Saturday, August 7, 2010
Quote of the day--wish I'd said that
"There is no question that we need to devote far more resources to enforcing federal gun laws. But it is a transparent fallacy to argue that deficiencies in enforcing current laws justify inaction to strengthen those laws." --Dennis A. Henigan, Vice President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Author of "Lethal Logic"
Link to orginal post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/obama-gun-policy-fear-and_b_672250.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
We need to devote far more resources to enforcing laws against violence, and less on administrative trivia relating to guns.
There are very, very few gun laws that work to reduce crime. There are quite a few laws and regulations that do nothing but make it difficult for the law abiding to comply with the law--another place where simplifying government would help drastically.
Example: A Ruger Charger is a .22 caliber pistol based on the Ruger 10/22 rifle. If you have one that was made as a pistol from the factory, it is legal under federal law. If someone converts a 10/22 rifle with absolutely identical parts, it is a felony to posses--even though the resulting gun is indistinguishable from the factory-made Charger in any way.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to fail a NICS background check without committing a felony--yet less than 1% of failed checks result in any investigation.
The BATFE spends an inordinate amount of time on technical violations, but virtually no effort towards criminals and violence.
How did I know I'd get a response from you on this?
hope you had a great weekend,
mr
You mean you did not specifically post that to wind me up?
no, it's just that I saw and loved it, recognizing it for how right and true it is and figured you'd disagree, that's all.
we need to do away with the gun show loophole.
mr
What part of the "gun show loophole" do you object to--the part where the rules are exactly the same for everyone as they are outside the gun show, or the part where we don't have gun registration?
Gun Show Loophole is a misleading term--all of the solutions go far beyond gun shows, and require either explicit gun registration, or defacto registration by requiring all legal sales to go through a dealer.
The loophole in federal law that allows criminals to buy guns from private sellers at gun shows without background checks--THAT part.
mr
Is it just at gun shows that you object to private sales without a background check?
What would your solution be?
I think there should be background checks on all gun purchases, yes, absolutely. If a guy has a rap sheet and has committed misdemeanors or felonies or has serious emotional problems, I think it's a good idea to keep guns away from him. I thought you and the NRA, both, would be about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. You know--"If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns" or some such phrase like that that always gets repeated and thrown around. Yes, background checks should be at gun shows, sure. again--absolutely--but with all handgun purchases in the US, everywhere. It makes sense.
mr
You kind of proved my point--since your solution is to ban all private sales and not just at gun shows, honest language would be "the private sale loophole". This really isn't your fault--you are merely using the deceptive language pushed by major gun control groups.
Background checks are not something I particularly want, but they are not necessarily a deal breaker if done right--no significant extra cost or inconvenience, and set up so it cannot be used to build a registry.
But just as important--gun owners need to get something significant in return. There are a lot of rules and restrictions that you probably consider trivial, but are important to us. Would it bother you if I could buy a handgun in person in any state under the same rules as in my home state? Would it be OK if imported guns were sold under the same rules as domestic guns?
Okay, holy cow. I know you're bright but you should also be better than your comment.
Not once--nowhere--did I say "ban all private shows". Nowhere. No on this entry and nowhere else on this blog. I distinctly and specifically said "background checks on sales" at gun shows.
Come on. Seriously. You're better than that.
In answer to your two questions: Would it bother me if you could buy a handgun in person in any state under the same rules as in your home state? It isn't about bothering me, it's about good rules. No, this would make sense. Everyone would go crazy about "big government ruling from Washington" which is nonsense but no, this makes sense and is a good idea.
Would it be OK if imported guns were sold under the same rules as domestic guns? Certainly. That, too, makes perfect sense, it would seem.
mr
In the August 9, 3:02pm comment, You said background checks everywhere, and that people with misdemeanors should not be able to buy guns. (I should lose my gun rights if the police decide to fine me for letting my dogs off leash at the river?)
Current law does not provide me with a way to do a voluntary background check--the only effective way is to go to a dealer. In that case the dealer will charge $20-50, and the transaction will go on his permanent "bound book" just like any other gun he sells. It is very unlikely that mandatory background checks will use any other method--I think it fair to characterize that as a ban on private sales.
The rules that prevent me from buying a handgun outside Ohio are federal. Allowing the two states involved to decide would be an improvement.
Right--background checks.
To repeat, I did not say "ban all private sales", nor have I then or am I now saying ban them.
Between offenses against the community and mental instability, there is a true and, I think, undeniable need to screen the possible purchasers of weapons so society is more protected. We clearly can't keep us all from harm at all times but keeping weapons out of the hands of people with records and/or mental and/or emotional illnesses seems logical, obvious and intelligent. It's just reducing the likelihood of needless tragedy and that seems downright wise.
mr
Although I could easily be wrong, I seem to recall you were an advocate of registration as well as background checks. Private is not just "non-delaer", there should be an element of privacy. While it is possible to have universal background checks while maintaining privacy, such proposals are very rare.
Am I incorrect in assuming you think we should also have universal gun registration?
No, there again, this is right--I'm sure I said I'm for registration--which is, once again, not a gun ban. You bet I'm for it. It's not much to ask.
Since guns can and are used for killing, registering them just makes sense, not to you and the NRA but to me and a lot of the rest of us out here.
And that whole canard about the "gubmint comin' to take our guns" is so bogus it's just not funny nor realistic. The thought that the government could "come" and take our--your--guns is silly, patent nonsense. Even now, already, there are so many---far too many--guns and weapons for the government to ever "come and get" them, just as there are 12 million "illegal immigrants" from Mexico here and, logistically, it makes it impossible for this same government--ours--to "send them back where they came from."
So there you are--there's my new stance for the day. Let me have it.
mr
mr
I think you have illustrated my point on deceptive language quite well. When you say "gun show loophole" what you mean is mandatory registration and background checks on all sales.
But anti gun groups know that "private sale loophole" or "mandatory registration" is nowhere near as emotional as "gun show loophole'. It isn't nearly as easy to create the false notion of an arena of rednecks with tables full of grenades and machine guns, willing to sell to teen gang members no questions asked.
Have the honesty to say 'mandatory gun registration' if that is what you mean. Eliminating gun shows entirely does not change your solution, so it is not about gun shows.
Okay.
First it was "Tea Party" as a term, now it's "mandatory gun registration".
I wasn't being intentionally vague and I wasn't trying to paint any picture otherwise. I have no problem with this term. It's what needs to happen.
a) I hope you're happy
b) I hope this is clear and
c) I hope we can move on now
Seriously, not sarcastically.
mr
Post a Comment