Boston Suspects Did Not Have Valid Handgun Licenses (Really?)

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, I know this. Read above. Cho passed his background checks not because there weren't background checks, but because no information about his mental condition was used to disqualify him. It wasn't part of the law.

[heckofajobbrownie]

We could discuss this though, because as Steve keeps noting, what types of conditions you'd be able to use to disqualify someone from buying a firearm would be very touchy. In Virginia it was involuntary commitment. Most people think that's too high a bar. Cho wasn't committed, but was ruled to be a danger to himself and others. That wasn't enough. (I think it is now.) Loughner was thought to be nuts by everyone, thrown out of school, but I don't think he'd been diagnosed by anyone. Lanza was clearly nuts and not diagnosed, and didn't purchase the guns anyway.

 

You can foresee all sorts of problems. You wouldn't put everyone who has been diagnosed with depression or ADD on the list - that's half the country. They'd have to suffer from a serious mental illness that would make them a danger to others.

 

You can also see how many problems come about from having so many mentally ill people with easy access to firearms.

[Legacy Fan]

 

Sure, we don't want to make it overly burdensome for law-abiding citizens, but that's the whole point - to prove you're a sane, law-abiding citizen. Unless your preference is to walk into a gun store and walk out with a new gun without having anyone make it "harder" then surely you'd agree that there is a benefit to public safety that may also be entered into the equation, especially since public safety requirements are imposed all over the American economy and in all sorts of ways.

Does this mean we can introduce profiling? I mean if all if this responsibility is being placed on the seller and the tenaciousness of his/her background checks, then he/she should have the "right to refuse service" to anyone he/she chooses.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But again - and not that it matters now because the bills are all dead - let's not go back to the specific aspects of the Newtown or VaTech or Aurora cases and apply the new laws to those incidents and decide that if they couldn't have stopped those mass shootings then there's no use for these new laws. Especially when you're admitting that those mass shootings are a small fraction of the gun violence in this country.

 

There's designed to limit gun violence in general.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Does this mean we can introduce profiling? I mean if all if this responsibility is being placed on the seller and the tenaciousness of his/her background checks, then he/she should have the "right to refuse service" to anyone he/she chooses.

 

But that's not how it works. The responsibility is not on the seller other than to order the background check. The background check itself is performed by the FBI. The seller just submits the purchaser's name and info.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's the link to the FBI program.

 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

[VaporTrail]

We could discuss this though, because as Steve keeps noting, what types of conditions you'd be able to use to disqualify someone from buying a firearm would be very touchy. In Virginia it was involuntary commitment. Most people think that's too high a bar. Cho wasn't committed, but was ruled to be a danger to himself and others. That wasn't enough. (I think it is now.) Loughner was thought to be nuts by everyone, thrown out of school, but I don't think he'd been diagnosed by anyone. Lanza was clearly nuts and not diagnosed, and didn't purchase the guns anyway.

 

You can foresee all sorts of problems. You wouldn't put everyone who has been diagnosed with depression or ADD on the list - that's half the country. They'd have to suffer from a serious mental illness that would make them a danger to others.

 

You can also see how many problems come about from having so many mentally ill people with easy access to firearms.

 

Yeah, that's the other part of it. Involuntary commitment? The bar is too high. Depression? The bar is too low. If anything, I'd say a mental illness would be a flag, then you look for other harmful or anti-social behavior, which would either be attempted suicides or criminal offenses. Which criminal offenses? Who knows? The point is that you have to draw lots of lines, and I'm not really comfortable with making my medical records available to any gun salesman, so I'd have to say let's leave denying guns to those with serious criminal records and keep the medical records out of it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It might end up being that involuntary commitment is the only workable standard that balances public safety with the need for privacy. I don't know enough about the medical classifications. But I think after Virginia Tech the state of Virginia changed it to include a "potential to harm self or others" type of standard, but I'm not sure about that. And if that's the case I don't know how the mechanics of it work - who informs who and the like.

[VaporTrail]

It might end up being that involuntary commitment is the only workable standard that balances public safety with the need for privacy. I don't know enough about the medical classifications. But I think after Virginia Tech the state of Virginia changed it to include a "potential to harm self or others" type of standard, but I'm not sure about that. And if that's the case I don't know how the mechanics of it work - who informs who and the like.

 

Yeah, I just don't think that freak mass shootings warrant that kind of scrutiny for everyone. Trying to pick these people out is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. The chances that these background checks are going to catch the ten people who commit mass shootings a year is not worth the breach in privacy that comes along with it.

[Legacy Fan]

 

But that's not how it works. The responsibility is not on the seller other than to order the background check. The background check itself is performed by the FBI. The seller just submits the purchaser's name and info.

I meant tenacious background checks as in the seller would actually be submitting the buyers info instead of the world our legislators think we live in where people can buy guns as easy as dropping quarters into a coke machine. I'm well aware of how the process actually works.

 

Can we still profile though?

20/20 Hindsight is clearly clouding my next statement, but I'm pretty sure I'd take one look at Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, TarkyMark brothers etc. and say "nope! Take your purple hair and Jankos back to the kids table. Gun isnt for sale anymore." But that's only because I'm a white southern Christian racist bigot that I've acquired these skills of deductive reasoning.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm still not sure what you mean. You mean the seller would simply forego the check and take the money?

[calfoxwc]

One, if background checks are already the norm at legal retailers and that presents no undue burden, then it shouldn't matter if they're extended to other gun sales.

**********************

Of course it matters. Expanding background checks to other sales would require registration to track and verify. Or, the law would be unenforceable, Heck. Even Holder and co in the INJustice Dept said that. Right now, and in the past, anti gun activists want to KEEP the records of background checks.

That right there is the ability to create a list of purchases and purchasers. Permanently. That is more than trying to keep gun sales away from

those who shouldn't be allowed to be involved. That's a giant step toward total, across the board registration.

And registration has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, or those who have legit problems and cannot be allowed

the responsibility.

Everybody knows that. We're dealing with ulterior motives by the left anti gunners.

***********************************************************************************************************************

The problem with legislation in the arena of gun ownership isn't that there's too much of it; it's that often there's none at all.

******************************************************************************************************************

Come on, Heck. There are many, many laws. All too often they are not enforced. I can prove my point on that. Can you prove yours?

*****************************************************

pretending that there's nothing we can do when there are things we can do, namely create a system of background checks,

************************************************

We already have a system of background checks. All licensed dealers are required to submit names for approval

before any gun purchase. Even at a gun show. The "gun show loophole" is just another lie. Sure, private parties

can sell guns at a booth at a gun show without background checks. They can sell out of a garage sale at their garage,

too.

But stopping that would require registration. And all that registration does absolutely nothing to stop criminals

from stealing, making, buying off the black market (see Fast and Furious Obamao and Holder style).

Criminals do not register guns. They avoid background checks.

Improving the mental health reports to the background check system is a good thing.

Obamao and Holder already refuse to enforce law that they don't like, and they try to enforce law

that doesn't exist.

Gun control didn't make it out of the Senate for good reason. It wasn't a solution, but a political manipulation.

[Legacy Fan]

I'm still not sure what you mean. You mean the seller would simply forego the check and take the money?

That happens (kind of rare) along with buyers purchasing a gun for someone who cant pass a BGC on their own (a felony). These are the rare scenarios with which Congress is using to drive their argument of expanding BGCs. Anytime they use the word "gun show" or "online sales" this what they want you to think happens with EVERY transaction.

 

Their focus should be on fine tuning what info is available (as you and Vapor are discussing) and how it becomes that way.

[gftChris]

 

that's only because I'm a white southern Christian racist bigot that I've acquired these skills of deductive reasoning

 

This made me spill my morning coffee! Excellent

[Westside Steve]

so that's it? Just the people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

and you wonder why people don't take this seriously.

WSS

[gftChris]

so that's it? Just the people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

and you wonder why people don't take this seriously.

WSS

It's going to take a long time, and rightly so, to figure out exactly where the line in the sand is drawn. Perhaps anybody with a history of mental illness shouldn't necessarily be excluded on those grounds, but rather they should be subject to a personal check, including a visit from a social worker, psychiatrist, judge or whoever.

[Westside Steve]

Wwll Chris, maybe you have more faith in the abilities of psychiatrists judges and social workers to be able to discriminate between shit and shinola.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

It's going to take a long time, and rightly so, to figure out exactly where the line in the sand is drawn. Perhaps anybody with a history of mental illness shouldn't necessarily be excluded on those grounds, but rather they should be subject to a personal check, including a visit from a social worker, psychiatrist, judge or whoever.

I doubt they would have the resources for such an extensive check or money for that matter.

[heckofajobbrownie]

so that's it? Just the people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

and you wonder why people don't take this seriously.

WSS

 

I'm saying I don't have the knowledge of psychology/psychiatry to know where to - or where you could - draw that line, and that doing so might lead to all sorts of problems. Much in the same way when we're discussing abortion, and that strict laws with no exceptions would lead to all sorts of problems for women who develop problems with their pregnancies, among others issues that will arise, laws that wade too deeply into which medical conditions should cause you to lose your right to purchase a firearm and which shouldn't, what the reporting laws would be, who'd be responsible, who'd keep the records, etc., all lead you down a pretty complicated road. The alternative might be keeping the standard at involuntary commitment, which if I'm not mistaken already involves a court process. (Did in my family anyway.)

 

Those are serious questions. It's what a good portion of the debate would be about. It's not my problem if you don't want to take them seriously, and wish to harrumph instead.

[heckofajobbrownie]

That happens (kind of rare) along with buyers purchasing a gun for someone who cant pass a BGC on their own (a felony). These are the rare scenarios with which Congress is using to drive their argument of expanding BGCs. Anytime they use the word "gun show" or "online sales" this what they want you to think happens with EVERY transaction.

 

Their focus should be on fine tuning what info is available (as you and Vapor are discussing) and how it becomes that way.

 

I don't think that's the rationale for expanding background checks at all. It's not that licensed dealers fail to perform them. It's that so many gun purchases don't require them at all. This bill would have changed that.

[Westside Steve]

well heck it's much more than a harrumph.

it's more like this: you guys are fighting hammer and tongs to get a piece of legislation in front of the cameras that will do nigh on to nothing.

 

and I don't know much about medical psychiatry either, but I do know some guys who I'd consider to be bipolar, clinically depressed then manic.

 

none of those few would I be comfortable with owning a gun. And none of them in any danger of ever being committed against their will to a mental institution. I'd also wonder just how many of the perpetrators of any of these mass shootings have been locked up in the nut house before. Anybody have any numbers?I think I'm on record for background checks but with a lot stricter specifications than anyone here is willing to go with. That's life.

 

forgive me if I don't get all choked up about window dressing.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Except that it's not window dressing.

 

And really, are we supposed to be surprised that you declared something "window dressing" and that the issue doesn't make you cry or get a lump in your throat? That's what you say about every issue.

 

It's not an informed opinion. It's not even an opinion. It's an out masquerading as an opinion.

[Westside Steve]

ha ha.

actually now that I think about it, it doesn't even rise to the level of window dressing.

hey maybe you can think of one case in which a massacre occurred because someone who has been involuntarily committed to an insane asylum legally purchased a gun.

well, most likely you can't but you know if it was ever going to happen this might...

Nah.

 

nice that it gives you hope.

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

 

I don't think that's the rationale for expanding background checks at all. It's not that licensed dealers fail to perform them. It's that so many gun purchases don't require them at all. This bill would have changed that.

That just simply is not the case anymore. Log on to gunbroker dot com - you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone that WONT ship to a FFL exclusively and the background check is there. If that FFL holder choses not to run the BGC, then thats on him (he will lose his license).

 

Gun shows run them on site as do pawn shops.

 

Again, I think the scope of the BGC should increase, not another law saying "you need to run BGCs" - those already exist.

 

I think the small percentage of folks selling guns out of car trunks wouldn't pay much attention to any new legislation anyway. The guys slinging weed & blow out of their trunks sure dont.

[heckofajobbrownie]

What's bizarre about this conversation is that you guys all seem to be saying that background checks are a good idea, and that they're done all the time when you guys buy guns, so what's the big deal?

 

Except that we know there are lots of gun purchases, particularly at gun shows and intrastate online sales, that don't require them. Estimates are that about 40% of gun purchases don't go through background checks. This bill would extend the checks to close some of these holes.

 

As it stands now, these checks have rejected some 700,000 potential buyers in the past, mostly felons. Are you guys trying to tell me that you think all 700,000 of them ended up getting guns anyway? That these checks didn't prevent any crime whatsoever?

 

Well, if they're a somewhat useful tool in preventing crime, and keeping some guns out of the hands of criminals, why are you fighting their extension so hard?

 

Also, if you go back look at these threads post-Newtown just about everyone was on the page of extending background checks. And then it got political and ...then what happened?

[The Cysko Kid]

well heck it's much more than a harrumph.

it's more like this: you guys are fighting hammer and tongs to get a piece of legislation in front of the cameras that will do nigh on to nothing.

 

and I don't know much about medical psychiatry either, but I do know some guys who I'd consider to be bipolar, clinically depressed then manic.

 

none of those few would I be comfortable with owning a gun. And none of them in any danger of ever being committed against their will to a mental institution. I'd also wonder just how many of the perpetrators of any of these mass shootings have been locked up in the nut house before. Anybody have any numbers?I think I'm on record for background checks but with a lot stricter specifications than anyone here is willing to go with. That's life.

 

forgive me if I don't get all choked up about window dressing.

WSS

I'd go for ridiculously strict background checks.

[calfoxwc]

What's bizarre about this conversation is that you guys all seem to be saying that background checks are a good idea, and that they're done all the time when you guys buy guns, so what's the big deal?

Except that we know there are lots of gun purchases, particularly at gun shows and intrastate online sales, that don't require them. Estimates are that about 40% of gun purchases don't go through background checks. This bill would extend the checks to close some of these holes.

What's bizarre about this conversation is that you guys all seem to be saying that background checks are a good idea, and that they're done all the time when you guys buy guns, so what's the big deal?

 

Except that we know there are lots of gun purchases, particularly at gun shows and intrastate online sales, that don't require them. Estimates are that about 40% of gun purchases don't go through background checks. This bill would extend the checks to close some of these holes. Heck

**************************************

 

My turn at kicking Heck's ass in an argument.

**************************************************************

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

The Facts

The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.

The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Moreover, when asked if he or she bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, though as we noted the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

Cook and Ludwig, in a lengthier 1996 study of the data for the Police Foundation, acknowledge the ambiguity in the answers, but gave their best estimate as a range of 30 to 40 percent for transactions in the “off-the-books” secondary market. (The shorter 1997 study cited by the White House does not give a range, but instead says “approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions” involved a licensed dealer.)

Interestingly, while people often speak of the “gun show loophole,” the data in this 1994 survey shows that only 3.9 percent of firearm purchases were made at gun shows.

***********************************************************

Heck, everybody on this board knows that if one of us posted figures from 94...you'd be teeming with indignation.

But, as always? with you libs, it's okay for YOU to break your "rules" anytime it benefits your arguments.

The extension of those background checks would require registration to be effective. That's why the background

check system is what it is today. Your figures are nonsense. I call bs on your flimsy politically bigoted

arguments that don't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. Most booths at gun shows are DEALERS because

they can afford to pay the price; they have the sales. Making all sales at gun shows would require:

A. Ban all private sales at gun shows.

or

B. Require all private sales at gun shows be registered sales. Gun registration. Either have gun

registration, or it cannot be enforced.

That is the hangup. Pushing the background check towards gun registration is not going to fly.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd go for ridiculously strict background checks.

 

I'd settle for universal.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The politics of this may drive some new effort on guns. People like Kelly Ayotte, who just took a whack in her opinion polls over her gun vote, will likely step forward and try to push something else to blunt the political damage.

 

"Sen. Pat Toomey — the Pennsylvania Republican who helped lead the failed bipartisan background check proposal — has climbed to a record high approval rating in the Keystone State, according to a new poll on Friday.

Toomey has a 48 percent approval, his highest ever, and a 30 percent disapproval, the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute showed.

By a 54 percent to 12 percent margin, voters think more favorably of him because he co-sponsored with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) the failed Senate legislation that they say would have improved the federal background check system for firearms."

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's a story out today:

 

 

Why do we need stricter background checks? A story from Oregon shows how the present rules invite terrible tragedies:

The woman at the counter of Keith's Sporting Goods wanted a handgun. She wasn't interested in price, quality or how to use it safely. She spoke slowly that day in June as she made one request: Would the clerk load it?

Maria Ward doesn't judge her customers. Americans have a right to buy firearms, after all. But this woman seemed traumatized. Ward worried she planned to hurt someone.

"I'm sorry," Ward told her. "I'm not going to sell you a firearm."

Ward, who owns the Gresham gun store with her husband, then did something she'd never done before. She warned the Oregon State Police not to allow anyone else to sell Brenda Nyhof Dunn a gun. But the agency, which performs background checks for most gun sales in Oregon, told Ward there was nothing it could do under the law.

The next day, Nyhof Dunn drove to Dick's Sporting Goods in Gresham. She bought a rifle and ammunition, according to the police report, which included a receipt from the transaction. She paid $10 to have the Oregon State Police perform a background check, which she easily passed. Hours later, she fatally shot herself. She was 36.

Oh well, so sad, but how could anybody have known, right? Wrong.

No restrictions apply to people like Nyhof Dunn, whose battles with bipolar disorder and major depression drove her to voluntarily enter residential psychiatric care 13 times in the final year of her life. The month she died, Multnomah County sheriff's deputies visited her home after she told a 9-1-1 operator she planned to hang herself in her parents' barn.

Thirteen hospitalizations for bipolar disorder and depression in a 12-month span - and still allowed to buy a gun. That's the law as it stands now. Does it make any sense?