Universal Background Checks....

[ScottRiqui]

Not by any definition of "superlative" I've ever seen.

Regardless, my point wasn't that school shootings happen frequently, and I never claimed they do. I was just asserting that there have been a lot of them over the years, many of them occurring before Columbine.

 

[MLeake]

I don't doubt it, nor do I doubt that the combination of 24 hour news and internet coverage did more to cement Columbine into the collective conscious.

However, I do think lcpiper is also partially right. I don't think the previous instances had seen two juveniles from the afflicted school premeditate an all-out assault involving not just multiple handguns and long arms, but also explosives used in a tactical manner.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Agreed, although if you add enough qualifiers, *any* shooting can be made to sound "unique" and original, or the "most deadly".

Charles Whitman (The UT Austin sniper) had three rifles, three pistols, a shotgun and a machete, killed 16 people and injured 32. And that was 33 years before Columbine.

Columbine wasn't the "most deadly" school shooting, unless you qualify it as the "most deadly high school shooting". So that's exactly what the media did. Talk about grasping for superlatives - that's the media's stock-in-trade.

 

[lcpiper]

ScottRiqui, the opening line from your own quoted source of info.

Prior to 1989, there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more victims were killed by firearms at a school,.....

And I graduated High School in 1978, and AR-15s were readily for sale cause I bought my first in 1980, cost $600 at a gun store in Lubbock, TX.

Try not to get wrapped up in the details, the point isn't which was the first or the worst. The point is that it just didn't happen at all. If there was a shooting at a school it was about drugs, not someone whacked in the head kid looking for 30 days of glory.

The UT shooting was a different matter and very unique. He was an ex-Marine if I recall correctly? A Vet that came back from a war at a time when Vets didn't get nice welcome homes.

I joined the Army in 1981 and still even then we were told "Not" to where our uniform down town because the locals might try to kick your ass or something.

 

[ScottRiqui]

And if you read the rest of the sentence, it goes on to list four of them, and those aren't the only four. My point is still that Columbine really wasn't anything fundamentally new or unique, even compared to incidents that happened decades earlier.

Granted, there were interesting differences (two shooters versus one, the attempted wide use of explosives, high school versus college, etcetera), but those are largely inconsequential to the big picture.

You say that things like Columbine "just didn't happen" back then, but read up on the four shooting listed at the start of the article I linked to (Olean, Fullerton, UT Austin and Cleveland Elementary) and then re-evaluate that. Except for the Cleveland Elementary shooting in 1979, all of them happened before you graduated high school in 1978.

EDIT - The UT shooting wasn't unique, at least not because of Whitman being a Marine returning to the US under hostile circumstances. He never went overseas and never saw combat. He was discharged from the Marines after never having gotten further from home than Camp Lejeune. Whitman probably did what he did as the result of a brain tumor, or he was just a random whacko, just like the ones we have today.

 

[lcpiper]

Ummm, it says a handfull, spread out from 1927 to 1989, that's close to 60 years.

Now, we are getting them every few months and it's not from scarred war-vets. It's High School aged kids going for some kind of glory spree, BatMan FFS.

If the difference between law abiding citizen and criminal is the capacity or ability to act then motivation is a key feature to the problem. If this is true, then figure out what is motivating these people and dampen that **** down. It would do a lot more toward prevention then background checks ever have or will.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Again, read about those four shootings right at the beginning of the linked article (Olean, UT, Fullerton and Cleveland Elementary), and then come back here and tell me that the "whackadoodle school shooter" is a new phenomenon. They were all between 1966 and 1979, so they're right in that part of your youth when you're claiming that things like that "just didn't happen".

 

[lcpiper]

I am reading them and I see the Orlean School shooting was a suicidal kid that couldn't do it himself so he wanted the cops to do it for him(suicide by cop).

The Fullerton shooting was a 37 year old deranged dude that was shooting fellow staff members at his place of work which happened to be a school, he shot no kids, he was shooting the guys who were "making his wife do pornos".

Brenda Spencer in the Cleavland School shooting, no motive determined, nothing to go on except that it happened.

And the Kehoe Bombing, a 55 year old out of luck dude who was financially ruined and suicidal. Again it doesn't fit at all.

2 out of 5 come close, one has no motive at all that is remotely solid and the other is "Suicide by Cop".

Where is Fame and Glory in any of these? You should not make the error that the multiple deaths, or a school location in any way is relevant to the killings happening today.

 

[ScottRiqui]

You're attributing the motives of "fame and glory" to shooters like the ones at Columbine and Aurora, but you may be putting words into their mouths. We don't know much about the "why" of Aurora yet, and I don't remember Kliebold (sp?) and Harris leaving behind notes as to why they did what they did.

Regardless, no sane shooter is going to do something like that solely for the "fame and glory". They're screwed in the head, so even trying to attribute motive is dicey at best.

 

[lcpiper]

They weren't combat vets, or 37 year olds that thought other guys were making their wifes do pornos. Nor were they destitute 55 year olds facing the end of their financially ruined lives.

You will always have forlorn, lost and hurt souls. But something today is very different from 20+ years ago and the only one of any of these "famous" cases I knew of growing up was the UT shooting in 66, I was 6 years old and lived in Lubbock, Texas. That one has been shown on the tube lot since I was a 6 year old.

 

[manta49]

IMO,the very best people to understand and provide that security are today's Greatest Generation of professionals who have been shot at,and shot back

Who are the generation of professionals you talk about. ? And what makes you think they would be interested in being security guards. How many of the professional you talk about are ready to become security guards compared with the number of schools in America.

+1 to this. When the day comes that I have children of my own, they will not be going to any school unless it has armed officers or guards

They go on about the crime rate in the uk. What dose it say about America when people won't send their children to school unless there are armed guards.

PS Just because someone was soldier and had being shot at doesn't mean they would be a good choice to guard children.

Quote. An American soldier walked off his base in a remote southern Afghan village shortly before dawn Sunday and opened fire on civilians inside their homes, killing at least 16, including ( nine children ) .

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Yes, I reject expanding BG checks to encompass all private sales. That doesn't mean the details will not have to be worked out, if universal BG checks become standard.

That is really, really bad idea trying to fix something after the fact. Since you won’t even consider it there is no point in discussing it.

How about 10 years of higher magazine prices? The sunset clause was, as far as I know, the only thing that came close to being a "compromise" on that one.

The law is completely null and void and you want to bring it up as though you have “lost” some kind of right through compromise? Your complaint is higher magazine prices 15 years ago? Have you priced magazines lately?

I haven't accused you of wanting an AWB, nor have I suggested anything about the NFA.

Then why bring it up? It is not the topic being discussed.

And now that you've been pushed to show some evidence, I guess it's time for you to resort to personal attacks.

“give them an inch they will take a mile….”

Evidence of what? That two laws are null and void? At least one was a clear victory for gun rights? You were trying to link (unsuccessfully) my position on background checks to the NFA. This is a misrepresentation of my position and you were aware of that when you were doing it. Just because I won't allow you to misrepresent my position does not make it a personal attack.

I'm not the one that needs the remedial reading lesson here, AS. I specifically mentioned an exception for obscenity in my last post. At this point, I don't want to get into prior restraints, content-neutral & content-based regulation because: (1) most of it is off-topic; and (2) it has become obvious that you won't get it.

That is because there is nothing to "get". Once again:

“A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction.”

You can in no way demonstrate this to be true in regard to instant checks. The NFA, sure it is a terrible abomination that needs to disappear and is a huge restraint.

Compared to the evidence you've provided, it's a gold mine. You're the one proposing to change the law to further restrict 2A rights, but you haven't shown anything other than your desire to "feel better" about transfers. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your proposal would actually do any good? If you've got better data, pony on up. I'd love to see it.

You made the assertion so you prove it. If you have a problem with any data I have provided or not provided show me where the problem is. If you want me to provide data on hypothetical’s, future events or proving a negative forget it. Such data obviously does not exist.

However since you brought it and the data is a “gold mine” let us go back and look at it again:

According to the survey (which I believe to be fraught with error) the method of acquiring weapons changed from nearly 21% in 1991 to less than 14% in 1997 through retail sales. If true data, this is a huge shift a 33% drop.

Now why would that be? Any idea on how to account for that? I can give you a good solid theory: Background checks. The barriers put in place during that time forced a shift in the way criminals acquired guns.

Wow. And you were worried about ME changing facts around in the hypo until I got the results I want?!?

I gave you a different scenario entirely for an entirely different purpose. Mostly becuase this is getting tiring and I think we need resolution instead of an endless argument. Remember it is you arguing for the unlimited, unrestrained, unrestricted 2A rights purchasing rights. I think the only way to make that work is to make it a protected activity under the CRA.

If I were renting him an apartment, or in the business of selling guns, I would not be acting as an individual.

No you are not. This is why hypos don’t work. You changed it. I said you owned the building not that you were running it for someone else. Make it one of several houses that you own but don’t live in if you like. I guarantee you that if you do not rent the place for discriminatory reasons you will be facing a personal civil rights law suit. The CRA of 1968 specifies that this is illegal activity.

Now that you are NOT running a gun shop but that you simply offered a gun for sale (say an online ad). You are not acting as an agent for a business. Just you. If you offer and he accepts now you must sell regardless of whatever misgivings you might have if this protected activity right?

I've spent the majority of my career defending cities and police officers in civil rights lawsuits.

Good, then this should sound familiar:

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

The constitution does not regulate activities as between private individuals.

Still Bull.

The mistaken belief that you have to a cop, shop keep, agent or whatever to violate civil rights is incorrect. If I stand outside of a polling place with a baseball bat and try to influence your vote through fear and intimidation that is a civil rights violation (regardless of whatever the current AG thinks).

I’d like to know now what your answer to the above scenario on gun pruchases will be as this is the resolution to most of this argument. You should already see where this is going. Your answer will also show where your real interests lie in regard to freedom.

 

[lcpiper]

What it says Manta is that America, like many other countries, is unique and has it's own set of unique problems.

We are working to deal with them in our way.

BTW, I recall North Ireland has it's own issues with violence and security.

But more then a history lesson what I really remember is flying into Shannon Airport with a scheduled 2.5 hour layover, disembarking, grabbing a couple of smokes to get my nicotine levels back in balance, and just when I was ready to try my first meal in Ireland we were mysteriously called back to the plane to continue our flight to Kuwait. It was the shortest 2.5 hour layover of my entire life I think.

I also remember several less then friendly faces at the airport. The kind of faces you see from people who discover bubblegum on the bottom of their shoes.

Are there increasing anti-American sentiments in Ireland these days that you know of?

 

[Alabama Shooter]

They go on about the crime rate in the uk. What dose it say about America when people won't send their children to school unless there are armed guards.

PS Just because someone was soldier and had being shot at doesn't mean they would be a good choice to guard children.

Quote. An American soldier walked off his base in a remote southern Afghan village shortly before dawn Sunday and opened fire on civilians inside their homes, killing at least 16, including ( nine children ) .

How is this even remotely related to instant background checks?

It was the shortest 2.5 hour layover of my entire life I think.

You forgot the hour you had to go through customs even though you never left the airport.

 

[lcpiper]

I didn't have to go through customs cause it was a layover, not a stop. I didn't even have to present ID. Military Flight full of contractors and soldiers en-route to Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I didn't have to go through customs cause it was a layover, not a stop.

In eight trips through there on charters every time we had to go through customs on layovers. When going back through Germany the bus took us straight to the little building and there was no customs.

 

[manta49]

Are there increasing anti-American sentiments in Ireland these days that you know of?

I can only speak about N Ireland i don't know of any anti American sentiments.
There are lots of American tourists, and students in N Ireland universities.

BTW, I recall North Ireland has it's own issues with violence and
security.

That's true but even with the thousands of shootings bombings
and deaths there was never the need for security in schools.

PS I think there was a bit of concern in the Republic of Ireland about the issue bellow.

HUMAN rights groups have called on the Government to introduce measures to ensure Ireland can no longer be used for illegal rendition flights, after fresh evidence emerged that US authorities operated such missions through Shannon Airport over the past decade.

 

[Spats McGee]

I haven't accused you of wanting an AWB, nor have I suggested anything about the NFA.

Then why bring it up? . . . .

Because you wrote:

. . . . Besides, if you think that I have indicated anything in any of my posts (any and all) that I want some kind of AWB or NFA you should take some kind of remedial reading course.

Remember it is you arguing for the unlimited, unrestrained, unrestricted 2A rights purchasing rights.

All I've said is that I will not support expanding them to encompass private sales. I have not argued for a repeal of the current law requiring background checks from FFLs.

No you are not. This is why hypos don’t work. You changed it. I said you owned the building not that you were running it for someone else. Make it one of several houses that you own but don’t live in if you like. I guarantee you that if you do not rent the place for discriminatory reasons you will be facing a personal civil rights law suit. The CRA of 1968 specifies that this is illegal activity.

Now that you are NOT running a gun shop but that you simply offered a gun for sale (say an online ad). You are not acting as an agent for a business. Just you. If you offer and he accepts now you must sell regardless of whatever misgivings you might have if this protected activity right?

Yes and no. I took a look at housing, and housing is specifically covered under the CRA. I'll give you that one, but it's legally distinct from the private purchase of firearms from an individual. Private purchases of firearms from individuals are not covered by the CRA, as far as I can tell. Public facilities, like restaurants and gun shops are. That does not mean that the CRA extends a right to purchase a privately-offered firearm from an individual. With that said, there are some contract rights that might be acquired if there's been offer and acceptance, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Let's take another look at one of the citations you provided. I'll add a little emphasis.

Good, then this should sound familiar:

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

In fact, let's take a look at the actual statute, in addition to the summary you provided. Again, I'll add some emphasis for your convenience:

(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from--

(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States;
(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or​

(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--

(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror,
(E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or​

18 U.S.C.A. § 245 (West)

In the example about declining to sell a gun, where was the force involved? For that matter, where is "purchasing a firearm from a private individual" listed as one of the six types of federally protected activities?

Oh, and just as an aside, that's a criminal statute that you summarized, not a civil one.

The constitution does not regulate activities as between private individuals.

Still Bull.

The mistaken belief that you have to a cop, shop keep, agent or whatever to violate civil rights is incorrect. If I stand outside of a polling place with a baseball bat and try to influence your vote through fear and intimidation that is a civil rights violation (regardless of whatever the current AG thinks).

I’d like to know now what your answer to the above scenario on gun pruchases will be as this is the resolution to most of this argument. You should already see where this is going. Your answer will also show where your real interests lie in regard to freedom.

Well, now you've introduced both intimidation by force and one of the federally-protected acts, voting, changing the scenario yet again. Legally, that's an entirely different scenario than a private individual declining to make a sale. I guess you're not getting answers that you like.

Like it or not, the constitution still doesn't regulate activities between individuals. Some statutes do, but the U.S. Constitution does not.

Yeah, I see where it's going. You're perfectly willing to try to appease the anti-2A crowd, no matter what you're faced with. I'm not.

 

[manta49]

IMO,the very best people to understand and provide that security are today's Greatest Generation of professionals who have been shot at,and shot back

I was replying to the above post. Its related because if there were no school shootings in America we wouldn't be discussing background checks.

How is this even remotely related to instant background checks?

 

[win-lose]

In further consideration.... Emotionally, I agree with the incrementalism argument. I still don't agree with the prior restraint argument. But given what is coming at us, I'm feeling more and more reluctant concede anything.

With that said, I believe that a person is responsible to do their "due diligence" when transferring a firearm and have consequences if they don't. How would we accomplish this without yielding too much to the anti's-agenda?