Gun Control Supporters Launch Frenzied Campaign

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You ever notice how on the Internet, someone who is losing an argument based on facts soon resorts to ad hominem? The recent push for gun control and its follow up is just that same practice writ large. Look at the pieces above:

1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics.
2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown.
3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people.

The problem is, in the United States there are around 80-100 million gun owners. So people are unlikely to buy that line because chances are very high they know a gun owner who doesn't fit that stereotype. The whole purpose of these types of articles is to try and shame gun owners into the closet - to stop them from pointing out the facts and the stupidity of our existing laws. To get them to shut up anout the hundreds of thousands of people denied on a background check who were never prosecuted.

The only way such childish tactics work against us is if we allow them to silence us or drag us into responding in kind. It is like the last gasp of a dying animal when you see those kinds of efforts.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/bloomberg-pryor-gun-control-ads-democrats-90986.html

This is an interesting piece. The gist is that by attacking progun Democrats, Bloomberg will cause their loss in upcoming elections. Reid told Bloomberg this - and he didn't care.

The rationale is that the wave of antigun sentiment will promote an antigun Democrat's chances. This is an empirical question.

It does show that the war isn't over, so to speak.

 

[zukiphile]

You ever notice how on the Internet, someone who is losing an argument based on facts soon resorts to ad hominem? The recent push for gun control and its follow up is just that same practice writ large. Look at the pieces above:

1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics.
2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown.
3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people.

The problem is, in the United States there are around 80-100 million gun owners.

I agree, but take seriously the popularity of reactions to polls about facile quasi-solutions like universal background checks.

That there are in the US something between 80 and 150 million gun owners does not mean that there are between 80 and 150 million principled advocates of an important civil right. My sense is that many of those owners might readily accept changes that do not appear to be an immediate problem for them personally.

 

[Tom Servo]

1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics.
2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown.
3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people.

When I see or hear things like that in an argument, I know I've won. What's more, I want gun owners to see the antis calling them names.

I was in New York a few weeks back, and even folks who were mildly supportive of things like the Toomey/Manchin amendment were very put off by being called rednecks and child murderers.

Do a Google search for "gun control political cartoon" and you'll see that portrayal writ large. The antis really misread the situation, and thinking they were lampooning a stereotypical minority, they outraged a diverse majority.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Flawed logic.

Stealing a gun from a dealer creates an end result that is essentially the same as buying from a dealer.

Different result.

The ways we were discussing involved legal transfers.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

One fatal flaw of Universal Background Checks is that there isn't anything "universal" about them.

Like all gun laws, UBCs only apply to those inclined to obey laws.

A gang member from MS-13, or the Crips or Bloods, who wants to transfer a handgun to another gang member is unlikely to first go get a background check.

The fatal flaw doesn't involve those buyers who will comply, regardless of whether they comply at a gun show or at a dealer's showroom. The flaw concerns those who will not comply.

The problem is simply that noncompliance would be extremely difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence. If Smith wants to sell Jones a handgun, and they agree to transact this sale without a UBC, first, no one knows the sale ever took place. Second, no formal evidence exists that the sale ever occurred - that Smith once owned the pistol, nor that Jones now owns it.

If pressed, Smith can claim he never owned the handgun, and -assuming Smith didn't fill out a Form 4473 when he acquired the gun - there isn't any evidence that Smith ever owned it or even possessed it to begin with. Nothing ties the firearm to Smith as a seller.

Ergo UBC laws are often currently unenforceable.

What most people who answer survey's don't understand is that only if Universal Gun Reistration is implemented can UBC laws be enforced. Under UGR, which links all firearms with a Smith or a Jones somewhere, now law enforcement can ask the question: "How did Smith's pistol wind up in Jone's possession?"

Once the government can mandate all firearms be tied to owners (a daunting task on its own), the matter of firearms sellers and buyers who fail to comply with UBC laws can be addressed. But UGR is a necessary condition for UBC.

IMHO this is why anti-gun activists are so frenzied on the matter of UBC laws. They intend to foist them on an uninformed public - which believes UBC sound 'reasonable', and then start begin bloviating about the "UBC Loopholes" which render them unenforceable so that one year later UGR bills can be passed.

Most everyone can agree that firearms probably should be kept out of the hands of convicted gang members and the mentally ill, etc. UBC laws no doubt appear to many citizens like a reasonable place to start.

It isn't until citizens understand that UBC laws are currently essentially unenforceable, and thus meaningless without universal gun registration, that many begin to see where this is leading and why UBC laws are a step in the wrong direction.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is an interesting piece. The gist is that by attacking progun Democrats, Bloomberg will cause their loss in upcoming elections. Reid told Bloomberg this - and he didn't care.

Lie down with dogs... Interesting that former Republican Bloomberg is so focused on punishing Dems but is only now getting around to theowing a few desultory ads at Republicans.

 

[Plumbnut]

In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check.

Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.

I was told by Tom Servo that you can only by a gun privately in the state in which you have residence without going through a FFL dealer and having a background check.

Same for the FTL classifieds......you must have resodency in the state or have it sent to a FFL in your state.

Just making sure you know this....I sure didn't and I live close to two other states that I go to gunshows in on a regular basis.

I'm glad he told me. May have saved me some trouble.

Like all gun laws, UBCs only apply to those inclined to obey laws.

Thats true with almost any law. Laws do not stop crime....they make it a crime.

Problem is laws are not enforced and when they are...the criminals are not kept in jail long enough most of the time.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check.

Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.

I was told by Tom Servo that you can only by a gun privately in the state in which you have residence without going through a FFL dealer and having a background check.

It's illegal if you're not FROM that state.

The Classified ads here on The Firing Line are required to abide by the same Federal and State laws requiring background checks, as applicable to the residence of each party.

Thats true with almost any law. Laws do not stop crime....they make it a crime.

Of course laws "create" crime, as in defining something as a crime. They also prevent crime. They don't prevent ALL crime but they DO prevent the commission of crime by those who are inclined to follow laws and/or are afraid of the consequences.

Take speed limits as an example. Do you think people would drive 65 on the interstate if it wasn't illegal to drive 100? Most would not. They do because of the penalty. Some still don't, but there can be NO doubt that there would be more, faster drivers without the penalties.

Since it is indisputable that folks who are not inclined to follow the law... i.e. criminals... do not currently and will not in the future follow the laws, what then is the point in creating more laws which, by definition, will only be followed by the folks who you're not worried about anyway?

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Of course laws "create" crime, as in defining something as a crime. They also prevent crime. They don't prevent ALL crime but they DO prevent the commission of crime by those who are inclined to follow laws and/or are afraid of the consequences.

Take speed limits as an example. Do you think people would drive 65 on the interstate if it wasn't illegal to drive 100? Most would not. They do because of the penalty. Some still don't, but there can be NO doubt that there would be more, faster drivers without the penalties.

Since it is indisputable that folks who are not inclined to follow the law... i.e. criminals... do not currently and will not in the future follow the laws, what then is the point in creating more laws which, by definition, will only be followed by the folks who you're not worried about anyway?

That would be the point of the background checks. To help prevent an unintentional transfer to a prohibited person by "most people".

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"That would be the point of the background checks. To help prevent an unintentional transfer to a prohibited person by "most people"."

and background checks would most certainly accomplish that objective for all those US citizens who submit themselves to background checks.

the point is, however, that US citizens who have no issues submitting themselves to background checks are rarely the ones committing gun crime.

If you are an individual who routinely commits gun crime, you don't obtain your firearms from Dicks Sporting Goods or Cabelas. You go to a guy who is selling stolen guns. They're cheap, they're hot, they're disposable - use them (or 'borrow them') and then turn them over to some other criminal.

So background checks don't prevent bad buys from getting guns, because bad guys - being bad - don't get their guns from sources that require background checks.

Hence, background checks generally target only the good guys - because good guys don't have issues walking up and submitting to background checks.



There are numerous studies published identifying, via interviews with convicted felons, where they obtained the firearms they used. It's too bad these aren't more widely distributed - because not surprisingly, very few felons went to the local gunstore to buy the guns they used.

 

[Plumbnut]

So background checks don't prevent bad buys from getting guns, because bad guys - being bad - don't get their guns from sources that require background checks.

Thank you very much and you are correct

Bad guys can and do buy from private sells. Out of the newspaper,craigslist(even though craigslist removes the listing if they find it) and just from anyone who has a gun for sale that not a FFL.

If you as a private seller of a gun was required to make the buyer of your gun pass a background check it would limit the places a bad guy could buy a gun......and it certainly wouldn't be from a law abiding citizen because a law abiding citizen would require a background check.

This puts the criminal in a box so to say......he would have to buy a gun from another criminal or steal it. He couldn't buy from a store or a legal private sell.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There are numerous studies published identifying, via interviews with convicted felons, where they obtained the firearms they used. It's too bad these aren't more widely distributed - because not surprisingly, very few felons went to the local gunstore to buy the guns they used.

DOJ just released their report...

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

Less than 1 in 10 criminals bought their guns in any kind of a store.... note that they are ALREADY subject to background checks. Only 12% were acquired from family/friends in a manner that would require a background check under proposed rules.

Combined, at least 75% of the criminal acquisitions would be entirely unaffected by expanded background checks. So, 3 out of 4 criminals would get their guns exactly the same way they do today. On the other hand, every single private transaction between two law-abiding citizens WOULD be stopped.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

The largest miscalculation in their 90%, is the large percentage of pro gun law supporters who trust the government even less than they do their own ideals.

I believe for them to pass any such background check or anti-gun law they will have to do so without the support of the majority of Americans.

Even with that being said i have little faith that the of support from pro-gun people against such law, Splashed across national headlines, ( we know that will never happen even if proven) would neither slow their effort nor change their vote.

Adding to that, should it happen I doubt very seriously the supporters of the second amendment can or will mount a large enough rebuttal to render an appeal process as long as the passage of the new law doesn't affect the majority of gun owners.


I would submit the many laws that have been passed without the support of the majority of the American people and the strongest of which are used for little more than a smoke screen proposed as a true stance on belief or values in trade for the almighty vote.

Just as a note for reference i believe the patient were testing waters to see if the water is warm enough yet. They will be back.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Less than 1 in 10 criminals bought their guns in any kind of a store

Just out of curiosity, of those less than 10%, how many were first time serious offenders with a firearm.

Have to admit it's not uncommon for a spouse to use a weapon in a domestic dispute. Maybe i should strike that, might be ammo for the anti's.

On a serious note, they will find anyway they can to skew the numbers.

Maybe another bias poll to throw in the water and call it kool-aid.

 

[NWPilgrim]

I suspect that 10% who committed gun crimes and bought from a store were previously law abiding and that gun crime was their first violent crime. That is why they paid full retail and did a BC check. No expansion of NC will prevent those first time crimes (crimes of passion, etc).

However, the long time criminal cannot pass a BC and laughs at paying retail prices. ALERT! These criminals that can't pass BC currently get their guns now anyway! It is via private transaction with other criminals at much cheaper prices.

Expanding background checks will have ZERO impact on gun crimes by either previously law abiding citizens or hardened criminals.

I have noticed a frenzy of new members on several firearms forums immediately jump in with stubborn support for UBC and other "reasonable" gun laws. They all claim to be fervent gun owners. We know for a fact that George Soros and others fund astroturf organizations to try to disrupt internet forums. Something to consider when reading threads. I think TFL treats all forum members, whether sincere or not, with much more respect than if one of us tried to do the same on some of the frenzied gun grabber friendly forums.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

We know for a fact that George Soros and others fund astroturf organizations to try to disrupt internet forums.

Try as they may their efforts will be futile here @ the firing line. The Admins are efficient in striking erroneous post quickly and efficiently

 

[Alabama Shooter]

If you are an individual who routinely commits gun crime, you don't obtain your firearms from Dicks Sporting Goods or Cabelas. You go to a guy who is selling stolen guns. They're cheap, they're hot, they're disposable - use them (or 'borrow them') and then turn them over to some other criminal.

Or just log on to Guns America, pick out what I want meet a private seller in my area and pay cash. I can have a gun the same day. I could even buy one from you and you would never know the difference.

DOJ just released their report...

Looks like they are using the same discredited study from nine years ago on how criminals get their guns.

 

[zukiphile]

Bad guys can and do buy from private sells. Out of the newspaper,craigslist(even though craigslist removes the listing if they find it) and just from anyone who has a gun for sale that not a FFL.

Yet, most of these transactions presumably are amongst good guys, not bad guys. Accordingly, most of the burden of this regulation will rest on people doing no harm.

A universal background check is not narrowly tailored.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Yet, most of these transactions presumably are amongst good guys, not bad guys. Accordingly, most of the burden of this regulation will rest on people doing no harm.

Correct. The vast majority of private sales are likely perfectly legal and not to prohibited people.