americans who support or would support a full ban of guns or repeal of the 2A.

                            You might want to view this diary on the subject:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                              Mind you, this is us... and as you can see the poll numbers
                            show 70% against repeal and this is progressives.  Read the diary and the comments....these are not gun loving tea baggers.  So how do you feel the public at large feels?

                          •  "people who believe in the 2A"... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...well, I think your verb there is interesting.

                            'Course, on the other hand, there's belief, and there's also interpretation.

                            The rest of your stale gun advocacy talking points are not so interesting.

                            Cheers.

                          •  Cheers indeed. Discussions always end in topics (0+ / 0-)

                            such as these....when interesting becomes the irrefutable.

                            Belief and interpretation are one in the same when policy is dictated, changed and molded from those who have "beliefs" and who must also follow a voter belief system...lest they find their way to an unemployment line.

                  •  "KV... (is) guilty of intolerance..." (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    Another lie.

                      •  Because it is not true. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas

                        From dictionary.com:

                        lie

                        noun
                        1.
                        a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

                        You attributed a stance to KV that he has never expressed, which means your statement is a falsehood.

                        One must assume you stated this untruth intentionally (unless, perhaps, someone hacked your computer and made the statement in your stead, or someone somehow forced you to do so against your will, but those seem rather farfetched).

                        That falls squarely in the definition -- an intentional untruth.

                        It's really not that difficult...

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

                        by theatre goon on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:13:42 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  The 25% percent number is false. Sorry (0+ / 0-)
      •  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 ]

                          •  :) (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas

                            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 05:13:39 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 ]

      •  You should stop lying. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        Any time now....

    •  If something (4+ / 0-)

      as dangerous as guns cannot be regulated then it is time to ban them altogether.

      That would apply to just about anything else and I suspect that you wouldn't have a problem applying it to anything else.

    •  Works OK in TN, at least for me and my family. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound

      We've bought a pile o' guns at gun shows, and had to undergo background checks every time. It was no big deal.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:54:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We don't even need to ban the shows (8+ / 0-)

    Just ban sales at shows.  Other industries have trade shows without conducting sales, so it's not that big of a deal.  Honestly, I think all private sales of firearms should be illegal unless a background check can be conducted.  Hell, people could become certified as background checkers, sort of like a notary public.  Private sales between individuals could be considered illegal unless it is witnessed by and serviced by a licensed criminal background checker and on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer (gun store) or law enforcement facility.  Hey look, I just created a new job AND a means for gun stores to collect a fee (for facilitating the private sales)!  Gun control creates jobs!  :)

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:57:52 AM PST

  •  Gun shows are regulated. (7+ / 0-)

    Now, it may well be that you think they should have more restrictive regulations in place, and that's fair, but trying to say they are not regulated at all (as your title might lead one to believe) is simply inaccurate.

    Accuracy is always important in any discussion, wouldn't you think?  If we can't be accurate, how can we even all know what it is we're talking about...?

    That last bit rhetorical, of course -- by no means am I trying to say that you are trying to intentionally mislead anyone, just pointing out the importance of accuracy.

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

    by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:03:55 AM PST

    •  Can you elaborate? (3+ / 0-)

      What sort of regulation goes on at gun shows?  

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

      by Triscula on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:12:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do think the body (5+ / 0-)

      of the Diary gives sufficient context to the title.

      If one only reads title, however, you may be left feeling that I was hyperbolic.

      Not my problem :)

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

      by twigg on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:15:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've got nothing against... (9+ / 0-)

        ...a bit of hyperbole to make a point.

        I also think that, to really discuss any issue to any meaningful degree, we should strive to be as accurate as possible.

        I find that, all too often when it comes to this subject, on both sides (I'm looking at the NRA and the Brady Campaign here), there are intentional misrepresentations put forth to try to deflect the discussion from ever getting anywhere.

        The only way to discuss any subject meaningfully is when all those involved are actually discussing the same thing.  Attention-grabbing headlines often derail that discussion before it ever starts.  

        How can we discuss laws and regulations if one does not even know what laws and regulations already exist?

        Note, I don't think yours goes anywhere near that far, it's more that it gave me a reason to express the overall opinion.

        You may see it differently -- I have expressed my opinion to you.  What you do with it, if anything, is completely up to you.

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

        by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:34:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well I deliberately limited the scope (6+ / 0-)

          of the Diary to this one point.

          Bringing the Gun Show regs in line with the normal practise of gun dealing is a small but significant step.

          Applying the same conditions to private sales and transfers would be another sensible step, and it could be done quickly, and at a very modest cost.

          I would suggest $10 for a dealer to run the background check on the purchasor, and store the weapon for a week.

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

          by twigg on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:39:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough. (7+ / 0-)

            It varies to some extent, by state, but all licensed dealers are already required to abide by the same laws at gun shows that they do in their store.

            And, as it happens, in Texas, at least, private sales are bound by the same laws whether they are at a gun show or not.

            That being the case, you seem to be asking for more regulation at a gun show than would exist somewhere else.  Or am I misreading you?  Again, trying to be accurate in the discussion.

            As an aside, I wouldn't be particularly against it if one were to require NICS checks at gun shows (at the nominal fee you describe, at any rate), but not the storage (I see no evidence that waiting periods do anything, but that's a different discussion).  I don't think it would do much good, but I wouldn't particularly fight such, if that makes sense.

            I'll be away from the computer for a few hours, so it will be a while before I can respond to any response on your part.

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

            by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:45:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It has repeatedly been said that NICS, where the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, SoCalSal

            background checks are run, is out of date and not nearly up to the task.

            Therefore, attention needs to be paid to making that more accurate.

            **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 11:01:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ca va sans dire (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus, cany

              Yes, it does.

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

              by twigg on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:31:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll say it anyway. Because if there needs to be (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg

                background checks, RKBAers have less problem with it if the checks are done on an system that is inaccurate and out of date.

                **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 12:09:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And this claim is based on what, exactly? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, KVoimakas, rockhound, PavePusher
                  ...RKBAers have less problem with it if the checks are done on an system that is inaccurate and out of date.
                  I have never seen any statement which could be construed to support this claim.

                  Can you provide any support for the assertion?

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

                  by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:17:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  you are a flat out Liar and I will say it if no (4+ / 0-)

                  one else will....

                  Damn near every member has advocated for fixing what problems exist in NICS most of which are due to the tension between medical privacy and the NICS requirement of anyone adjudicated as mentally deficient being included in the check....

                  What is your proposal to resolve the problems between HIPAA and NICS?

                  I know you think you are good at snide remarks but I have yet to see an actual proposal to fix the most obvious problem....esp if the desire is to stop the rare mass shootings that are always committed by a person with mental issues whether known or not.....Both the Va Tech and Aurora shooters were under the care of a psychiatrist and with violent fantasies at the time yet both were not in NICS due to medical privacy....

                  Hell due to HIPAA (a good law for the most part imo) we can not even find out if these shooters were on SSRI or ADHD medications which are proven to cause violent, suicidal and homicidal thoughts, esp when prescribed to the young.....

                   Just about all of these mass shootings are committed by suburban white teens or just past teenage and every one we get facts on turn out to have either telegraphed the coming act or flat told someone what they planned. And most were on one or the other of these drug types.

                  Seems to me that might be an important thing to know when attempting to solve a problem possibly caused by said drugs.

                  Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                  I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                  Emiliano Zapata

                  by buddabelly on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 01:55:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh good, now the problem isn't GUNS, (0+ / 0-)

                    it's the mentally ill. So when are RKBAers going to start writing diaries in support of better mental health services? And can you please provide links to where RKBAers were advocating for improving NICS?

                    Well, as you say, most people aren't killed in massacres. It's the day to day gang/drug wars or carelessness or some man teaching his woman a lesson. I'm not sure they'd be diagnosed as mentally ill so much as disadvantaged. But being unable to get guns so easily might keep them alive longer.

                    I am not a big fan of HIPAA myself, I think the Rs made it unduly unwieldy because they are assholes.

                    However, even if the shooters were known to be on anti-psychotic drugs, how would that knowledge have stopped Adam Lanza?

                    Adam got the guns from his mother, whom I am sure was well aware of his mental state. Hers may have been iffy, too, for all I know. Maybe she was a collector like KV.

                    theatre goon - I base a lot of "the assertion" on the glee with which an RKBAer wrote about the lessening of gun restrictions in Illinois.

                    ***

                    By the way, I think a problem is too many guns, some of which are in the wrong hands. Sure, poverty, racism, misogyny, poor education, general malaise, unemployment all play a part. But starting to control guns might be able to be done quickest.

                     And I don't see you people as doing anything about that, or anything else on that list.

                    **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 02:23:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  In response to the part directed at me... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rockhound, PavePusher
                      theatre goon - I base a lot of "the assertion" on the glee with which an RKBAer wrote about the lessening of gun restrictions in Illinois.
                      So, no one, in fact, took the stance that you attributed to this group as a whole, nor did anyone make any such statement as you describe.

                      It was, in other words, simply a falsehood on your part.

                      Sheesh, it would be so much easier to deal with people if they would just be honest...

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

                      by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:34:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Look in a mirror. (0+ / 0-)

                        **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 02:53:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  "a falsehood"? If there are background checks (0+ / 0-)

                        at gun shows, how did the felons in twigg's piece get away with buying a gun?

                        There were NO background checks?

                        The arms dealer was a crook?

                        Background checks at guns shows? Sounds like a lie to me.

                        **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 03:41:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, this falsehood: (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rockhound, KVoimakas
                          ...RKBAers have less problem with it if the checks are done on an system that is inaccurate and out of date.
                          Just on the off-chance that you actually misunderstood what I was saying and aren't just trying, once again, to divert attention.  

                          No one made any such statement or took any such stance.  When asked to provide the support for the statement, you were unable to offer any.  You went on to state that you based that assumption on something wholly unrelated to the statement you supposedly based it upon.

                          That is what I was referring to as a falsehood, as I already explained.

                          My apologies if that was unclear.

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

                          by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:46:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, since you and buddhabelly keep dodging the (0+ / 0-)

                            question, what about background checks at the gun show twigg referenced?

                            How did those felons manage to walk out with guns?

                            Doesn't matter if NICS is accurate or not if background checks are not done.

                            So regardless of my opinion of RKBAers' opinion, why won't you address this question?

                            Your refusal to do so proves to me you, at least, don't care if accurate background checks are done.

                            And I would appreciate it if you, theatre goon, had the integrity to respond instead of handing this off to someone else, as RKBAers so often do.

                            **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 06:39:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, you attribute to me... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, KVoimakas

                            ...a stance that I do not take:

                            Your refusal to do so proves to me you, at least, don't care if accurate background checks are done.
                            This is simply false.  You making up a stance that I do not take proves nothing to anyone -- apart from the fact that you are willing to engage in outright falsehoods to support your own stance.

                            You insist upon using dishonest tactics, why would anyone bother to respond to your insistence that we should respond to your questions -- you've shown that you will not respond to such honestly.

                            I would appreciate it if you, glorificus, would stop attributing stances to others that they do not take and statements that they have not made, as you so often do.

                            As it happens, I did respond to the question you have asked, elsewhere in the commentary.  I suspect that you know this, and just choose to ignore it.

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

                            by theatre goon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:00:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No I haven't read your response. If you made one, (0+ / 0-)

                            thanks. I didn't read every word of your exchange with cany because you can sound very reasonable, while still doing jack shit nothing about daily murders. I'm not interested in useless mumbling.

                            Maybe cany believed you.

                            As to my attributing stances not taken, more than one person on your side has accused me incorrectly.

                            If you guys can't be bother to show integrity, why should I?

                            **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 07:09:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  You are lying. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  Again.

          •  It already is "in line". (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, KVoimakas

            All the laws that apply outside a gun show, apply inside one.  Everywhere.  No matter how strenuously you try to present otherwise.

            What you want is for private sales to fall under the same rules as FFL sales.  Not the same issue.

            Present it that way, straight-up, no distractions/distortions, and you'll at least be having a direct and on-target conversation.

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols
      Now, it may well be that you think they should have more restrictive regulations in place, and that's fair, but trying to say they are not regulated at all (as your title might lead one to believe) is simply inaccurate.
      Nice spin - better enforcement of existing regulations and more restrictive regulations are two very different things.

      Your position is simple - zero regs and if you can't have that then regs that are not enforced is the next best option.

    •  What little regulation is neigh hard to enforce (3+ / 0-)

      if not impossible because of the lack of funding towards agents of the ATF who would typically be at this shows.

      But there is also MANY loopholes in the various state laws regarding private sales and these gun shows.

      Stop being obtuse

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:23:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What loopholes? nt (4+ / 0-)

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:26:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously... (6+ / 0-)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Here, in case you don't want to read

          From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals (77%) resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation
          Lets extrapolate that for a minute

          So assuming a similar pattern that would mean of all shows there could be a net possible result of ummmmm 6050 arrests and a seizure potential of 267250 weapons.

          Shall we continue..SURE LETS!

          “While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally smuggled into Mexico in a given year, about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. Many of these firearms come from gun shops and gun shows in Southwest border states.” [7]
          So with these gun shows and lack enforcement of any little laws that are on the books, we are sending death down south.

          Sure one could argue, legalization would eliminate that but that would be a pipe dream.....pun intended.... because once out of marijuana the Mexican cartel would move into other rackets like heroin and cocaine. And you are almost assuredly never going to see those two fully decriminalized.

          Face it, you bear arms folks are on the loosing side of an argument. Change is coming, whether you like it or not.

          How about you come to the table and help instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA

          --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

          by idbecrazyif on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:39:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No background checks for private sales. (0+ / 0-)

          Who makes sure all firearms dealers do adequate backgound checks.

          You are acting disingenuous in support of your obsession.

          **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 02:55:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We have local police and Sheriffs.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, KVoimakas

        at every gun show I've ever been to here in Tucson and Phoenix.  Also Border Patrol.  If there are BATFE, they don't seem to be wearing uniforms, but then, neither do some of the above.  Plain-clothes is probably the best way to catch any illegalities.

        Oddly, all the private sellers here seem to require some form of ID, preferably a Concealed Carry permit.  Huh.

        There's a gun show this weekend and the County Fairgraonds, 5 miles from my house.  I'm in need of some cheap, bulk, surplus ammo, so I'll be there bright and early Saturday morning.  I'll let you know if anything has changed.

  •  We absolutely can get this done. It will (8+ / 0-)

    not kill major gun enthusiasts to have to go through normal gun purchasing arrangements. Seriously, guys.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:20:26 AM PST

  •  Something else that might be good (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols, glorificus, SoCalSal

    Organized citizens (bloggers? Civic organizations?) could launch an effort to attend as many gun shows as possible in order to observe and report on the sort of crazy, conspiratorial, paranoid presentations and talks given by organizations such as the NRA.  Honestly, I think one of the most dangerous elements to have infiltrated the "sportsman" culture is rhetoric.

    I believe that the NRA and other industry backed groups use such rhetoric to drive sales, but the effect is to create baseless fear and misinformation among gun owners and sportsmen.  It should be exposed and called out, but first it needs to be documented.  Private citizens and journalists can be part of that process.  Perhaps awareness of being observed might even encourage the NRA and similar groups to begin to temper their paranoid rhetoric, which would benefit everyone.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:20:50 AM PST

  •  I wouldn't have any problem with background checks (6+ / 0-)

    For all sales of firearms.  Whether it's a gun show, gun store, private sale, etc., there should be a background check.  The seller can call in the background check, do the paperwork, then sell the firearm.  This is an appropriate and reasonable regulation for firearms.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:37:46 AM PST

    •  And most importantly....... (5+ / 0-)

      It could probably pass Congress and be signed by the POTUS. It seems this element is always never considered with gun regulations on this site.  

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:39:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think this could work as long (5+ / 0-)

      as it was free of charge for private sales between two people.  I would also be fine requiring background checks to be done on anyone wishing to by or sell at a gun show, as part of the ticket price.  From what  I remember, California's system is basically a poll tax.
      the problem with the check for private sales system in places like California is that it adds cost and hassle on what in most states is a simple transaction, and always has been.  a citizen accessible version of NICS that was easy enough for a grandfather to use that did not cost out of pocket would be a much easier sell to a gun-owning public that has a list of reasons not to trust our side.

      •  It won't be free ... nothing is. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cany, glorificus

        However, it doesn't have to be onerous either.

        We are talking about a modest fee for a service provided, not a tax like a tax on a car sale.

        You cannot allow citizens to do this themselves. They have already shown how irresponsible many are, so why would we try to fix the system by trusting them?

        You need to do the checks via an agency that can be audited, and that is independent of the sale.

        So a gun dealer, or Tag Agency could do it.

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

        by twigg on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:59:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it's beneficial for everyone... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, KVoimakas

          (And it is, right?  Otherwise you're admitting that it's merely an impediment...), then everyone's tax dollars can pay for it.

          As far as your faith in your fellow man... I'm sure we can come up with some form of verification system, to assuage your mistrust.

      •  I think (have to go check) it's $35 in ca for (0+ / 0-)

        hand guns, $10 for long guns all done through an FFL.

        Can't quite remember, so don't put money on those numbers.

        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 02:43:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's what they do in CA. As far as I am (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus

      concerned, EVERY weapon that changes hands should require a check. And yes, somehow, the NICS systems (and in CA, DROS) should apply and those systems should be updated and perhaps changed.

      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 02:41:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Arms Dealer Bazaars ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, SoCalSal, luckydog

    I mean really ... "Gun Shows"?

    "Showing" what? The latest and greatest lethal and destructive technology?

    They can and should be regulated.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:16:11 AM PST

  •  Background check required at TN gun shows (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, SoCalSal, cany, glorificus

    or at least the TN gun shows I've attended.  Hmmm...

    There should be no option for purchasing guns without a background check, and IMO this should be extended to gun sales between private citizens (which afaik are completely unregulated at present).

    All gun transfers should have to be mediated by a licensed federal firearms dealer. The buyer should have to undergo the standard ATF/state background check and the weapon should also have to be checked against an ATF crime gun database. The law putting this requirement in effect should seal the deal by requiring gun owners to timely report the theft of a firearm to local police, and subject them to some kind of civil penalty if they fail to do so and the gun is later used in a crime by someone else.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:35:27 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site