Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks

[thackney]

I think your post is very well-put.  I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.

Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171019/bad-news-for-universal-background-check-supporters

...Recently, anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute took a look at “universal” background check laws in Washington, Colorado and Delaware. All three states passed similar laws in 2013, and Wintemute wanted to see if the laws had led to an increase in the number of background checks. As it turns out, the answer was “no,” at least for Washington and Colorado. Universal background check laws clearly don’t lead to universal background checks for every transfer of a firearm. Gun owners know this, and we’ve tried to point this out to anti-gun activists on many occasions, but they needed to see the science. Now they have.

Wintemute and others are now trying to claim that the problem with the “universal” background check laws can be fixed with “more assertive enforcement.” Yet the study’s authors can’t really point to more assertive enforcement in Delaware, even though it did see an increase in background checks for both handguns and long guns. What would “more assertive enforcement” look like, anyway? It’s a pretty imprecise phrase for a man of science like Wintemute to throw around without offering up specific examples.

The problem for Wintemute is that these laws are nearly impossible to enforce, and law enforcement officers know it. That’s why so many have been opposed to these feel-good but ineffective background check laws for quite a while. Virtually every county sheriff in New Mexico opposed the Bloomberg-backed gun control bill when it was introduced in the state’s legislature earlier this year. Sheriffs spoke out about the need to be able to hold repeat offenders on higher bond, the number of plea bargains, and other issues surrounding the criminal justice system and violent offenders. That’s where they think the focus should be, but gun control advocates have a different priority. They think cops across the country should be spending precious time and resources trying to find illegal gun transfers instead of the individuals who are actually committing violent crimes.

How well does that work to make us safer? Well, take one more look at that study on background check laws. Supposedly, Delaware saw a significant increase in background checks. Unfortunately, Delaware also saw its homicide rate significantly increase as well; from 4.4 in 2013 to a 30-year high of 6.6 in 2015, before dropping slightly to 5.9 in 2016. Washington and Colorado also had a slight increase in  homicide rates (from 2.4 to 2.7 in the case of Washington and 3.3 to 3.7 for Colorado), but nothing like the spike seen in Delaware. Yes, the state most compliant with its “universal” background check law also had the highest homicide rate and the biggest increase in its homicide rate of the states studied....

[Oceander]

I think your post is very well-put.  I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.

Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday. 

[thackney]

Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.

Because you believe someone willing to murder will feel bound by Background Check requirement?

Which one of the murders would this have prevented?

[txradioguy]

Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.

You are getting truly despicable in your disgusting hyperbole.  It's not enough for you to equate supporters of the 2nd Amendment with child murders and school shootings...you have to double down on your stupidity.

[Cyber Liberty]

Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.

An unusual moment of clarity, although I suspect you may be employing sarcasm.  You're absolutely right, it shouldn't be.  Because today's society is full of people like you who think every murder of a child is an opportunity to stop people from buying an AR-15 (impulse buy or not), I am thankful I don't live in a totalitarian state like NY that would prevent me from doing so.

Now, if you don't mind, I need to go schedule some range time for my new purchase.  Gotta justify that increase in my insurance premium.  And Happy Birthday to you too, whenever that is.

[Oceander]

You are getting truly despicable in your disgusting hyperbole.  It's not enough for you to equate supporters of the 2nd Amendment with child murders and school shootings...you have to double down on your stupidity.

Insults are a lot less fun when they’re aimed st you, aren’t they?

As are you in your asinine accusations that I’m nothing more than a gun-grabbing statist because I (a) pointed out quite correctly that the furor was not going to just die down this time, and (b) am interested in exploring all possible alternatives to trying to keep whackos from legally getting their hands on guns, even if that means making it harder for non-whackos to get guns as well.

The fact of the matter is this:  this shooting demonstrated that the usual offerings are inadequate; what’s to guarantee law enforcement won’t drop the ball again the next time a whacko shows signs of acting out?  That means that more restrictive measures must be contemplated and all the costs and benefits weighed.

But I can’t even get to that discussion with you or anyone else on this forum.  You’re more concerned that some backwoods baker have the right to discriminate against gays in a retail business than you are that an obvious whacko was able to legally buy a firearm and lots of ammunition, and kill 17 kids. 

And when the survivors lash out in anger, and go for the obvious, there is no understanding or comprehension, just derision and jeering. 

You disgust me.

Now, why don’t we put down the hyperbole and the imagined horribles, and have an adult discussion about how we can make the murder of kids a little less likely. 

[txradioguy]

Insults are a lot less fun when they’re aimed st you, aren’t they?

As are you in your asinine accusations that I’m nothing more than a gun-grabbing statist because I (a) pointed out quite correctly that the furor was not going to just die down this time, and (b) am interested in exploring all possible alternatives to trying to keep whackos from legally getting their hands on guns, even if that means making it harder for non-whackos to get guns as well.

The fact of the matter is this:  this shooting demonstrated that the usual offerings are inadequate; what’s to guarantee law enforcement won’t drop the ball again the next time a whacko shows signs of acting out?  That means that more restrictive measures must be contemplated and all the costs and benefits weighed.

But I can’t even get to that discussion with you or anyone else on this forum.  You’re more concerned that some backwoods baker have the right to discriminate against gays in a retail business than you are that an obvious whacko was able to legally buy a firearm and lots of ammunition, and kill 17 kids. 

And when the survivors lash out in anger, and go for the obvious, there is no understanding or comprehension, just derision and jeering. 

You disgust me.

You need about a month long time out.

[Oceander]

You need about a month long time out.

For what?  Stating my opinion?  Go right ahead, cowboy. 

[INVAR]

Now, why don’t we put down the hyperbole and the imagined horribles, and have an adult discussion about how we can make the murder of kids a little less likely.

Teach them about God, morality, family, responsibility and duty.

Stop empowering government to mandate the illusion of safety and security by becoming god and mommy while taking away rights you do not trust your countrymen with.

[Oceander]

Teach them about God, morality, family, responsibility and duty.

Stop empowering government to mandate the illusion of safety and security by becoming god and mommy while taking away rights you do not trust your countrymen with.

And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.

[INVAR]

And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.

No.

That does not address or solve the root cause of the problem, anymore than banning the sale or possession of alcohol stops drunkeness.

[truth_seeker]

Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.

My anger gets directed rather to the dirty, rotten, filthy, lazy government employees at the FBI, the local police,, the school district, etc.

They alone deserve your concern over the death of children in Florida, Texas etc.

Not at law abiding citizens that want to own a gun.

[Smokin Joe]

Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime",  but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem.   I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability.    And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales.  Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.

I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information.   But that's a separate question.  Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed.  Hell, roamer brags about doing it.  This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.

Privately means just that. Privately. If the government or a dealer are involved, it isn't private, but a commercial transaction involving hoops to jump through and actions outside the normal activity of persons who do other things for a living (otherwise, they'd be dealers).

Dealers are already constrained  by the provisions of the 1968 GCA and subsequent provisions. Dealers and even gunsmiths and pawnbrokers are required to run background checks before releasing a firearm to the customer, and even more in some jurisdictions. It is a crime to not run that check, and only under extraordinary conditions may it be released without doing so.

That isn't what you are after. You are after suing the person who sells a gun to their neighbor or leaves one to their children. You, in a word, want registration. You want further encumbrances, expense, and difficulty (also known as infringements) for the persons who have been conducting themselves within the law, as if just one more law will do anything but create one more opportunity to ensnare the otherwise law-abiding in yet another bureaucratic trap.

We don't need to create more 'criminals' by decree, we should be using our resources to go after the ones which exist.
Becaise. as we saw under Clinton, Federal Agencies have been known to violate the law: The BATF was caught amassing a database of background check information long past the rule requiring the information on allowed purchases being disposed of at the beginning of the next operational day. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics. As for what that and other federal agencies have done under the Obama administration's surge in the sales of such firearms as the AR-15 and variants, who knows, but I am not one to trust that the conduct of such agencies has been within the constraints (letter or spirit) of the law. 
Such djinns do not go back in the bottle well.

As history bears out, registration equals confiscation sooner or later, with totalitarianism hot on the heels of that.

Even the relatively liberal Canadians rejected a measure requiring the registration of long guns to the degree that noncompliance was so pervasive they gave up on the law. The Mounties may always get their man, but they didn't get that law. 

[DB]

And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.

People are murdered at a much higher rate with knives...

Should you have to carry liability insurance to go out your front door because of all the potential harm you can do? And if not, why not?

[roamer_1]

And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales.  Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.

LOL! Not going to happen.

I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information.   But that's a separate question.  Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed.  Hell, roamer brags about doing it.  This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.

Like that's a bad thing. I am breaking no laws. But I am absolutely willing to break laws if I must. What you envision will not be complied with by me, or really, anyone I know.

[roamer_1]

I think your post is very well-put.  I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.

Because no one will comply. And I guarantee that will come from the statehouse in MT, and probably also ID, WY, AK,ND,  and UT at the very least.

[roamer_1]

And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.

More people are murdered with knives than guns. Wanna register and insure those too??

[roamer_1]

People are murdered at a much higher rate with knives...

Should you have to carry liability insurance to go out your front door because of all the potential harm you can do? And if not, why not?

LOL! sorry... GMTA.
 

[INVAR]

More people are murdered with knives than guns. Wanna register and insure those too??

Don't tempt him with further ideas.

You know he will advocate for exactly that once he gets feel-good gun registration and mandatory insurance requirement.

He has to work to keep his Collective society safe from Selfish Absolutists, fetishists, bigots and unhinged nuts in bunkers.

[roamer_1]

Don't tempt him with further ideas.

You know he will advocate for exactly that once he gets feel-good gun registration and mandatory insurance requirement.

He has to work to keep his Collective society safe from Selfish Absolutists, fetishists, bigots and unhinged nuts in bunkers.

You forgot 'paranoid hillbillies' 

[INVAR]

You forgot 'paranoid hillbillies' 

Yes.  Us too.

[Smokin Joe]

And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.

Why is it that people point to prohibition as a fine example of why prohibiting the possession and use of something just doesn't work, and reference that talking about anything they don't want banned, then can turn around and push for a ban on something they don't like as if it will work just fine.

You can't track every 3D printer, every bar of steel, every tool used in the manufacture of firearms, and where there is a market, there will be supplies. In other countries, a clone of virtually any firearm can be made by craftsmen in primitive workshops. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-in-pakistan/

Don't think Americans could not do the same and far more.

I haven't even mentioned smuggling, which, if tons of Marijuana, Cocaine, Meth, and other material can be smuggled in daily, will just bring in even more potent weapons from elsewhere, (Real AK-47s, not just the semi-automatic clones and lookalikes) which are readily available in the world market. So criminals will always have access to the tools they want to perform their trade, the jihadis will ever have access to arms through clandestine means.

What' more, in this instance, even the background check did not disclose the nature of the person buying the firearm. None of the tips and complaints which made it to the ears of Law Enforcement agencies were acted upon, and the school itself was complicit in not reporting problems they had had with the shooter (as a matter of policy).

Enacting more legislation might look like 'doing something', even give the appearance of 'doing something meaningful' (again) but the lack of legislation wasn't the problem, it was the way the information given wasn't acted upon by the very agencies who would be tasked with enforcing any additional legislation, legislation which would require the diversion of resources from the tasks that already are not being adequately performed. I have grave doubts that is any solution to the problem.

The whole event class of school shootings is a symptom of deeper cultural problems. Those who do not want to admit those other problems exist, who do not want to acknowledge the real remedies necessary to make shooting up a crowd of innocent people in any venue an unthinkable act again in the popular psyche, will propose and blame and point fingers, but the cultural malaise that folks have commonly attributed to one or more demographics within the US in specific areas has spread to be more commonplace and is manifested a little differently in a different demographic.

I'd also think those in the legal profession would welcome the opportunity to delve into possible relationships between the administration of certain classes of antidepressants and these incidents.

[Smokin Joe]

You forgot 'paranoid hillbillies' 

D@mmit! I want a hill!

[Cyber Liberty]

D@mmit! I want a hill!

You could always retire to one.  I wanna.

[roamer_1]

D@mmit! I want a hill!

Never fear,  my NoDak badrock friend, I can firmly attest that wherever you are, you never really left the holler.