NOT Gun Control

[Onward Allusion]

Some of the longtime members know I'm fairly libertarian in my views - basically do what the heck you want and leave me alone . . . I don't normally play Monday-morning QB on the latest tragedy and frankly there are almost 7.5 B on this planet. 10, 20, or 1,000 less won't make a damn difference unless it is a loved one or friend as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, I definitely have D*-ish side...

HOWEVER, y'all ever wonder why it is so damn easy for nut jobs to get their hands on guns? Yeah, I know there are better ways to kill mass amounts of humans. Way frigging better - chain up doors and burn a place down, car/truck bomb, brew your own toxic crap and gas 'em... to kill en mass, but a gun to crazies is just more satisfying I guess. Probably not as satisfying as bashing someone's head in with a hammer but quite a bit faster and can be done from a distance.

So, back to the crazies (yes, I know it ain't PC to call 'em crazies). One side blames only the psycho nut jobs. Whereas the other side blames the evil guns. Why can't we fix this? Why can't we keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

How about . . .

- Instituting a background check that actually performs more than a lookup against a DB? How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few. Purchase pay a $20 fee for each transaction that funds the background check and mental programs. Too poor? Ok, show your SNAP card or Medicaid card. Perfect solution? Er, hell no. A Start? Maybe.

- Banning 80% kits from being sold w/o a background check. Sure, you want a ghost gun, you can have a ghost gun but not w/o a background check. You want to see if you can actually "build" a gun, go for it, but not w/o a background check. You're a prohibited person who want's to get a gun? Here's a link to Tor & use an Onion search engine. You can have one overnighted to you.

Neither of the above will prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. Yeah, I ain't that stupid. It will make it harder for crazies to get their hands on one.

[KyJim]

There are a lot easier ways to get a "ghost" gun than building an AR from an 80% lower. Buy one at a private sale. But, you say, why not require private sales to be recorded? It's too easy to buy stolen guns on the black market. Most of the "gang bangers" out there are using stolen guns.

Search social media? The current school shooting maniac aside, how many of these nut jobs would use their real names where a social media search would out them, especially if they knew social media was being searched? Plus, you get into a real issue with what constitutes a valid reason to deny a purchase. One person's statement of a sincerely held moral and political belief is another person's hate speech and harbinger of violence.

[zipspyder]

Certain authorities dropped the ball on the young man's red flags. The issue addressed should be mental health not guns.

[K_Mac]

10, 20, or 1,000 less won't make a damn difference unless it is a loved one or friend as far as I'm concerned.

You can't make a statement like the above with a smiley, and think it is OK. When 17, 58, 2,996 or any other number of people are killed in a mass attack it impacts all of us.

When the warning signs of violent mental illness are ignored, and reports to the FBI and other agencies are lost in the bureaucratic miasma, better background checks don't matter. We need to prevent mentally ill people from easy access to guns, and if more thorough background checks will help, so be it. It is a dangerous and slippery slope allowing increased governmental regulation when it comes to guns in a free society though, and we will never stop all mass violence.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few.

So you say you're libertarian, and you want government to be able to look at the social media, medical records, and federal and state criminal and civil legal records of every single citizen in a moment's notice "just to name a few?"

I'm sure that system won't be abused. And of course, that's before we even get to the efficiacy of such a system in reducing mass shootings.

And "ghost guns" have been made long before 80% receivers were sold. Heck, telescoping car radio antennas make a decent zip gun barrel (small caliber of course) Not to mention that you don't even need an 80% receiver now as proof of concept 100% AR15 receivers have been printed, as well as entire working centerfire firearms.

And honestly, the largest number of victims of "gun violence," as the media likes to call it, aren't schoolchildren killed by mass shooters; but old guys who blow their brains out with them (which, by the way, is a not only a horribly selfish and cruel thing to do to your loved ones; but also a tremendous mess).

Better mental health treatment addresses both the mass shooter problem (and prevents substitution of "mass arsonist", "mass semi-truck killer", etc.) and the single largest category of gun deaths. It will probably make a dent in gun homicides and violent crime to some degree as well.

Of course, it is also a complicated solution that requires a great deal of work and personal investment, which is why politicians never call for it except platitudinally.

[44 AMP]

How about . . .

- Instituting a background check that actually performs more than a lookup against a DB? How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few

OK, but, #1) just what good do you think that will do?, and #2) better study the numerous privacy laws, there are some things that you or I can't just "look up".

But even if you could, if you could click your mouse and have complete files on everything everyone in the country has ever done, what do you do with that information?? What CAN you do, legally??

Not very damn much.

Because, no matter what you find in their background, people are not prohibited persons until a court says they are. Not you, nor I, not even a "mental health professional" can make that call. No matter how crazy they may appear to be, or how sane seeming, rights cannot be denied, until after a court ruling.

Simply put, you cannot keep guns, or any other legal product, out of the hands of the "crazies", UNLESS they are legally ruled "crazy". And that seldom happens before they do something "crazy".

No background check can identify anyone who has not yet done anything wrong enough to be in the system. Checking their social media means NOTHING. People do lie, you know.

Even the in depth investigations used to determine security clearances don't stop all the "crazies", the guy who shot up the Pulse nightclub was a licensed security guard, passed background checks and mental health evaluations as part of his job. He wasn't a "crazy" UNTIL he opened fire in a crowded nightclub.

It's legal for a 19 year old with a clean record to buy a rifle. And an AR-15 is just a rifle. The kid may be a death cult obsessed nihilist, but until he DOES something illegal, he's has the same rights as the rest of us.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men??
Only the Shadow knows...and as far as I can see, he ain't talkin to NICS, or anyone else....

[Onward Allusion]

You can't make a statement like the above with a smiley, and think it is OK. When 17, 58, 2,996 or any other number of people are killed in a mass attack it impacts all of us.

Sure I can.

No, I don't think it is "OK".

I do think it is a TINY drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things - as a nation, as species.

It doesn't make a difference unless it's your loved one or friend.

That's not what this conversation is about, is it?

[Onward Allusion]

Guys, it ain't an all or nothing. A first step is a first step. Do I think a new and improved background check that breaks some HIPAA laws is going to fix things? Er, I don't think so. Do I think it's better than some drivel about "now is not the time....blah...blah...blah...it's a mental health issue...". Really? How about some solutions?

Pretty useless pointing out a problem without a solution or even suggestion, eh?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few.

Very.

And there's no way that sort of search could be accomplished for $20, or even $200 ... even if it were legal (which it probably isn't).

[K_Mac]

It doesn't make a difference unless it's your loved one or friend.

That's not what this conversation is about, is it?

Of course it makes a difference. If it didn't why would you bring up this subject? Have you lost a loved one or friend? Random mass killings affect all of society and each of us individually as a result.

Your view that unless the law or behavior affects you personally and directly it doesn't matter is not libertarian. It is anarchy. Without the rule of law liberty is meaningless to all but a few.

[Onward Allusion]

Very.

And there's no way that sort of search could be accomplished for $20, or even $200 ... even if it were legal (which it probably isn't).

Background checks from our HR dept gets pretty detailed. Our HR looks at credit reports, criminal, civil, & even arrest records at the State level. It doesn't cost $200. IIRC, it runs around $50. With the guberment's economy of scale it should run less.

That $20 number was just a number I threw out there. Definitely could be more $'s but the info is out there. I recently had to renew my passport (from scratch because I hadn't been out of the country in over 10 years) and it cost a little over $100. Pretty sure the background check on that was deeper than a NICS check.

Whatever solution will be a 1st step and it isn't going to be perfect. That's the problem both sides have. Ain't no magic bullet. I don't want to give up my guns. I want my hi-cap mags. I want to carry where I want w/o restrictions. At the same time, how do we stop or slow crazies from buying 'em?

[Onward Allusion]

Of course it makes a difference. If it didn't why would you bring up this subject? Have you lost a loved one or friend? Random mass killings affect all of society and each of us individually as a result.

Your view that unless the law or behavior affects you personally and directly it doesn't matter is not libertarian. It is anarchy. Without the rule of law liberty is meaningless to all but a few.

Well, maybe I'm a selfish narcissist or maybe I'm just saying what's folks are afraid to say.

Why did I bring up this subject? Because I don't want this country further divided. I don't want to sell my guns back to the guberment. I would like to keep my hi-cap mags. I don't want the hammer to come down like it did down under.

BTW, the rule of law is a thin veil.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Some of the longtime members know I'm fairly libertarian in my views - basically do what the heck you want and leave me alone . . . I don't normally play Monday-morning QB on the latest tragedy and frankly there are almost 7.5 B on this planet. 10, 20, or 1,000 less won't make a damn difference unless it is a loved one or friend as far as I'm concerned. . . . . So, back to the crazies (yes, I know it ain't PC to call 'em crazies). One side blames only the psycho nut jobs. Whereas the other side blames the evil guns. Why can't we fix this? Why can't we keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

In reference to the title, how is this not about gun control?

In reference to “why can’t we fix this?” Well, how about the fact that the mentally ill have trouble conforming to the law, and violent felons refuse to?

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

How about . . .

- Instituting a background check that actually performs more than a lookup against a DB? How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few. Purchase pay a $20 fee for each transaction that funds the background check and mental programs. Too poor? Ok, show your SNAP card or Medicaid card. Perfect solution? Er, hell no. A Start? Maybe.

So use everyone’s taxpayer money to foot the bill for expanded background checks? I have an idea: How about when the police are called to a residence >30 times over a few years, and the FBI receives tips that a person living at that resident has the means, and the motive, and has even stated that he will be a school shooter, how about the FBI actually follow up on that?

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

- Banning 80% kits from being sold w/o a background check. Sure, you want a ghost gun, you can have a ghost gun but not w/o a background check. You want to see if you can actually "build" a gun, go for it, but not w/o a background check. You're a prohibited person who want's to get a gun? Here's a link to Tor & use an Onion search engine. You can have one overnighted to you.

So where should the line be drawn? 60%? 30%? Will I have to get a background check to buy a block of steel?

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

. . . . It doesn't make a difference unless it's your loved one or friend. . . . .

Which is why I carry a gun in the first place.

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Guys, it ain't an all or nothing. A first step is a first step. . . . .

You know, I seem to have heard this before, but as best I recall, it wasn't the pro-2A folks saying it.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

Background checks from our HR dept gets pretty detailed. Our HR looks at credit reports, criminal, civil, & even arrest records at the State level. It doesn't cost $200. IIRC, it runs around $50. With the guberment's economy of scale it should run less.

Unless you're in law enforcement (which you may be, for all I know), or have signed a release of records, that background check doesn't involve the FBI's databases. And having that job probably doesn't involve a fundamental, individual constitutional right.

[Onward Allusion]

You know, I seem to have heard this before, but as best I recall, it wasn't the pro-2A folks saying it.

Wow, I've been called many things before but never a gun control advocate. How would an improved (accurate) background check system be gun control when it would be a fix of the current system?

[Spats McGee]

The same way that Universal Background Checks would be.

[Onward Allusion]

But we already have UBC via NICS - which doesn't work.

[Spats McGee]

Let me also back up and say that I hope I didn't come across as too snarky with my comments, Onward Allusion. I did not mean to, and you did not deserve it. If I did, I apologize. That said, what you're saying is that you're OK with expanding background checks. I'm in the "not one more inch" camp.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

But we already have UBC via NICS - which doesn't work.

When I say "UBCs," I mean these proposals that include all firearms transfers, even intrastate, private party transfers.

[Onward Allusion]

That said, what you're saying is that you're OK with expanding background checks. I'm in the "not one more inch" camp.

I am for fixing our current background check system and we agree to disagree.

[Spats McGee]

I don't call "further snooping in First Amendment activities while the FBI can't be bothered to follow up in tips that they have in hand" anything close to "fixing."

[Spats McGee]

With all of that said, there does seem to be some shortage of reporting of state involuntary commitments (though perhaps not in the FL case) to the NICS system. As those (at least the petitions and orders) are already matters of public record, I would not object to improving that reporting.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First of all, why is your expanded database even necessary? You're either a prohibited person or you aren't. If you are a prohibited person, then running your name against a database of prohibited people sounds like a good way to check that.

Social media and HIPAA records aren't going to tell you if someone's a prohibited person. So why are they necessary for your "expanded" background check? In what way does your expanded background check better tell us that someone is a prohibited person than NICS. Or are you also suggesting that whole new categories of prohibited people be created based on information gained from these accounts?

Because the latter is not only gun control; but people control and on a level much larger than anything proposed by Bloomberg.

[K_Mac]

Why did I bring up this subject? Because I don't want this country further divided. I don't want to sell my guns back to the guberment. I would like to keep my hi-cap mags. I don't want the hammer to come down like it did down under.

I am in complete agreement with you on this.

Every time we have a mass shooting of innocent people, the divide grows. The problem is not the lack of systems in place to prevent this. Instead of fixing the problems of governmental indifference and incompetence, we wail and gnash our teeth while demanding that something be done. More gun regulation will not fix this. That is the reality that people are afraid or unwilling to talk about.

I don't know if you are a selfish narcissist or not, nor do I care! We are on the same side, and this is a topic that has to be talked about honestly here. Otherwise we will one day be talking about the good old days when AR15s, high capacity magazines and much more were still legal.

[5whiskey]

Instituting a background check that actually performs more than a lookup against a DB? How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few. Purchase pay a $20 fee for each transaction that funds the background check and mental programs. Too poor? Ok, show your SNAP card or Medicaid card. Perfect solution? Er, hell no. A Start? Maybe.

Onward, we all see news like this and (if we have decent human compassion) ponder what could be done to prevent future attacks. I applaud you for having decent human compassion. I don't care for the notion that a NICS check should be as in-depth as a security clearance or law enforcement preemployment screening. That is similar to what you're advocating, and the time and resources spent would mandate that this come at a cost to the permitted. And a wait time. This would work similar to the nfa laws. How many more suppressors would be in private hands if the HPA were passed?

In addition, there are clear lapses in the current background check system anyway. A simpler, cheaper, more effective, and IMO much easier for EVERYONE to agree with, method would be to conduct an immediate audit of how investigators (yes, you FBI) process tips, how information is submitted to NICS, and otherwise how current laws are enforced.

We have to admit there are a LOT of cases where law enforcement or current laws dropped the ball. Dylan Roof and the Texas church shooter should not have been able to legally purchase a firearm, yet they did. The Russians told us about the brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, and they were deemed no threat. Omar mateen was on the terror watch list for a time but the investigation was closed. Even after a gun shop owner and Disney sent in a suspicious activity report on him, his case wasn't reopened.

I personally wish there were protests in the street right now highlighting the above fact. The lines have been drawn in the sand on the gun debate. There is not much room for "compromise." There is no one "solution" but there are lots of areas where improvements can be made.