• House Passes Unenforceable Background Check Bill
    54 replies, posted
Let me just lay out all the data points here, so maybe you can see where we're coming from. Democrats rejected a prior background check system because it couldn't be used to build a registry. Democrats are proposing a background check bill that could potentially be used to build a registry. Democrats have used background check systems in two states to build registries. Those registries have been used to enact confiscation of certain weapons. Democratic leaders keep praising Australia, a country that used its registry to enact mass confiscation of certain weapons. Some Democratic representatives, such as Gov. Cuomo and Sen. Feinstein, have openly vocalized support for mass confiscation of certain weapons. Newly-proposed assault weapon bills in Congress have frequently not included grandfather clauses, meaning violating weapons must be surrendered. Like, I don't think it's unreasonable to connect the dots. We already had an assault weapons ban for ten years; it could certainly happen again, and if no grandfathering clause was provided then a registry would certainly be used as a shopping list for confiscation. I don't think it's going to happen in the immediate future, but I do think it could happen in, say, the next ten years. I just want to say that I appreciate your open-mindedness on this issue. It's a complex issue.
Alright, that's a more explanatory and valid argument than simply "they're already criminals so they won't care". Cheers. But, as far as I understand it, this does not solely concern private sales, nor does it plan to solely deter criminal uses. This is also about regulating the lending of weapons to third parties or relatives, and about decreasing accidental discharges and suicides. The introduction of 3-day waiting periods actually seems to have led to a notable decrease in suicide rates. The suspected mechanism is that "delaying the purchase of a gun could create a "cooling off" period to allow a "visceral state" — including suicidal impulses — to subside before the gun buyer took possession of a firearm." So it does seem that ready access to guns does actually pose a significant threat of self-harm to certain vulnerable people. Proper screening, to both detect such sensitive persons when they buy AND are given/lent firearms would logically help alleviate this effect in the same way the waiting period seemingly did. Ignoring the fact that we're not only talking about private sales here for a moment, I'm not opposed to giving everyone the ability to run them (except maybe privacy issues, but that could probably be solved via consent forms). Seems pretty dumb to me that you'd have to go through a private entity for what's essentially a government requirement in the first place. That doesn't mean universal background checks don't serve a purpose, though. Again, a proposed law not addressing exactly what you want it to doesn't mean it serves no purpose. Widening background checks requirements isn't a bad thing per se. That, as of right now, only the buyer needs a check and can lend their weapons to other, unchecked persons without any additional scrutiny (as implied by Zombinie's outrage, and something I wasn't aware was possible in the first place) is a pretty glaring flaw. This will need to happen, sooner or later. Even if it happens at a point in time when the way those background checks themselves are done is still perfectible. Policy evolves, it doesn't necessarily all happen at once. That's how traffic laws got to the point they are now, and I don't see nearly as much scrutiny levied towards those as I see towards gun laws in the US.
But is there any statistical connection between weapons lended to third parties or relatives (in ways that wouldn't be exempted by this bill) and crime, negligent discharge, or suicide? I agree with waiting periods on a buyer's first gun, although waiting periods on subsequent purchases are pointless. But I can't think of a context in which someone in a bad state could go and immediately carry out a private sale. Super fast response to a local listing on an online marketplace? Happening to become suicidal on the weekend a gun show is occurring? These are people who aren't gun owners, and likely aren't not familiar with firearm purchasing- I've only ever heard of suicide in the context of buying a gun from a store. If you have any evidence that private sale represents a contributing factor to suicide, I'd genuinely be interested in seeing it. Again, I don't disagree with the abstract principle of 'anyone who gets a gun should be properly screened beforehand'. I just don't see the evidence that private sale represents a serious enough issue to require an overbearing solution. The thing is, if the stated purpose of a law is to reduce crime, but it can't meaningfully do that, then it's not serving its purpose. If it can't meaningfully do that and also creates additional obstacles to law-abiding people, then it's counterproductive. If it can't meaningfully do that, creates additional obstacles, and is taking up time and effort being proposed and passed instead of any measure that might really get at the problem, then that's three strikes. If they first passed a separate bill opening up the NICS to private citizens, then my reaction to this would be 'probably won't do much, but seems like a good idea', because background checks are a reasonable precaution and there wouldn't be any downsides. But I can't, and won't, trust that that hypothetical bill will come along at some point after this one is passed. The issue with requiring a safe, paid out of pocket, is that it disproportionately affects the poor. Courts tend not to look kindly on enacting financial barriers to constitutional rights, and requiring a $500+ safe to store a $120 Hi-Point immediately makes gun ownership dramatically more expensive. This is assuming that a safe storage law requires an actual safe, rather than a $50 'security cabinet', which is intended to stop a child, casual passerby, or family member rather than a burglar with power tools. If an actual safe is required, I'd think a government subsidy would be a reasonable compromise- but I suspect anti-gun activists would never support tax money going to gun owners for any reason. Also, I'd argue that the government should subsidize vehicle repair to some degree. If the government will mandate standards then it should be prepared to help people meet them, and we all benefit from having better-maintained cars on the road.
I mean, the vehicle comparison, not really... I can dig a 32 Ford out of a field and get it tagged and drive it every day, even if there's rust holes through the body. America is a goofy place sometimes. In my case I could buy one if I really needed one. I don't want to drop $1000 on a safe that I don't really need - my house is secure - but I could if it came down to buying one or having my guns confiscated. But that's me. Could a poor person, trapped in a bad part of town, under tons of debt, who just wants a cheap SCCY for self defense, afford a safe? A secure pistol safe is $300 or more. That's on top of the FFL transfer fee (usually $50 in the hood), the cost of the gun itself, ammunition... And I don't buy the economy of scale argument. I think they'd go up in price like everything else that's require by law (or life), like car insurance. If you don't have a choice but to buy something, you'll have to pay whatever they're asking.
Just for grins, I priced out a fireproof, break in resistant safe that would house my current collection - leaving no room for any additions. It would cost $2,149. That doesn't include installation. I don't know where in my house I would put this thing.
The issue is that there is precedent, there is the capability, and even with explicit protection written into a law that could theoretically allow a registry to occur, those protections can be (and have been) overturned later. Saying it's different, or "I promise it won't happen" isn't enough, and it certainly isn't a guarantee. There is no reason for it to exist, there is no reason for anything preluding it to exist, and anything suggested insofar that has lead to suspicion of a gun registry would have done effectively nothing to actually curb gun violence. You can make background checks more effective by opening it to civilians, automating much of the clerical work, reforming HIPPA to be compatible with the system, and actually putting accountability on the entities that are supposed to maintain the data in the system. None of those things would, at all, facilitate a registry or catalog of owners. Most importantly, it would be real, legitimate "common sense" gun control that doesn't impede anyone with frivolous hoops to feel good about jumping through. This actually makes me really happy to read. The reason I pointed it out like I did was because you mentioned catbarf bringing it up, but I mentioned it even further up the thread, which you posted about after (and is the snippet I quoted). The best feeling I can get from posting on this forum is taking the time to write something thought out, and actually seeing someone react and take in the information. If someone actually thinks on it and I can change their mind or inform them more, then I'm a happy camper. So I'm glad that you came in open-minded and got something out of it, and I got to be a part of it.
As much as I hate gun control bills where once again we don’t get anything back to make it a fair “compromise”, I don’t see where exactly in the bill this sets the groundwork for a registry. Can someone point out or explain why this bill does?
For that price, you could store your guns in the bottom of the lake where you had that boating accident.
If the point of background checks is to prevent access to weapons for the people that fail to pass them, then them still being able to access them through relatives or third parties is an obvious oversight. It's basic logic, nothing to do with statistics. And from what I understand from this: You don't disagree with that. The point is to avoid giving access to firearms to vulnerable people, period. People who are subject to depression, and may buy a gun at some point for one reason or another, only to experience the aforementioned suicidal impulses later on and immediately commit suicide because they just had to reach for their already available weapon and pull the trigger. Those are people proper screening should protect. So: That's how universal background checks can address suicide, provided they are done correctly. Doubt that's going to happen in a country that still doesn't have a proper healthcare system, though. We could also argue that buying vehicles should be subsidized as well, since it's pretty much a requirement in most parts of the US. That explains the relatively high road fatality rate... I don't think that's really the same situation as car insurance or healthcare. The vast majority of people don't need guns to live like they do with medicine, and they don't need them for their livelihood like they do with cars. It's closer to a classic supply and demand situation.
Except the demand is artificially created by putting people in jail if they don't buy your safe, so you can charge literally whatever you want because they're not going to give up their guns and they're not going to go to jail.
That would depend on how the policy would be implemented. I doubt everybody who already owns guns would be forced to buy a safe overnight. It would likely be a gradual shift.
Either way there's still going to be a time after which you need to buy a safe that could very well be more expensive than the gun itself, which is putting yet another expensive roadblock in the way of exercising a right. I get that you and your friends don't think it should be a right, but it is, and we don't look kindly on making people pay to exercise their rights.
Do you think the price of the gun itself is a roadblock to exercising that right? Part of that price goes into the cost of making sure the weapons are up to par with regulations, after all.
The right to purchase a gun...
Yeah, that's my point. You're arguing that we should have universal background checks because of an abstract, logical principle. And I get that. But you're also saying it's to prevent negligent discharges and suicides (a quantifiable risk), and when I press you on just how many it actually will prevent, you go back to the abstract logical principle. Pick one or the other- if we need universal background checks to stop a measurable number of negligent discharges, suicides, homicides, etc then I want to see evidence for just how many it will stop. If we need universal background checks solely for the abstract principle of wanting to ensure everyone is checked, then I have no problem saying that it's a good principle but, like voter ID laws, it's not demonstrably necessary, so I won't support it while it significantly infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens (again, like voter ID laws). Like, if you want to say that this will prevent suicide, give me some evidence. One is the fundamental cost of exercising a right, the other is a cost imposed by an external agency as a regulatory measure. Ever since Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the imposition of additional fees onto the exercise of a right (even if those fees are going to practical, justifiable measures) is considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, due to the disproportionate impact it has on the poor.
You think the only way someone may come to possess something is if they purchase it? Is it impossible to build guns in your world?
Thanks guys. I generally try to stay open minded about these kinds of issues as I'm not against gun owners and their rights, especially related to the second amendment, but as someone whose more concerned with gun control reform rather than owning guns it's hard to get that kind of perspective since things that might be trivial to me are in fact incredibly hard sticking points for those who supports guns rights. I realize now this bill isn't the best way to support universal background checks and would rather support a proposal where the NICS is properly funded, states are forced to input their own records of crimes, and everyone can access it, and then make it the law to just require background checks between private parties. Zombinie's post was just overly sensationalized and used false information to make a mountain out of a molehill which is what made me call it out in the first place. I just hope you guys understand this from my perspective where there has been absolutely zero gun control reform efforts that have passed in 11 years, even incredibly sensible reforms like the Manchin-Tooney proposal, and in the meantime the death counts and criminal statistics from guns just keep racking up every year. To see something like this pass the house is a breath of fresh air and to sensationalize it as something that's absolutely horrific just seems ludicrous when it's probably not even going to pass senate.
Given that some people do commit suicide or suffer accidents with weapons they did not always buy themselves, it is a purely logical and pragmatic consequence that extending proper background checks to not only those who buy but also those who are lent or offered a weapon would prevent a non-null amount of deaths from suicide and negligent discharges. I do not have to provide statistical evidence for a claim that logically follows from already provided statistical evidence (ie that preventing access to weapons to some vulnerable people through waiting periods already prevents a certain amount of suicides). Nor can I reasonably provide statistical evidence on the efficiency of a policy that hasn't already been implemented in the first place. In a debate, proper use of logic is a receivable and sufficient argument. You never asked me for evidence proving how many it would stop, you asked me for evidence that it would reduce it. The former requires more evidence to prove than the latter, which I did provide evidence for through inference. I didn't make any claim about the amount it will stop, since I have absolutely no way of knowing that, and I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion. If you think it is, then how many would you require proper universal background checks to stop for you not to consider it overbearing? Except it's not strictly the fundamental cost of exercising that right. As I've explained, part of the price is the cost of designing and manufacturing the product in a way that abides to government mandated regulations. That's an external agency imposing a cost as a regulatory measure. So is that a roadblock to exercising a right? Should the firearm industry be free from design and manufacturing regulations? Should the government subsidize the firearm industry to cover the costs of these regulations? It actually is, though. Just like a gun, you can be given a safe for free by a third party, there's no more restriction on that front than there is for firearms. However, if you cannot acquire a safe through building it, finding it, or being given it for free, you may have to pay someone to requisition one for you. No fundamental difference between the two, really.
Fair, it's entirely possible to acquire a safe for free. However... Not at all true. There is a difference between the government not forcing others to give you a gun for free, and the government forcing you to acquire an additional piece of property to exercise your right. There should not be undue expensive roadblocks put in place by the government to exercise a right. The government can't force people to give you a gun, but it also shouldn't force you to acquire a safe if someone does give you a gun.
Then refer to what I said to catbarf above. Do you consider government regulations on firearms manufacturing and design to be expensive roadblocks? Beyond what threshold is a restriction expensive? I'm not necessarily arguing that mandating every gun owner buys a $2000 safe to store their stuff in, but I'm trying to show you that things here are a bit more complicated than "unalienable rights".
There are ~200k-300k defensive uses of firearms and ~350 justifiable homicides per year, so it is logical that there is some number of innocent lives saved through firearm use that would be lost if additional red tape prevented effective self-defense. I'd go a step further and argue that the demographic most affected by transfer restrictions (urban poor, since FFLs are often not allowed to operate within major cities) are also the most likely to need a firearm for self-defense. See, if we just go on logical inference, we can't get anywhere, because there's no way to compare lives saved versus lives lost. I'm sure there are incidents of people committing suicide with firearms that were purchased through private sale, but how often? A few hundred per year? A few dozen a year? Once a year? There has to be a point where it's not worth restricting the rights of over three hundred million people, especially if it may have undesirable side effects. I apologize if this sounds like a gotcha, but this is why I ask for evidence that legislation will 'meaningfully reduce' rather than simply reduce- because legislation that negatively impacts a large population, but would save fewer lives than tip-proof vending machines, isn't worth it. Simply having a non-zero effect is insufficient justification IMO, especially when there are much more effectively alternatives we could be taking (like your example of waiting periods). I can't think of any forms of government compliance that require significant additional R&D or manufacturing cost. There are currently small excise taxes (~10%) on manufacturing firearms, but that's true of many industries, and doesn't represent a significant obstacle to firearm ownership. If you can afford a $150 Hi-Point, you can afford the $15 component of that MSRP that goes to excise tax. But being able to afford a $150 Hi-Point doesn't mean you can afford a $500+ safe. This is a matter of degrees. Effectively tripling or quadrupling the cost to exercise a constitutional right deserves more scrutiny than a very minor increase.
That properly explains why you want figures, you should've said so before, I had a hard time understanding your line of reasoning. Of course, it makes sense to consider the overall balance of deaths when designing a policy that aims to reduce it. The problem is that statistical evidence can't give much more reliable data on that front than logical inference. You can't really answer "what if" scenarios with stats, because you're forced to refer to already implemented similar policies in other countries that have a vastly different socioeconomic context. In the case of a policy that's never been enforced anywhere before, you simply have no data on its effects. But let's give it a shot regardless. First, let's clear a few things up: Why do you keep referring to private sales solely? This is about enforcing proper background checks on everyone that gets to use a weapon, whether they buy it or are given or lent it. Only considering suicides with firearms that were bought through private sales is thus very reductive, and not representative of the potential effect of such a policy as a whole. A proper base would be suicide using guns in general instead. We're not considering FFL-related limitations here, because we already agree that background checks should be directly available for anyone, no third party needed. The current system sounds like useless bloat to me. Without FFL requirements, background checks may not hinder as many potential gun owners, since that would imply lowering the cost barrier of running one. If we want to be able to make a comparison between benefits and drawbacks, we need to have reliable numbers on both sides. What is your source on defensive uses of firearms? What is its methodology, is it based on self-reporting or police records? More importantly, how can you reliably estimate the amount of lives saved through firearms use based on that number? Regarding the amount of suicides avoided, this article estimates that, with a waiting period policy alone, around 600 suicides a year would be avoided. That's obviously much less than would be prevented with a stricter policy that doesn't simply momentarily delays access to firearms for people with suicidal tendencies (which is also why it's not a "much more effective" alternative on its own). Another study, based in Switzerland, points towards a significant reduction in the amount of suicides due to a lower proportion of suicides that use army-issued weapons, following a reduction in army personnel. That reduction wasn't observed among suicides that use civilian firearms (the rate of which remained stable). This points towards the tipping point that previously led those people to suicide being direct access to a firearm, rather than other socioeconomic factors, which would have affected suicides using civilian weapons as well. Which suggests that preventing access to guns for vulnerable persons would indeed lead to a significant reduction in suicides. Exactly how much is up in the air, as I can't exactly transpose the socioeconomic context of Switzerland to the vastly different USA, but considering that roughly ~20k people commit suicide by firearm per year in the US, I really doubt that would be a negligible change. Another line of reasoning to estimate the death balance of a policy that imposes universal psychiatric background check, through inference this time, is that those who would be denied access to a firearm in such a scenario would be people with suicidal tendencies. I'm going out on a limb there, but I'm guessing that those people have a much higher chance of committing suicide than of being the victim of a homicide. The average US citizen already is more likely to die of gun-related suicide (~20k deaths a year) than be murdered with a gun (~11k deaths a year), and that's obviously even more true for people with suicidal behavior. Thus, restricting their access to firearms would prevent significantly more deaths by suicide than it would cause deaths by homicide. That's why I prefer reasoning by inference, you can demonstrate a claim by being conservative and keeping things simple. No need to draw comparisons or extrapolate tangentially related cases. Glad you're of the opinion that the exercising of such a right is a matter of nuance and tolerance, rather than the black-and-white, fundamental issue which lots of pro-gun posters here portray the 2A as. If we are to consider that the cost related to regulations should be kept relatively small compared to the fundamental cost of the firearms, then perhaps a sensible middle-ground would be to require different levels of cost for mandatory safes depending on the cumulative value of the owned weapons. It would make sense, since those with costlier collections obviously have the means to pay for it, and it would require protecting abundant collections of firearms better than it would single guns, thus minimizing the total amount of stolen guns in circulation. In addition, the requirement being cost-based would mean that safe manufacturers can't use the regulation to increase prices, since being above the required cost would make their product non-mandatory.
I keep referring to private sale because private sale is the only way an individual can acquire ownership of a firearm in a way that currently doesn't involve a background check. 'Giving' a firearm is just a form of private sale, as far as the law is concerned. If you can provide evidence that loaned guns that were purchased legitimately and given to a non-prohibited person are a common source of suicide or crime, then I'll address 'lent guns' too. But as it stands I've seen no reason to think that this is the case, and while firearms given by friends or family are a common source of firearms used in crime, the fact that they're given to prohibited persons means that the law is already being willfully broken. I'm also not sure why you're insisting on considering 'suicide using guns in general'. Suicide using 'guns in general' includes FFL sales, which represent the overwhelming majority of firearm sales involved in suicide, and are already subject to background checks. Why would we be considering those in regards to a bill that is not in any way changing the requirements or conditions of those sales? Defensive gun uses are hard to estimate- here's an article documenting some of the various stats given. I took a relatively conservative estimate, since the numbers range from ~100k to upwards of 2 million per year. But, hold up, I said I agree with a waiting policy on a first firearm purchase. That's not what my challenge, or this thread, is about- we're talking about elimination of private sale (or temporary lending, or what have you), and I asked for evidence that private sale (/temporary lending/etc) is a statistically significant source of firearms used to commit suicide. Suicide is a huge problem in the US, and it accounts for a majority (~2/3) of gun deaths. You won't find me arguing that we shouldn't take steps to reduce suicide. I'm just not convinced that eliminating private sale will be at all effective in reducing suicide. I could potentially get behind that, but there are so many questions. For starters, how do you determine the value of a century-old collector's piece? Is it based on what the owner paid for it, or a market valuation? If the former, how is inflation taken into account, or scoring a great deal, and what if I can't provide documentation? If the latter, do I need to be worried that a market fluctuation will suddenly render my collection 'inadequately protected'? What do I do if all I own is a $3,000 handgun, but I can fit it in a highly secure but relatively cheap safe? Do I need to install an enormous and excessive safe to house it, or stud diamonds into the small one to raise its cost, or what? I'm sure you can come up with reasonable answers, but I don't trust our Congressmen to. The more technical our lawmakers try to be with firearm laws, the less effective and more aggravating the end result inevitably is. Simpler is better.
Your main opposition to universal background checks is that it might result in more people dying because they can't buy a gun than people not committing suicide as a result. If it's common for people to purchase a gun from a friend/family member, then the bill would affect a lot of people. This would mean a lot of people dying from not having a gun, but also a lot of people not committing suicide as a result. If it's uncommon, then it won't prevent many people from committing suicide, but it won't lead to a lot of people dying from a lack of guns. Either way, it doesn't change whether the policy results in a net reduction or increase in deaths, it only changes how dramatic that reduction or increase is. I see no reason to believe that people who end up committing suicide and people who end up defending themselves have significantly different buying patterns when it comes to buying a weapon. If you do, then you should provide evidence of it. Otherwise, I do not have to provide evidence to whether or not purchasing a gun from a friend or relative is a common occurrence, since nothing indicates that it would have an impact on whether the policy is beneficial. This is also why I base my numbers on suicide using guns in general. So all those results come from surveys and gun owners self-reporting, which is more unreliable than police reports. It also extrapolates based on a rather small number of DGUs to the entirety of the US, and I can't check their methodology or whether they took the necessary precautions to have a representative sample because the link your article provides leads to a 404 on some weird Polish site. This seems like rather limited evidence to me, and it still doesn't address the important part: How can you extrapolate the amount of lives saved from that number? The waiting policy is sound, but as I said, it's only projected to prevent 600 suicides if implemented nationwide. That's 3% of total US suicides. By comparison, Switzerland's army reform nearly halved the amount of suicides using an army weapon, without any significant increase in other methods. There's evidently far more potential when it comes to suicide prevention through proper gun control than simply implementing a waiting policy and calling it a day. I get that, but I'm not sure how you could make a safe requirement much simpler without also negatively affecting some portions of the population. Any just policy has to be complex to some extent. And that complexity isn't good enough a reason to prefer "laissez-faire" alternatives every time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.