22% is a fairly sizable loophole even if we assume the other 78% are being really well vetted.
While conveniently leaving out the gigantic flaw designed into the system. "Just" one in five gun sales go off without a background check. I'll bet those are the one in five who are just unaware of the requirements and really really mean well, so let's continue to drive the discussion as much as possible into the minutia of the background check system.
Wasn't someone around here talking about "good faith"?
But 78% is "an overwhelming majority." Didn't you hear?
Bottom line, I'm a felon and the idea that I couldn't get a gun if it struck me to want one is frankly laughable.
But, but, Tim, you can't be in the 78%!!!!
Clearly that's what we need to focus on.
If you are a felon you are not going to get your gun from a licensed dealer (presuming the background check system is functioning properly) and you are also probably not going to get it at a gun show.
Where do you think all the gang bangers that in 2017 shot and killed 625 in Chicago; who shot and wounded an additional 2,936 people got their guns?
They didn't get them from licensed gun dealers and they also likely didn't purchase them at gun shows.
They got them on the streets---on the black market.
I think I have raised the possibility of strict liability (or any liability) for the manufacturers with you in the past and you were vehemently opposed... Am I misremembering?
You aren't misremembering. However, I interpreted Tim's post as saying the current registered owner of a particular firearm would be the one liable for any damages caused by that firearm, just like the registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for any damage caused by that vehicle.
The stat I'm responding to compared people (Pennsylvanians) with guns to people without them, the former are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than the latter.
If you are a felon you are not going to get your gun from a licensed dealer (presuming the background check system is functioning properly) and you are also probably not going to get it at a gun show.
Where do you think all the gang bangers that in 2017 shot and killed 625 in Chicago; who shot and wounded an additional 2,936 people got their guns?
They didn't get them from licensed gun dealers and they also likely didn't purchase them at gun shows.
They got them on the streets---on the black market.
In putting all / most of the blame on the FBI and local law enforcement you are implicitly putting the emphasis on tip or visits to the shooters residence as a means to prevent this sort of thing. By expecting such proactive activities to weed out the wrongun's, you are accepting a significant failure rate. This is the sort of thing where the successes are never going to be as visible as the failures and you will always be able to find a fault when you look after a tragedy.The thread topic is "Florida School Shooting"
Was the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" aka gun show that you refer to a factor in this incident?
No. Which is why it is not relevant to THIS incident.
Was the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" that you refer to to blame for the Sutherland Springs church mass shooting?
No.
Was the "gigantic flaw designed into the system" that you refer to to blame for the Charleston Church shooting?
No.
Flaws in the background check system were major factors in Sutherland Springs and Charleston.
That is why I have been talking about the background check system.
The FBI (missed two tips) and local law enforcement (more than 36 visits to the shooters residence over 7 years) missed multiple red flags that just might have prevented this incident.
Do you know what TTC means in these images?Mostly they buy them in Indiana or in Illinois outside of Chicago city limits where gun laws are much looser and easier to circumvent.
The black dots are guns recovered by police, The red x is location of the gun shop the guns came from.
In putting all / most of the blame on the FBI and local law enforcement you are implicitly putting the emphasis on tip or visits to the shooters residence as a means to prevent this sort of thing. By expecting such proactive activities to weed out the wrongun's, you are accepting a significant failure rate. This is the sort of thing where the successes are never going to be as visible as the failures and you will always be able to find a fault when you look after a tragedy.
What I would do is put more emphasis on the "well regulated militia" bit of the 2nd amendment. Have as part of well regulated the requirement for the militia to take responsibility for the firearms.
Do you know what TTC means in these images?
Expecting such proactive activities to "weed out the wrong'uns" also begs the question: What do you charge the wrongun with?
Okay, guy posted a stupidly aggressive status on YouTube. Multiple police calls to his house, but no charges to file. FBI Special Agent Dick Tracy "has a feeling" this guy is really dangerous. Now what? Are we, as a society, ready for "well, an FBI agent has a feeling you might be dangerous, so we are locking you up"?
Yes... which is the point, I think.Your question compares cops with guns to unarmed cops. Where do cops police without guns? Not Pennsylvania. Why can cops get away with policing without guns? Because guns are banned? Because crime rates are low? Because the risk they'll be shot is much lower than cops policing a society loaded for bear.
Yeah, this is what I can see as the most likely negative consequence. A combination of "something must be done, this is something" and a generally looked down upon and sometimes feared minority (the mentally ill) could easily result in some draconian handling, with probably minimal effect on gun deaths.For my part I'm sort of terrified that, in our rush to avoid any kind of solution involving gun control, we are going to further stigmatize mental illness and ratchet up the surveillance state.
I considered pointing out that the solution he proposes would have a lot of right-wingers (and probably liberals too) complaining about 'government overrreach'. For my part I'm sort of terrified that, in our rush to avoid any kind of solution involving gun control, we are going to further stigmatize mental illness and ratchet up the surveillance state.
maybe they can help our president get the help he needsLA County is working on legislation to allow county personnel (namely social services and deputies) to make a spot diagnosis of "mentally ill and refusing treatment" and have take people taken into custody.
maybe they can help our president get the help he needs