Explain to me again how background checks prevent people's abililty to defend one's self.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Because I was reading Thomas Sowell's latest screed in the op-ed section of the local paper and that's exactly what he said.

No, really, he actually made that exact argument using those exact words.

That type of spin is stunning to me.

All the President sought to do yesterday was to make sure the background check system was more effectively utilized. That's the grand sum of it. How exactly that makes people less safe is completely beyond me.

(Oh, and he also claimed--without any sort of evidence to substantiate said claim--that James Holmes specifically chose the theater in Aurora where he committed his mass shooting because it was a "gun free zone." Again, he laid that one out there with zero, zip, nada evidence to support it.)

[Duckhunter935]

1. it does not

Answer me how many of these latest spree murders and suicides would have been prevented by background checks. Background checks are good but not the panacea that some people think they are.

[hunter]

12. That's why I consider anyone who loves guns...

... as a potential danger to themselves and others.

[Duckhunter935]

13. it's a good thing

That most firearms owners like me do not love guns.

[hunter]

19. Yeah, right.

[Duckhunter935]

20. yes I know the truth can be hard to take.

[hunter]

23. Please, do tell me a gun love fairy tale...

... I'll listen to it like this:

All my personal gun stories are pretty grim. I often have to do some serious work as a story teller to make the non-bloody gun stories funny.

KILZ covers up blood stains in cheap apartments good enough for the next tenant, and all the baddest ass veterans I know are pacifists happy to live places where they don't need guns.

[Duckhunter935]

29. no tale, just the truth

Please do not tell me how me and hundreds of millions of people feel about weapons. You do not know me at all. Have a great day.

[Yavin4]

40. Do breathalyzers prevent ALL drunk driving?

Do cameras in stores prevent ALL thefts? No. It's a ridiculous argument.

[Duckhunter935]

43. of course not

Never said they did. The questions are have background checks prevented ANY. It seems like all of these I have read about have passed background checks. It just seems like the people pushing this think it will stop all or even most of these murders.

[LonePirate]

2. It's a waste of time trying to understand inexplicable RW thinking. It's completely irrational.

[corkhead]

3. They always bring out the "slippery slope" canard for this argument

[guillaumeb]

4. Let me explain it to all of you clueless, America hating liberals.

What if I was walking down the street and suddenly the sky was filled with helicopters. From the UN, or the Russians, or something. What if I had also forgotten my bazooka, mortar, and machine gun at home? Even if there was a gun store across the street, I would be unable to go in and weapon up.

Thanks Obama!!!

Thanks liberals!!!

Thanks Tommy Carcetti!!!

[Snobblevitch]

24. Huh?

[ProfessorGAC]

34. I'm Pretty Sure That Was Sarcasm (nt)

[guillaumeb]

46. I also am very sure that it was meant as sarcasm.

Thank you for noticing.

[X_Digger]

5. And it's not like the Executive (Action / Memoranda / Whatever) actually changed anything..

.. I really don't see what the fuss was about.

[onecaliberal]

6. Breathtaking stupidity. It obviously doesn't. If there is a reason

You can't pass a background check, I don't want you to be able to get a death weapon.

[Matrosov]

7. Here is how it works

I know a handful of people who actually think that background checks for buying guns should be completely illegal.

It goes like this..

Gun ownership and self-defense are inseparable. If you want to defend yourself, get a gun. If you don't have a gun, you can't defend yourself (don't ask me about this logic)

Every human being has the right to self-defense. Therefore, every human being has the right to a gun.

You do not cease being a human by being a criminal or by being mentally incompetent. Therefore, even criminals and the mentally incompetent have a right to self-defense, and therefore they have a right to a gun.

If a criminal or someone mentally incompetent is deemed too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted at all. Therefore, they should be in either a jail or a mental institution. Everyone else, including criminals and the mentally incompetent not deemed to dangerous to be trusted with a gun, has a right to a gun.

Ergo, background checks, by depriving criminals and the mentally incompetent of guns, prevent people from defending themselves.

Again, that's not my thinking, but that's how the 'everybody needs to be armed' crowd thinks.

[Yupster]

27. Here's what I've heard

A woman has a fight with her boyfriend. She is afraid he will try to kill her so she goes to buy a pistol.

She starts the background check process and is killed three hours later when the boyfriend breaks into her house and beats her to death while dhe is waiting for the process to get her the gun.

[kydo]

38. Oh so now they care about women being abused

But I am sure it is only within the "very breathing thing must not be denied the right to get a gun," argument. Gotta love the humor in the crazy huh?

[hunter]

39. We had a neighbor who shot her boyfriend with his own gun.

He ran out into the street naked, his leg bleeding. I suspect girlfriend was aiming for his dangly bits, but she missed by a couple of inches.

The fire department arrived first, and then the police. They were all standing behind the fire truck, using it as a shield for about an hour, until the police convinced our neighbor to put the gun down and leave the house.

It was a bloody nuisance because the police blocked off the entire street and I had errands to run.

I'll bet boyfriend owned a gun for "self defense."

Ha ha!

[Yavin4]

42. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to call the police before buying a gun?

She would have no experience and training with a fire arm to use it effectively.

[Yupster]

50. May have already had a restraining order

Women are killed every year by men who by court order are not allowed within hundreds of yards of them. You know, sometimes criminals don't follow the law.

[napi21]

8. What thst nut sasid isn't true, of course, but I think I have the answer to WHY he said it.

There was an article in our local paper this morning (The Gainesville Times) about the Presidents executive order regarding guns. It was the usual drivel, and then the writer quoted a resident and his comments. "They're going to take our guns! That's what they've always been after and this puts them closer." I believe THAT is what's behind ALL the other outrageous statements we hear.

I hadn't had my first cup of coffee yet, and got more upset than usual over this stupidity, so I sent the writer at the paper my comments.

"They're gonna take our guns!" I'm 72 years old and the first time I heard that what when I met my future father-in-law in 1959. During the various conversations that evening, the They're 'gonna take all our guns' statement was made. That was 56 years ago!!! IT'S NEVER HAPPENED! During those years, there were several Democratic administrations that also had a congress controlled by Democrats, and they STILL NEVER CAME FOR YOUR GUNS! Time usually proves statements to be true or false. Isdn't 56+ years long enough for you to realize that statement is a LIE?"

I hope he will put my response in one of his future articles.

[hollowdweller]

9. I hear you. I'm 55 years old and I still have nearly all the guns I've bought since I was 13.

Nobody has ever taken them.

I thought the Heller decision, which says the right to own guns is an individual right, would make many gun people more willing to accept background checks and some other measures that would prevent guns from getting to the mentally ill or criminals.

I was wrong though..the paranoia runs too deep.

Here's one thing I don't understand though.

Being a shooter and gun owner myself, I talk with a lot of rabid gun owners. They are afraid of gun registration and background checks and are sort of afraid background checks will result in a secret list of gun owners that the gov't will then use to round up guns at a later date.

Yet these same people have applied and got "curio and relic" firearm licenses which allow them to buy firearms thru the mail that are deemed to be collector guns.

Yet they see nothing wrong with applying for that license from BATF.

Go figure.....

[jeff47]

16. They also seem to think that an evil, despotic government would be unable

to get their hands on the NRA membership list.

[lancer78]

41. and roe v wade

Was supposed to settle the abortion issue.

[merrily]

51. Funny that.

No, not at all funny.

[GGJohn]

10. It doesn't and as an avid firearm owner and firearms rights person,

I absolutely support Pres. Obama's EA's, but, as he acknowledged, it won't have a big impact on firearm violence, but it will make it harder for prohibited persons from easily getting firearms.

[Action_Patrol]

11. Homer Simpson from 20 years ago...

"5 day waiting period? But I'm mad now!"

[davidn3600]

14. Stronger background checks would not have prevented any of the mass shootings

Most of these people PASSED background checks. Most of them had no prior criminal history.

[groundloop]

15. So we should just bury our heads in the sand and not even TRY to do anything?

I'm not sure if your statement is true or not, I'm not going to waste my time trying to do the research. However, if a background check could have prevented just 10% gun fatalities it's worth it. At least background checks will keep SOME people from purchasing guns who shouldn't be allowed to.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. We could also outlaw the names "Earl" and "Lee" since so many notorious killers have one or both

of those names. As long as we feel the need to do something.

[Duckhunter935]

32. well it is true

And that is why it is being ridiculed for doing little or nothing. The best part is on the mental health as 2/3 of firearms deaths are suicides. Background checks tend to do very little to nothing on those too.

[Nac Mac Feegle]

17. You wouldn't be able to defend yourself from a nutcase with a gun

Because the nutcase couldn't get a gun due to the background check.

[phylny]

21. I want gun owners to tell us what will work to stop this seemingly daily carnage.

Other societies have figured this out. We obviously haven't. So, what would work? How do we keep mentally unstable people and criminals from owning guns? People who have stolen guns haven't stolen one from me, because I don't own one.

Our country put men on the moon. Surely someone can figure this out. I'll be happy to hear what gun owners have to say, because they're smart enough to come up with a solution, I'm sure.

[lancer78]

26. I got ideas

But would require more work then what people would be willing to do. Gun violence is nothing more then a sympton of the disease running rampant in america.

[hack89]

31. Strong social safety net, universal health care, better education, eliminate drug gangs

most other societies look after their citizens much better than we do. They address root causes.

[Duckhunter935]

33. yep, that is a good starting list

[Brickbat]

36. Lots of ideas.

But they take work, money and time, because these efforts would support, care for and ideally prevent people from becoming a criminal or a danger if mentally unstable. We need to change the culture of stigmatization against getting help for one's self or family when it comes to mental health care. We need to address our country's culture of violence through governmental, private and nonprofit work to break the cycle of violence in families. We can respect anti-bullying initiatives instead of laughing them off. We can fix our child welfare infrastructure and fund education in a way that fewer kids fall through the cracks and more get the help they need. We need to strengthen our economy and our social safety net. And on and on. It's all connected and it takes a lot more than just "banning guns" but the payoffs are certainly worth it, I think.

[whatthehey]

37. In the probably vain hope that you are seriously interested

Rather than seeking to bait.

Societal:
Generally speaking violence of any kind comes mostly albeit not universally from lack of opportunities and hope in a peaceful life so:

Minimum income level
Strong vocational, trade, technical and academic training programs heavily concentrated in poor areas
Stigma-free anonymous mental health counselling
Investment in equalizing school equipment, facilities and staffing regardless of area wealth
Universal health care
As appropriate, legalization or decriminalization of drugs and substitution of free treatment programs

Judicial:
Doing pretty much anything wrong with a gun is already a serious crime as it obviously should be but pririties are misaligned so:

Eliminate custodial sentences for peaceful drug crimes except selling nasty stuff to the underage to make room for stronger sentences for crimes using guns
Mandatory life for intentional, nonjustified assault with a discharged firearm regardless of extent of injury caused.
Double sentences for robberies, burglaries etc committed while armed even if gun is not fired
Minimum 10 years for illegal possession of a firearm by violent felons etc

Gun ownership:
Most of the concerns of gunowners are related to potential confiscation so to get progress here compromise will be required so:

Registration, licensing with safety tests and stringent universal background checks in return for explicitly stated irrevocable universal constitutional right to possess any non-auto firearm for any individual adult passing the above regardless of where in the US they live, free from any stronger local laws and with license forfeiture possible only on conviction of a violent crime against persons.

Several of these would doubtless require SCOTUS review and even I should not be surprised amendments, but you asked for what might work not what would be politically easy.

[phylny]

47. Sure I'm interested, and thanks.

I'm really tired of gun owners saying there's nothing we can do. You and others who responded to my question have been generally thoughtful giving ideas of what we can do.

[NickB79]

48. Homicides committed with guns have already dropped 50% in the past 25 years

IE, we're at the same level of gun crime today that we were at in the late 1960's.

Studying why that happened would be a good place to start.

[Rex]

22. They don't that is a bullshit argument, there are 300 million guns floating around

in circulation. Anyone can get a gun to defend themselves. Laws pffftt.

[lancer78]

25. probably the same explanation

On how banning abortions after 20 weeks prevents women from getting abortions. Hint: its all "slippery slope" answers.

[davidpdx]

28. I have no illusion that President Obama's EA is the be all end all in terms of ending gun violence

What it comes down to is it's better than nothing, which is exactly what Congress has done for the last 7 years on gun control. They are more worried about banning abortion, banning contraceptives (and Planned Parenthood), and repealing the ACA. That being said I am still glad he did what he could.

It's going to take Congressional action to make a real dent in this problem. I wouldn't expect any serious gun control measure to get a vote until 2021. Meanwhile the death toll per year from gun deaths will go up.

[Lee-Lee]

30. Background checks done right and with common sense wouldn't

But every bill that's been prop sped to date for UBC does it in a way that makes getting the check done costly and time consuming- putting barriers in the way.

Make a NICS check an app, don't require a time costuming drive to a dealer during his business hours, lots of paperwork, a 5 minute to 3 business wait for the check to finish and a $25-75 fee at the dealer for doing the paperwork and check. That's what all the proposed laws have called for.

And the reason they write it that way instead of allowing NICS to be an app is because they want to put barrier like that in play- it's the same mentality as the assholes in Alabama requiring photo ID to vote then closing half the drivers license offces.

And the proposed UBC laws make even simple loaning a firearm a felony- some state version proposed would make handing yor shotgun to your hunting partner while you tie your shoe an "unlawful transfer" and a felony. That's idiotic and just designed to allow them to jail people for any excuse they can find.

So, a properly written UBC law isn't a problem at all. So far every passed or proposed UBC law has included substantial barriers and costs to lawful gun ownership and that's not acceptable.

I borrowed 4 guns last week from another instructor to teach a firearms safety class. We are both licensed instructors, we both have concealed carry permits making us exempt from the NICS check, we both have lots of other guns (and these were all 50+ year old oddballs of the type nobody uses for a crime). Under the last proposed UBC bill on a federal level we would have had to visit a dealer during his business hours, he would have logged the guns in his books just as if he bought them from my friend, then I would have filled out all the paperwork like I was buying them, he would photocopy my CCW in place of a background check, we would pay $100 and leave- then 2 days later when I returned them we would have had to go back to a dealer and do it all in reverse- even though no background check was ever called on because we are both exempt because we have CCWs.

That's idiotic. And if a person is poor making them travel to a gun shop and pay a fee to get a firearm may be a substantial burden to their ability to obtain a gun for self defense. So pass it right, open NICS to everyone and make it easy and free to use.

Of course there is the who argument that gun ownership is a right just like voting, so if voter ID laws are a substantial burden to exercising ones right requiring an ID to exercise another right can be argued to be the same...... I understand there are some challenges to state UBC laws in the works right now that are waiting to see how Federal courts rule on voter ID as it applies to requiring an ID to exercise a right.

[whatthehey]

35. Well I suppose

It does technically detract from the ability of felons, the underage and those judged mentally deficient to use guns to defend themselves. But generally speaking that's a risk those of us who are none of the above have found to be better than having the buggers carrying guns in the first place.

[Glassunion]

44. Simple...

We already have the NFA laws (1930's ish)
We already have the updates to those laws (1960's ish)
Then the Brady law (1980's)

These are all federal laws. So the only thing left is state laws that number in the thousands. Everything from licensing, background checks, to the number of rounds your legally allowed to have in your rifle to hunt with.

Now this widening of scope as to who would be defined as a dealer would widen the blanket of those who would have to be federally licensed to sell firearms, and would require more background (BG) checks. This is a bad thing...

As you know there are millions of BG checks every year. This would further burden the system that processes BG checks.

Now imagine little old me, walking down the street when suddenly I'm set upon by a pack of ne'er-do-wells who are too lazy to find a job, and wish to quickly do me harm and take my money. Now I do have one thing going for me, as I am a decent runner (HS Varsity Track Team), so I take off running up the street. Now I know that on the next block is... we'll call him Phil. Now Phil has a little side business that he does. He will simply buy a gun or two from the want ads, fix them up, and then sell them for a few bucks. Now normally, I could just buy a gun from Phil with no back ground check since he really isn't a dealer. However with the new expansion of who is indeed a dealer, now Phil has to go out, get a license and run BG checks. Now Phil is a law abiding citizen, so he did get licensed, and now runs BG checks on all sales. So I run up the stairs to his apartment with these bad men chasing me, with huge knives I might add. I quickly knock, and Phil opens the door. Now normally I could slap some quick cash down on the table, and have a firearm. But now I slap down the cash, and Phil hands me the ATF form (4473 I think?). I quickly fill it out (I hear commotion at the bottom of the stairs) and hand it to Phil. He dials his phone (I hear them on the stairs), and starts to key in the phone prompts. But here is the problem... This now overtaxed approval system is running slowly (they kick in the door), and he has no response yet... I'm yelling to Phil, "Give me the gun!". But all Phil can do is stand there on hold, holding his finger up in the "one moment" gesture as I'm stabbed to death by some very winded and pissed off ne'er-do-wells in Phil's living room. Now I'm dead, as I was unable to defend myself thanks to these widening background checks. Thanks Obama!

[beevul]

45. It probably has something to do with registration.

Anti-gun parties have repeatedly made clear just how such lists would be used by them. One need look no farther than the outing of concealed carry holders on a map, and the SKS confiscation letters in CA for proof.

And since none of you seem any too keen on ensuring that any UBC system would operate without such a list, people are right to feel reluctant.

Design a system in which zero buyer or seller information is retained, and no gun information is ever entered, and it may well be better received.

[LannyDeVaney]

49. Did you hear the rape victim on CNN tonight at the President's townhall?

She was identified as an NRA supporter, and asked the President why he was making it harder for her to get a gun.

Is she just brainwashed, or did she admit she would not pass a background check?

Gun nuts are sick pathetic humans who dance on the graves of children.