Potential Solutions to Gun Violence

[Jameson]

Stephen, every time a crazy person shoots up a movie theater (Aurora), a school (Sandy Hook), an office (FedEx in Kennesaw or the Navy Yard in D.C.) or their neighborhood (Elliott Rodger in Santa Barbara), you want to ignore certain facts and manipulate the tragedy to fit your liberal agenda of tighter gun control laws.

You don't want to talk about or acknowledge things such as the shooter's history of mental illness (Holmes, Lanza, Kramer, Alexis and Rodger all had well documented, long histories of mental illness).

You don't want to talk about how the city already had strict gun laws (Aurora).

You don't want to talk about how the location of the shooting was a gun-free zone (FedEx, Navy Yard).

You don't want to talk about or use an example of a city that already has the toughest gun laws in the nation (Chicago) but had 421 murders last year, 108 this year and has on average about 30-35 people get shot each weekend.

You don't want to talk about how there were 30 people shot in that same city this past weekend and 4 of them died.

You don't want to talk about how when the CEO of a company like Jack In The Box bans guns from his restaurants, his restaurants then get robbed 3 times in 10 days.

Nope. None of that.

Instead, you deflect away from all of that. You want to make assumptions that those people and politicians who are not for stricter gun laws and/or pro-concealed carry do not care about the victims of these shootings. The way you see it, the Republican party (and the NRA) is at fault because they refuse to act on more gun control. And you post propaganda that echoes these sentiments and use snide remarks to try and label those that disagree with you as "not caring", which couldn't be further than the truth.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your views on gun laws does not mean that they do not care about the innocent victims of shootings, mass shootings, etc.

In a way, this Las Vegas shooting is perfect for your agenda. The far-right extremism (the opposite of your views) and the Gadsden flag (associated with the Tea Party, which you despise) helps your spin of trying to blame these mass shootings on the right's gun control policy instead of things like mental illness.

As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.

[BridgeTroll]

As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.

Then we are for the same thing.  You are just too indoctrinated to ever listen to what anyone else is saying, jameson.

Sez the kettle... or is it pot?

[Jameson]

As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.

Then we are for the same thing.  You are just too indoctrinated to ever listen to what anyone else is saying, jameson.

Sez the kettle... or is it pot?

^ Exactly.

[BridgeTroll]

As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.

Then we are for the same thing.  You are just too indoctrinated to ever listen to what anyone else is saying, jameson.

Sez the kettle... or is it pot?

Neither, Bridge Troll.  I try and listen through some of the silliest and most poorly constructed arguments every concocted in genuine hopes of getting the logical gist of people's POV.  I don't extend that courtesy to discourteous trolls or racist posters (apvbeachguy, bill, north miami, sometime I-10) but generally I listen and debate.  I will never back your Bracero's idea, obviously, and I do not like extremism that is either violence or hatefully based, but other than that, I am a pretty open minded person.  I often do not have very interesting or well constructed opposition, but I enjoy being able to see and agree with an opposing point of view.

When someone starts screaming 'liberal' 'disgusting' and the other unsophisticated vomit, Its generally a good indicator that they are going to just regurgitate talking points until they turn blue.

In this matter, you can't even get to something sensible---like screening for mental illness or background checks, without some asinine bloviator blocking all conversation with foamy mouthed claims about gun snatching or the like.

Its irritating.  My personal position on the matter hasn't changed in years (pro gun, pro restrictions, belief in technology and implementation) but no one can talk about those things really, without some jackass calling people names (usually during a conversation about dead children or massacred bystanders) yowling about gun snatching, cold making up shit about Hitler having seized the guns too,  and accusing people of not clearly reading the word 'gun' in the constitution (in which it doesn't actually appear).

Like this thread for example.  Which isn't even about guns.

And yet here we are again, with the same attacks and name calling from the same three people.

Against my better judgement... I will take the bait.  Lets start with...

get to something sensible---like screening for mental illness or background checks

This already happens... at least with legal over the counter gun sales.  Criminal records are already screened.  Are you suggesting a national mental illness database available to search?  How would you feel about your psychologist submitting your diagnosis and treatments to the government for such a database?

How do we make the background check piece of puzzle more effective yet preserve freedoms and privacy?

[BridgeTroll]

Here is the Background check form.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

[BridgeTroll]

What is missing?  Why do you think this does not work?  How can it be improved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

National Instant Criminal Background Check System


The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.[1]

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers.

NICS is accessed by an FFL, on the firearm buyer's behalf, by phone or computer. When contacted by phone, the communication is either with an FBI/NICS Examiner, who directly receives the information submitted by the FFL, or by proxy through a Call Center representative, who forwards the information electronically to the NICS. Whether an Examiner or a Call Center representative is contacted depends on the state in which the sale is conducted. When using a computer, an FFL representative can submit the buyer's information using the E-Check system which is a web interface to the NICS. An FFL can be an individual or an organization such as a retail store. An organization registered as an FFL minimizes the overhead involved in managing identification for multiple individuals who are employed by the organization.

By law, an FFL must receive a response from the NICS within 3 days or the firearm sale can proceed, although the FFL seller is not required to do so. If, after 3 days, the sale is completed and later it is determined the buyer should not have received the firearm, then the firearm must be retrieved.

Firearm Denial Appeals[edit]

If a buyer believes that the denial is erroneous based on a match to a record returned by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the buyer may appeal the decision, by either challenging the accuracy of the record used in the evaluation of the denial or claiming that the record used as basis for the denial is invalid or does not pertain to the buyer.[2] The provisions for appeals are outlined in the NICS Regulations at Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.10, and Subsection 103 (f) and (g) and Section 104 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

Persons subject to prohibition[edit]

Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies.[1]

[finehoe]

Here is the Background check form.

U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that he will join a filibuster of any gun control measure. And pro-gun-rights organizations remain staunchly opposed to universal background checks. They argue that such checks could lead to a de facto national gun registry and that criminals don't purchase guns through normal channels anyway, rendering the checks moot.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-support-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases

[BridgeTroll]

Here is the Background check form.

U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that he will join a filibuster of any gun control measure. And pro-gun-rights organizations remain staunchly opposed to universal background checks. They argue that such checks could lead to a de facto national gun registry and that criminals don't purchase guns through normal channels anyway, rendering the checks moot.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-support-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases

To be clear... sales at gun shows from a dealer to a citizen must have a background check performed.  The ONLY exception to the background check rule is sales between private citizens.  If I sell or give my gun to you a background check is not required.  I will agree that this is an area that may need to be strengthened.

To further clarify... the VAST majority of gun "transactions" are over the counter gun sales with the proper checks performed.

[Jameson]

Stephen are you really complaining about people calling YOU names?

[BridgeTroll]

Here is the Background check form.

U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that he will join a filibuster of any gun control measure. And pro-gun-rights organizations remain staunchly opposed to universal background checks. They argue that such checks could lead to a de facto national gun registry and that criminals don't purchase guns through normal channels anyway, rendering the checks moot.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-support-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases

To be clear... sales at gun shows from a dealer to a citizen must have a background check performed.  The ONLY exception to the background check rule is sales between private citizens.  If I sell or give my gun to you a background check is not required.  I will agree that this is an area that may need to be strengthened.

To further clarify... the VAST majority of gun "transactions" are over the counter gun sales with the proper checks performed.

So... it appears that their is really NOTHING wrong with the current background check system except that the private sale of weapons is not monitored.  That is certainly surprising given the previous rhetoric... but OK.  We can scratch that one off the list.

[BridgeTroll]

Now that we have removed background checks from the equation... please pick another narrow and focused piece of the gun violence issue that we can discuss and propose solutions to...

[finehoe]

So... it appears that their is really NOTHING wrong with the current background check system except that the private sale of weapons is not monitored.  That is certainly surprising given the previous rhetoric... but OK.  We can scratch that one off the list.

Nothing wrong except for the large number of transactions it misses.

Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-finds-vast-online-marketplace-for-guns-without-background-checks/2013/08/05/19809198-fd73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html

[coredumped]

[BridgeTroll]

I think I already acknowledged that private sales were exempt and was something I would be willing to consider tightening.  Your article understood this also...

Background checks — designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill — are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members or between individuals online.

It also acknowledges that the online sales between private citizens is a relatively new phenomenon.  I believe a reasonable concession could be made in this area.

Again... you ONLY objection to the current system is the private sales issue?

[NotNow]

The FDLE website provides a way for private citizens to check for criminal history as well as stolen weapons.  It has been my experience that in most private firearms transactions, responsible private sellers require a state issued CCW license when dealing with an unknown buyer.