April 7, 2013

Every Objection to Background Checks, Debunked -- Daily Intelligencer

Every Objection to Background Checks, Debunked -- Daily Intelligencer


Streak said...

My personal favorite is one about criminals not obeying laws. That logic is so very flawed and tiresome. Of course none of these laws will eliminate bad people getting guns. But it might make it harder.

steves said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steves said...

Part II

"But under the Gun Control Act of 1968, licensed gun dealers — like a gun shop or Walmart, for example — have been required to keep records of gun sales for twenty years, and over four decades later, it has yet to lead us down a slippery slope to a national gun registry. That doesn't seem very slippery."

I think the concern of some gun owners is that a registry could, at some point if the law changes, could be used for confiscation. This has happened elsewhere, such as Canada, Germany, California, and NYC.

steves said...

Part III

"Implicit in Boehner's theory that criminals will just find a different way to acquire guns is that criminals right now are buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers. That seems like a pretty good argument for expanding background checks to cover those sources."

Except they are not. The primary sources for guns used in crimes are straw purchases through a family member that is not prohibited (39.6%) and from a black market dealer (39.2%). Criminals buying guns from a private source accounted for around 1% of sales.

In summary, we have an mistake prone system that could be expanded to cover and possibly stop the "tide" of guns that account for around 1% of where criminals get guns.

The author does make some good points, but a fair mount of his information is incorrect and he fails to take into account any of the negative aspects. The other thing that he did not address at all is how much this will cost. There are millions of gun sales every year that will have to be covered by a background check if this passes. How much will it cost?

Streak said...

Sure. Cost. That really makes sense. We can't afford to even try?

I take you at your word that you know more about this than the author and appreciate the correction, even if you are a goddamn asshole about it: (You used to say that facts matter, but apparently that doesn't apply when you are promoting an anti-gun agenda.) Seriously, fuck you. I have tried and tried and tried, and all i get from you is assholeness. You are good at it, I will admit.

Streak said...

I just about took this post down too, but decided not to. If I had any good faith sense that Steve had any genuine interest in conversation, I might be less pissed off. But as it is, no offense, Steve, but you appear to be, on gun issues, and asshole looking for an argument--roaming the internet looking for anyone who dares disparage gun owners and taking your revenge.

And my response seems to make no difference. any criticism of gun rights gets both barrels--must be your favorite metaphor. Forgotten, and certainly not acknowledged have been all of my concessions on AW or respect for the 2nd amendment. None of that matters.

You are so far gone that you are trying to recruit homophobic troll Gary to the NRA. I hate to break this to you, Steve, but I don't want Gary to be a Democrat or join any organization that I value. I don't want the racists either, nor the idiots.

But you do. Anyone who defends gun rights, even if they be a racist homophobic moron--is your friend. And those of us who dare speak ill of gun owners--get ready.

As Bob said, this all makes me like gun owners less. It certainly makes me like you less.

Take that for what you will. I honestly don't care any more.

steves said...

I will admit that most of my assholeness is directed at the author of the article because I suspect he knew. I apologize for the facts comment. It was unnecessarily combative.

As for Gary joining whatever group, you or I wanting or not wanting him in either group has no actual bearing on whether he can join. We aren't talking about a fraternal order or some group that restricts membership. These are both open groups.

steves said...

Part I (updated with retraction)

Even a brief perusal suggests that this site should possibly change the name from intelligencer. I could suggest dumberer or lazier.

Let's take a look at yet another piece of lazy journalism. For the life of me, I can't understand why they don't bother trying to find someone that knows something about this subject.

"It only applies to purchases made from licensed gun dealers, as opposed to those at gun shows or from some guy on the Internet, a loophole more gaping than the Goatse anus."

Ah, the tired, old "gun show loophole." In the vast majority of gun shows, the only people allowed to sell guns are dealers, who are required to do the same paperwork and background checks that they would if they were selling in their store. Liability concerns have all but eliminated private sales at gun shows. I don't know of any. Besides, the studies that have been done on criminal acquisitions of guns places gun shows as the source of .5 to .7% of the ones used in crimes.

Internet sales of guns must go through an FFL, so these are subject to background checks and FBI approval.

"If he's trying to sell a gun to a pawn shop (these sales can be subject to background checks), he can be found to be owning his gun illegally."

Honestly, I am not sure that some states may require a background check when selling to a pawn shop, but there are no federal laws that require a pawn shop to check on a gun that a person is pawning. The NICS (the background check system that FFLs use) system cannot be use to check on sellers. It may only be used to check on a prospective buyer.

"The salient figure in the statistic cited in the GOP letter is that 76,142 permits were denied in 2010. That means 76,142 guns didn't go into the hands of felons, the mentally unstable, people under a domestic violence restraining order, or others who society has decided should not be allowed to own a gun. This happens to be the primary purpose of background checks, not hunting down people who lied on their applications."

The author should have read the study that he quoted. Some of those people were improperly denied. You can be denied if your name is the same as someone that is prohibited. This can be especially problematic if your surname is something common. Of those that were referred to DOJ for prosecution, 40% were without prosecutive merit, and nearly 12% were found not to actually be prohibited. Whoops. I sure sleep more soundly knowing this system is is in place.

"In fact, though, there won't be any kind of national gun registry (the White House has said Obama doesn't support it), and the government won't know what kind of gun you've purchased. According to current law, the government destroys records of gun sales in 24 hours and that's not going to change."

This is also not entirely true. NICS doesn't keep data past 24 hours, but there is another record. Anyone that buys from an FFL must fill out a from 4473. This includes basic information, such as name, address, DOB, SSN, and place of birth. It also includes the make and model of the gun and the serial number. This must be kept by the FFL and is subject to inspection by the BATFE at any time. In other words, the BATFE can show up at your house or place of business and demand to see your 4473s at any time and you are required by law to provide them. These records must be kept for 25 years and if you get rid of your FFL or lose it, these records must be turned over to the BATFE, where they can be kept indefinitely.

The author does seem to mention this later, though he has the time frame wrong, but he is at least close.

steves said...

With all due respect, who is looking for an argument? I have been coming to this blog for several years now. In the last two months, 99% of a fairly prolific period of posts have been anti gun. Prior to that, only a handful of your posts dealt with guns.

Streak said...

Yeah, that is because 20 kids were gunned down in a school. That changed things for a lot of us. That is the part you don't seem to respect.

Apology accepted, btw, on the other part. but you still don't get my point on Gary. As I stated before, I am not an idiot. I know these groups are open. The point is not that Gary can join. The point is, should grownups like us ask him to be a part of our group even when he holds opinions that we find to be odious? Are we willing to openly recruit bigots, in other words, to further a different political goal?

If Gary were simply spouting homophobia, you would not have reached out to him. And that is the point. If he were talking about a coming race war, you might not say, "hey, how about coming over to our side? After all, you will need guns in that race war."

steves said...

I do respect that, but question the appropriateness of infringing on fundamental liberties in a way that may be unconstitutional and ineffective. You sound remarkably like the people that justified going to war because of 9/11. Critics of those actions were shouted down with calls of "what about the victims?"

Streak said...

I don't think you know how to do this very well. I say one thing about 20 dead kids and you compare me to the people who started an unjust war?

You asked why I was posting so much stuff on guns. That was why. The politics changed for everyone other than the gun culture. I answered. You accused me of essentially blind deceit. If that is respect, you might need to work a little harder.


Streak said...

And let's remember what have become fundamental liberties.

1) Different styles of guns--especially those that are most like the military ones. (Of course, we can't make fun of them--except for Smitty--for wanting to play soldier.) Of course, we already do that with automatic weapons, as we have discussed before. But don't dare take away our pretend military weapons. We need those for the coming apocalypse.

2) Not being checked out to make sure that you are not a domestic abuser or someone else who can't own weapons. Or that you might be a member of a neo-nazi group planning a race war. Oh wait, those are good defenders of gun rights.

3) Tracking weapons. We track everything else, especially those things that might kill people, but tracking weapons, weapons sales, and bullets is deemed an "infringement on an individual liberty."

4) large ammunition delivery devices--sorry, I don't know the technical name. I grew up shooting pump action shotguns and lever action rifles. Even the concept of semi-auto seemed like cheating when we were talking about deer (I know, I know, the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting) and not terribly important for that home invasion everyone is prepping for. No, a fundamental right is the right to shoot as many bullets as possible without having to reload.

5) doing research that makes guns look bad is also an infringement on fundamental rights. Even information is wrong. Because people might do a study that finds that guns are dangerous to society. Or that they lead to a higher rate of successful suicide. We don't want to know stuff like that, and have a fundamental right not to.

6) and finally, a fundamental right is the right to be paranoid to the point of fear mongering. Perhaps that is a fundamental right. It isn't a public good, but it is something that gun people flog as much as they can. Even here on my blog. Even here.

steves said...

No, I am just saying that changing laws because of logic and reason is good idea. Changing laws after the fact because of a tragic event and because of emotion is a bad idea.

steves said...

1. We also need them to stop brown people from coming over the border. You are right of course, those kinds of guns are only useful for playing. That is why many of them are referred to by .gov as PDWs (personal defense weapons).

2. Domestic abusers are already checked out and prohibited? What are you talking about? Neo-nazi groups planning a race way? Hello, 1969 called.

3. Tracking weapons. They are already tracked. Ever heard of a BATFE trace? Are you talking about some kind of radio transmitter/GPS thing in every gun?

4. The technical term, depending on the gun, would be standard capacity magazine. You used pump shotguns and lever guns? Both of those were used by the military before they were embraced by civilians.

5. There is plenty of research that is funded by all sorts of sources that support an anti-gun position. Some of it has been critiqued or disproven. Doesn't this happen with all sorts of research? Isn't it the point of peer review?

6. I suppose fear mongering is a right, as it is free speech, but you think any concern about federal gun policy is fear mongering, whether it is paranoid or not.

Streak said...

Yeah, of course. You weren't suggesting that I had abandoned all logic at all. You asked why I posted more on guns, I answered. You accused me of being just emotional rather than logical. Bullshit.

1), always nice when you use logical fallacies like reductio ad absurdem. Makes you that much less reasonable. I never said those guns were only for play acting. Jesus. I said that a lot of gun owners were playacting and wanted the guns for their look. Smitty said the same goddamn thing.

2) Glad domestic abusers are checked and stopped. Not through private sales, I am guessing? But then again, as per your responses, I am an idiot and overly emotional, so probably don't know shit.

As for race wars, always nice when you ignore the rise of white supremacy and neo-nazis. but then again, so much easier to dismiss them.

3) My understanding (and again, you believe me to be an emotional idiot) is that we are not allowed to track inventories or how different gun dealers deal with their inventory. But then again, I am stupid.

4) Your point about pump action and the military? Because I don't get it. Gee, I am shocked that the military developed more deadly ways to kill people. That is kind of their point. Doesn't actually mean that the rest of us need them. But why not simply ignore the point. So much easier.

5) My point was that the NRA and Republicans have blocked the CDC from gun research and have blocked research money in other areas. I agree completely about peer review. Let's let the studies go. As I have said so tiresomely that I am close to sure you can't read--I am not convinced that we should ban AW's or that gun control will work. But whatever. So much easier to deride and be the ass.

6) Ah, my favorite. Can't answer the question as to why your organization encourages paranoia--as a mental health profession, that part of you knows that paranoia isn't a good thing, but as a gun culture zealot, you can't quite come out and criticize it. Nope, better to then switch sides and accuse ME of being paranoid or encouraging paranoia. I try not to (not that facts matter with you and my arguments any longer), but even if I did, that would make your defense of paranoia somehow legitimate how?

steves said...

Obviously you can't read, because if you could, then you would know that the ban on research is almost meaningless and studies still get funded by the CDC and other gov't entities. Besides, those are hardly the only sources of money. If you don't believe me, head on over to one of the various gun control sites and see all of the research they quote (e.g. the VPC).

If you were remotely sincere about having a rational discussion, you wouldn't make such silly accusations as the one about playing soldier. I give Smitty a pass because I know he doesn't really believe very many gun owners are like that and I know he wouldn't support an all out ban on military style semi-auto guns.

I am guessing that race war startin' is probably a crime and that people conspiring to start them probably won't be caught by a private sale background check. Heck, I already showed that criminals don't get guns through private, lawful sales.

What kinds of guns should people have for self-defense? What do yo think that people should consider in purchasing a gun for self-defense? Let us assume for this discussion that this person is an otherwise well-adjusted person with a clean record. They live in area that has an average level of crime and they have around $1500 to spend.I am not looking for a specific kind of gun, just what you think should be considered.

My point on the paranoia is that some of the considerations are more legitimate than others. Some of the things that you write off as never happening are things that potentially could happen.

Streak said...

I give, Steve. You are clearly smarter than I am and know all about guns.

And thank you so much for your respect and consideration through all of this. You have been a model of decorum and civility.

Streak said...

Oops. I know you are sarcasm impaired. My comments about gun owners playing army couldn't have been just a little hyperbolic, could it? No, not at all.

My statement had to be read as a total indictment of all gun owners. Of course it had to be. That is the way an asshole looking for an argument would read it.

Streak said...

Nice bullshit on the paranoia question, btw. "Some considerations are more legitimate than others?" Really, Steve? Do tell?

The homophobic rantings of a nutjob don't seem to bother you. And I probably made up the whole right wing violence thing just because I am, as you suggested, paranoid and also can't read. I can't have read multiple stories on it, including this one?


And clearly, my fears are meaningless, as you have made quite clear. My neighbor down the street (who used to have that great bumpersticker about his gun killing fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car) shooting up the neighborhood was probably just in my imagination.

In fact, when I talk about the fears I have about guns, the real disrespect comes out. I am compared to the liars who manufactured the Iraq war. I am surprised you didn't go back to the Nazi documentarian well. "I was just making a random point, it wasn't to compare you to fascists or liars."


Streak said...

Steve, I will absolutely admit to having a pretty shitty start to this week. And I will admit to being, as a result, pretty thin skinned and impatient.

But here is how this exchange seems to go. I post something--sometimes just on a whim. You become completely offended and go all out in your outrage to prove that whoever wrote whatever I posted is a complete idiot and anyone who reads or posts his stuff is a complete idiot.

Add to that a complete condescension to anyone who supports any kind of gun control, and you hit several of my buttons. I get annoyed and when I get annoyed, I get sarcastic. We do a few exchanges of that, and then I try to walk it back and calm it down.

It is usually at that point where you, in what I am sure you believe to be a reasonable response, do something like compare my response to the liars who started the Iraq war. I know you say you didn't, but you kind of did. That pisses me off and my sarcasm comes out--and to be honest, some of that you miss.

I am not sure where to go on this. I think we need some kind of reasoned response to gun rights, but your response can be summed up as: "sure, we need reasoned response, but nothing that limits guns can do anything good so we can't do anything that limit guns or access to guns. But anything reasonable is possible. Just not anything that limits any access to guns by any nutjob."

Not sure where to go there. Every fucking proposal gets the Steve "how dare you shred the 2dn amendment and what an idiot you are."

Hell, most of our conversations started not even about gun control, but about the nutjobs that run your organization. That set you off too. Can't disparage the nutjobs. Can't make fun of any of them. Can't suggest that they are encouraging paranoia. Even when they are.

As I have said, you are making me hate guns, and hate gun rights people. If that is your goal, then well done. As I have also said, I doubt very much that you give a shit that people like me are starting to hate gun rights people. That can't be bad in a democracy, can it?

steves said...

I disagree, completely, but maybe tabling this discussion would be best for everyone involved.

I hope your week improves.