Gun Control Frenzy

[KLB]

I am NOT advocating for universal background checks, but I disagree that it would mean having to create a gun registry. I think they will push for one, but it doesnt have to create one. People can still lie about having a gun for years even if registration is required at the time of the sell. I think that their end goal is a registry and probably a ban of some sort though.

Registration would have to be required period, not at the time of sale. Then you would be unable to transfer a gun not registered after the registry is closed.

As GP said, without the registry there is no way to enforce UBCs. They have been tried and failed in many places in the past, including here in Indiana.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[KG1]

Biden penned an op-ed in the NYT basically saying that if he’s elected POTUS he will push for a re-enactment of the “assault weapon” and hi-cap magazine ban without any sunset.

Not only that he will push to make it harder for manufacturers to design modifications that would circumvent the ban.

He will also push for a UBC, gun buybacks and even a revival of “smart” gun technology.

That’s quite the list there.

 

[jamil]

"Universal background checks" = Federal gun registration
"Universal background checks" = Federal gun registration
"Universal background checks" = Federal gun registration
"Universal background checks" = Federal gun registration
"Universal background checks" = Federal gun registration
"Universal background checks" = Federal gun registration


Really shouldn't take this lightly. This, alone, would make Trump the worst 2A President in recent history... if passed.

Here's hoping it doesn't get anywhere.... Or that he knows what he's doing and doesn't plan on passing it (even though he sure is talking it up).

Registration leads to...

People insisted, and some still insist, that he knew what he was doing with the bumpfire stocks. So I'm not putting much faith in Trump's knowing what he's doing saving the 2A. Rather, I kinda suspect he knows what he's doing and that he's not a lot more 2A friendly than your average Fudd.

 

[jamil]

It's unenforceable without a registry.

Two people do a private sale - How does anyone know? How do you make them do a now-required background check? You can't without the guns being tracked by a registry. So you go to JimBob and say "Hey where did you get that gun?", "Oh I've had it for years." UBC is meaningless without registry. The entire goal of getting UBC passed is to get a federal registry.

Just to explain that a bit for anyone wondering why we would say that: It's not an automatic assumption that UBC = registration. It's just that we see this as a logical next step. It's not clear that the criteria used for UBC will be effective in stopping the next shooter. It would have stopped almost none of the high profile mass shootings.

So let's say UBC passes, and then after the next mass shooting--there will be another one because we can't focus on the actual causes, we only get to focus on gun control--when CNN brings people on to say pro-gun rights people have blood on their hands, and starts wringing their hands for the next big gun control item, what's next? AWB is always on the table, but at some point, the twitterotti will be asking, now why didn't universal background checks work? Because many people are selling guns without doing the UBC, because it's not enforceable. Solution? Registration. We demand registration or you're a Nazi White Nationalist biggot who has the blood of every person ever killed by a gun, on your hands.

 

[jamil]

Registration would have to be required period, not at the time of sale. Then you would be unable to transfer a gun not registered after the registry is closed.

As GP said, without the registry there is no way to enforce UBCs. They have been tried and failed in many places in the past, including here in Indiana.

Colorado is claiming success with theirs. They say this year they've had something like 160K UBC's performed and have blocked something like 3500 people. One of them they claim likely stopped a mass shooting. He failed the background check because he was committed to a mental institution in 2016. They reported that he's currently in custody for child pornography, and presumably during the FBI investigation, they found search results for synagogues and mosques, which he labeled his "hunting list". Incidentally, it's unclear that it was a private sale that was blocked.

Okay, so they accidentally may have stopped a mass shooting. Or, maybe not. I say accidentally because the net is so wide it's possible it could stop someone from legally purchasing a firearm who has a malicious intent, but at the expense of stopping many who have no malicious intents. I think it's reasonable to say that not all people committed to mental institutions are violent. Should we assume that someone committed for eating disorders is such a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms illegally? The criteria that made the pedophile fail the background check wasn't his pedophilia, and it wasn't the fact that he was searching mosques and synagogues for his "hunting list". It was something unrelated. It was luck.

So what about the unlucky ones who are blocked but have no ill intent?

Oh. And by the way, they admit that the number of background checks in Colorado haven't gone up since the law was put into place. As I said, the article didn't say whether this guy attempted to purchase the gun from a private citizen or dealer. So it's dishonest of them to claim victory when the same guy could have been "stopped" by luck without that law.

 

[2A_Tom]

Was the UBC part of an NICS check or a FTF?

 

[KLB]

Colorado is claiming success with theirs. They say this year they've had something like 160K UBC's performed and have blocked something like 3500 people. One of them they claim likely stopped a mass shooting. He failed the background check because he was committed to a mental institution in 2016. They reported that he's currently in custody for child pornography, and presumably during the FBI investigation, they found search results for synagogues and mosques, which he labeled his "hunting list". Incidentally, it's unclear that it was a private sale that was blocked.

Okay, so they accidentally may have stopped a mass shooting. Or, maybe not. I say accidentally because the net is so wide it's possible it could stop someone from legally purchasing a firearm who has a malicious intent, but at the expense of stopping many who have no malicious intents. I think it's reasonable to say that not all people committed to mental institutions are violent. Should we assume that someone committed for eating disorders is such a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms illegally? The criteria that made the pedophile fail the background check wasn't his pedophilia, and it wasn't the fact that he was searching mosques and synagogues for his "hunting list". It was something unrelated. It was luck.

So what about the unlucky ones who are blocked but have no ill intent?

Oh. And by the way, they admit that the number of background checks in Colorado haven't gone up since the law was put into place. As I said, the article didn't say whether this guy attempted to purchase the gun from a private citizen or dealer. So it's dishonest of them to claim victory when the same guy could have been "stopped" by luck without that law.

The mere fact that the number of checks did not go up would point to it being a failure. Antis always say their laws make a difference, even if they are unable to actually quantify them with real numbers.

 

[jamil]

Was the UBC part of an NICS check or a FTF?

That's the question. It's unclear. It was an msnbc article reporting on a CBS article, so...

What's clear is that the author either doesn't know enough about the process to know how to report on it in clear terms...or, is intentionally vague.

 

[Dead Duck]

The mere fact that the number of checks did not go up would point to it being a failure. Antis always say their laws make a difference, even if they are unable to actually quantify them with real numbers.

I always love how suicides, gang related and police shootings end up in their "Mass Shooting" numbers.

 

[jamil]

The mere fact that the number of checks did not go up would point to it being a failure. Antis always say their laws make a difference, even if they are unable to actually quantify them with real numbers.

It is possible that they could stop a person who might have been a mass shooter because of a UBC. The guy they "stopped" could have attempted to buy from a private seller, and the seller initiated the background check which ultimately flagged him for his mental history. Or not. Who knows? But they report it as a success story because they later found some evidence he may have been stalking muslim/jewish targets. In reality, they threw a large net and caught something that looks like it might be a fish.

Here's what I would define as success for UBC. You stop people who, with obvious certainty, would have used the firearm for malicious purposes, and the criteria directly related to the behavior, and you don't stop people who don't.

 

[Leadeye]

The first UBC was in the 30s and still with us today in the form of the NFA. That's probably the end game for the back ground checks, afterwards they will just move on to confiscation.

 

[2A_Tom]

Has TAPS been discussed on INGO?

 

[Dead Duck]

Who died?

 

[2A_Tom]

[h=1]TAPS Act[/h]

 

[88E30M50]

I watched a Colion Noir interview is a couple of right wing idiots who kept asking ‘Why don’t we just ban assault weapons’. While is response was factually correct, I don’t think the right wing nuts care much about our ability to protect ourselves, preserve a free state and such. Every time he tried to go down that path, they shot off in different directions about how the 1st Ammendment has limitations, and so to should the 2nd.

One argument that I rarely hear is that millions of Americans bought these guns and use them for hunting, recreation and, yes, SD. You cannot just confiscate the property of millions of Americans because you don’t like that property. This is a point that needs to be made.

If they were interested in saving lives, then ban swimming pools. More children die annually in the family pool than do in shootings. Ban alcohol. More people die annually due to alcohol abuse than do in gun abuse.

If the media had ANY interest in safety, they would donate aire time to gun safety messages that helped people understand how to own a gun safely. They have no interest in safety. Their only interest is protecting themselves from the great unwashed hoarders that is the average American. Somewhere, there is some scumbag toasting these mass shooters that provide gun grabbers with their ‘evidence’ of why they want guns confiscated.

 

[KLB]

It is possible that they could stop a person who might have been a mass shooter because of a UBC. The guy they "stopped" could have attempted to buy from a private seller, and the seller initiated the background check which ultimately flagged him for his mental history. Or not. Who knows? But they report it as a success story because they later found some evidence he may have been stalking muslim/jewish targets. In reality, they threw a large net and caught something that looks like it might be a fish.

Here's what I would define as success for UBC. You stop people who, with obvious certainty, would have used the firearm for malicious purposes, and the criteria directly related to the behavior, and you don't stop people who don't.

If he really wanted to become a mass murderer, I would think he would have kept trying to acquire one.

 

[2A_Tom]

https://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2019/08/twitter-feed-claim-that-assault-weapon.html

Twitter feed :Claim that "Assault Weapon" Definition is Unimportant

Assault Weapon in New Jersey, 1990-2018, Proposed Assault Weapon on Florida Ballot Proposition. Banned in Australia

 

[2A_Tom]

https://rightwingtribune.com/2019/08/12/chuck-schumer-takes-gun/

[h=1]Schumer To Push Legislation Regulating Sale Of Body Armor To Civilians[/h]
So, now is the time to buy.

 

[jamil]

https://rightwingtribune.com/2019/08/12/chuck-schumer-takes-gun/

Schumer To Push Legislation Regulating Sale Of Body Armor To Civilians


So, now is the time to buy.

"Citizens can't have body armor so that we can shoot them" isn't really a good reason to ban body armor.