<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
Again, wasn't a problem until Obama and Friends started intentionally delaying NICS checks for petty harassment.
Right; Obama personally does that. He hovers over them with an egg timer. "Nope! Too quick!", says Obama, "try it again!"
-
...
Enforcing the current laws is part of said improvement.
-
Yes, because gun control advocates tend to propose things that are already laws. Like in this case, a background check.
I don't recall where, but I recently saw some infographic from some group of ignoramuses trying to claim that gun dealers are under no restrictions or regulations whatsoever, and that we need to develop some kind of federal agency to control them and possibly develop some kind of Federal Firearms License system to properly license gun dealers, and then we need some kind of national system to quickly run a background check on prospective buyers.
Filed Under: I'll take "Things That Already Exist" for 400, Alex.
-
Oh, OK. I guess I didn't get @mott555's subtlety there...
Sometimes I have a point in my head but all the parts to connect it together don't quite make it into my posts.
-
I see the two as different things, but can't argue the point.
-
Annyways, yeah I wasn't advocating laws that already exist, I was advocating improving the existing laws.
I agree that the background check thing should be improved. But the answer isn't to remove any sort of a cap on the time limit, but to have some sort of consequence for cases like this on the part of those responsible for the checks. Otherwise you permit (as @mott555 pointed out) an extra-Constitutional way to prevent gun sales.
But getting accountability out of government employees is more difficult than getting blakey to click a heart around here.
-
Right; Obama personally does that. He hovers over them with an egg timer. "Nope! Too quick!", says Obama, "try it again!"
Yeah, that's totally what he said was happening.
-
I see the two as different things, but can't argue the point.
Difference in terminology, etc. That is what I mean by "improve" though.
I agree that the background check thing should be improved. But the answer isn't to remove any sort of a cap on the time limit, but to have some sort of consequence for cases like this on the part of those responsible for the checks. Otherwise you permit (as @mott555 pointed out) an extra-Constitutional way to prevent gun sales.
But getting accountability out of government employees is more difficult than getting blakey to click a heart around here.
Agreed - It needs to be handled better in both ways - Allowing the check to pass if it fails to come back just makes no sense to me, although I can see the other argument too. (Let's not dive into whether or not that's a constitutional thing, that's a whole other rabbit hole...)
-
The government is well known for its use of subtle force to get what it wants (like refusing federal money until states pass laws that the Feds want).
To make the leap in logic that perhaps they are using their powers to delay what should be an otherwise quick check is not out of the realms of possibility.OR, people just really like a good conspiracy theory. Really, its a tough call.
-
Agreed - It needs to be handled better in both ways - Allowing the check to pass if it fails to come back just makes no sense to me, although I can see the other argument too.
I think @mott555 covered it pretty well. I'm sure 3 days seemed like a ridiculous thing when it was taking a few minutes to complete. Probably thinking about a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend or something. Hanlon's razor just says they've fucked shit up so it doesn't work, but that doesn't mean someone couldn't fiddle with the bureaucracy for political purposes.
You could ask Lois Lerner if such a thing is possible, but she's determined not to incriminate herself, so good luck getting any response.
-
...
Enforcing the current laws is part of said improvement.
How about instead of enforcing current laws and adding new laws on top of that we start by just enforcing the current laws and see where that gets us? Maybe, just maybe, we don't need more laws. Maybe enforcement of what we have is sufficient to solve the current problem.
-
Either that, or they hired a Jeffling to optimize the algorithm.
-
There's only one profession in GW2 that has pets.
-
licenses are denied to applicants with any past history of domestic violence
In case you weren't aware, we have that same rule. It was put in to law by the Clinton administration.
-
Can we stretch the definition of "school shooting" to cover that guy in Norway who killed 80 or so teenagers who were, IIRC, at a school-related function or camp of some kind?
-
Oddly enough, that's broadly similar to US law. Have to pass a background check...except, ooh, look, a lot of time mental disqualifications don't make it into the record. That would've stopped like half the most recent shootings.
Past history of domestic violence, we've got that, too, and it gets abused, or so I've read, regularly in divorce proceedings.
As for the last one, in the US there's a high hurdle to get an automatic weapon, namely "they all cost five figures at least, and also there's an extensive background check, similar in scope to what someone looking for a security clearance would get".
Semiato weapons bans are silly. "Assault weapon" is a term that means "I don't understand what a semiautomatic weapon is". [shoulder thing goes up clip goes here]. Note that the woman involved in that clip is a US Congressperson whose constituents are mainly morons for constantly re-eleting her.
-
Yes, I know, I play an asura ranger myself. However for the purposes of explanation here, I deemed pure pendantry not required.
-
"Assault weapon" seems to have something to do with black plastic, as far as I can tell.
-
Assault weapon
As opposed to all those friendly weapons you can't assault people with. Like balloon swords.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
"guns are fucking dangerous and require extreme care, special handling, and shouldn't just be a free-for all in terms of purchasing, owning and handling"
Spoken like someone who doesn't have much experience with them. They don't require EXTREEEEM CAAARREEEEE! Four simple rules will absolutely protect you from shooting someone.
- all guns are loaded
- don't point the gun at something you aren't willing to kill/destroy
- keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to shoot
- be aware of your target and what's beyond it, IOW if you're shooting (say) rifle-caliber bullets at someone, the bullet can go on through them and hit something else.
You know how you hear about people "accidentally" shooting someone? You have to violate AT LEAST two of those rules to do that. You know how you hear about how "the gun went off and shot him?" Didn't happen.
Also, purchasing a gun isn't a free for all. If you wanna buy a gun legally from a dealer, you ahve to pass a criminal background check.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
It isn't a free-for-all.
Keep torchin' that strawman, buddy. It's burnin' mighty purty.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
It's like trying to have a sane, rational discussion about responsible alcohol use with someone who is a off-their-ass drunk 24/7.
And in this conversation, you're the drunk.
-
-
The 3-day limit was designed to be an incentive for the government to be efficient.
Yes. It's claimed--I have no verification of this--that ATF has been slow-walking NICS checks to annoy gun owners. If that's why the shooter mentioned above got his gun, well, we know who's to blame, and it's not THE GUN LOBBY that makes @blakeyrat and @lorne_kates wet their pants.
-
Right... and if they make a mistake (that never happens), you let a psycho get a gun?
What's your alternative? Fuck over the vast majority of people?
-
You know how you hear about people "accidentally" shooting someone? You have to violate AT LEAST two of those rules to do that. You know how you hear about how "the gun went off and shot him?" Didn't happen.
Dude I've totally seen a movie where a dog shot a dude.
-
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this makes sense - so, if I'm a psycho or similar, all I have to do is keep trying and hope the government loses my paperwork once - then I'm good to go!
True story: lying on your form 4473 is a felony. Not that that generally stops criminals, partly since they don't buy guns from dealers themselves.
-
Especially when the failure mode is that they get the gun anyways.
Right, so your solution is to tell a million or so people a year "oops, too bad, maybe you'll have better luck next time. We'd rather treat everyone like a potential criminal than admit a few people slip through the system."
Imagine if we tried that with other things. Sorry, there's now a 3-day waiting period to buy a frying pan, because of Tom and Jerry cartoons. Gotta show ID to watch MTV or buy a lighter, because that one kid 15 years ago supposedly set his house on fire after watching Beavis and Butt-head. It's theoretically possible to make meth from cough syrup, so we'll make you show ID to buy it, and if we think, in our opinion, you bought a little too much, we'll send ya to jail--oops, wait, never mind, we already do that! "Come back in three weeks to pick up your driver's license."
-
Yup, and you can still buy Meth on the corner.
-
I agree that the background check thing should be improved.
By the way, I heard on some talk-radio show or other yesterday--oh yeah, the Russ Martin show--a cop called in and pointed out that, if someone gets a gun who should have failed the NICS check because of the three-day wait period, state or local cops are supposed to track them down and recover the gun. Just in case anyone was wondering.
-
I'm sure 3 days seemed like a ridiculous thing when it was taking a few minutes to complete. Probably thinking about a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend or something.
Wasn't NICS a result of the Brady/Reagan shooting? First off, I always thought that it was 3 business days, but I'd have to ask an FFL. But if the system is that old--and it can't be newer than the expiration of the AWB, which was 11 years ago--it's probably not unreasonable to assume it just sometimes took the bureaucracy more than a day or so, with an assumption that someone might have to go root through a bunch of file cabinets, or a small, overworked local PD might not respond immediately.
-
"Assault weapon" seems to have something to do with black plastic, as far as I can tell.
And sometimes the shoulder thing that goes up. No, I don't mean @blakeyrat's shoulder aliens.
-
-
What two rules was the guy breaking when the dog shot the dude???
-
Yup, and you can still buy Meth on the corner.
Which mostly isn't made from Sudafed. But boy howdy, I guess we need EVEN MORE LAWS. Maybe we should fingerprint people who just don't want a stuffed-up nose. _That'_ll fix those tweakers!
This is the attitude of people who favor gun control.
-
Everyone knows you use cocaine to fix a stuffed-up nose.
-
What two rules was the guy breaking when the dog shot the dude???
Did he shoot the dog on purpose or not? Are you trolling me, or did you not read what I wrote? I'll spot you one of them: keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. That's why any responsible modern movie/tv show shows people with their trigger finger lying alongside the side of the gun instead of in the guard.
-
Did he shoot the dog on purpose or not?
DUUUUUDE.
The DOG shot the DUDE.
You have it all backwards.
I want to know what two rules the DUDE was breaking causing his DOG to shoot him.
-
-
If you wanna breathe right
And sleep through the night
Cocaine
-
DUUUUUDE.
The DOG shot the DUDE.
You have it all backwards.
I want to know what two rules the DUDE was breaking causing his DOG to shoot him.
I reject your question as phrased. The dog broke the rules.
I guess "don't leave guns lying around where kids and pets can get at them" should be The Blakeyrat Rule. I'll notify Colonel Cooper.
-
I reject your question as phrased. The dog broke the rules.
But the dog didn't own the gun, the man did.
You're saying if you follow the 4 rules it's impossible to have a gun accident, right? But this dude's dog shot him. So? Where is the discrepancy!?
Or are you just FULL OF CREAMY SHIT!
-
You're saying if you follow the 4 rules it's impossible to have a gun accident, right?
That's not what he said, you lying liar who lies. Here's what he said:
Four simple rules will absolutely protect you from shooting someone.
Where was the bit about an accident? Sounds like you are the one who is
FULL OF CREAMY SHIT!
-
If you wanna breathe right
And sleep through the night
Cocaine
Also maybe a breathe-right strip.
-
But the dog didn't own the gun, the man did.
You're saying if you follow the 4 rules it's impossible to have a gun accident, right? But this dude's dog shot him. So? Where is the discrepancy!?
Or are you just FULL OF CREAMY SHIT!
Aww, you're so cute when you pretend to be stupid.
You are pretending, right?
-
Yeah, I didn't even touch the bit about the dog because he said it came from a movie. That had to be trolling.
-
You're saying if you follow the 4 rules it's impossible to have a gun accident, right?
But yes, if you follow these rules, you will never shoot someone without meaning to. If you leave your gun lying around where your cat can shoot you with it, and you didn't teach it the rules, that's your fault, even tho the cat didn't follow the rules.
-
Where was the bit about an accident? Sounds like you are the one who is
No, no, you know what's going on: he's trolling, and it's a particularly weak one for him.
Come on, Blakey, step up your game. It's almost like your heart's not in this one.
-
Yeah, I didn't even touch the bit about the dog because he said it came from a movie.
Dude it was a good movie.
-
Fortunately, buying a gun is different than all of those examples in a fundamental way, so what we do in those cases doesn't really matter