If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   NRA: We can't catch every criminal out there, so why bother with background checks at all?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 382
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, waste of time, background checks, crimes  
•       •       •

2902 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jan 2013 at 5:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 05:35:13 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?


Registration and following of all firearms.
 
2013-01-29 05:35:26 PM  

Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.


"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09
 
2013-01-29 05:35:47 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?


Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.
 
2013-01-29 05:35:53 PM  

Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.


The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.
 
2013-01-29 05:36:37 PM  

Saiga410: And I do not follow how being against universal background coincides with the NRA being the gun manufacturers lacky. This will opposition will not affect OEM directed sales.


It affected one.

www.veteranstoday.com
 
2013-01-29 05:36:49 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-29 05:36:53 PM  

Thrag: Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...


President Reagan was shot at point blank range while surrounded by the Secret Service, but guns will totally protect you from crime!
 
2013-01-29 05:36:59 PM  

Saiga410: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Registration and following of all firearms.


Bwahhahahhaa!
 
2013-01-29 05:37:12 PM  
FTFA: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.
 
2013-01-29 05:38:23 PM  

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.


We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?
 
2013-01-29 05:38:28 PM  
"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.


I think background checks are a good idea but he's right here, there's only so far you can or should go in trying to make society safe for people who care nothing for society. At some point you have to direct your efforts to taking violent people off the streets in the short term, and producing fewer of them in the long term.
 
2013-01-29 05:38:59 PM  
While we're ready to participate in a meaningful effort to solve these pressing problems

Bwahhahahhaa!
 
2013-01-29 05:40:09 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Saiga410: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Registration and following of all firearms.

Bwahhahahhaa!


It will happen. Eventually. All vehicle need to be registered, and not owning a vehichkeis far more important in American life than owning a gun.
 
2013-01-29 05:40:42 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.
 
2013-01-29 05:41:10 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.


I have yet to see clean data on the % of P2P purchases where a weapon is sold to someone that would be stopped (not involving criminal to criminal sales). I am on the fence, I do not think it would be offensive to have universal but I would like to see solid data that a decent amount of sales would stop because of this before I make a call.
 
Bf+
2013-01-29 05:41:24 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F*ck the NRA

/seriously... f*ck these "people"



ThisityThisThis.
It's as though their response to murdered 5 year olds is to actively court criminals / mass murderers.
Fark them right in the ear.
 
2013-01-29 05:42:10 PM  
If someone can make a case that the additional checks would actually make a difference, I'd support it. As it is, it's just a feel good, emotional knee jerk response. Crims get guns just as easily as they get illegal drugs. Making non-criminal citizens jump through more hoops accomplishes nothing.

Making you sign a form for cold medicine has made ZERO difference in stopping meth abuse. Yet we do it. It's pointless.
 
2013-01-29 05:43:12 PM  

oldass31: FTFA: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.


I got ripped to pieces for saying this just a couple days ago. How quickly the crazy ideas become logical ones in gun threads.
 
2013-01-29 05:43:49 PM  
Criminals aren't as stupid as people are want to believe.
The interception rate for the system we have is less than three percent, which means the crooks are going elsewhere and won't stumble into an "improved check" at any meaningful rate.

/currently that elsewhere is private sales.
/when that route is closed, it will be thefts.
/then imports, most likely.
/if you don't do something about the criminals, they'll just improvise.
 
2013-01-29 05:44:07 PM  

mark12A: If someone can make a case that the additional checks would actually make a difference, I'd support it. As it is, it's just a feel good, emotional knee jerk response. Crims get guns just as easily as they get illegal drugs. Making non-criminal citizens jump through more hoops accomplishes nothing.

Making you sign a form for cold medicine has made ZERO difference in stopping meth abuse. Yet we do it. It's pointless.


Where do you think guns that criminals use come from? If you're not able or willing to get a gun legitimately, you get it from a private seller, or an illegal arms dealer. Cutting off one of those two narrows the supply altogether.
 
2013-01-29 05:44:14 PM  

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.


Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.
 
2013-01-29 05:44:57 PM  

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


I don't know where you stand in terms of gun control, but if you are against licensing, registration, etc then it says something when the pro Second Amendment folks are calling you out on your loose positions on gun control.

/if you do support rational controls on firearms, then nevermind, but the point still stands
 
2013-01-29 05:45:10 PM  
I'm starting to think these guys house the criminally insane much in the same way the Catholic Church houses child molesters and pedophiles.
 
2013-01-29 05:45:52 PM  
So they don't want background checks and their solution is to put armed guards in every school. Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? I see no way that Republicans will get behind an unfunded mandate like that.
 
2013-01-29 05:46:25 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.


Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.
 
2013-01-29 05:46:25 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.


Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.
 
2013-01-29 05:47:01 PM  

stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

 
2013-01-29 05:47:38 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.
 
2013-01-29 05:47:42 PM  

whistleridge: By that logic:

> why bother having police? we'll never catch all the criminals
> why bother having firemen? houses are still going to burn down
> why bother having laws? people are just going to do what they want anyway
> why bother having doctors? people are still going to get sick and die
> why bother having taxes? people will just cheat on them
> why bother teachingn students to spell? they'll just ignore it when they text
> why bother feeding your kids? they'll just be hungry again tomorrow

His cunning plan, I don't think he's thought it all the way through...


Hell, you can't shoot every burglar, either.
 
2013-01-29 05:48:31 PM  

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.


justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.


I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.
 
2013-01-29 05:49:20 PM  
It's cause all you crazy libtards are all about immanetizing the escutcheon and shiat. You want a perfect world and there's no way to do that until Jesus comes back.

Silly libtards.
 
2013-01-29 05:50:33 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE SPINNING IN THEIR GRAVES THAT WE DARE LEGISLATE THIS EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY ALLOWS US TO IN THE CONSTITUTION


Are we talking about the voter ID laws now?
 
2013-01-29 05:51:23 PM  

justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09


I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.
 
2013-01-29 05:52:13 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.

I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.


Do you believe there should be any restrictions what so ever on who you sell your guns to?

Should you be legally permitted to sell them to felons? Minors?
 
2013-01-29 05:52:46 PM  
perfect solution fallacy

The perfect solution fallacy
is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.

Examples

Posit (fallacious)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

Rebuttal
Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.


Posit (fallacious)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

Rebuttal
While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.
 
2013-01-29 05:54:30 PM  

Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.


Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."
 
2013-01-29 05:54:53 PM  
I love the term "Law Abiding Gun Owners." If I'm not mistaken the orange haired idiot who shot up the theater in Colorado was a law abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.

It's ingenious to be able, by definition, to exclude any former law abiding gun owners who's actions contradict your claims about gun safety.
 
2013-01-29 05:55:24 PM  

Thrag: Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...


Because some of us have junk so small it looks like we just finished taking a dip in the Atlantic ocean in the dead of winter. Because... SHRINKAGE!
 
2013-01-29 05:55:34 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: perfect solution fallacy

The perfect solution fallacy
is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.

Examples

Posit (fallacious)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

Rebuttal
Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.


Posit (fallacious)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

Rebuttal
While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.


damnit I knew i had the wrong fallacy. Thank you sir.
 
2013-01-29 05:56:00 PM  
The GOP: If it doesn't work perfectly, don't even attempt to do something.
The Democrats: Let's at least try it.

Sorry 'C'-onservatives, you're starting to lose this fight.

Remember, think of the children. Y'know, the ones that are already dead.
 
2013-01-29 05:56:21 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."


But my mental health history is.
 
2013-01-29 05:56:25 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.


Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.
 
2013-01-29 05:57:24 PM  
Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?
 
2013-01-29 05:58:26 PM  
LaPierre: " Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."

I cannot think of a single person I know who uses a gun to protect their family. But I do know many people who own guns that use them as a penile perception embellishment device. This includes the wimmin.
 
2013-01-29 05:58:26 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept


I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.
 
2013-01-29 05:58:37 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.

I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.


You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)
 
2013-01-29 05:59:09 PM  

Captain Darling: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.


I think background checks are a good idea but he's right here, there's only so far you can or should go in trying to make society safe for people who care nothing for society. At some point you have to direct your efforts to taking violent people off the streets in the short term, and producing fewer of them in the long term.


You are absolutely correct, Darling.
 
2013-01-29 05:59:27 PM  
Ow! That was my feelings!

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"


In my experience, background checks usually take all of fifteen minutes, max. It would require a little more money, but I imagine we could make that process available to private sellers as well, as you seem to be suggesting.

Do any anti-firearm people here see any huge problem with this idea?
 
2013-01-29 05:59:29 PM  
Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?
 
2013-01-29 05:59:54 PM  
Cool, now let's end the war on drugs, for the same reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report