WeTheArmed.com

General Topics => Activism and Gun Politics => Topic started by: sqlbullet on February 25, 2020, 10:52:15 am

Title: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 25, 2020, 10:52:15 am
As I was perusing the various wares at the show an FEG FP9 showed up, and at a very good price.  Having recently lost my Hi Power clone to a child who chose it for their 21st b-day present, I have been hoping to find a good deal on an FEG, FM, or Kareen Mk1.  This fit the bill.  (I wrote a detailed description of the gun in the handguns section.) A sale price was negotiated with a couple of magazines and I was on my way...Or so I thought.

After agreeing on the price and writing up a (now required) bill of sale, the seller and I were off to stop one on the bureaucracy train, the 4473 table.  One of the FFL's at the show had graciously agreed to run the private party sales on 4473's for his shop at no cost.  (I gotta think he regrets that now).  To accommodate the number of purchases, several tables were set up throughout the convention hall were buyers could obtain a 4473 and fill it out prior to heading to the FFL's booth for the final check.  When we arrived at the table we were #4 in line, and they were out of 4473's.  I had to wait there for 15 minutes for more forms to show up.  I cranked through the form pretty fast and was informed I now had to wait for an escort to take us over to the FFL booth.  All told I spent about 30 minutes at stop 1.

Next we were ushered over to the FFL's booth - AKA stop 2.  Now this poor guy was running a full booth.  Guns, ammo, accessories - The whole shebang in addition to his Samaritan duties running background checks.  He had four or five people helping him at his booth, but only one computer to handle his sales of invoiced items and background checks.  He was in full emergency mode with a stack of invoiced sales and background checks waiting for his attention, and a group of surly customers and third party buyers waiting on him to complete his work.  I spent about 30 minutes at this stop waiting for my paperwork to reach the top of his pile.  Once it did it was less than a minute for the thumbs up to come back, and a slip of red paper to be issued to me.  This paper was my "get out of the gunshow" proof of background.

At this point the seller released the gun to me, I released my money to him and I headed for the door.  I wasn't sure what the purpose of the red paper was yet, but figured I had to be about done.  This was when I hit stop 3.  At the exit I had to show my ID, the gun and they red paper to the gun show attendants.  They retained the red paper.  This stop passed reasonably quickly, taking only about five minutes.

All told, this process added over an hour to what should have been a 5 minute transaction.  And it distributed my PII (personally identifying information) to three additional parties, two of whom had no need for the information at all (the FFL who was dragged into my private business and the convention center who kept the red paper with my name, phone and DL number).

We have a state preemption clause, but the county asserts that they are not passing legislation, they are regulating commerce on county land (they own the expo center).  The state is updating it's preemption law today to make it clear to the county that they can't do this, and there is a lawsuit.

I will add this.  Philosophically I disagree that background checks will have a meaningful impact on crime, if any at all.  I also find them to be an infringement on 2A rights.  However, background checks for gun purchases through FFL dealers have been tested by the court and found to be within the interpreted bounds of legitimate government concerns.  It seem therefore to me only a matter of time before private sales go this way as well.

The big miss here for the pro-background check crowd was the opportunity to make this quick and painless.  A simple mobile app that made CFP status available to the guys running the exit could have cleared the vast majority of purchasers without any registry of the transaction and without any risk to PII.  Those without a CFP could have completed a background check in the ticketing area if they wanted to be able to buy a gun.

If they had made it quick and painless, they would have increased acceptance of the process at gun shows.  Instead, they generated a huge amount of backlash at the state capital and at the county level.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Plebian on February 25, 2020, 11:14:57 am
You said quick and painless and government in the same sentence. These are two things that do not fit together.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 25, 2020, 02:23:35 pm
Three, but who's counting?

That said, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out how the process you went through could have been better, SQLBullet, or how it should have been done to make it far less time consuming.

As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.

I would also say that trimming 45-50 minutes off that is a worthwhile goal, though.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 25, 2020, 02:45:35 pm
First, congrats on the gun show find, SQL.

That said, I'm sorry to hear of your ordeal.  I hadn't heard of the county regs until I read your post.  I hope whoever is suing the county wins a fat settlement.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 25, 2020, 02:58:14 pm
As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.

I can't speak for SQL (or anyone else, for that matter), but for me, I reject the concept of Federal background checks entirely, be they quick and painless or long and cumbersome.  The feds have no business "making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one."  Furthermore, in a state like ours with preemption laws in effect on the matter, the issue certainly isn't a county one either.

Infringing on my right to arms neither makes me freer nor makes me safer. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 25, 2020, 03:23:11 pm
As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.

This is the interesting question.

My response is to not agree that the hour was worth it.

First, I don't think it deterred any bad actors who wanted a gun from getting one.

Second, as far as I know there were no denials at the gun show.  I can't imagine if there had been the Country Mayor wouldn't have made sure it was front page the next day.

Third, the appearance of security is worse than no security.

If it had been 30 seconds at the door to show my CFP and have them quickly search that number in the BCI database, I probably would be here saying "I still don't agree, but if shuts up the brady crowd I will play."

Now, trade that hour for instant checks and transfers on NFA items, as well as new stamps on machine guns...I might be in.  I still think it is wrong, but I would be less wronged than I am now.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Plebian on February 25, 2020, 03:48:51 pm
As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.

Is it worth checking IDs and confirming them when someone votes? Isn't that worth the hour it would take to confirm the voter is who they are and are legal to vote?

Is it worth checking IDs and confirming you are a citizen when walking down the street? Isn't it worth the hour to make sure they are not escaped criminals or illegally here?

Is it not worth having to supply your ID and linking it to all online actions you take? Is that not worth the hour to make sure you are not doing illegal activities on the web?

Is it not worth checking IDs and confirming and recording who was at any protest? It would seem worth the hour spent checking each person to confirm no bad actors were there. Antifa are all good people doing good things. They do not need to wear masks right? I mean knowing who they are and recording it is only a positive thing for safety.

It is only a little time. Surely it is worth it to make sure bad things are not done by bad individuals right? It is really for the safety of all of us that we interfere with your rights. What harm could come?

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 25, 2020, 04:42:35 pm
You can't turn around and kill someone with a vote.

You can't kill someone walking down the street (well, okay, Chuck Norris and Doug Marcaida might could...).

You can kill someone, driving a car while impaired. You can cause loss of life and property, if you're not driving with insurance, or if you've been proven enough of a hazard behind the wheel that you don't have a driver's license.

SQL, the guy running the table screwed up. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see he would have serious demand, and that he should have had another system, dedicated to running the checks. Or there should be three or four people constantly roaming the gun show, with tablets on encrypted wifi, running the background checks to expedite the process.  We have the technology. It's not rocket science.

Yeah, it should have taken 5 minutes.  It shouldn't have taken an hour.  I wish you could have that hour back.

This right we all love so much comes with a lot of responsibility, too.  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  We live in a society where domestic abuse happens. Newsflash for you: not everybody who's abusive is a career criminal who knows a guy who can get them a gun.  They're not all thieves, that can steal one.  And yeah, not all domestic abusers use guns, but 1 in 9 background checks catches a domestic abuser.  Preventing that means I get to cool my heels an hour? I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 25, 2020, 05:11:33 pm
... And yeah, not all domestic abusers use guns, but 1 in 9 background checks catches a domestic abuser.

National reject rate for DV/Protective order based on the 2018 NCIS report is 1.1 in 1000 (https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2018-nics-operations-report.pdf/view pgs 13, 18).  Seems like your stats are off by several orders of magnitude.  2018 was the most recent data I could find on their site.

And this gets to the crux of the ire I have.  I don't doubt that 1 in 9 background checks of any type may match a domestic abuser.  But the vast majority of those checks are for jobs, or volunteer work, or who know what - that isn't gun related at all.  But someone has put that statistic (maybe true) out there in the context of gun buyers (not true) and now you are repeating it.

Also of note is the fact that Law Enforcement officers are arrested at a similar rate of 0.79 per 1000 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249850.pdf pg. 2)

I would also comment that in the three instances I am aware of rejections, two were bench warrants that were a mix up in the court (fine paid but credited to the wrong case) and one was a mixed up identity (same name as a felon).  However, these rejections still would appear in the stats.  I don't know what the overall error rate is in terms of false rejections, but for the rejections I am aware of it is 100%.  The guys at the gun counter were one of the bench warrant rejections occurred told my work associate that the majority of the time the get a reject it is an easily resolved clerical error.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 25, 2020, 05:15:15 pm
And...This just in:

Quote
Neca Allgood, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, told lawmakers that the man who shot and killed her brother, Jordan Allgood, at his St. George coin store in 2003 was on parole from a prior felony conviction and would have never passed a background check, and the person who provided him the gun was also a felon. (https://www.ksl.com/article/46721850/utah-lawmakers-shoot-down-slew-of-gun-bills paragraph 10)

I don't know how to break it to Neca Allgood, but the felon who sold a gun to the felon that killed her brother would not have run a background check.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 25, 2020, 05:27:02 pm
Actually, I think you can kill someone with a vote.  Or, are we not counting the votes of judges and legislatures?  Is it just the votes that put into power the killers?  The abortion issue comes to mind.

Whether firearm or car or any other object, it matters not one bit what one owns.  It matters everything what one does with what one owns.  I don't care if anyone owns a car, rifle, power tools, or any number of things that might cause harm.  I only care that the owner uses their property in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.  I demand the same respect from others.  What I own is my business.  What I do with my property only becomes the business of others when its use infringes on their rights.

Booksmart, I agree with you that rights come with responsibility.  We are responsible for our actions and should be held accountable when we abuse the rights of others.  I just can't agree that the rest of society should have their rights restricted to arms because of the actions of a few.  Punish the criminal, not everyone in society.

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on February 25, 2020, 05:32:45 pm
As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.
No, it isn't.
Anyone with basic metal working skills can make a firearm in a day or so, no background check required.
Anyone with even a modicum of street smarts can buy a firearm from an illegitimate source within a day or so for a few hundred dollars.

Background checks are as effective at keeping guns out of the hands of bad actors as drug laws are at keeping kids from doing drugs, perhaps less so.

It's not just insane but STUPID to try and control human behavior through regulation of inanimate objects.   
If you want to push for life imprisonment every time a person uses a firearm to commit a crime, great.  No problemo.
But Uncle Sam should never know, or have a way of knowing, who owns a firearm or how many a person owns...ever.  Because it only takes a shift in the wind for Uncle Sam to turn into Uncle Joe....which is why the founders tried to ensure acquisition and ownership for firearms by the public at large would be so easy and so difficult for the goverment to attempt to regulate it. 

Hamilton and his ilk would have died much sooner in duels had the other founders been able to see into the future.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Langenator on February 25, 2020, 10:34:50 pm
As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.

Now, multiply that hour by everyone who did a non-FFL gun purchase at that show.  How many people was that?  Tens? Scores? Several hundred?  Now do that on a statewide scale.  We honestly have no idea how many wasted hours you're talking about, because there's no way to accurately measure how many person to person firearms transfers happen.  (Correct answer: None.
 But a lot are lost in tragic canoeing accidents.) And of course, most FFLs won't do it for free.  So you're imposing an indirect user fee on people who aren't breaking the law, and 99.9% of whom aren't the ones causing the problem you're allegedly attempting to solve.

We know from the 2018 Johns Hopkins study that universal background checks had no statistically significant impact on firearms homicides in California.  https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/

And universal background checks in Washington state didn't stop 3 'prohibited persons' - two of whom had over 80 arrests, and multiple felony convictions between them (and should probably had more, except the King County DA's office is one of those soft on crime types) - from getting guns, and then getting in a gun fight on a busy street in broad daylight, displaying NYPD worthy shooting skills by hitting 6 bystanders, one of whom died.  (The media initially tried to bill it as a mass shooting, but backed off once they realized all 3 had gang ties.)  https://www.timesunion.com/news/crime/article/Men-accused-of-murder-in-Seattle-shooting-plead-15068932.php

The big problem with universal background checks is that, in order to actually be effective, it requires universal gun registration.  Because unless you know who owns all the guns, you can't be sure people are actually complying.  And universal registration is not going to happen.  Heck, it's pretty much impossible, since there's no way, short of KGB/Stasi tactics, of even figuring out how many guns there are in the United States, much less who has them.

It's a pipe dream that makes proponents feel like they're doing something, with the actual effect of stigmatizing gun ownership (this is a plus to gun controllers) and making gun ownership more of a hassle.  Of course, the smug satisfaction of virtue signalling and sticking it to those deplorable bitter clinger rubes is it's own reward.

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 25, 2020, 11:51:44 pm
This thread makes me proud to be a member of this forum.   :thumbup1   

I would point out that any sort of attempted regulation of a person's behavior by a government or its agents eventually results in a negation of that attempt, an escalation or both.  That's how we end up with bureaucratic monstrosities like the D.E.A., or the Department of Education, or - hell, just pick one.   :facepalm

The problem is not solvable via laws, regulations and even vigorous enforcement.  If you doubt that then kindly explain to me the high incidence of contraband material in maximum security prisons.   If you are of the opinion that weaponry in the hands of private citizens is a bad idea and that they should be banned you're either completely ignorant of history, an idiot or a tyrant.  The genie is out of the bottle on that weaponry thing - long since.  People will be armed.  They will ignore laws that prohibit that or infringe upon it to an unacceptable degree.

When arms smugglers start running weapons for fun and profit into the United States its not going to be just hideout guns and concealed carry stuff.  No sir, the real money is in automatic weapons and other shoulder fired mayhem like grenade launchers and RPGs.  I mean hell, if you're going to become a felon and risk rotting in prison you might as well go full tilt boogie, no?  Belt fed?  Hand grenades?  Claymore mines?  C4?  Semtex?  Shoulder launched AA missiles?   Hey bro' - you got the dough, we got the goods.  Let's sit down with a cold beer and talk over whatcha' need.

Don't think it can't happen here.   :coffee 

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 26, 2020, 11:29:22 am
One last parting thought....

As it is, is one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.

What about the people who are actually going to need the gun, but bail on the process because they don't have an hour to spend and don't know they will need it?

Guns are used in defense, alot. In fact, a CDC study indicates it is at least 66.6% more often a defensive use than a criminal use.  The low boundary of defensive use was 500,000 times a year, and possibly as high as 3,000,000 times a year, against 300,000 criminal intent uses.

When you create this kind of barrier to ownership against a largely law abiding group, you are creating more victims of crime than you are saving from crime.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#668de84f299a

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3 - Paywall
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 26, 2020, 01:49:13 pm
If they're not barred from owning a gun, they obviously have other avenues available to them where the time constraint won't be an issue.

You keep blaming the fact that you had to wait an hour on the fact that a background check had to be done, while admitting that at a normal shop it doesn't take that long.

The bottle neck wasn't having the background check, the bottleneck was one guy who was badly underprepared.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 26, 2020, 03:16:23 pm
No.  I am responding to your assertion that....

... one hour of your life worth making sure someone who shouldn't have gun doesn't get one? I would say so.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on February 26, 2020, 04:19:10 pm
Can we institute universal background checks for voting? 
After all, felons and non-US Citizens are not allowed to vote in Federal elections.
Isn't it worth an hour of your life to ensure that elections  are  legitimate?
If they're not barred from owning a gun, they obviously have other avenues available to them where the time constraint won't be an issue.

You keep blaming the fact that you had to wait an hour on the fact that a background check had to be done, while admitting that at a normal shop it doesn't take that long.

The bottle neck wasn't having the background check, the bottleneck was one guy who was badly underprepared.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 26, 2020, 05:27:38 pm
You can't turn around and kill someone with a vote.


You most certainly can, it just takes longer.  In Virginia, we're experiencing the playing out of an attempt to kill a free state, and that attempt could very well result in loss of life.

You can kill a state with a vote when legislators move to regulate things they don't understand -- such as guns -- and depend on voters who have no understanding of same.  That reaches much farther, as others have already stated better than I could, when both voters and legislators/political bureaucrats have lost the understanding of individual freedom, the Constitution, the principles that make for balancing of governmental power/authority and individual freedom/responsibility.  No free law-abiding citizen needs government permission to own the means of protection of self, family, and community.  Government is not parent.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Langenator on February 26, 2020, 05:56:39 pm
You most certainly can, it just takes longer. 


Quite true.  Remember, Hitler was elected.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 26, 2020, 06:25:22 pm
If they're not barred from owning a gun, they obviously have other avenues available to them where the time constraint won't be an issue.

You keep blaming the fact that you had to wait an hour on the fact that a background check had to be done, while admitting that at a normal shop it doesn't take that long.

The bottle neck wasn't having the background check, the bottleneck was one guy who was badly underprepared.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to still be holding to the notion that the delay was not an infringement of rights.  Is there, in your opinion, a delay that would not constitute an infringement?  A few days (like mandatory waiting periods)?  A few weeks?  A few months (like for NFA items)?  Would a few years still be OK as long as in the end SQL gets his pistol?

If there is a point at which delay crosses the line into infringement, when is it?  How is the determination made?  Under what criteria is the time period judged?  Who decides and how?

Are rights subject to technology?  In other words, do rights exist without NICS?  Specifically, does SQL have the rights to purchase, own, and carry a pistol independent of the existence of NICS?  If NICS is shut down by the Fedreral government for a "NICS holiday" for 30 days, are rights infringed for a month?  Or is that an acceptable inconvenience?

You see, for me there is no gradation where inconvenience slowly becomes infringement.  For me it is a binary situation.

Did the Federal government require the filling out of a 4473 before a right could be exercised? Check.
Did the Federal government require a NICS check before a right could be exercised? Check.

It doesn't matter how long it took to fill the form.  It doesn't matter how long it took to do the check.  The procedures themselves were infringements.

You can keep your shades of gray.  I'll keep my rights.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 26, 2020, 06:37:40 pm
I think, ideally, that the delay time should be the 30 seconds it'd take for SQL's background check to run.

Ideally. In a perfect world. Which this most definitely is not.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 26, 2020, 06:43:40 pm
I'm still curious to know at what point you think inconvenience becomes infringement and how that point is determined.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 26, 2020, 08:43:22 pm
I answered your question: in a perfect world, the 30 seconds for the system to run the background check is all the time that should be needed. 

I think the "3 days to prevent a 'moment of passion' purchase" is a bogeyman invented by hoplophobes - I would be surprised if anyone had ever impulse purchased a gun to shoot someone (I think if they were that mad, they'd be far more likely to grab a chair or something heavy & blunt). 

I definitely think a full week is overkill.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on February 26, 2020, 10:56:57 pm
You did not answer his question. 
You answered a question no one asked; How long should a background check take?

I'll try to rephrase his original question:
How long can a right be delayed without it being an infringement of that right?

We, and the ghost of MLK, would like to know your answer.
 
I answered your question: in a perfect world, the 30 seconds for the system to run the background check is all the time that should be needed. 

I think the "3 days to prevent a 'moment of passion' purchase" is a bogeyman invented by hoplophobes - I would be surprised if anyone had ever impulse purchased a gun to shoot someone (I think if they were that mad, they'd be far more likely to grab a chair or something heavy & blunt). 

I definitely think a full week is overkill.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 26, 2020, 11:18:34 pm
I think, ideally, that the delay time should be the 30 seconds it'd take for SQL's background check to run.

Ideally. In a perfect world. Which this most definitely is not.

It is not.  And, sorry Charlie, that "30 seconds" is a fantasy world.  I've worked a gun counter.  You just wait, and if it's delayed you never know why.  And if it takes an hour or more without delay you never know why.  I've seen "in research" go over 30 days, and you still never know why.  And you still never answered as to why a citizen needs permission to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right.  Beyond that, I don't know any politicians who are qualified to give such permission.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 26, 2020, 11:20:22 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to still be holding to the notion that the delay was not an infringement of rights.  Is there, in your opinion, a delay that would not constitute an infringement?  A few days (like mandatory waiting periods)?  A few weeks?  A few months (like for NFA items)?  Would a few years still be OK as long as in the end SQL gets his pistol?

If there is a point at which delay crosses the line into infringement, when is it?  How is the determination made?  Under what criteria is the time period judged?  Who decides and how?

Are rights subject to technology?  In other words, do rights exist without NICS?  Specifically, does SQL have the rights to purchase, own, and carry a pistol independent of the existence of NICS?  If NICS is shut down by the Fedreral government for a "NICS holiday" for 30 days, are rights infringed for a month?  Or is that an acceptable inconvenience?

You see, for me there is no gradation where inconvenience slowly becomes infringement.  For me it is a binary situation.

Did the Federal government require the filling out of a 4473 before a right could be exercised? Check.
Did the Federal government require a NICS check before a right could be exercised? Check.

It doesn't matter how long it took to fill the form.  It doesn't matter how long it took to do the check.  The procedures themselves were infringements.

You can keep your shades of gray.  I'll keep my rights.

Very well stated. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 26, 2020, 11:24:42 pm
This thread makes me proud to be a member of this forum.   :thumbup1   

I would point out that any sort of attempted regulation of a person's behavior by a government or its agents eventually results in a negation of that attempt, an escalation or both.  That's how we end up with bureaucratic monstrosities like the D.E.A., or the Department of Education, or - hell, just pick one.   :facepalm

The problem is not solvable via laws, regulations and even vigorous enforcement.  If you doubt that then kindly explain to me the high incidence of contraband material in maximum security prisons.   If you are of the opinion that weaponry in the hands of private citizens is a bad idea and that they should be banned you're either completely ignorant of history, an idiot or a tyrant.  The genie is out of the bottle on that weaponry thing - long since.  People will be armed.  They will ignore laws that prohibit that or infringe upon it to an unacceptable degree.

When arms smugglers start running weapons for fun and profit into the United States its not going to be just hideout guns and concealed carry stuff.  No sir, the real money is in automatic weapons and other shoulder fired mayhem like grenade launchers and RPGs.  I mean hell, if you're going to become a felon and risk rotting in prison you might as well go full tilt boogie, no?  Belt fed?  Hand grenades?  Claymore mines?  C4?  Semtex?  Shoulder launched AA missiles?   Hey bro' - you got the dough, we got the goods.  Let's sit down with a cold beer and talk over whatcha' need.

Don't think it can't happen here.   :coffee 



Also very well stated, including the reason I'm still here.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 26, 2020, 11:31:42 pm
Well, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with the idea that, once you have been convicted of a violent crime, that you lose the right to have legal access to firearms.

That's the price you pay. Actions have consequences.

Unless you can think of a better way for convicted criminals to not be able to walk into a gun store and purchase weapons, that's the world we live in - one with background checks (the duration of which we have the technology to make as quick as grabbing something from the vending machine, if we want to give it the funding).

Now, you can deal with that reality, or you can howl at the moon and whine about it being unfair.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 26, 2020, 11:48:32 pm
Well, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with the idea that, once you have been convicted of a violent crime, that you lose the right to have legal access to firearms.

That's the price you pay. Actions have consequences.


Doesn't hold water when governments are releasing violent criminals in increasing numbers.  And you're still talking about the rest of us paying that price when we've done nothing violent or criminal.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 27, 2020, 12:17:22 am
I don't see cooling my heels for a background check as 'paying a price'.

You did not answer his question. 
You answered a question no one asked; How long should a background check take?

I'm sorry, did SQLBullet leave the gunshow with the gun or not? If he did, his rights are intact.

How would you keep people who are federally barred from owning guns from purchasing a gun?  Skip the dream about everybody having the right to own a gun - we do not live in that world.

Deal with this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 27, 2020, 12:33:27 am
I don't see cooling my heels for a background check as 'paying a price'.

I'm sorry, did SQLBullet leave the gunshow with the gun or not? If he did, his rights are intact.

How would you keep people who are federally barred from owning guns from purchasing a gun?  Skip the dream about everybody having the right to own a gun - we do not live in that world.

Deal with this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

The way the Waco’s want to set it up is to make it as difficult as possible for those of us who follow laws to exercise our rights. A criminal will always be able to get a gun. This kind of bulls___ just makes in difficult for us.

I’m tire of their bulls___.

No more!

 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 27, 2020, 12:45:01 am
I'm not asking for what hoplophobes are trying to do.  I'm asking you: this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 27, 2020, 01:27:29 am
Violent criminals do not walk into gun stores to buy guns!
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 27, 2020, 02:18:21 am
Correct.  There may be a few dumb enough to try that but most violent, career felons have long since learned the back channels and ways to acquire what they want without ever walking through the door at BassProShops / Cabelas .  Beg, borrow or steal - whatever it takes.  That is reality and that is now.  Acknowledge it or not - agree with it or not - it is what it is.   

The idea that "someone with a violent criminal past" is walking into a gun store and buying a gun is a straw man argument designed to deflect the conversation away from an uncomfortable truth.   As I pointed out in my previous post the idea that this "problem" is solvable by way of laws, regulations and enforcement of same is laughable.  Laws only affect the law abiding portion of the population.  The rest do as they please. 

Restricting my rights, in any way or to any degree, does not make you safer.  I am no threat to you unless you threaten me. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: MTK20 on February 27, 2020, 03:28:47 am
That's the heart of the issue.

What we are arguing here is the governing of the human will. The will and actions of bad men cannot be governed at all. Only the law abiding can be governed. And if the winds do change and a government becomes tyrannical, then not even the formerly law abiding will allow themselves to be governed. A man cannot have his actions governed without him first giving his consent. That is unless he is governed by force, which then a government that regulates its people by that sole means is neither just nor legitimate. It then becomes the brute that it claims to defend the populace against.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: RetroGrouch on February 27, 2020, 03:45:43 am
And the other counter to booksmart's question is "how many people who knowingly fail a NICS check get put in prison?"  I'll give you a hint, there are many more living Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.  The system's data isn't updated, and violators aren't prosecuted.  It doesn't work on any level, it adds to the price of buying a gun, it is a tax on a Civil right, and it is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 27, 2020, 08:18:31 am
I'm not asking for what hoplophobes are trying to do.  I'm asking you: this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

The short answer is: I'm not.

How do you know if someone is a violent criminal?  Are you speaking about those who have been convicted of some crime that makes them a prohibited person?  I will assume for the sake of argument that you are not suggesting a "precrime" scenario.  If we are talking solely about people who get into the system, why are nonviolent felons prohibited?  If you are speaking strictly about the violent, why are they on the street?

For those who are currently considered prohibited person, my answer is the following: Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and kidnappers should be executed or serve life in prison without parole.  They would no longer be on the board.  Anyone else who serves their sentence should be able to exercise their rights like the rest of us.  This includes the paroled.  Why release them if they are a threat?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 27, 2020, 09:10:17 am
Violent criminals do not walk into gun stores to buy guns!

That is correct. Why? Because there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms.

To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

Pretty sure all the answers to those is no.  He has his (nifty, I might add) gun.  His rights are intact.

But I'm not entirely unsympathetic to his lost time. He should go to the next townhall, recount his experience, then suggest that the county should have a booth at the next gunshow, manned by enough individuals to meet demand and run the background checks themselves. I'm sure they have employees with experience.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 27, 2020, 11:02:41 am
Booksmart, I hear what you are saying.  I just can't bring myself to agree.  A right delayed is a right denied--even if denied for a short period.

Infringing on my rights due to someone else's fear of what some third party might do is a concept I can never get behind.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 27, 2020, 12:06:16 pm
Ah, to suffer the slings and arrows of indignity, living in a modern society...   ;)
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 27, 2020, 01:26:54 pm
That is correct. Why? Because there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms.

To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

Pretty sure all the answers to those is no.  He has his (nifty, I might add) gun.  His rights are intact.

But I'm not entirely unsympathetic to his lost time. He should go to the next townhall, recount his experience, then suggest that the county should have a booth at the next gunshow, manned by enough individuals to meet demand and run the background checks themselves. I'm sure they have employees with experience.
If there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms then how do they obtain them?   :hmm   Could it be that the criminal(s) will ignore the law(s) or circumvent them in whatever way proves most effective?  Shocking.   :shocked   Again, regulating people's behavior only works if you can regulate those who need regulating and only then if you have their cooperation - voluntary or forced. 

Speaking of forced cooperation, the entire second paragraph of your quoted response mentions things that already exist in this country for firearms owners or prospective purchasers despite the clear language of the second amendment to the Constitution.   

Have you actually been to any "townhalls" lately?   City council meetings?  County supervisor meetings?   Public comment fora for virtually anything?   Theater of the absurd is the most charitable description I can come up with for any of those things - and yes, I have attended them.  They are not the place you go to get your problem(s) solved and nobody should be forced to go, hat in hand, before government bureaucrats to petition for the guarantee of civil rights or effective governance.  You would have SQLBullet waste yet more time and resources to attempt to alleviate a problem he didn't cause in the first place?  And, what is the difference between standing in line at a vendor's table and standing in line at some "booth" - no doubt paid for by your next property tax increase ?     

I suppose it comes down to this;  If government is the answer what was the question?    :scrutiny

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 27, 2020, 02:04:09 pm
While I agree that a right delayed is a right denied, I am also cognizant that in a society I accept brief denials of my right in order to accommodate others rights.  A great example of this is the simple traffic light.  At a traffic light I am denied my right to travel, though briefly, so that others can safely cross my path.  We don't think much of this because individually we can see the net benefit to us out ways the brief denial of our right to travel.

The feeling would not be the same if, say, the law was implemented such that east-west traffic could travel on even hours and north-south on odd hours, with the last 10 minutes of each hour reserved for those who wanted to turn left from the currently allowed direction to the about to be allowed direction.  The simple fact is no one would conform to such a system.

The problem with universal background checks is that while they sound "common sense", like a traffic light system, they don't make any sense at all when you look at the data.  Most guns used in crime are obtained through means that are either a) already illegal or b) through a legal means that additional background checks would not stop.  The means in "a" are the most common and fall into the following categories:
   Street/Black Market (43.2%)
   Family/friend/straw-purchase (25.3%)
   Found during commission of crime(11.8%)
   Stolen (6.4%)
   Other (5.9%)
   Retail Purchase (9.2%)
   Gun Show (0.8%)

This would suggest that less than 112 guns used in fatal shootings in 2018 would have been stopped by gun show background checks (using wisqars data of 13,958 Homocide deaths in 2018 and assuming no two people were killed by the same gun.  If they were the number is less.)

This seems like a pretty slim basis to incur the expense of individuals, dealers and government entities. Especially when you consider that most would just switch to an alternate means.  We can't assume they will just not commit the crime.



https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
Title: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 27, 2020, 02:07:47 pm
That is correct. Why? Because there are laws that prevent them from being sold firearms.

To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

Pretty sure all the answers to those is no. 

No, but he was harassed just to make you and those like you “feel” better. That’s what pisses me off.

I’ve grown tired of the “can we have a conversation” bs, which means you have to do what “we” think is right.

I’m tired of this crap and I’m tired of the party of free s___ that keeps doing its best to destroy my country, and I’m tired of having to deal with the morons who vote for them!
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 27, 2020, 02:09:25 pm

To further the question of whether or not SQLBullet's rights were violated: was he officially detained? Handcuffed? Frisked? Interviewed? Interrogated? Did he have to get a notarized letter from his doctor or significant other that they were fine with him having the gun?  Was he yelled at by protesters walking into the gun show?

Pretty sure all the answers to those is no.


Wrong.  He was interrogated, via form 4473 and whatever other state/local forms may be in use in his state; and the record of that interrogation will be kept.  Then he had to have what amounts to a letter from his government (which only knows him through whatever has or has not been recorded in its files) giving him permission -- in VA that entails permission from fedgov (FBI) and stategov (state police).  And then he had to give a permission slip to the hall monitors to be able to leave with his gun.

He has his (nifty, I might add) gun.  His rights are intact infringed.


FIFY.


Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on February 27, 2020, 03:18:08 pm


I'm sorry, did SQLBullet leave the gunshow with the gun or not? If he did, his rights are intact.
So then you're going on record that in your opinion Dr. Martin Luther King  Jr. was  entirely wrong when he said, "A right delayed is a right denied"?



How would you keep people who are federally barred from owning guns from purchasing a gun?

First thing I'd do is prosecute people who set up straw man sales...starting with former Attorney General Holder, including making him accessory to homicide for every person killed with firearms he facilitated to prohibited possessors.   Have to set an example,  how can we expect the plebs to follow the rules when the "top cop" of the nation didn't?
Second, I'd prosecute each and every prohibited person who could be proven to have picked up a firearm...starting with all the celebrities with disqualifying offenses who use serialized modern firearms in film.  Again, how can we expect people to follow the rules when we showcase people breaking them? Monkey see, monkey do. As a bonus this should also reduce the length of Awards shows for both the film and music industry.
Third, when a person with a pre-existing disqualification is arrested while in possession of a firearm I'd charge them under the existing statute...something that very rarely happens currently.   I care very little where they purchased it, I care that they are in possession of it. 
 
Skip the dream about everybody having the right to own a gun - we do not live in that world.

Right after you skip the dream about how background checks will stop felons and other bad actors from obtaining firearms with relative ease.
Deal with this reality, this now. How do you keep someone with a violent criminal past from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?
You keep them incarcerated until they are no longer a threat to the public.   That also helps prevent them from buying one on the black market, stealing them, or making a firearm themselves...all much more common ways that people with criminal pasts obtain firearms in comparison to buying a gun at a brick and mortar store.


Now, I'll repeat the question I asked you which you avoided. I'll even expand upon it.

Can we institute universal background checks for voting?
After all, felons and non-US Citizens are not allowed to vote in Federal elections.
Isn't it worth an hour of your life to ensure that elections  are  legitimate and that votes are not being illegally cast by non-citizens? Russian Agents, for example.    :D
Or illegal aliens, if you're prone to considering something so unfeasible and unlikely. :coffee
Isn't it worth an hour of your life to ensure that elections  are  legitimate?

I mean the argument against requiring verified ID proving that you're a US Citizen before you can vote on the grounds that it's   an unfair burden on poor and minorities due to the expense of obtaining such ID or that  such a requirement would have a chilling effect on people in those demographics exercising their right of franchise is obviously ridiculous.   The requirement to procure such ID and produce it before each and every purchase of a firearm from an FFL, also the exercise of a right protected by our Constitution, doesn't produce such a burden or chilling effect...right? :coffee
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 27, 2020, 03:31:50 pm
@LowKey 

We need a like button.

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 27, 2020, 05:58:45 pm
I'm just glad we can all still gather around and help poor booksmart through these rough patches.   Bless his heart.    :cool
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 27, 2020, 10:58:41 pm
*cracks knuckles*

From the top... hit it!

Coelecanth - And I point out (again) that not all people that are barred from possessing a firearm are career criminals. Domestic abusers (male and female).  Felony DUI convictions.  There are lots of felonies that don't require a life of crime to commit. Some of these are people who otherwise wouldn't dream of breaking the law.  Some of them, sure, are not violent and I don't think would necessarily need to be on a no-sale list.

Some, however, most certainly would.

RE: townhalls.  For better or worse, we do live in a representative democratic republic, and governance is a participatory sport. Some times, you gotta stand up and open your mouth.

SQLBullet - I'm about to freak y'all out: If you'd shown me the DOJ report earlier, this would have been a much shorter conversation (I will even go so far as to share it on Facebook). HOWEVER: an FFL licensed dealer, selling at a gun show, should still run a background check, as they are still bound by the FFL regulations.  If they were at their shop, they'd have to run one. Why should the location make a difference?

BTW, there's been a spike in gun homicides over the last few years - we're up to around 15k, as of 2018.  Food for thought.

Goatroper - we've all filled out a form 4473, at one time or another.  As things go, it's relatively painless.  Certainly easier (and less painful) than doing my taxes.

LowKey - I'm saying that Dr. King might have a slightly different view on the matter, were you able to ask him now.

I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - it's a strawman argument.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 27, 2020, 11:18:42 pm
Booksmart

If a FFL is selling at a gun show, he/she is already required by law to conduct a sale exactly the same way he/she would do so in their shop. The “gun show loop” hole is made up bs by the people that want to strip us of our rights.

Ann Coulter is right. Liberalism IS a disease.


Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 27, 2020, 11:31:19 pm
Thank you for repeating what I just said.

Ann Coulter is a hack.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 27, 2020, 11:56:37 pm
Thank you for repeating what I just said.

Ann Coulter is a hack.
Booksmart is a Fudd
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on February 28, 2020, 12:45:22 am

LowKey - I'm saying that Dr. King might have a slightly different view on the matter, were you able to ask him now.
What he might have to say on the matter today were he still alive is irrelevant to the question asked and which you're trying to avoid answering.


So do you agree with Dr. King's statement that a right delayed is a right denied, or do you think Dr. King was wrong?

I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - it's a strawman argument.
The act of purchasing a firearm doesn't result in bloodshed either.  Most owners firearms have never harmed another human being. 
However voting very much CAN result in bloodshed.   Voting is how we elect those to whom we delegate the power to make choice of starting wars, executing prisoners, and ordering drone strikes.  We are as responsible in those deaths as is a mob boss who orders a hit through an underling, as responsible as a General for casualties inflicted on the enemy by soldiers under his command. Arguments to the contrary by people claiming otherwise are just frantic attempts to scrub the blood off their hands in the same basin Pontius Pilate used, and as pathetic  as people opposing the hunting of animals while they eat the flesh of animals killed on their behalf by the butcher.



Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 28, 2020, 04:19:02 am
*cracks knuckles*

From the top... hit it!

Coelecanth - And I point out (again) that not all people that are barred from possessing a firearm are career criminals. Domestic abusers (male and female).  Felony DUI convictions.  There are lots of felonies that don't require a life of crime to commit. Some of these are people who otherwise wouldn't dream of breaking the law.  Some of them, sure, are not violent and I don't think would necessarily need to be on a no-sale list.

Some, however, most certainly would.

RE: townhalls.  For better or worse, we do live in a representative democratic republic, and governance is a participatory sport. Some times, you gotta stand up and open your mouth.

SQLBullet - I'm about to freak y'all out: If you'd shown me the DOJ report earlier, this would have been a much shorter conversation (I will even go so far as to share it on Facebook). HOWEVER: an FFL licensed dealer, selling at a gun show, should still run a background check, as they are still bound by the FFL regulations.  If they were at their shop, they'd have to run one. Why should the location make a difference?

BTW, there's been a spike in gun homicides over the last few years - we're up to around 15k, as of 2018.  Food for thought.

Goatroper - we've all filled out a form 4473, at one time or another.  As things go, it's relatively painless.  Certainly easier (and less painful) than doing my taxes.

LowKey - I'm saying that Dr. King might have a slightly different view on the matter, were you able to ask him now.

I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - it's a strawman argument.
Actually we live in a constitutional republic.  At least for the time being.  Post constitutional America is going to be ugly when it arrives. 

If you think governance is a sport, of any description, you haven't been paying attention.  Standing up and speaking my mind has never been something I avoided - even when I knew it was likely to cause me trouble.  As I pointed out, that is not the way problems get solved.  They are convenient, easily controlled ways for people to let off a little steam but nothing more.  So, urging SQLBullet to attend some future "townhall" to complain about how things are being mismanaged is the equivalent of recommending he put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.  The mismanagement isn't the crux of the problem.  We have been trying to point out to you that the problem is not a clerical one or even a lack of resources on the part of the bureaucracy so intent on filing the proper forms.  The problem is a fundamental error in the understanding of and the approach to governance by those we have elected.   We cannot solve the problem(s) being discussed here until we address THAT problem first. 

As to the assumption that you can sort people into neat, tidy groups that can be managed for their own good like so many head of livestock is patently absurd.  We cannot be graded like a truckload of apples or oranges and thus easily separated into groups which we deem acceptable to own and employ the effective means of self defense and those not so fortunate.  Who decides?  You?  Me?  Some newly minted statist toady fresh out of college who already knows like, just everything already?  No.  Even a "domestic abuser" or a career criminal and violent felon has the innate right to self defense or defense of family.  Its called justifiable use of force and it is an inalienable right of all people.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right or moral authority to prevent that. 

"Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?" 

"In terms of morals there is no such thing as 'state'.  Just men.  Individuals.  Each responsible for his own acts." 

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force.  And force, my friends, is violence.  The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." 

All the above are quotes are from the writings of Robert A. Heinlein.  You might try reading some of them if you no longer have the stomach for Ann Coulter.     :coffee

You say that actions have consequences but have not yet addressed the points several of us have made regarding the consequences of widespread lawless behavior by others in our society.  Example:  "I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - its a strawman argument."  Wrong.  Even a casual observation of the news in recent years refutes that idea completely.   

I understand the inclination to pick and choose points about which to argue.  Its a long established debate tactic some of us learned way back in high school where we learned to score points based on how well we emphasized our ideas and talking points while minimizing or ignoring those of our opponents. 

"The commonest weakness of our race is to rationalize our most selfish purposes."   Robert A. Heinlein, again.   

So, here's a couple of questions for us to think about.  What has been the net result of all the so called "gun legislation" passed in the last 50 years?   Is the net value of all the time and money spent filling out and processing 4473 forms since their inception something we would have been better off spending in other ways and on other things?   :hmm
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 28, 2020, 08:23:34 am
Booksmart is a Fudd

*snort* Namecalling, now? How... presidential of you.

C - I was reading Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Herbert... more than 30 years ago.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 28, 2020, 11:39:54 am
*cracks knuckles*

From the top... hit it!

Coelecanth - And I point out (again) that not all people that are barred from possessing a firearm are career criminals. Domestic abusers (male and female).  Felony DUI convictions.  There are lots of felonies that don't require a life of crime to commit. Some of these are people who otherwise wouldn't dream of breaking the law.  Some of them, sure, are not violent and I don't think would necessarily need to be on a no-sale list.

Some, however, most certainly would.

RE: townhalls.  For better or worse, we do live in a representative democratic republic, and governance is a participatory sport. Some times, you gotta stand up and open your mouth.

SQLBullet - I'm about to freak y'all out: If you'd shown me the DOJ report earlier, this would have been a much shorter conversation (I will even go so far as to share it on Facebook). HOWEVER: an FFL licensed dealer, selling at a gun show, should still run a background check, as they are still bound by the FFL regulations.  If they were at their shop, they'd have to run one. Why should the location make a difference?

BTW, there's been a spike in gun homicides over the last few years - we're up to around 15k, as of 2018.  Food for thought.

Just to make sure the message wasn't lost...

An FFL has to run a background check no matter where they are.  There is not "gun show loophole" for dealers.  The "gun show loophole" is only that it brings private parties together at a commercial event.  An ffl has to follow FFL rules no matter what.

You can add this to the list of things you have been mislead about regarding background checks.  Do you see now why we all feel like there is an agenda?

The spike appears to be most focused on the age groups between 15-44. I could suppose a lot of things, but this is an opportunity to ask some more why questions.

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 28, 2020, 12:26:55 pm

You can add this to the list of things you have been mislead about regarding background checks.  Do you see now why we all feel like there is an agenda?


Um, no, I was just re-inforcing my message that removing background checks altogether is a Bad Idea.

I don't disagree that there's a far-left agenda that would have bad consequences if it were to come to fruition, but  I also recognize that there's a far-right agenda that has equally bad consequences.

One thing y'all need to remember is that the stats in the report that convinced me are the *result* of the effectiveness of background checks. If background checks (and the laws that loom behind them) were to be removed, I have no doubt those stats would change. And I do *not* think the end results would be pretty.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on February 28, 2020, 12:48:11 pm
*snort* Namecalling, now? How... presidential of you.

C - I was reading Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Herbert... more than 30 years ago.

But I’m not wrong.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 28, 2020, 01:57:19 pm
Booksmart,

You have made clear that you support background checks.  I am not disputing your preferences.  You have your reasons, and I doubt from what I've read here that anyone will dissuade you of the validity of what you believe.

What I would like you to explain is the constitutional argument to support Federal gun control as it stands today.  I can find nothing in the text of the Constitution  authorizing the Federal government to require a 4473, license gun dealers, do NICS checks, define prohibited persons, ban types of ammunition or arms, or any other restriction on the RKBA.  Any stretch of the text used to justify gun control measures would be negated by the 2A.

So help me understand the legal justification you are using.  For the purposes of this question let's focus on what SQL went through.  What clause of the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to require the NICS check, declare some persons to be prohibited the use of their RKBA, and to compile a list of said prohibited persons the NICS check is looking for?

Please use your own logic.  I am not interested in strict reliance on Supreme Court decisions.  The court can be mistaken and has been known to reverse itself.  You and the Court may agree, but please "show your work" so to speak.



Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on February 28, 2020, 02:38:34 pm
Um, no, I was just re-inforcing my message that removing background checks altogether is a Bad Idea.

Sorry, I missed that.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 28, 2020, 05:24:56 pm
Um, no, I was just re-inforcing my message that removing background checks altogether is a Bad Idea.

I don't disagree that there's a far-left agenda that would have bad consequences if it were to come to fruition, but  I also recognize that there's a far-right agenda that has equally bad consequences.

One thing y'all need to remember is that the stats in the report that convinced me are the *result* of the effectiveness of background checks. If background checks (and the laws that loom behind them) were to be removed, I have no doubt those stats would change. And I do *not* think the end results would be pretty.
OK.  Since you have no interest in answering any of my previous questions let's try some new ones.( sigh  :facepalm ) What exactly is this " . . . far right agenda that has equally bad consequences." ?   Are any of us here members of the "far right" in your opinion?    :hmm

What would you cite as evidence that any of the statistics you refer to are  " .  .  .  the *result* of the effectiveness of background checks." ? 

You have no corresponding data to draw from that would show what the result(s) would have been had there been no such legislation in force so it seems you must rely on either extrapolation or speculation.  Neither of those pass muster as any sort of reliable gauge of what might have happened during the time in question or what might happen in the future.  Correlation is not causation.  Or, as my Grandaddy used to say, "And, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their little green asses every time they jumped."  True dat.   :cool

Your feelings on the issue are just that.  You may be right and you may be wrong but you are entitled to your opinion and always welcome to share it with us here.   Even if you don't convince us to come around to your way of thinking its good to hear different points of view.   

I think I'll leave you with just one more quotation that I think applies to not only this issue we are discussing but the current news cycle:

"Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ( and hence clamorous to be led to safety ) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. " 
                                         H. L. Mencken, In Defense of Women  ca. 1918



Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 28, 2020, 05:39:42 pm

So help me understand the legal justification you are using.  For the purposes of this question let's focus on what SQL went through.  What clause of the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to require the NICS check, declare some persons to be prohibited the use of their RKBA, and to compile a list of said prohibited persons the NICS check is looking for?


You can start here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)


OK.  Since you have no interest in answering any of my previous questions let's try some new ones.( sigh  :facepalm ) What exactly is this " . . . far right agenda that has equally bad consequences." ?   

Removal of every single gun control law on the books.

The US, far and away, has the highest rate of death by firearms in the world.  We seem to be the only high income country that has this issue.

Many of you advocate for 'an armed society is a polite society,' but that logic doesn't pan out.  It certainly didn't work in the Wild West. And it doesn't appear to be necessary in large swaths of the rest of the world.

Quote
Are any of us here members of the "far right" in your opinion?    :hmm

Probably (please don't take it personally).
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on February 28, 2020, 06:40:17 pm
You can start here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

From this answer of your's I can only come to the conclusion that you've never actually read the US Constitution, because if you had you'd quite easily see that the National Firearms Act of 1934
is not contained in said Constitution which was ratified June 21, 1788, 146 years before the passing for the NFA.
Perhaps you'll next suggest that the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor is what prompted President Theodore Roosevelt  to  enter us into World War Two.

I must ask...
Do you meet with Joe Biden often for drinks?
Share the same fact checker?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 28, 2020, 07:14:55 pm
You can start here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)


Removal of every single gun control law on the books.

The US, far and away, has the highest rate of death by firearms in the world.  We seem to be the only high income country that has this issue.

Many of you advocate for 'an armed society is a polite society,' but that logic doesn't pan out.  It certainly didn't work in the Wild West. And it doesn't appear to be necessary in large swaths of the rest of the world.

Probably (please don't take it personally).


So far, I am still able to bear the disapproval of others.  No qualifiers necessary in my case.    :coffee

I can't seem to locate any data that supports your assertion(s) regarding firearms related deaths.   Unless you are conflating seemingly unrelated categories like homicide and suicide we are neither at the top of the list in total deaths or deaths per 100,000 population.  Even rudimentary statistical analysis shows the majority of U.S. deaths related to firearms use occur in large urban centers and among a relatively narrow set of demographic parameters.  Coincidentally many of those locations already have relatively strict firearms legislation in place. 

So, tell me what legislation you believe is ineffective and what needs to be repealed?   Is there, in fact, any firearms related legislation you are not in favor of either philosophically or as a practical matter? 

You have paraphrased Robert A. Heinlein's work;  "Many of you advocate for ' an armed society is a polite society ' .  .  .

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." R.A.H. ,  Beyond This Horizon

and claim " .  .  .  but that logic doesn't pan out." .   Really?  How so?  What part of the quote above do you find untrue or even unworkable?   

All the people I know who carry firearms every day are remarkably calm and even tempered folks well versed in the the law(s) regarding such things and of the opinion that using that tool must always be a last resort in defense of their life or someone else's.   There is no law ever passed, or even conceived, that would make us safer from these people than we already are. 

As for the "Wild West" ?  I'm old but not that old.   :P     Neither are you.  Your speculation about that era and the region it refers to seem to be fueled more by consumption of Hollywood movie thrillers than any sort of sober examination of historical fact and record.   My state was admitted to the union in 1912 so I am closer to it in terms of geography and time than you will ever be.  I have personally sat and talked to people whose families pioneered this area in the mid 19th century and still farm and ranch here today.  When you take the time to learn about these things and visit the places that are part of history and legend you get a different picture than is portrayed on a big screen in a cinema with a sound track and a tub of popcorn. 

As for the rest of the world, totalitarian governments killed over a hundred million people and attempted to wipe out entire ethnic groups in the 20th century alone.  A lot of that was at the point of a gun so kindly spare us the contorted logic that allows you to arrive at the conclusion,
" .  .  .  And it doesn't appear to be necessary in large swaths of the rest of the world." .     I doubt that point of view is going to be shared, or even tolerated by those unfortunates fleeing places where the means of effective self defense were taken from them by force.  I think they would also take issue with your previous contention that " .  .  .  the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - its a strawman argument.". 

Oh, and you actually didn't answer NukMed's question regarding the Constitution.  Were you planning to get back to him on that?  ( asking for a friend  :whistle ) 

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 28, 2020, 08:13:54 pm
You can start here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

Really?  More than one person on this thread has already shown how this is not an answer to my questions, so I won't go any further into that.

Look, "I don't know" is a legitimate answer.  I'm not trying to trick you.  This isn't an attack.  I'm trying to get to the legal root of your position.  "I don't have a legal leg to stand on" is also a legitimate answer.

You are entitled to your opinions and preferences.  This is not in question.  Though I would hope that you are self aware enough that if you can't clearly articulate the constitutional basis of the laws you support then you may not be in full support of the rule of law.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 29, 2020, 10:34:12 am
NukMed -

I'm confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing to right laws that lay out the rules we have to live by, that being the *purpose of the body*.

I'm also confident with the proposition that, as a country governed by laws, that we must follow a law as long as it's on the books, and has not been repealed.

Whether you like it or not, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is law, and should therefore be followed.

Coelecanth -

I think anyone describing the Wild West era as "polite" would be blowing so much smoke it'd put a coal power plant to shame.

The statistic should have been "the US has the highest gun homicide rate of the high earning countries. By far." My mistake to not finish the qualifier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) (click on the arrows by the categories to sort)

The GDP of the countries ahead of us... probably don't add up to ours, but I don't have the time this morning to do the research (renovations to do, so I won't be on the rest of the weekend). But it's most of Central & South America, plus the Phillipines, Jamaica, and Eswatini.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands)
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 29, 2020, 11:42:44 am
NukMed -

I'm confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing to right laws that lay out the rules we have to live by, that being the *purpose of the body*.

I'm also confident with the proposition that, as a country governed by laws, that we must follow a law as long as it's on the books, and has not been repealed.

Whether you like it or not, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is law, and should therefore be followed.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands)

I still don't see where you quote the clause in the Constitution that grants power to the Federal govt. to require a 4473, declare prohibited persons, or require a NICS check despite having asked repeatedly.  At this point I'm going to have to assume that you either can't or won't answer the question.

Your response instead shows a dangerous naivete toward Federal power.  A bill passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is not necessarily law.  If said bill is the exercise of a power not granted in the Constitution, then it is not law.  It is instead unconstitutional by definition.  It would be a usurpation of power, an exercise in tyranny, and a violation of rights.

I can think of any number of examples of what the Federal govt. does today that fall outside of constitutional authority, but I'll use a particularly heinous hypothetical for illustrative purposes.  Let us say that Congress passes a bill that authorizes law enforcement to round up all Jews and hold them in camps until they can be deported.  Said bill also requires anyone with knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jew report same to law enforcement.  It also requires anyone at the request of law enforcement to render assistance in the arrest of Jews.  The President signs the bill and the SC upholds enforcement in its first challenge.

If I take at face value your quote above I have to conclude that you would report any Jews you know and help law enforcement catch them as well.  To be clear, though, I do not believe any such thing because I am confident that you can see that the Federal govt. has no such power under the Constitution to round up and detain anyone based on religion or ethnicity, much less require the involuntary servitude of citizens in the roundup despite some "law" being on the books.

There is no "slightly unconstitutional" category of Federal action that we can let slide even if it is something we think is beneficial in some way.  There is no "super unconstitutional" category that will require our attention either.  There is only constitutional and unconstitutional.  If you want 4473's, NICS checks, and the lot to be constitutional, you will have to go through the amendment process.  Only then can you be "confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing."
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 29, 2020, 01:23:21 pm

So do you agree with Dr. King's statement that a right delayed is a right denied, or do you think Dr. King was wrong?
The act of purchasing a firearm doesn't result in bloodshed either.  Most owners firearms have never harmed another human being. 
However voting very much CAN result in bloodshed.   Voting is how we elect those to whom we delegate the power to make choice of starting wars, executing prisoners, and ordering drone strikes.  We are as responsible in those deaths as is a mob boss who orders a hit through an underling, as responsible as a General for casualties inflicted on the enemy by soldiers under his command. Arguments to the contrary by people claiming otherwise are just frantic attempts to scrub the blood off their hands in the same basin Pontius Pilate used, and as pathetic  as people opposing the hunting of animals while they eat the flesh of animals killed on their behalf by the butcher.



Thanks, LowKey, you beat me to it and saved me the trouble --and said it much better than I would have.

Booksmart -- responding to your comment on filling out form 4473: "relatively painless" does not make something Constitutional or even the right thing to do.  The list of powers assigned to the fedgov under the Constitution is rather short.

This article, I think, sheds some light on what's been discussed here:

https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/the-logic-error-behind-the-whole-gun-debate

If someone is arguing a point based on acceptance of a premise that others don't consider valid, why would those others not ask the first party  to explain/define/defend that premise?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 29, 2020, 01:23:37 pm
NukMed -

I'm confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing to right laws that lay out the rules we have to live by, that being the *purpose of the body*.

I'm also confident with the proposition that, as a country governed by laws, that we must follow a law as long as it's on the books, and has not been repealed.

Whether you like it or not, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is law, and should therefore be followed.

Coelecanth -

I think anyone describing the Wild West era as "polite" would be blowing so much smoke it'd put a coal power plant to shame.

The statistic should have been "the US has the highest gun homicide rate of the high earning countries. By far." My mistake to not finish the qualifier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) (click on the arrows by the categories to sort)

The GDP of the countries ahead of us... probably don't add up to ours, but I don't have the time this morning to do the research (renovations to do, so I won't be on the rest of the weekend). But it's most of Central & South America, plus the Phillipines, Jamaica, and Eswatini.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands)

I still don't see where you quote the clause in the Constitution that grants power to the Federal govt. to require a 4473, declare prohibited persons, or require a NICS check despite having asked repeatedly.  At this point I'm going to have to assume that you either can't or won't answer the question.

Your response instead shows a dangerous naivete toward Federal power.  A bill passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is not necessarily law.  If said bill is the exercise of a power not granted in the Constitution, then it is not law.  It is instead unconstitutional by definition.  It would be a usurpation of power, an exercise in tyranny, and a violation of rights.

I can think of any number of examples of what the Federal govt. does today that fall outside of constitutional authority, but I'll use a particularly heinous hypothetical for illustrative purposes.  Let us say that Congress passes a bill that authorizes law enforcement to round up all Jews and hold them in camps until they can be deported.  Said bill also requires anyone with knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jew report same to law enforcement.  It also requires anyone at the request of law enforcement to render assistance in the arrest of Jews.  The President signs the bill and the SC upholds enforcement in its first challenge.

If I take at face value your quote above I have to conclude that you would report any Jews you know and help law enforcement catch them as well.  To be clear, though, I do not believe any such thing because I am confident that you can see that the Federal govt. has no such power under the Constitution to round up and detain anyone based on religion or ethnicity, much less require the involuntary servitude of citizens in the roundup despite some "law" being on the books.

There is no "slightly unconstitutional" category of Federal action that we can let slide even if it is something we think is beneficial in some way.  There is no "super unconstitutional" category that will require our attention either.  There is only constitutional and unconstitutional.  If you want 4473's, NICS checks, and the lot to be constitutional, you will have to go through the amendment process.  Only then can you be "confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing."

^ This ^ .   And we did round up American citizens of Japanese descent and hold them in camps complete with fences and guards - all without the due process guaranteed to all of us under the Constitution.  Clearly a violation of the original ".  .  .  rules we have to live by, .  .  . ", no?   :hmm

If we value the rule of law it must only be in the context of the consent of the governed.  We are a constitutional republic - not an ochlocracy.  The system of government we live under cannot be allowed to devolve into a tyranny of the majority where the enumerated rights of citizens are a secondary or tertiary consideration to the political whim of the moment.  When a jury refuses to convict a defendant based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented in court they are judging not only the defendant but the law that was passed by a legislative body.   Many examples of this exist in our history and the history of western civilization.  It was, in fact, the exact reason that we declared our independence from England to begin with. 

If you can find anyone " .  .  .  describing the Wild West era as "polite" .   .   . " please direct your comments to them.    Someone describing something they have little or no knowledge of would have to be considered the definition of "blowing smoke"  - or so it seems to me. 

So, again you dodge a simple question with a diversionary conversational gambit.  The principle of respecting the capability of a potential enemy is well known and demonstrated at all levels of our society and, indeed, throughout the natural world.  Courteous manners and speech are useful for dealing with all people to avoid giving offense where none is intended.  Failure in that regard has consequences - but you already know that.   The idea that people in a society who routinely go armed are destined to be involved in running gun battles wasn't true in "the Wild West era" and it isn't true today.   A few were.  Most were not.  The ones who weren't don't make for exciting stories in novels and movies.  The ones who were do.   That was true at the close of the era in question and also today.  "If it bleeds it leads." is a familiar concept to anyone who has even a nodding familiarity with modern media.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/two-takes-depression/20110   and   https://www.standleague.org/blog/if-it-bleeds-it-leads-no-matter-whose-blood-it-is.html

And regarding your erroneous contention about U.S. homicide statistics can you tell me what possible relevance the qualifier - " .  .  . high earning countries .  .  .  " - has other than to attempt to find any statistical category or anomaly that supports your predetermined conclusion?

Throwing out statistics of questionable relevance or validity in an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issues isn't going to work here - but you already know that. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 29, 2020, 01:27:04 pm

There is no "slightly unconstitutional" category of Federal action that we can let slide even if it is something we think is beneficial in some way.  There is no "super unconstitutional" category that will require our attention either.  There is only constitutional and unconstitutional.  If you want 4473's, NICS checks, and the lot to be constitutional, you will have to go through the amendment process.  Only then can you be "confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing."

Hear, hear!!
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: goatroper on February 29, 2020, 01:41:14 pm
^ This ^ .   And we did round up American citizens of Japanese descent and hold them in camps complete with fences and guards - all without the due process guaranteed to all of us under the Constitution.  Clearly a violation of the original ".  .  .  rules we have to live by, .  .  . ", no?   :hmm

If we value the rule of law it must only be in the context of the consent of the governed.  We are a constitutional republic - not an ochlocracy.  The system of government we live under cannot be allowed to devolve into a tyranny of the majority where the enumerated rights of citizens are a secondary or tertiary consideration to the political whim of the moment.  When a jury refuses to convict a defendant based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented in court they are judging not only the defendant but the law that was passed by a legislative body.   Many examples of this exist in our history and the history of western civilization.  It was, in fact, the exact reason that we declared our independence from England to begin with. 

If you can find anyone " .  .  .  describing the Wild West era as "polite" .   .   . " please direct your comments to them.    Someone describing something they have little or no knowledge of would have to be considered the definition of "blowing smoke"  - or so it seems to me. 

So, again you dodge a simple question with a diversionary conversational gambit.  The principle of respecting the capability of a potential enemy is well known and demonstrated at all levels of our society and, indeed, throughout the natural world.  Courteous manners and speech are useful for dealing with all people to avoid giving offense where none is intended.  Failure in that regard has consequences - but you already know that.   The idea that people in a society who routinely go armed are destined to be involved in running gun battles wasn't true in "the Wild West era" and it isn't true today.   A few were.  Most were not.  The ones who weren't don't make for exciting stories in novels and movies.  The ones who were do.   That was true at the close of the era in question and also today.  "If it bleeds it leads." is a familiar concept to anyone who has even a nodding familiarity with modern media.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/two-takes-depression/20110

And regarding your erroneous contention about U.S. homicide statistics can you tell me what possible relevance the qualifier - " .  .  . high earning countries .  .  .  " - has other than to attempt to find any statistical category or anomaly that supports your predetermined conclusion?

Throwing out statistics of questionable relevance or validity in an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issues isn't going to work here - but you already know that. 

Hear, Hear!! again.

I'm impressed with the caliber of this discussion.  And you taught me a new word: ochlocracy.  That's a good one. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 29, 2020, 02:11:29 pm
A bill passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is not necessarily law.  If said bill is the exercise of a power not granted in the Constitution, then it is not law. 

Tell you what: go do something that violates the NFA, and use that argument.  Tell us how it plays out.

Quote from: Coelecanth
Throwing out statistics of questionable relevance or validity in an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issues isn't going to work here - but you already know that.

If you were going to compare the US to another country, would you go with Russia, France, England, or Honduras? GDP, Population, Infrastructure, etc?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 29, 2020, 02:41:36 pm
Tell you what: go do something that violates the NFA, and use that argument.  Tell us how it plays out.

If you were going to compare the US to another country, would you go with Russia, France, England, or Honduras? GDP, Population, Infrastructure, etc?


You mean like the events at Ruby Ridge in Idaho back in 1992?   :hmm    https://www.brittanica.com/event/Ruby-Ridge

Corollary:  https://www.opensourcedefense.org/blog/the-biggest-danger-of-gun-registration-isnt-jackboots-its-mistakes

Why are you comparing the U. S. to other countries that don't share our history, culture, governmental structure or societal norms when discussing a subject that is purely an internal matter for us to decide among ourselves based upon those things just mentioned?  If you have to use a base of statistics outside of the situation you are observing or commenting on to bolster an argument you have ventured into the realm of extrapolation and/or speculation - but I already pointed that out. 

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 29, 2020, 02:55:27 pm
Because we don't exist in a vacuum, C.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 29, 2020, 03:10:01 pm
Agreed but citing irrelevant statistics or ones of questionable validity really isn't addressing the issues being discussed here.  Attempting to find statistical support for a logically invalid position is understandable - I think we've all done it - but it is akin to fighting a rear guard action to cover a strategic retreat, no?   Laying down a smoke screen is a cheap and relatively effective defensive tactic for as long as it works.   :coffee

I've gone back and reread this entire thread twice now and I can find only a single instance where a reply of yours addressed a question or an issue squarely and that was you proclaiming that you were not to be lumped together with hoplophobes.  Fair enough but from the rest of the thread it seems you are not to be lumped in with those determined to halt and, if possible, reverse a long history of usurpations and infringements of an enumerated right of the people either. 

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on February 29, 2020, 03:48:46 pm
Tell you what: go do something that violates the NFA, and use that argument.  Tell us how it plays out.

I have no intention of running afoul of the NFA.  Jefferson can tell you why: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

As long as I have the stomach to peacefully endure the abuses and work within the system to make change, I will.  As long as I can reach out to those who disagree with me (like we are here), I will.  As long as there is hope of righting things via soap box and ballot box, I will continue to try.

The fact that I have not broken the NFA has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the NFA.  A small child will give his lunch money to a large bully, not because it is right, but because there is a threat of overwhelming force.  The most powerful nation on the planet would bring to bear as much force as it thought it needed to take away my freedom, my property, and possibly my life in the pursuit of enforcement of the NFA were I to disobey.  The unconstitutionality of Federal gun control is independent of my acquiescence.  In short: I respectfully decline your invitation.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 29, 2020, 06:22:42 pm
Probably, but not entirely*.  For instance, I'm not against the idea of relaxing the ban on silencers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence)

If you sit back and think about those statistics, it really is unconscionable that we lose that many people to violence every year.  Is a solid chunk of it to blame on an ill-advised "War on Drugs"? Yeah, without a doubt.

https://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459 (https://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459)

But even the War on Drugs doesn't explain why you're safer from gun violence in 2017 Afghanistan & Iraq than you are 2017 United States.

BTW, found the stat I was looking for, re: high income countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)  Graph's from 2010, so the homicide-by-gun stat is a bit higher now.

*What I would personally like to see is a thorough auditing of what is working positively towards reducing gun violence, and what isn't working.  If it isn't working, or the stats don't support the efficacy of the concept (like the gun show loophole, I admit+), drop it.  This includes the War on Drugs. Legalize and Regulate.

To loop back around to SQLBullet, and his ordeal that kicked this all off: If the gun he had found and desired to purchase had been at the table of the FFL running background checks, instead of being a private sale, it still would have taken him an hour to get out of there.  The FFL screwed up by only having the one system there.  If he had found it at a shop on, say, Tax Return Day or around the Fourth of July, or any other day where sales generally run high, he'd've still run into a bottleneck. 

Background checks funnel prohibited persons away from legal sellers. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jan/02/gun-background-checks-what-research-shows/ (https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jan/02/gun-background-checks-what-research-shows/)

Is that the only reason there's a black market for guns? No.

Is the War on Drugs the only reason there's a black market for guns? No.

Will there always be a black market for guns? Yeah, probably.  But I don't see any way to fix that without some seriously draconian laws and brutal actions, that would probably freak out *everyone*.  And, to be frank, I would look askance at anyone it didn't freak out. And I would fight the process tooth, nail, and trigger finger, because I wouldn't trust it.


+ I was a little disappointed there wasn't at least one "Hallelujah! He *can* learn!"  Geez, guys, ever hear of positive reinforcement?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 29, 2020, 07:13:49 pm
Yes, and here comes some.   It would have come sooner but I was out in the yard pruning trees and dealing with that mess.  I, and probably all of us, appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues here and in this format with someone we generally seem to disagree with.  If we are to prevail in the arena of ideas we need to practice the thought processes and the debate skills and even our demeanor while doing so.   

I appreciate your willingness to engage me/us in an exchange of ideas and provide the some of the counterpoint(s) we need to be able to address.  We've both been around here too long for me to question your sincerity but I must admit to some perplexity concerning how you arrived at your conclusion(s).   :hmm   In the final analysis I want this to be a country we can both live with and preserve for our children.   

Thanks for sticking around through what may have been uncomfortable for you at times.   :thumbup1
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on February 29, 2020, 10:30:48 pm
Meh.  I wouldn't've made it through sixth grade if I couldn't survive a little namecalling.  ;)

FWIW, on a lot of issues, I see myself as a centrist - particularly guns, and social programs.  Our job is to make sure things don't swing too far in any one direction - resist the extremes on both sides when they get going.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on February 29, 2020, 11:16:17 pm
Well, when you run across one of those "extremists" let me know.   :coffee
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: RetroGrouch on March 01, 2020, 02:26:30 pm
Coming back to this thread after a few days.  Background checks, Universal and otherwise, don't work.  Criminals still get guns, by illegal means, shocker, that.  And people who aren't a danger to others get denied because they share a name with someone who is.  You can't predict who is going to become a violent danger to others based on their past.  People who pass background checks have gone on to commit heinous crimes.  A recent high profile example of this is the disgruntled ex-employee in Wisconsin who shot up the office where he used to work, killing 5 then himself.  He passed whatever background check Wisconsin has, he passed not one but 3 NICS background checks (2 for his handguns, one for the silencer) and the fabled NFA background check, which takes many months (is THAT enough of a delay to qualify as a right denied?).


Denying someone their rights after they have paid their debt to society goes against both our tradition that your past doesn't define you forever, and our so-called justice system that doesn't allow your past crimes to be entered into evidence at a trial.


After someone gets their Driver's License back post DUI jail term, there is no check before they purchase a vehicle.  In some states you don't need a DL to purchase a vehicle.  Why then, do you need a permission slip to exercise a Constitutional Right? 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on March 01, 2020, 05:03:48 pm
Probably, but not entirely*.  For instance, I'm not against the idea of relaxing the ban on silencers.
I thought reading comprehension was a core professional skill of academics? :facepalm
There is no federal ban on silencers in the US, nor in Georgia where you reside* so I don't understand why you would mistakenly believe so.   
They require a federal transfer tax.  Tax.   Not license.   The department in the regulatory agency which handles said tax is just ludicrously understaffed, with approximately 6 people to review and approve all the transfers, resulting in delays in up to a year. 
That enough of a delay on a right to consider the right denied? 
If not then you should have no grounds for complaint if any of your other rights are "delayed" for the same length of time.    :coffee





But even the War on Drugs doesn't explain why you're safer from gun violence in 2017 Afghanistan & Iraq than you are 2017 United States.
You're not safer in Afghanistan & Iraq than you are in the US.
You're safer in Afghanistan & Iraq than you are in 65 or so of the 3242 counties in the US.
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Map-US-Murder-Fixed-723x494.jpg)
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Figure-1.jpg)
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Figure-2.jpg)
More accurately, safer in Afghanistan & Iraq than in a few particular neighborhoods in each of those 65 counties out of the 3242 counties in the US.....and you're involved with street drugs or gang activity.  :coffee

If you’re not involved with gangs or street drugs and stay out of the neighborhoods where those are common you’re way, way safer in the US than Afghanistan & Iraq.

*What I would personally like to see is a thorough auditing of what is working positively towards reducing gun violence, and what isn't working.

None of the gun laws on the books are going to help.
Nor are any of the gun laws proposed, no matter how outlandishly draconian.
Why?
Because we don't have a gun problem in the US.
We don't have a gun problem in those 65 or so counties.

You and the rest of the liberal crowd have been trying to treat a symptom, not the disease.

Those neighborhoods within those counties are the reservoirs of the disease, and the disease is Gangs. What we have in the US, predominantly in those 65 or so counties, concentrated in a few neighborhoods in each, is a gang problem.


To loop back around to SQLBullet, and his ordeal that kicked this all off: If the gun he had found and desired to purchase had been at the table of the FFL running background checks, instead of being a private sale, it still would have taken him an hour to get out of there.  The FFL screwed up by only having the one system there.  If he had found it at a shop on, say, Tax Return Day or around the Fourth of July, or any other day where sales generally run high, he'd've still run into a bottleneck. 

And it still would be an infringement.





*If you lived in a state where they were proscribed by law the error would be understandable.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: NukMed on March 01, 2020, 07:51:47 pm
1.  Pass unconstitutional gun control.

2.  Watch it fail.

3.  Pass more unconstitutional gun control because first gun control "wasn't enough".

4.  Watch it fail.

5.  Repeat cycle while telling everyone about the "reasonableness" of the dream of unconstitutional measures that fail.

6.  Double down and dig in heels when flaws in logic and policy are revealed.

7.  Never reveal that gun control has never been about reducing murder or suicide, but about controlling the populace.

This is pretty much the gun control agenda in a nutshell.  Perhaps I left out a piece.  Feel free to chime in.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 01, 2020, 11:25:04 pm
LowKey - Sorry, mispoke re: silencers. My tenure on here has made me quite aware that they are legal, but require a tag.  I meant taking them off the NFA list.

Nice map.  See that spot in northwest Georgia, the dark red? Not the mild pink, bordering on Tennessee. Atlanta.  That's where I live and work.  I listen to the news, and am quite aware of what the statistics are around here,
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 02, 2020, 03:47:12 am
I read this and think it dovetails nicely into the conversation we've been having.  It is excerpted from a speech Mr. Caldwell gave based on a new book he has just had published.  Apparently extensively researched and footnoted.  The talk is titled:  The Roots of Our Partisan Divide

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 02, 2020, 08:36:06 am
To delve a little deeper into the NFA -

I would equate the tax tag and wait for a silencer to be far more chilling that filling out a 4473 and the (usually) short time a background check takes.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on March 02, 2020, 09:56:58 am
Why is gun violence special?  This is a left wing distortion of reality that plays on a cognitive bias.

This just in:  Vehicular deaths lowest in countries that don't have many cars.  (however deaths from other individual transportation mechanisms are very high)

The brain hears the gun violence stats and, due to a cognitive bias, assumes that if we make gun violence go away the violence goes with it.  That is not a fact in evidence.  We should never try to reduce violent crime by controlling the tool of violence, but rather by addressing the root of the crime.

Crime is worse in Iraq and Afghanistan as well a huge number of other countries than the USA.  Countries that have lower gun violence.  Hope you like your violence with a nice steel pipe and a side of stabbed real good.

CategoryAfghanistanIraqUnited KingdomUnited States
Level of crime79.1451.0949.1853.5
Crime increasing in the past 3 years76.5956.0961.3264.6
Worries home broken and things stolen74.1647.741.8645.97
Worries being mugged or robbed73.4945.8641.4342.27
Worries car stolen80.3443.5534.5940.52
Worries things from car stolen74.8646.9341.7354.39
Worries attacked76.9947.0842.9240.82
Worries being insulted71.0742.546.2542.33
Worries being subject to a physical attack because of your skin color, ethnic origin, gender or religion6542.630.4230.2
Problem people using or dealing drugs76.0737.9158.5860.2
Problem property crimes such as vandalism and theft76.6149.0751.5856.27
Problem violent crimes such as assault and armed robbery76.352.6242.1948.41
Problem corruption and bribery82.2566.7729.341.97

I would finally add that just because a country is war torn or poor, it does not follow that it will have high crime rates.  Crime rates, especially violent crime, appear to be most closely tied to income inequality.  Plot the GINI coefficient against crime by country and you see a strong correlation.  Same goes by county inside the USA.

--Data source:  https://www.numbeo.com/crime
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 02, 2020, 11:06:25 am
Quote
Crime rates, especially violent crime, appear to be most closely tied to income inequality.  Plot the GINI coefficient against crime by country and you see a strong correlation.

I don't think we need to open that can of worms in this thread...  :rotfl
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on March 02, 2020, 11:12:58 am
I don't think we need to open that can of worms in this thread...  :rotfl

Yeah.  We need a Bernie that like guns.  That's gonna happen. :D
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on March 02, 2020, 11:42:34 am

Nice map.  See that spot in northwest Georgia, the dark red? Not the mild pink, bordering on Tennessee. Atlanta.  That's where I live and work.  I listen to the news, and am quite aware of what the statistics are around here,
I knew where you lived, you've mentioned it before here.
Your awareness of the statistics doesn't change the reason for the murder rate being so high.

We’ve seen this sort of pattern before in this country starting during Prohibition. The first major attempts at gun control were ostensibly enacted in response to the rising wave of mob related violence presented to the public eye by the news media of the time. 

Trying to ban something that people want creates a black market, black markets comes to be dominated by criminal organizations who have the ability to smuggle and distribute said thing on a large scale, said criminal organization uses violence to develop and maintain their market share while also increasing corruption of public officials and employees, followed by said criminal organization deciding to diversify and expand into other criminal enterprises.
"The Mob" and what started out as a relatively small group of criminals pre- Prohabition grew into something that remained a major problem for well over 50 years and which still exists to some extent this very day.   
The War on Drugs has repeated the pattern, with the unsurprising spread of violence into other ancillary endeavors and criminal enterprises.   
And now you and others on the left are suggesting doing the same with firearms but  incrementally,  obviously in the belief that we won't catch on much like the apocryphal instructions for making frog soup*.   

 Those early gun control measures failed miserably at curbing the Maffia’s penchant for killing whenever it suited their business interest.  What it did succeed in doing was making criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens and through prohibitive and punitive levels of taxation effectively turn the complete exercise of a Constitutionally protected Right into a privilege.   Something the modern left is trying to do currently with our Right to Freedom of Speech, as protected by the 1st Amendment; by creating "Free Speech Zones" wherever they believe someone may voice opposition to their philosophies and goals in the public square, and through leftist controlled publicly funded institutions charging exorbitant "security fees" to conservative organizations and speakers when leftist speakers are not so charged.  So much for the Left being champions of the individual and freedom of speech.

You might want to take note of the fact that, corrupt as many of them may have been, the members of both the House and the Senate in the era of Prohibition recognized the requirement for an Amendment to the US Constitution if they wished to have authority to make the sale and consumption of alcohol illegal in the United States.  That without such an amendment that any laws passed to that end would be null and void from inception.

Just like every single gun control law.


While correlation does not automatically equal causation you may find it enlightening and perhaps suggestive to look at the most common denominators in the handful of high violence neighborhoods within the 65 or so counties, responsible for the majority of violent crime in the US.   

-Predominantly within Democrat congressional districts.
-Predominantly within cities run by Democrat Mayors or City Councils.
-Predominately in areas with high levels of illegal drug sales and other crime.
-Predominantly within jurisdictions having very strong “gun control” laws.
-Predominantly within areas with very low levels of legal firearms    ownership.

Again, while correlation does not equal causation, If I were a betting man I’d be placing my money on criminals and catastrophic levels of mismanagement of law enforcement and policing at the municipal level in those areas exacerbated by effectively stripping the law abiding residents of their ability to effectively defend themselves through a combination of onerous anti-gun laws and hostile and biased prosecution of those who use firearms in legitimate instances of self defense.   

Once again, the problem is in 1/50th of the nations’s counties having these anomalous levels of violence, and in fact the aggregated area is far smaller than that 1/50th implies as even within those counties the violence is predominantly withing a few square blocks of each, roughly an area the size of Rhode Island. 
For this the solution you advocate is infringing upon the rights of the law abiding everywhere else?   
That’s on par with advocating warrant-less searches without probable cause of every personal computer in the US to catch  cyber-criminals or warrant-less searches without probable cause of every single personal residence find to illegal opiates.   
Both would be effective, both would reduce crime, both would improve the safety of “society”.
And both would be un-Constitutional and grounds to follow the same course of action as the Founding Fathers for similar reason.



Reduce illegal drug trafficking, either by legalizing that poison and letting people exercise their right to make the choice to use it or not as they will, and if they commit crimes to support their drug habit or while under the influence treat them as any other criminal who committed those acts.  If they put themselves out of the gene pool then so be it. 

It’s been mentioned that with Rights go Responsibilities & Obligations.
The corollary to that is with choosing Liberty comes choosing Risk & Danger, referred to by Samuel Adams as, “the animating contest of freedom”. 
As to Safety, Public or otherwise, here is no “Safety”, just varying levels of risk.
“Safety” is a figment promised to small children by their mothers, exploiting the child’s ignorance of the world’s reality in order to make the children more biddable and obedient to the mother’s will.   


* As the tale goes, for those who have not heard it before-

If you drop a frog into a pot of hot water it will jump right out.

But if you put the frog in a pot of cold water and slowly raise the temperature of the water, over the course of many hours, the frog will keep swimming about obliviously until it's been cooked.

The left loves to make frog soup, otherwise known as incrementalism.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 03, 2020, 08:30:02 am
Two things:

1) I don't think the CPRC is as unbiased as you think it is... call it a hunch... I want to play around with their Excel sheets for a day or two - there're some stats I want to explore.

2) Just an observation, regarding the map: Those dark red counties, displaying gun murders in the US? For a very large chunk of the US population, that *is* the reality of the US.  Due to the aforementioned income inequality, getting out to the 'burbs for a safer reality simply isn't an option.  Proposing one set of gun laws for urban environments and another set of laws for rural and suburban populations would solely punish the urban populations. Fun conundrum: the NFA does that, too, to an extent. Whee.

http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html (http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html)
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Plebian on March 03, 2020, 10:36:40 am
I have always wondered how much GINI coefficient, population density, and having a less risk averse population all play together to cause increased violent crime.

It has always baffled me why well established procedures to study populations in biology are not applied to the study of humans.

I never found it much of a stretch to assume there is some self sorting behavior for the humans found in the modern US. It seems pretty clear any individual that made the trip was likely less risk averse than the population from which it came.

I think having less risk aversion, even if only slightly, would explain many of the odd things about the US compared to other areas.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on March 03, 2020, 11:28:30 am
Two things:

1) I don't think the CPRC is as unbiased as you think it is... call it a hunch... I want to play around with their Excel sheets for a day or two - there're some stats I want to explore.


Wanting to manipulate the data to support your position?

I don’t buy into the income inequality notion. I used the military to get my education and did just fine.  And by education, I don’t mean a degree, I mean something that is actually useful in life. Something that trained me to make a good living and provide for my family. Everybody able bodied person had exactly the same opportunities that I did.

You have skills that would get you a job in IT just about anywhere, but you choose to work where you are surrounded by academia who believes they know better how to rule our lives than we do. It shows in your writings. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on March 03, 2020, 01:19:30 pm
I used the military to get my education and did just fine.  And by education, I don’t mean a degree, I mean something that is actually useful in life. Something that trained me to make a good living and provide for my family. Everybody able bodied person had exactly the same opportunities that I did.

I do not mean this to be flippant.

I do not understand what these words have to do with income inequality.  You present them on in a context that appears to be intended to refute something, but I am not clear what you are refuting (correlation or the implied causation or something else) or how your anecdote is meant to refute either one.

Can you elaborate on what I missed?
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on March 03, 2020, 01:39:48 pm
Perhaps my reply wasn’t clear. I was interrupted half a dozen time while writing my reply. And perhaps I misunderstood what Booksmart was referencing when he mentioned income inequality.
I took it that he was implying that “people of color” or people of a certain region, or of a different gender make less money than others. I think that thinking is incorrect.  Based on my military experience, and my current career,   a job pays X amount. Race and gender are irrelevant.
And if someone say he/she didn’t have the same opportunities I/you did, well I think that too is BS. (We’ve had that discussion before)

I may have missed something along the way while skimming through the tread.

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 03, 2020, 02:07:30 pm
Perhaps my reply wasn’t clear. I was interrupted half a dozen time while writing my reply. And perhaps I misunderstood what Booksmart was referencing when he mentioned income inequality.
I took it that he was implying that “people of color” or people of a certain region, or of a different gender make less money than others. I think that thinking is incorrect.  Based on my military experience, and my current career,   a job pays X amount. Race and gender are irrelevant.
And if someone say he/she didn’t have the same opportunities I/you did, well I think that too is BS. (We’ve had that discussion before)

I may have missed something along the way while skimming through the tread.

My mention of income equality doesn't have anything to do with race - it has everything to do with the wage gap, as corporate wages haven't been keeping up with corporate profits for about 40 years now.  Also, *I* didn't mention income equality first, SQLBullet did.  What I believe we are both meaning here is simply the Haves vs. the Have Nots.

I have always wondered how much GINI coefficient, population density, and having a less risk averse population all play together to cause increased violent crime.

Are you implying inner city kids are less risk averse than rural kids?  Search youtube for "hold my beer" and tell me that again. lol

Wanting to manipulate the data to support your position?

No, I was going to check things like mortality and casualty rates against types of firearms used in mass shootings, but thanks for assuming.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: lesptr on March 03, 2020, 02:43:30 pm
My mention of income equality doesn't have anything to do with race - it has everything to do with the wage gap, as corporate wages haven't been keeping up with corporate profits for about 40 years now.  Also, *I* didn't mention income equality first, SQLBullet did.  What I believe we are both meaning here is simply the Haves vs. the Have Nots.

Are you implying inner city kids are less risk averse than rural kids?  Search youtube for "hold my beer" and tell me that again. lol

No, I was going to check things like mortality and casualty rates against types of firearms used in mass shootings, but thanks for assuming.
Thanks for clarifying.
I misunderstood.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on March 03, 2020, 03:03:37 pm
Two things:

1) I don't think the CPRC is as unbiased as you think it is... call it a hunch... I want to play around with their Excel sheets for a day or two - there're some stats I want to explore.
Is there an organization studying this issue that doesn't have a bias?   I'd like to know because I've never seen a real, live unicorn before.

No matter how strong a bias (if any) they might have, the number of murders committed in each county is a fairly simple and straightforward metric. 
Unless you're like the U.K. and don't count it as a homicide for statistical prposes until you've caught and convicted someone for the crime.  :facepalm



2) Proposing one set of gun laws for urban environments and another set of laws for rural and suburban populations would solely punish the urban populations.
Where have I suggested such a thing?   
My suggestion has been to:
1- Pursue gangs engaged in criminal activity.
2- Remove the profitability of selling drugs on the black market, either through enforcement of current laws or by legalization and making them so cheap that their cost per pound is on par with any other agricultural product (and in this case not to mollycoddle people who do stupid things because they're using...Darwin's Law applies).

Even if one were to suggest such unfair laws based on geography; while it would be unfair it would only be punishing those in the 2% of counties with the highest murder rates.    You and the rest of the left would punish EVERYONE.
Rather like mandating that everyone must eat porridge because less than % @ of the population cannot chew steak.*
In any case, both would be un-Constitutional.
 

*Apologies to R.A.H.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on March 03, 2020, 06:01:38 pm
Lepstr,

Thanks for explaining further.

I asked because I was the one who originally brought up income inequality.  As Booksmart has pointed out this is not in the context of race, gender or national origin.

This is the general measure of the equality of income distribution within a given social group, usually measured by nation.  In the most basic terms it can be simplified to the ratio of "barely getting by's" to "stupid rich's".

The accepted way to measure this value is the Gini Coefficient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient).  And, interestingly, if  you examine a plot of GINI score by nation to violent crime by nation, you end up with a correlation (R2=0.25 ish before normalizing for other factors).
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 03, 2020, 06:10:15 pm
No apologies necessary.  He's dead and those of us who've read him recognize where the quote(s) came from.   :cool   

Can someone please tell me what a person's income has to do with their morality? 

 
Two things:

1) I don't think the CPRC is as unbiased as you think it is... call it a hunch... I want to play around with their Excel sheets for a day or two - there're some stats I want to explore.

2) Just an observation, regarding the map: Those dark red counties, displaying gun murders in the US? For a very large chunk of the US population, that *is* the reality of the US.  Due to the aforementioned income inequality, getting out to the 'burbs for a safer reality simply isn't an option.  Proposing one set of gun laws for urban environments and another set of laws for rural and suburban populations would solely punish the urban populations. Fun conundrum: the NFA does that, too, to an extent. Whee.

http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html (http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html)

Giving booksmart a statistical basis for an argument is liking giving a monkey a football.    :facepalm

And, for the record, two sets of laws ( or more, but who's counting .  .  .  ) and selective, creative enforcement of same is exactly how we ended up in this discussion in the first place, no?    :hmm

If we look at item number two from the above quoted post, if the dark red areas referenced were Covid-19 outbreaks we would do exactly what was necessary to contain it and eradicate it.  Because people's lives depend on it.  Right? 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on March 04, 2020, 10:23:37 am

Can someone please tell me what a person's income has to do with their morality? 


The data clearly shows that it income inequality does have something to do with morality.

http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_paris19/papers_EcineqPSE/paper_122.pdf

https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Also, it isn't income that is the predictor.  It is income inequality.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 04, 2020, 05:40:12 pm
Sorry.  Not buying it.  Morality, defined as a personal creed or deeply held conviction is not conditional.  A person's income, even when compared to someone else's income does not excuse immoral behavior, neither does it motivate immoral behavior in someone to who holds their own morality to be more important than their income. 

Even in extreme circumstances a moral person does not seek an immoral solution as the first expedient.  Criminal behavior - specifically crime(s) committed with a gun or guns don't seem to be a problem stemming from people solidly grounded in traditional morality. 

Its not that moral people can't be provoked - even to the point of violence - but they resort to it primarily as a last option.  That is the whole point of our argument that law abiding gun owners are not the problem in this current discussion.  They never have been. They never will be. 
The law abiding citizen still retains enough faith in the system of government established here by our founders and also their fellow citizens who share that belief that they will not be a part of an anarchist mob if there is any other alternative. 

Why that isn't part of this discussion seems very odd to me.

My point in asking the question was to illustrate the elephant in room that nobody seems to want to discuss or even acknowledge. As far as I was able to determine, neither of the sources you listed even mentions the subject of personal morality - much less assign it any weight at all in their "studies". 

So, the question stands.  Can you please tell me what a person's income has to do with their morality? 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Langenator on March 04, 2020, 05:41:57 pm
I've been meaning to try to add to this thread, but I keep running out of time to craft a worthwhile response, but here goes.  It's more lobbing grenades into the fray than I'd really like, but oh well:

Really interesting article on gun ownership rates and firearm homicides: Everybody's lying about the link between gun ownership and homicide (http://freakoutery.com/2018/07/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide/).  Basically, there is no statistical correlation, either at the state level in the U.S., or internationally.  (The whole website has several other very interesting articles on gun issues.  www.freakoutery.com)

Where they did find strong correlation is on race and income inequality.  The single biggest predictor for a higher firearm homicide rate was an increase in the black population:  "For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%"  The second largest was income inequality.

Now, to circle back and touch on Booksmart's point that for the people who live in those dark red counties on the map, high levels of violence and violent crime ARE the reality of life in America:  definitely true.  Everyone's view of reality is heavily shaded by what happens immediately around them every day, and that's very different in Atlanta or Balitmore than it is in Lawrence, KS or Mountain Home, ID.

But the big push for gun control isn't coming from the actual populations where the violence (gun and otherwise) actually happens.  The loudest voices for gun control are almost all rich (or at least well off), white liberals.  All lot of them live in those dark red counties, but they don't live in the actual neighborhoods within those counties where most of the violence happens.  Mike Bloomberg is the leading example of this, along with Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Shumer, Dianne Feinstein, and little Bobby Francis.  (I'll give Gabby Giffords and Sarah Brady at least some slack.  They at least have personal trauma to explain their positions.)

I honestly think that without Bloomberg shovelling money at it, the gun control movement in the U.S. would be almost dead.

And I think the race issue is also the biggest reason why it's so frustratingly difficult to have a rational discussion or debate about how to deal with crimes committed with guns in America.  The two sides are having different arguments.  The gun control side mostly uses mass shootings - spectacular, but statistically insignificant in the larger data set of firearm crimes - as their justification for their proposed bans/restrictions.  The pro-2A side points out that a vastly disproportionate amount of the firearms homicides and non-lethal shootings happen amongst certain easily defined, and largely geographically limited, segments of the population, and if you want to reduce violent crimes that use guns, you should worry about that.  And then get called racists.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 04, 2020, 05:58:05 pm


I understand the inclination to pick and choose points about which to argue.  Its a long established debate tactic some of us learned way back in high school where we learned to score points based on how well we emphasized our ideas and talking points while minimizing or ignoring those of our opponents. 

"The commonest weakness of our race is to rationalize our most selfish purposes."   Robert A. Heinlein, again.   

You mean talking past each other?  Like that? ^   :hmm
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on March 04, 2020, 10:24:25 pm
I'm mangle a line from the late Dr. Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, "People* have the morals they can afford."


*Originally "Civilizations", IIRC.
The data clearly shows that it income inequality does have something to do with morality.

http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_paris19/papers_EcineqPSE/paper_122.pdf

https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Also, it isn't income that is the predictor.  It is income inequality.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 04, 2020, 11:08:42 pm
The quote is, I believe , attributable to Larry Niven rather than Dr. Pournelle but with that duo it is likely attributable to both as part of the collaboration. It is an excellent book, btw.  I remain unaware of any situation involving two or more people in which moral behavior is not relevant.   
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on March 05, 2020, 12:46:59 am
I'm not suggesting that morals are not important.
I'm suggesting that not everyone shares the same  morals.
Morals are cultural value.

I suspect that many (not all) of the inhabitants of those high violence, heavy gang activity neighborhoods do not view themselves as part of the same culture to which you and I consider ourselves to belong.  I do not mean they view themselves as part of a sub-culture or counter culture but as belonging to an entirely different culture, one in which using violence as a first line solution is moral.

To borrow a catchphrase from yet a different set of writers, "Local Custom".
I'm not talking about moral relativity.  I'm saying it's as foreign to us as any in a third world country where rule of law has broken down.


The quote is, I believe , attributable to Larry Niven rather than Dr. Pournelle but with that duo it is likely attributable to both as part of the collaboration. It is an excellent book, btw.  I remain unaware of any situation involving two or more people in which moral behavior is not relevant.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: LowKey on March 05, 2020, 01:01:33 am
I'm not suggesting that morals are not important.
I'm suggesting that not everyone shares the same  morals.
Morals are cultural value.

I suspect that many (not all) of the inhabitants of those high violence, heavy gang activity neighborhoods do not view themselves as part of the same culture to which you and I consider ourselves to belong.  I do not mean they view themselves as part of a sub-culture or counter culture but as belonging to an entirely different culture, one in which using violence as a first line solution is moral.

To borrow a catchphrase from yet a different set of writers, "Local Custom".

Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 05, 2020, 01:38:50 am
I'm not suggesting that morals are not important.
I'm suggesting that not everyone shares the same  morals.
Morals are cultural value.

I suspect that many (not all) of the inhabitants of those high violence, heavy gang activity neighborhoods do not view themselves as part of the same culture to which you and I consider ourselves to belong.  I do not mean they view themselves as part of a sub-culture or counter culture but as belonging to an entirely different culture, one in which using violence as a first line solution is moral.

To borrow a catchphrase from yet a different set of writers, "Local Custom".
I'm not talking about moral relativity.  I'm saying it's as foreign to us as any in a third world country where rule of law has broken down.


That would be true - pretty much across the human spectrum.  Still, there is the principle of not pissing off the family, tribe, neighborhood or whatever group one belongs to or identifies with.   There are too many cliches to list describing the idea but that's because it is universally recognized.   

You are correct in the observation that what appear to be diametrically opposed systems of values can exist simultaneously and in close proximity to one another but even across that divide certain behaviors - or the lack of them - can quickly become an identifying trait. 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 05, 2020, 09:37:07 am

But the big push for gun control isn't coming from the actual populations where the violence (gun and otherwise) actually happens.  The loudest voices for gun control are almost all rich (or at least well off), white liberals.  All lot of them live in those dark red counties, but they don't live in the actual neighborhoods within those counties where most of the violence happens.  Mike Bloomberg is the leading example of this, along with Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Shumer, Dianne Feinstein, and little Bobby Francis.  (I'll give Gabby Giffords and Sarah Brady at least some slack.  They at least have personal trauma to explain their positions.)

*snippage*

And I think the race issue is also the biggest reason why it's so frustratingly difficult to have a rational discussion or debate about how to deal with crimes committed with guns in America.  The two sides are having different arguments.  The gun control side mostly uses mass shootings - spectacular, but statistically insignificant in the larger data set of firearm crimes - as their justification for their proposed bans/restrictions.  The pro-2A side points out that a vastly disproportionate amount of the firearms homicides and non-lethal shootings happen amongst certain easily defined, and largely geographically limited, segments of the population, and if you want to reduce violent crimes that use guns, you should worry about that.  And then get called racists.


Responding to quoted paragraph 1:

If by loudest, you mean most easily heard because they have the means (both time and money) to access media and politics, I'd agree with that.  To an extent - I'm part of that. Yeah, I work downtown, but I live in the suburbs, I'm decently well off.  It would be a remarkable event for there to be a shooting in my neighborhood.  But they watch the news, and see the "if it bleeds it leads" news offered up every night (I listen to NPR... more national interest than local), and that's their touchstone with the rest of the city.

Responding to quoted paragraph 2:

I'd agree with this assessment as well.  But, regardless of the definition of mass shootings, it's hard to ignore that there has been an uptick in that trend over the past 20 years.

An old article, but relevant:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/06/18/charleston-deaths-are-an-american-tragedy-mass-shootings-are-rising/#4f88bb0e787b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/06/18/charleston-deaths-are-an-american-tragedy-mass-shootings-are-rising/#4f88bb0e787b) (ignore the rhetoric, look at the stats).

There has also been a shift in the favored weapon. Historically, it's been pistols, but lately the weapon of choice has been an AR.

I still need to go through that Excel sheet from earlier. If work is slow enough today, I might get to it.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: sqlbullet on March 05, 2020, 10:11:30 am
Coelacanth,

I am not sure what you are not buying.  I am not drawing conclusions or stating causing.  I am stating there is a statistical correlation between GINI and crime.  Like gravity, it is not up for debate.  It just is.

I ran the numbers myself from Wikipedia data for GINI and intentional homicide rate.  R2 = 0.2297525413143427, equation of trend: f(x) = 0.621026905352047x-16.6630807543459

This R2 value puts the correlation in the "gray" area, but that is largely due to the crime data set only including intentional homicide.  I didn't take the time to find a more broad, but well vetted, crime data set by country.  But I have no doubt the correlation grows stronger for less morally offensive crime.

The questions of if the correlation represent causation, and they "what/why" of that causation if it exists become philosophical questions to debate.  The start of the debate is to acknowledge the reality of the correlation.
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 06, 2020, 01:08:35 am
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.   :hmm   I don't think any discussion of crime statistics can ignore any significant factor and be taken seriously.  The studies you linked both focus on income inequality as a significant factor in explaining those levels of crime across the group(s) studied.  Fair enough but that was the purpose of the studies.  The theory was posited and the study was designed to assess that factor and I have no real doubt that they succeeded in that regard. 

You say, given the correlation ( which I am not challenging ) it is entirely possible it would grow stronger for less severely punished or " morally offensive " crime.  I agree.  To me that speaks to individual morality playing a significant part in the actions that make up those statistics and that is my point.  I can't buy the premise that income inequality is the primary driver behind crime statistics.  I don't think there is any data supporting that which doesn't also completely ignore the question of individual morality.  Yes, I understand that such a thing is not easily quantifiable and anything that can't be reduced to numerical representations is considered suspect in some circles but to pretend it either doesn't exist or to assign it a zero value in some hypothetical hierarchy of causation is absurd on its face. 

You are correct in your characterization of the question as being one that edges into a philosophical debate. My contention is that as the very beings that philosophical concepts describe why would we ignore that aspect of our nature when trying to explain something as significant as those homicide rates?  How can you even accurately describe the problem without acknowledging one of its most critical aspects?   :hmm

"The start of the debate is to acknowledge the reality of the correlation."     Yup.  No doubt about it.  And as we are all aware, correlation is not always causation and failure to assess or acknowledge the full extent of a problem is the most frequently encountered obstacle to solving that problem.   
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: booksmart on March 06, 2020, 08:58:17 am
C, your morals become very malleable when you're either a) trying to score a fix, or b) nobody in your family has eaten in a day or three. 

Granted, there is also option c), which is just "you're an a$$%$#."

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Psychology-of-Crime-Why-do-people-become-criminals (https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Psychology-of-Crime-Why-do-people-become-criminals)
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: coelacanth on March 06, 2020, 11:42:46 pm
Nice article.  Long on theories - short on answers.  Individual morality is not actually mentioned - only inferred in one of the models.  Or so it seemed to me.  I don't necessarily disagree with what I found there but it seemed incomplete.   

I think you can speak for your own morals but not someone else's.  Items a) and b) present problems which may or may not have acceptable solutions to the person experiencing them but they don't preclude acting morally even in that context.   Most of us are capable of doing things in extremis that we never imagined we could or would do but, again, acting morally in such a situation is not out of the question. 

I assume option c) is something that is sometimes referred to as a "lack of moral fiber".   :hmm    Take a close look at this one .  .  . 

https://www.abc6.com/disturbing-video-15-year-old-girl-robbed-and-beaten-in-brooklyn/

Anything stand out to you? 
Title: Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
Post by: Plebian on March 07, 2020, 01:53:55 am
Are you implying inner city kids are less risk averse than rural kids?  Search youtube for "hold my beer" and tell me that again. lol

I was referring to the US population as a whole, not inner city individuals specifically. The US is a nation of immigrants. So there was some self sorting behavior as individuals came here. The least risk averse would have taken the risk to get here. So I would make an assumption the normal curve for risk aversion in the US is likely flatter than compared to other countries.

Just like the normal curves for human males is flatter than human females(a common mammal pattern). So if an individual is a genius. It is very likely a male. It is the same for severe mental conditions, most likely male. The average is still the same just more on the fringes. This same pattern holds for most things like height, weight etc etc

You combine a flatter normal curve for risk aversion and some environmental stresses. It would be expected to see higher stats for risky behavior(violent or otherwise). Which might also explain some other oddities among the US population, STD transmission, drug use/abuse, starting businesses, gambling etc etc.