Skip to main content

What? I hear you ask.

Has the twigg finally lost whatever is left of his Limey mind, having lived in Oklahoma for so long?

Not really. I am just a bit fed up of the dishonesty apparent in the arguments.

The suggestion that what we need to do is close the "Gun Show Loophole", more properly called the "private sales loophole".

This is the part of the system that was never covered by the requirement for a background check for those wishing to purchase guns.

Unfortunately, the loophole is, in fact, the whole system. When that loophole was allowed to be made into law, those responsible are either dumber than a very dumb person, or they knew that they were introducing a system that simply cannot work, could not work, and has not ever worked.

It is the case that with the current system, the only people who ever really subject themselves to a background check are those who will pass one. Sure there are some who fail .... Their intelligence is, at best, questionable because every criminal, or ex-felon who wants a gun never has to go through that system, and has never had to.

It isn't a loophole that needs closing, it is an effective background checking system that we need to introduce, for the first time. We will only know if it works when we have a system that cannot easily be compromised, and politicians who will not acknowledge that are just blowing smoke.

Originally posted to Every Part of You Belongs to You on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:35 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  I know that on some part of the firearms issue (22+ / 0-)

    we have disagreements.  However, you are spot on with your observations.  Legitimate gun shows only allow sales by dealers with Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) and they cannot sell to a customer unless they get the forms filled out and do the proper check via computer. There is no such thing as a, "gun show loophole." However, the parking lot outside is a free for all of private sales.  There are a few gun shows who have private security and forbid private sales in the parking lot, but from first hand observation, those are the minority--hiring a private security firm to patrol a four acre parking lot is seriously expensive.  The vendors inside paid good money for a table and space, and those private sales hurt the legal vendors.  

    I do not have any problem with a background check system.  Most gun dealers charge somewhere between ten and thirty-five dollars for the background check. My daughter is in the market for a new pistol, and we stopped by a local dealer a couple of days ago.  She was in uniform, and they told her law enforcement does not get a discount, but they do the background check for free.

    But you are right.  People who cannot pass the check do not go through the system. Either they get a straw purchaser or simply buy privately. Or they try to steal a firearm. I have no idea what the solution might be.  The logistics of just setting up a system would be as complex as planning the invasion of Iwo Jima.  

    We have a Trading Post newspaper that comes out once a week. It is a fairly thick paper and is nothing but classified ads.  The three largest sections are trucks, automobiles and guns.  Methinks although we have finger, the hole in the dike is bigger than the finger.  

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

    by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:56:18 PM PST

    •  The current proposals won't work (23+ / 0-)

      Here is why:

      Even if the loophole is closed, the situation will be nearly as bad as before.

      Say I buy a gun. I would pass the check and would then own the firearm of my choice. Even if I bought the gun with a pure heart and mind, it is mine now, and no one knows I have it.

      I can only legally sell it to someone who is checked, but who would know that? The gun isn't licensed, or registered. I am free to sell it to whoever, and the only restraint is that I am generally law-abiding.

      Yet the law is not about me, it is about those who would flout the law. So it is deeply flawed unless those guns can be traced.

      If a gun registered to me turns up in the hands of a crook, or at a crime scene, then the cops should be able to learn who should be in possession of it, and go ask some difficult questions.

      Only then will the system stand a chance of becoming effective.

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

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:03:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  we need cradle to grave liability (9+ / 0-)

        Every gun needs to be registered in a federal database, and every gun needs to have someone liable for it at all times, no exceptions.

        If people knew they could go to prison if the gun they sold in a parking lot was used in a crime, those sales would plummet.

        •  I am not a lawyer (16+ / 0-)

          but have spent almost as much time in courtrooms as the average lawyer over the past forty years.  During that time, I have picked up a substantial understanding to the law.

          Your theory of post hoc liability would not pass Constitutional muster.  The reason is the same as if you sold your car to the guy down the street and he used it in the commission of a crime. Under that reasoning, you could be held responsible.  

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

          by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:25:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is a dificult area (9+ / 0-)

            However, if it were simply made a felony to transfer a gun improperly, or fail to report a theft or loss, then there would be no constitutional problems.

            "I didn't know it was missing" would be no defense were it a requirement to check the security of your guns say every three days.

            If that is the law, then ignorance of the law is no defense either.

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

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:31:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I said, it would not pass Constitutional (11+ / 0-)

              scrutiny.  You can bet that such a law would be litigated in Federal Court.  It would be slapped down on the first try.  If we have any Constitutional law attorneys reading this, correct me if I am wrong.  

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

              by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:34:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which part of the constitution (7+ / 0-)

                do you suspect it would fall foul of?

                It's a pretty simple concept. US athletes have never managed to challenge strict liability for drug control.

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

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:36:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Keep in mind there is a substantial body (9+ / 0-)

                  of case law built on every one of the Ten Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights that is not found in the wording of the original text.  The courts interpret those texts and in doing so have explicated rights and limitations that are not immediately obvious unless you do research on those rulings.  

                  However, IMHO, such a law would violate provisions of the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments.  It might violate rights under the 2nd Amendment, but not sure on that.

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

                  by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:58:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The RCRA law would indicate you are wrong (7+ / 0-)

                    People who produce, transport or otherwise obtain hazardous wastes have strict cradle to grave liability, which they cannot escape unless someone else contractually assumes their liability for them.

                    http://www.epa.gov/...

                    •  Owning, trading, selling, buying, "hazardous" (12+ / 0-)

                      wastes is not a specific constitutionally protected right.

                      Now if the "hazardous" waste you referenced was ink in ink pens, how do you thing that would fly?

                      They may be able to regulate what the manufacturer does when making said, like no lead bullets, for example.

                      What it seems you're trying to do is equate firearm ownership or the exercise of that right to a hazardous material.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 02:15:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Trading, selling guns is not Constitutionally (5+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        glorificus, Smoh, S F Hippie, twigg, leftreborn

                        Protected either..sorry.

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

                        by Bisbonian on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:12:20 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Commerce clause? (4+ / 0-)

                          What about handing them down to younger generations in same family?

                          How do you regulate me trading my father's 12 gauge to my cousin for a steak dinner?

                          Or me just giving it to him?

                          Let's try to keep this in perspective here.  Would the State have the right to stop me from bequeathing my quill pen and inkwell set?  Can they stop me from teaching my religion to my children? What about that printing press in the basement?

                          If the claim is public safety they have to do a better job than that.  The pen is mightier than the sword.  The printing press even more.  Religions brainwash and control people into hating one another to the extreme of killing each other and have done so for centuries.

                          Once that line is crossed that line then I'm coming for your free speech, free press and most assuredly your religion on the grounds those rights have killed billions and we must be protected against them, society must be protected and society's safety is paramount, right?

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 01:06:24 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You could give it to your nephew, but would still (0+ / 0-)

                            be liable for anything he did with it.

                            Unless of course, he passed a background check, accepted liability, and you recorded all that with the federal government.

                            Nowhere in there is anyone stopped from having a gun.  They are just being held accountable for their actions.

                      •  the 2nd Amendment is not absolute (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Smoh, S F Hippie, twigg, vcmvo2

                        Any more than the 1st Amendment is.

                        It can be, and has been, restricted.

                        (shrug)

                    •  No one has a Constitutional civil right... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                      ...to produce and to dispose of hazardous wastes, but they do to keep and bear arms. What you are suggesting is an impermissible interference with a civil right similar to what Republicans are attempting to do with voting rights. It particularly would interfere with the ability of the poor and minorities to exercise their second amendment rights.

                      As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

                      by wishbone on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:44:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  strawman argument (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not saying that would stop you from keeping and bearing arms.

                        It would simply make you accountable for your actions.

                        I know that's a radical concept for gun owners, but the rest of us are tired of picking up your messes and paying for their funerals.

                        •  " ...your messes..." (0+ / 0-)

                          Whose messes? Criminals and the criminally insane create the "messes" you refer to and always have. Your so called solutions fail to focus on criminal behavior, but instead penalize those who harm no one in exercising their Constitutional rights. Most gun owners would support measures to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the insane. Propose some.

                          As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

                          by wishbone on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 04:39:54 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  not true (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            Negligent gun owners leave guns where criminals can get access to them.

                            Legal gun owners sell their guns to people with nary a thought as to whether those people are felons or mentally ill.

                            Legal gun owners kill their children and their neighbors' children by leaving loaded guns lying around.

                            The liability I refer to wouldn't cost you a penny if you were as guilt free as you claim to be.  

                          •  "Negligent gun owners leave guns where criminals.. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...can get access to them."

                            And jewelry stores and banks get robbed by criminals as well. If you persist in going after the law abiding with your schemes to interfere with the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights you will simply alienate millions of honest citizens who vote, and it will not be helpful to our party. Nuff said. Have a nice day.

                            As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

                            by wishbone on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:37:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  bogus analogy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            If thief steals a diamond ring, he won't use it to kill someone.

                            If he steals a gun, he very likely will.

                            So the standard of liability for securing guns is vastly higher than that for securing jewelry, cash, or other non-lethal items.

                            Bottom line, a criminal can only get useable possession of your gun through gross or willful negligence on your part.  

                            Holding people liable for their actions is an honored tradition among all societies, ours included, so I think you'd be surprised at the level of support there would be for applying that bedrock principle of civilization to gun owners as well as the rest of us.

                  •  It wouldn't violate any of those (8+ / 0-)

                    There would be a 5th argument, but "reporting" a theft is not incriminating as there would be no penalty.

                    The SCOTUS has always given the Federal government wide latitude to make laws respecting public safety.

                    2nd doesn't apply ... These are laws specifically allowing the keeping of guns, not abridging that right. SCOTUS has already indicated that regulations are permissible ... and they already exist without challenge ... thousands of them.

                    4th amendment rights are not infringed by either the car registration, nor the authorities ability to make regular inspections.

                    Given the potential harm caused by guns in the wrong hands, it would be perfectly reasonable that a felony conviction could follow the failure to obey the law regarding safe-keeping and reporting of loss or theft ... so I really don't see an 8th amendment challenge succeeding.

                    Going back to the 2nd ... There are highly restrictive laws regarding automatic weapons, and no one has ever brought a 2nd amendment case about those laws, suggesting that no one actually believes that the restrictions would be overturned.

                    Just my lay opinion :)

                    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 12:28:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  "Constitutional scrutiny" is a moving target, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Smoh, twigg

                as shown by recent court rulings. Bush v. Gore, Citizens United?

                At least twigg is suggesting possible solutions. RKBAers who have no agenda beyond "DON'T TOUCH MY GUNS" are not part of the solution.

                *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                by glorificus on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:21:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  that's impossible (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, KVoimakas, theatre goon

              you never leave your house for more than three days?

          •  it's already done for toxic chemicals (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril, Chi, Bisbonian, glorificus, Smoh, twigg

            If you produce toxic waste, you're liable for it no matter what, until someone else legally assumes liability for it from you.

            Leaving guns around to kill people is exactly analogous to leaving cyanide around where it could kill someone.

            •  There is only one way to find out for sure. (12+ / 0-)

              Talk your state legislator or congresscritter into passing such a law.  Good luck on that.  Seriously.  Aside from the fact there are probably fewer than a dozen members of Congress who would feel safe in introducing such legislation, getting it passed would be quite another thing.  And assuming hypothetically it did pass, it would be subject to an injunction in Federal District Court before the ink was dry on it.  Then the legal fun would begin.

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

              by Otteray Scribe on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 12:12:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  it will happen eventually (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bisbonian, glorificus, Smoh, twigg

                the only question is when

                And it will pass constitutional muster.

                •  Get your law passed. (11+ / 0-)

                  Only way to find out for sure.

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

                  by Otteray Scribe on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 12:31:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Fight to get it passed (0+ / 0-)

                    Don't just sit there suggesting others do it.

                    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 08:32:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Twigg, I only pick battles I can win. (9+ / 0-)

                      I do not tilt at windmills.  I am a long time student of Sun Tsu.  He warned about trying to fight a battle on enemy ground where there is no hope of winning.   I have been trying to point out the futility of this particular battle at this particular time.  If you want to create scofflaws and a black market, pass laws that are unenforceable.  If nothing else, the 18th Amendment fiasco should have taught everyone that.  I have no problem with registration, as I said earlier. It is a good idea. But enforcement is going to be inefficient and ineffective at this point in time.  The huge amount of money and manpower needed to implement the proposal cannot be justified on the basis of expected (hoped for) return.

                      There are battles that CAN and MUST be won.  Mental health care.  Alcoholism.  PTSD treatment.  More effective and better trained law enforcement.  And do something about the so-called war on drugs.  Those are battles that are winnable, but only with great effort.  

                      Last week, when the weather was bad, my pretty twenty-something daughter was one of only five officers who could make it in to work.  She and four other officers had to run a four-story jail that is full to the legal limit all by themselves.  That put her life at risk, because many of the "guests" at the Sheriff's bed and breakfast inn are not very nice people.  That damn jail could be half empty if the mentally ill had a place to go besides jail. The average stay at the nearest psychiatric hospital is three days.  They are going to "cure" a coke habit and suicidal ideation in three days?

                      The people on marijuana charges should be at home instead of in jail for possession of an ounce of pot.  Then they could stop releasing DUI offenders early with no treatment, so they can go out and get loaded again and kill people.   I heard a news story earlier that two small children, 5 and 2 years old, were killed by a drunk driver. They were not killed by a gun, but by a 12-pack of Budweiser and a Ford.

                      In the previous comment, my meaning was the equivalent of "Be my guest."  Note my sig line.  I think it addresses my way of thinking rather well.

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

                      by Otteray Scribe on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 01:47:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  no it won't (5+ / 0-)

                  people be will never be held responsible for what people do with objects that are stolen from them in a western democracy.

                  •  they already are (0+ / 0-)

                    You are liable for hazardous wastes you produce, even if someone steals them from you.

                    You are liable for attractive nuisances, even if children trespass onto your property.

                    Some things are so inherently dangerous that people are required to have strict liability, including the obligation to ensure that the dangerous objects cannot be stolen or misappropriated.   Those that choose not to accept that liability suffer no consequences by simply not purchasing the dangerous stuff.

      •  Agreed about tracing. One key element of... (0+ / 0-)

        ...accomplishing that is to keep the government NICS records permanently instead of destroying them and to require dealers, (including private sellers) to keep their record of any sales permanently, not destroy them after 20 years.

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

        by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 10:28:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no, that's de facto gun registration (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, KVoimakas, theatre goon

          That's why the records are destroyed. Under the current system the government actually never knows what gun you are buying until they do a trace with a warrant. This is by design.

          If you think you can get registration passed then work for it, but getting through the back door with NICS is not the answer, and it will only compromise the system if NICS becomes synonymous with future registration. We want people to be willing to go through NICS.

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

    All those pot and meth and cocaine sales.

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

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

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

    Sorry for the dose of reality...

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

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

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

      It is defeatism and a prescription for doing nothing.

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

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

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

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

      Your pessimism will not be allowed to win the day.

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

      Who is twigg?

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

      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      [ Parent ]

    •  Supply and demand (0+ / 0-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        [ Parent ]

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

            With a lot more certainty and at less cost.

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

              Thereby limiting the options.  Oops.

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                  Who is twigg?

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                    That is very often not the case.

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

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

                      and see what happens.

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

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

                      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  What happens? (0+ / 0-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              If not, please do so.

              *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

        [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      [ Parent ]

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

      people from murdering each other.

      What's the use for them anyway?

      /snark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately, it's tough to make private citizens (6+ / 0-)

    comply with a background check requirement, especially when multiple guns are bought in states with lax gun laws and then transported to areas with tougher restrictions.

    The only way I see to do it is to get tougher on registered gun owners when a firearm registered to them is no longer in their possession. Make both the buyer and seller of the gun appear together at a sanctioned hardware, gun or sporting goods store.

    Or, perhaps force both participants in the transaction to appear together at their local city hall or magistrate's office.

    The NRA would not be happy. LOL

    Thanks for the diary.

    "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

    by markthshark on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:22:24 PM PST

  •  Here Is Where I Have Come (5+ / 0-)

    I am not a gun owner. I've fried a gun like twice. Nobody I know would put a gun in my hands. They have respect for said firearm.

    I think we need gun education 24/7.

    I live in a place where a gun is like an extension of your hand.

    Hunting, hunting. hunting.

    Nobody seems to care you have to have a permit to shot that deer or turkey. Or fish to be honest.

    I don't see why asking for basic firearm safety would be that different.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:23:55 PM PST

  •  found this fascinating rant on the Intertoobs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, PaloAltoPixie, gerrilea, glorificus
    If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don't give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses. That's bullshit because troops who carry the M-4/M-16 weapon system for combat ops outside the wire rarely utilize the select fire function when in contact with enemy combatants. The use of select fire probably isn't even 1% in combat. So in essence, the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is the same as the M-4/M-16. These do not need to be purchased as easily as walking to your local Walmart or striking the enter key on your keyboard to "add to cart". All the firearms utilized in my activities are registered to me and were legally purchased at gun stores and private party transfers. All concealable weapons (pistols) were also legally register in my name at police stations or FFL's. Unfortunately, are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times? I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR's, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I'm not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID. Shame on you, Lock n Load. NFA and ATF need new laws and policies that do not allow loopholes such as this. In the end, I hope that you will realize that the small arms I utilize should not be accessed with the ease that I obtained them. Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

    by annieli on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:25:02 PM PST

  •  Your limey mind is indeed intact. (6+ / 0-)

    It's not the gun show loophole.  It's the gun trafficking loophole.   Closing the loophole requires a universal background check for 100% of sales or other transfers of ownership.  Enacting a law goes hand in hand with enforcing it.  The public safety efforts in New York City are illustrative.  70% of Federal Firearms Licensed sellers are no longer sellers.  A number of them are in prison.  The result:  lowest number of gun homicides in 50 years; lowest gun homicide rate of the nation's 25 largest cities.  Cracking down on sellers is just one part of the overall strategy.  It's a decades long filtering process that leaves only the true law abiding owners.  If they are true they should be on board with it too.

    "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

    by leftreborn on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:00:09 PM PST

  •  need to require a gunowners permit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, Joy of Fishes

    like a drivers license

    get a felony or such lose license.  Every time you carry aweapon, must have it on your person.  

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

    by mollyd on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:06:50 PM PST

    •  Actual conversation I had recently. (10+ / 0-)

      This is not unique, since I have the same identical conversation all the time, with only minor variations.  

      Me:  Good morning, Mr. Smith.  How did you get to my office this morning? ( I knew because I had seen him drive up, but I have a form to fill out and needed to ask anyway)

      Smith:  I drove myself.

      Me: Do you have a current and valid driver's license?

      Smith:  Nope.

      Me: How long have you been driving without a license?

      Smith:  Well, they took 'em back in 1986.  It might have been 1987, I don't rightly remember.

      Me:  What did they take your license for?

      Smith:  For DUI and driving without insurance.

      Me:  You have been driving without a license for more than 25 years?

      Smith:  Yep, I don't reckon I really need 'em.  I drive anyway and they don't do nothin' to me, 'cept put me in jail once in a while.

      Me:  How many times have you been arrested since then?

      Smith:  I don't rightly remember.  A lot.

      Me:  What was the most time you spent in jail?

       Smith:  I don't recall.  A week or so.  Once I got thirty days, but they let me go early 'cause the jail was full.

      Mr:  Have you paid all your fines?

      Smith:  Nope, I ain't paid none of them.  They won't give me my license back until I pay 'em, but I don't have no money to pay.  

      Me:  Do you have insurance on your truck? (he had driven up in an old beat-up pickup)

      Smith:  Naw, I ain't got no money to pay insurance.

      Me:  How many accidents have you had?

      Smith:  I don't rightly recall.  Quite a few.  They don't never do nothing to me 'cept put me in jail for a few days.

      Me:  If we added up all you owe in fines, how much would it be?

      Smith:  I dunno.  Twenty or thirty thousand dollars, maybe.

      Me:  Do you plan on paying any of that?

      Smith: I ain't got no money to pay it.  I barely get by.  I just got enough money to buy food, my cigarettes and some beer when I can afford it.

      Me: Do you use marijuana or other drugs?

      Smith:  Naw, I don't use no illegal drugs.  I don't want to get in trouble for that.  Besides, I like beer and that is good enough for me.

      Yep, regulations, taxes and mandatory insurance really do a lot to keep down the accident rate that kills people.  BTW, alcohol is the main cause of fatal accidents in our county.  

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

      by Otteray Scribe on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 12:29:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  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.

  •  Aren't the background checks that ARE completed (8+ / 0-)

    by licensed dealers required by law to be destroyed in 24 hours? Yeah, that'll help states coordinate research. Too many laws prohibit the ATF and others from gathering and sharing gun violence data—with other agencies and the public. Some of Obama's executive actions address these shortfalls.  

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:44:23 PM PST

  •  Twigg I applaud your intent but I think our (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, KVoimakas, PavePusher

    existing NICS is too broken to handle it.

    I can go online and get all my SS beneficiary information or borrow tens of thousands of dollars almost instantly.

    Maybe a free background check that anyone can do on themselves so that anyone wanting to make a gift or a sale can go to any notary public and do the same thing for a couple of dollars. Banks and car dealers often notarize for free. It wouldn't cost the user much or inconvenience unnecessarily. You want to sell somone a gun, they come over, enter their info on your computer, you print it out, keep it for a couple years, and you're good to go. You checked to make sure they aren't in the system.

    It would cut down on illegal sales maybe, or just drive up the price.

    While we're at it maybe we could figure a route to restore gun and voting type rights to people who pose no danger to society. I also hate hearing stories about people failing the background check because of an unpaid speeding ticket.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:09:52 AM PST

  •  While you are right that there is more to... (0+ / 0-)

    ...this than the "gun show loophole," you're mistaken in saying that people who can't pass a background check don't try to. According to the FBI, since background checks were instituted, 108 million have been done and 1.9 million people have been rejected.That's not a negligible number.

    But I completely agree that we need to overhaul the background check system and require all gun transfers to be included in it.

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

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 10:25:53 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site