Interesting article on MSN

[rhgunguy]

I was just about to do some internet surfing and an MSN article grabbed my attention: http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/

The author blasts HR1022 and backs it up with facts. But what bothers me about the whole thing is that he says that the gun law that would make a difference is to ban face to face sales! This kid bought the gun at a gun store, how would closing the FTF "loop-hole" have changed anything?

I have never seen an article go from good to bad so quickly.

 

[JuanCarlos]

The author blasts HR1022 and backs it up with facts. But what bothers me about the whole thing is that he says that the gun law that would make a difference is to ban face to face sales! This kid bought the gun at a gun store, how would closing the FTF "loop-hole" have changed anything?

It wouldn't have, and the article makes no claim that it would have. They're simply saying that instead of trying to railroad through some sort of knee-jerk gun control in reaction to this specific incident, we should look at what kind of gun control we need in general.

I'd say requiring a background check for all sales (including private party) sales is probably about the only gun control I've heard mentioned recently that would have any effect whatsoever on the availability of firearms to criminals and others who should not have them. And provided it could be provided cheaply and easily (and instantly) I'd say it wouldn't qualify as a significant infringement.

 

[rhgunguy]

Did you notice the title? "After Blacksburg:The gun law that would make a difference" The title leads one to belive that the author is saying this law would have prevented what happened at VT.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Did you notice the title? "After Blacksburg:The gun law that would make a difference" The title leads one to belive that the author is saying this law would have prevented what happened at VT.

I did notice the title. But I also read the article. Also, from the article it appears the author may not have known that the guns were legally purchased at the time it was written. Anyway...

Background checks aren't perfect, of course. They can't absolutely predict future behavior; the Blacksburg killer may well have passed one, for example. No gun law, however, can claim to prevent future acts of violence. The universal check would be valuable because it would restrict access by those who go to private sellers knowing they'd fail the check at a gun shop. The checks don't keep people with clean records from becoming violent. But they keep those with criminal backgrounds from evading the check system we have in place now.

And...

While the Blacksburg tragedy reminds us that we cannot know for certain who will or will not turn a gun to violent ends, the universal background check could guarantee that no one with a criminal record could legally buy a gun in this country. That knowledge can't assuage the pain caused by yesterday's murders, or by monstrous acts of violence committed with guns every day. But as we resume the national debate over weapons, violence, safety, and freedom, let us demand of Congress meaningful change rather than placeholders and platitudes.

Yes, the title may be a little misleading. But the body of the article seems to suggest that looking to respond to this specific incident rather than passing gun laws that may have an effect in general is a bad idea.