Lott Ducks

[Bowfinger]

I think there is a problem allowing non-FFL sellers access to the fed govt background check system. How do we maintain any semblence of a right to privacy?

FFLs are registered and I'd be mighty surprised if they aren't forced to operate under rules ensuring confidentiality of information visa-vis their license (such as CPA's and other licensed tax professional are with a client's personal tax info). Such restrictions wouldn't apply to your average citizen/non-FFL dealer; they have no license to lose.

Essentially, the federal backround check system would have to be open to the public to allow the casual non-FFL seller to access it. I don't think that's do-able, legally or otherwise.

Fern

To whatever extent that's a concern (and I'm not at all familiar with the details today), it seems like there's an easy solution. To avoid disclosing personal information to private sellers, simply provide them with a binary output. Either one's proposed customer is approved or he is denied. If the customer is denied, the seller's role is done. The customer would be responsible for going directly to the federal government for inquiries or appeals.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Don't use loaded troll terms like "stooge" or say LaPierre "acted in a cowardly manner" or "too dishonest to even explain why", if you don't expect to get trolled back in return.

You are the one that initiated the tone of the thread.

So you're admitting you are trolling. I suppose that's the first step toward recovery . . .

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm generally anti-gun-control. That's why I criticize people who are pro-gun-rights who behave in a stupid way, thus making it easier for the gun rights side to be attacked. ...

This, very much this. As someone who is pretty solidly pro-Second Amendment, I cringe when I see some of the outrageous comments and behaviors from the gun-worshiping fringe. They are the Second's greatest thread, because they make it so easy to paint all gun supporters as dangerous loons. They serve only to reinforce the emotional prejudices of those already afraid of guns and gun violence.

 

[OrByte]

This, very much this. As someone who is pretty solidly pro-Second Amendment, I cringe when I see some of the outrageous comments and behaviors from the gun-worshiping fringe. They are the Second's greatest thread, because they make it so easy to paint all gun supporters as dangerous loons. They serve only to reinforce the emotional prejudices of those already afraid of guns and gun violence.

3rd'ed

I mean, once a rational discussion is off the table you begin to wonder if allowing weapons for such irrational people is really a good idea...

I sincerely question whether some of the posters here should be allowed to own firearms.

 

[OrByte]

La Pierre's "Sandyhook Promise":

"Senator, our Sandy Hook promise is — is always to make this country safer, which is why we've advocated immediately putting police, armed security, in schools; fixing the mental health system; computerizing the records of those mentally adjudicated. I would hope we could convince some of these companies that are just — I'm not talking about First Amendment, I know they have a right to do it, to stop putting out such incredibly violent video games that desensitize."

in other words...all we (NRA) are responsible for is putting more guns on the street. The solution to the problem is more guns, less video games, and help our mentally ill

a perfectly sound lobbyist response.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...ts-to-stop-the-nightmare-of-background-checks

 

[jackstar7]

If you want a suggestion to reduce gun violence, my suggestion is not turn mass shootings into perpetual 24/7 media events. The people who commit these acts want the attention. We take that away.

But that's not going to happen. These events are opportunities for other people to further their own personal influence and power.

^Speculation on the motives of the shooters is not productive when the majority of them are dead and leave nothing but riddles as to their motives. They are so often broken people that to ascribe "fame" as a motive is just scapegoating.

Unless you're ready for huge invasions of privacy in the hopes of identifying whackjobs before they get to killin', then accept that you can't stop crazy, but maybe we can do something to limit the damage that crazy can accomplish.

 

[monovillage]

So you're admitting you are trolling. I suppose that's the first step toward recovery . . .

CK's OP was a troll post, which I pointed out to him. This post by you is a troll post. Just because you're a self righteous toady in this forum doesn't absolve you of being a troll.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

CK's OP was a troll post, which I pointed out to him.

No, it wasn't, as I pointed out to you.

Something is not "trolling" simply because it expresses an opinion you don't like.

Responding to a thread just to try to derail it or piss off the OP is trolling.

Everyone but you has had no problem discussing the subject. Either discuss it yourself, or get the hell out of here.

 

[cwjerome]

I do find it strange, as being against universal background checks is a very unpopular position to hold. It's not that often that organizations shift to very unpopular positions from popular ones.

Again though, I view this as a symptom of their continued radicalization.

Well I'm not going to argue over what you consider "strange," have at it, but but if the NRA believes background checks have been less than successful then I'm not real surprised their position is inching away, popular opinion or not. In the climate we have today I'm not surprised they are digging in their heals... just disappointed. If they don't engage in constructive debate they stand to lose a lot more than very minor compromises.

 

[Bowfinger]

CK's OP was a troll post, which I pointed out to him. This post by you is a troll post. Just because you're a self righteous toady in this forum doesn't absolve you of being a troll.

There is absolutely nothing trollish about CK's OP. As I've attempted to explain to you before, that you disagree with something (or dislike its poster) doesn't make it a troll. You need to stop serving that massive chip on your shoulder and rejoin the world of reasoning adults.

 

[Moonbeam]

Whatever a troll may be it is surely a human being and as such worthy of love and respect. Keep that in mind when you read the rest:

I define a troll as somebody who says something that offends some inner sense of right and wrong that I have. That is why, if I were CK I would call mono a troll and if I were mono I would call CK a troll and also why I never call anybody one. My sense of inner right and wrong, unlike so many, is secure in its absolute certainty and cannot be successfully challenged. I call truth not some abstract idea but an inner state a sort of peace with one's self.

I think often of the contest between two sword makers as to whom made the best blade and put them to a test by stabbing them into a stream. A leaf came floating down the stream and was cut into when it hit the first blade but another leaf simply passed around the superior blade, the judgment of superiority dependent, of course, on whether it mirrors your inner state. So whether trolls flow around me or I around them simply doesn't enter my head.

I believe that when we are bothered by what other people think it's us and not them who has the problem. They trigger feelings we project as their problem but are really things we feel but won't admit we do about ourselves. In this way we are double liars. The faults aren't true of us or them. Or rather the truth may be there but the reaction irrational.

Sorry but I feel this to be more on topic than the actual subject.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There is absolutely nothing trollish about CK's OP. As I've attempted to explain to you before, that you disagree with something (or dislike its poster) doesn't make it a troll. You need to stop serving that massive chip on your shoulder and rejoin the world of reasoning adults.

Well, he did promise to stop calling everyone he disagrees with a "troll" after I criticized a lefty and he expressed "appreciation" to me. He only said a couple of weeks, though, and it's been three, so I guess we should be grateful.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I'm not going to argue over what you consider "strange," have at it, but but if the NRA believes background checks have been less than successful then I'm not real surprised their position is inching away, popular opinion or not. In the climate we have today I'm not surprised they are digging in their heals... just disappointed. If they don't engage in constructive debate they stand to lose a lot more than very minor compromises.

These are folk who believe deeply in the power of force as deterrent. Aggression and belligerence come natural to them. They have not had to face the impotence of rage. They have hidden from their real anger and will not face it.

 

[shira]

To whatever extent that's a concern (and I'm not at all familiar with the details today), it seems like there's an easy solution. To avoid disclosing personal information to private sellers, simply provide them with a binary output. Either one's proposed customer is approved or he is denied. If the customer is denied, the seller's role is done. The customer would be responsible for going directly to the federal government for inquiries or appeals.

Actually, the envisioned change to the private-sellers law is that the prospective buyer and seller would go to a licensed gun dealer, who would hold the gun (for a default period of 10 days, iirc) and initiate the background check of the buyer. If the check came with no issues, the sale would go through; if the check came back with one or more issues, presumably the dealer would tell the buyer (but not the seller) what the problem was, and the buyer could appeal the decision in some meaningful way, if that's what he wanted.

The problem with a purely binary result is that it doesn't give the purchaser much recourse if the check comes back "No." I mean, what is the purchaser supposed to do in that case?

 

[hal2kilo]

3rd'ed

I mean, once a rational discussion is off the table you begin to wonder if allowing weapons for such irrational people is really a good idea...

I sincerely question whether some of the posters here should be allowed to own firearms.

That's exactly my delema and why I just don't even "debate" on this subject.

 

[cwjerome]

Actually, the envisioned change to the private-sellers law is that the prospective buyer and seller would go to a licensed gun dealer, who would hold the gun (for a default period of 10 days, iirc) and initiate the background check of the buyer. If the check came with no issues, the sale would go through; if the check came back with one or more issues, presumably the dealer would tell the buyer (but not the seller) what the problem was, and the buyer could appeal the decision in some meaningful way, if that's what he wanted.

The problem with a purely binary result is that it doesn't give the purchaser much recourse if the check comes back "No." I mean, what is the purchaser supposed to do in that case?

What happens now in most cases is an answer to a background check comes back as yes or no. The seller doesn't need to know why. There is a phone number to call if the buyer wants to know why they were denied, usually a state police/public safety office.

That should still work in a binary type transaction, and would help keep private parties from giving their name/dob/ss to random people.

 

[Alex C]

I see two big problems with universal background checks:

1. Creating a background check system capable of supporting such a thing is nigh on impossible. The current NICS system can't handle the volume of private gun sales conducted each day. Local gun stores couldn't handle it either. The risk of identity theft makes giving personal information to strangers a huge risk, so anything the seller could check on themselves would also be out.

2. It's unenforceable. Without some kind of registration, there's no way for anyone to know if you ran a check when you sell a gun. The BATF could set up stings, but that'd just make people wary of selling to strangers without a check. I'd imagine most private sales are with people known to the seller, so there's no risk of getting busted there.

 

[Fern]

In regards to gun shows, I do fully support the ability for a citizen to resell his property to another person. Do the background checks when the person applies for a state permit to own a gun. Then require that only people who have permits can buy from gun shows.

Problem solved.

A number of states already do this.

Here in NC we have a 'permit' to purchase at gun shows. The buyer gets the permit from their sheriff's depart. Basically, the sheriff's depart does the background check.

Fern