Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[smelltheglove]

THe assault weapon ban wasn't something the Dems ever expected to get. But that's how negotiations work. You don't show up to the table just with what you think you can get or you wind up with less than you need.

reminds me of a line in a song - "if you needs 5 cents dont ask for 3, ask for 10"

[Deadvolcanoes]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2013...laws/?page=all

That article takes data from 170 cities and then applies it to states. Either way, it's not a scientific study, it's an "exhaustive analysis," whatever that means. If there was a scientific study conducted, I can't find a link to it. And it even states that:

There do appear to be some gun controls which work, all of them relatively moderate, popular and inexpensive

I know, but you're implying that states with tougher gun control are safer. That's not the case. There is no correlation.

Safer? That's subjective. I'm implying that there are fewer firearm fatalities in states that have more restrictive gun control laws. It's a correlative effect, not a causal effect.

"States that have the most laws have a 42% decreased rate of firearm fatalities compared to those with the least laws," said Dr. Eric W. Fleegler, an attending physician in pediatric emergency medicine at Boston Children's Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

[PhaelixWW]

I expect the back peddling, hand waiving, excuses and deflections to be of epic proportions.

That assumes that FusedMass ever returns to this thread.

[Eroginous]

You stated: "No one is disputing the fact that Background checks have stopped criminals."

I showed you the exact post that started this entire back and forth where a poster stated exactly that: "These laws and checks did 0 to stop criminals from getting guns."

If you can't even admit when you're wrong, I hardly see the point of further discussion. Lets at least be honest with each other.

1. The effectiveness of background checks has been an ongoing discussion throughout parts of this thread. It's not isolated to the pages between this one and the one containing the post you quoted.

2. You conveniently left out the part of the post you took your quote from where the poster first says:

Laws have stopped people with a criminal history obtaining guns legally.

Background checks stopped 1 million people who were trying to legally purchase firearms.

IE, directly stating that yes, background checks have stopped criminals from getting guns in a certain situation. After which he follows it up with the caveat that you keep refuting: Just because a criminal failed a background check, does not mean he didn't still get a gun.

So keep up the special pleading, it's clearly showing me how I'm wrong.

This is my problem with your argument. You believe that background checks are only successful if they eliminate all forms of illegally obtaining a firearm. That doesn't make any sense. Background checks, as a singular form, are absolutely effective. If we expand their use, they could be even more effective

Why do we do background checks? Because we don't want criminals to get guns. So if a criminal fails a background check and gets a gun anyway, that's a problem, right? Doesn't that render the background check process fairly ineffective when it comes to preventing criminals from getting a gun?

Again, they are not an end all be all. No one ever claimed that they are.

You've been claiming they are since our back and forth started. Every time you post it's to say 'background checks stop criminals from getting guns' and then provide your pet statistic proving as much. You've even gone so far as to say that the cases where criminals get guns anyway and the methods they employ are all irrelevant to the fact that 'background checks stop criminals from getting guns.'

At every turn you've implied an absolute outcome from a completely subjective statement. A much more accurate and specific statement would be 'background checks stop criminals from buying guns legally from licensed FFL's who abide by the law. However, background checks don't stop criminals from obtaining guns through various means such as straw sales, private sales, criminal sales, or theft.'

Because then your statement would show that background checks are moderately ineffective at preventing criminals from getting guns. You'd have to be honest, and that would pretty much kill your argument.

Maybe if we extended background checks to all purchases and transfers, we would catch a lot more, or prevent a lot more from even occurring. It's only half true that "40% of gun purchases occur without a background check." That information is old, and we don't know the exact number, but it's safe to say that a shit ton of purchases occur without background checks.

Again, this is assuming that it's even possible to conduct a background check or that a background check will not be intentionally bypassed. You're trying to justify continuing to do something that has proven to be largely ineffective at achieving the stated goal, while trying to advocate for doing it more often, instead of doing something which could be entirely more effective.

Should we get rid of the background check system if it's only marginally effective?

Yes, we should demolish it and replace it with something that's more effective at achieving the stated goals: preventing criminals from getting guns.

Don't get too excited here. I stated explicitly that "studies have shown a correlation between the complexity of background checks." Correlation. I never said it was causation.

Correlative evidence is useful, especially when other studies have obtained similar results.

JAMA Internal Medicine: States With More Gun Laws Have Fewer Gun Deaths

We have two very recent studies that conclude more laws, and greater complexity in existing laws, correlates with fewer gun deaths. That's not insignificant.

There's absolutely zero reason to provide a link to a study showing a correlation between two things, correlation is not causation. Correlation (or the lack thereof in this case) is completely irrelevant to the idea you keep trying to prove: background checks are effective at stopping criminals from getting guns. The cause for lower gun crime rates in the areas studied likely have more to do with better socioeconomic standards in those areas, since that tends to be the major factor in most of these gun homicides/suicides. The fact that they have stricter gun laws is just a coincidence.

The problem with localized gun laws are the fact that they can just take a quick drive out of Chicago, and purchase whatever they want. That's why universal laws are important.

Laws don't stop people from engaging in illegal activity, they only provide recourse for our government to respond and prosecute criminals. It hasn't even been established that Chicago's strict gun laws are constitutional or necessary, so pleading for 'universal laws' does not logically follow unless you just don't care about such things as constitutional rights or necessity.

[oblivionx]

THe assault weapon ban wasn't something the Dems ever expected to get. But that's how negotiations work. You don't show up to the table just with what you think you can get or you wind up with less than you need.

That's not the way negotiations work at all. Not even close really...

There is no middle ground to be reached on extreme examples. That's why they die in committee.

You think that a middle ground can exist, but it's a violation of the US constitution that your middle ground exists in.

When you start at a point where the other side won't negotiate, you end up with nothing.

Negotiation requires both sides have positions that are tenable, unrealistic perhaps... but they have to be positions that *could* be reached.

Hence the posturing is just posturing to score political points to be used in 2014/16.

[PhaelixWW]

Negotiation requires both sides have positions that are tenable, unrealistic perhaps... but they have to be positions that *could* be reached.

Hrm. I think you're confusing "rational negotiation" with "political negotiation".

Hence the posturing is just posturing to score political points to be used in 2014/16.

Oh, wait, nevermind. Carry on.

[ScottsdaleHokie]

I'm glad this draconian piece of shit bill isn't even getting a vote. I'm glad the majority of Republicans and a plurality of democrats support the second amendment at its highest.

Yep, lots of soiled diapers in Commieland. Freedom prevails again.

[Tinykong]

Hence the posturing is just posturing to score political points to be used in 2014/16.

*ding ding ding*

That's what this has always been about. Now that people have forgotten about Sandy Hook, government doesn't give a crap. They are busy trying to position themselves to be on the right side of whatever the next thing is, and playing hot potato with the debt.

[Deadvolcanoes]

--snipping--

When background checks are administered, they stop criminals. Period. You can't argue that, though I imagine you'll try.

However, criminals are still able to purchase gun through other means. That doesn't mean background checks have failed, that means our ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals has failed.

You can't measure the effectiveness of a background check when it's not applied to a purchase, and for some reason, you keep trying to do that. It's insane.


If background checks have a proven track record of working when applied, why not expand on that proven track record?

[Tinykong]

When background checks are administered, they stop criminals. Period. You can't argue that, though I imagine you'll try.

However, criminals are still able to purchase gun through other means. That doesn't mean background checks have failed, that means our ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals has failed.

You can't measure the effectiveness of a background check when it's not applied to a purchase, and for some reason, you keep trying to do that. It's insane.


If background checks have a proven track record of working when applied, why not expand on that proven track record?

I wonder about the true representation of these criminals the background checks stopped is.

If they stopped someone who didn't know they were barred from buying a gun, and then just decided to buy a cross bow instead, is that the same thing as stopping someone who knew they were unable to buy one, but tried to and was caught?

I guess I find it hard to believe that someone who knows they are going to be prevented from buying a gun would go into a dealer and just submit to the background check and hope it went through. Maybe they are doing that, who knows?

[oblivionx]

Hrm. I think you're confusing "rational negotiation" with "political negotiation".



Oh, wait, nevermind. Carry on.

You can never negotiate from positions that either side will never ever agree to.

[Payday]

I guess I find it hard to believe that someone who knows they are going to be prevented from buying a gun would go into a dealer and just submit to the background check and hope it went through. Maybe they are doing that, who knows?

It's hard to know the circumstances of the 700,000 purchase denials that have come from the NICS in the last 10 years.

[Tinykong]

It's hard to know the circumstances of the 700,000 purchase denials that have come from the NICS in the last 10 years.

I'm certainly not saying that it doesn't work, but the figures don't mean much if most of the people prevented from buying them were people who had no idea they couldn't buy one, and had no intention of using the gun for crime.

[mrwingtipshoes]

reminds me of a line in a song - "if you needs 5 cents dont ask for 3, ask for 10"

That would make sense if it wasn't just removed with out being voted on. It's gone with no compromise.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You can never negotiate from positions that either side will never ever agree to.

And this is something that the right needs to realize when "negotiating" economic policy.

[smelltheglove]

That would make sense if it wasn't just removed with out being voted on. It's gone with no compromise.

yeah, i didnt really understand that. it's possible that they just didnt get enough support within the party to continue with it - dems are actually pretty split on guns, they arent across the board anti-gun like many like to believe

[lockedout]

if you had said that you thought background checks had minimal impact on illegal gun acquisition i would agree. i just disagree with the blanket of "they do nothing". and i dont think that means getting rid of background checks is a good idea either. i think it means we need to do better on shutting down other means of getting guns illegally

When I say they do "nothing" I mean they do nothing to deter someone who had no intent of legally owning a firearm in the first place.

---------- Post added 2013-03-20 at 08:02 PM ----------

Have you seen this one from NJ.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...pute-assembly/

NJ gun laws are just ridiculous.
Extremely hard to get a pistol here.

[Eroginous]

When background checks are administered, they stop criminals. Period. You can't argue that, though I imagine you'll try.

I'm not arguing that fact. I'm simply saying that the tiny sliver of the fraction of gun sales where that actually happens is a statistical anomaly, not the absolute be-all end-all you're touting it to be. It's not relevant to the fact that a criminal doesn't ever need to submit to a background check in order to obtain a gun. It's not relevant to the fact that we have a much bigger problem at hand than making sure responsible gun owners are submitting background checks when buying/selling guns to other responsible gun owners.

Like for instance coming up with enforceable methods for preventing the vast majority of criminals from getting guns, instead of a tiny fraction.

However, criminals are still able to purchase gun through other means. That doesn't mean background checks have failed, that means our ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals has failed.

Actually, it does. For the sake of nice round numbers, let's say we have exactly 100 criminals, 100 guns, and 100 gun dealers holding those 100 guns. Let's say that all but 10 of those guns are sold. 1 of them was not sold because a criminal was flagged and denied a gun sale. The other 9 guns just didn't didn't sell. But the 90 other guns that are now out in circulation, were all sold or stolen, whether they were sold to legitimate customers, criminals under the table, straw buyers, or stolen from a dealer, transporter, factory, warehouse, or private citizen. We don't know how many of those 90 guns are in the hands of criminals, but it's a moderate amount. Whatever that number actually is, we know it's at least 1. It could be as many as 90, but that's probably not likely. Regardless, 100% of the guns that are now in the hands of criminals, are there DESPITE the presence of background checks.

Did you get that? Background checks were ineffective or inapplicable in 100% of the situations where a criminal obtained a gun. The reality is that my example was generous to the facts of the situation. There are 88 privately owned guns for every 100 people in this country (which includes guns that are possessed by criminals). Only 1 out of every 3 million people are ever denied a gun sale because of failing a background check, and 40% of those people are not criminals. Yet 1 out of every 4 people is a 'criminal' according to our laws, whether they are currently serving time in prison or jail, on probation, or have avoided prosecution. That figure includes drug users, illegal immigrants, and people who have served their sentences.

The fact of the matter is that it's much easier for criminals to obtain guns without submitting to a background check, than it is to prevent a criminal from getting a gun with a background check. It's embarrassing, wouldn't you say?

You can't measure the effectiveness of a background check when it's not applied to a purchase, and for some reason, you keep trying to do that. It's insane.

The entire purpose of a background check is to prevent a purchase of a gun by a criminal. If a background check cannot be applied to a purchase, then it's not going to be effective at preventing the criminal purchase of a gun, now is it?

So glad you agree.

If background checks have a proven track record of working when applied, why not expand on that proven track record?

Because the logistics of applying background checks are just not there. How do you get two dudes in an alley to submit a background check? How do you get a dude stealing a gun to submit to a background check? How do you get the 3rd party of a straw purchase to submit to a background check? How do you get someone, who simply does not want to submit to a background check, to submit to one?

The problem is that there's no telling how many people of those 1 million people still obtained guns despite failing their background check. It could have been all of them, or it could have been none of them. Based on a figure of 600k known criminals failing, it's an appallingly dismal number. When you factor in the number of people who still got a gun despite failing the check, that number becomes suspect and you HAVE to question the legitimacy of the practice.

The primary difference between a law that says 'don't steal' or 'don't kill,' and legislation requiring a background check, is that one of those gives the government recourse in response to an event, while the other one doesn't. A person who steals or kills someone else, is found guilty according to the evidence and sentenced to prison for as long as we feel is sufficient as a society. A person who fails a background check just shrugs it off and goes and finds a gun somewhere else (except in the few situations where they are prosecuted as a result of it). That's the crux of the problem with your argument.

Why exactly should we implement more background checks? Shouldn't we be finding a better way to accomplish the goal of preventing criminals from getting guns? Our government is putting on a show for the public, striking down not only the AWB, but the high cap magazines ban too, before either of them even hit the floor. The only thing that's left is the UBC bill, and that's not looking too good.

Maybe we should come up with something better...

Meanwhile the James Holmes and Adam Lanzas of the world are free to grab guns and shoot up whatever they want to because background checks stop criminals.

[Grizzly Willy]

Stopping criminals and stopping all criminals aren't the same thing.

[Eroginous]

Stopping criminals and stopping all criminals aren't the same thing.

Nope, but the number of criminals getting guns should be the statistical anomaly, not the number of background checks that are flagged as criminals.