Today is the one year anniversary of the mass shooting at the High School in Parkland, Florida. Their congressman, Ted Deutch, who is a Bethlehem, Pa. native, is hoping that the proposal for universal background checks can pass a house vote. A proposed counter amendment, that domestic violence victims can buy a gun with no background check, shows how irrational the gun debate has become.
Being a right leaning independent, my blog audience tends conservative. Yesterday's post, supporting Mark Kelly for senate, illustrated the divide on this issue. Electronic background checks only take a few minutes to complete, when purchasing a gun. Although true that this measure will not prevent shootings in itself, there is no reason not to vet everyone before they purchase a lethal weapon.
As an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment, I do not buy the NRA's slippery slope argument. I believe that I can best protect my gun rights by conceding that some regulations can be rational, such as mandatory background checks.
Giffords and Kelly on Capital Hill
Mike,
ReplyDelete"Federal law allows people 18 and older to legally purchase long guns, including this kind of assault weapon. With no criminal record, Cruz cleared an instant background check via the FBI criminal database.
If somebody is adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."
Don't blame the law on this one. it was the local authorities that drop the ball on this one. If memory serves me correctly the shooter had a long history of violence and mental health problems. Seems to me the real blame is not the current law but our despicable mental health system that does little to nothing for the mentally ill, and local sheriff who are more concerned with partisan politics than law enforcement.
I don't care that the local congressman came from the Lehigh Valley, politicians are generally vultures who prey on tragedies for their own empowerment. Not sure how any of his proposals would have stopped that shooting.I am sure he is hoping to gain political support with his efforts.
Those concerned about mass shootings should be demanding changes in America's mental health care system. All the changes in gun purchasing and possessing laws in the world won't stop a mentally ill person from killing people if that is what the voices in their heads are telling them to do.
scott@7:52, i don't disagree with you. I noted in the post that the measure in itself will not stop shootings. It might however keep a few guns out of a few wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteI know that you're not part of the local gun culture. I have never bumped into you at a local shop or range..... perhaps your interest is along party lines.
there are people who value both the 2nd and responsible ownership, I'm one of them.
I agree. My concern is that the same tragedies happen over and over and the same wrong headed remedies are proposed every time. Usually by political partisans/the media seeking to exploit the slaughter to gain advantage for themselves and impugn their opponents. I see this as extremely cynical and callous beyond measure.
ReplyDeleteFair minded people can see with their own eyes our mental health safety net doesn't work. You and I shared a personal experience with that and it was an eye opener. Nothing has changed since then. Why? America's mentally ill are left to their own devices with at best very loose supervision. Where are the politicians on this nightmare? Answer; nowhere because it's a real problem that requires real solutions. Clearly our elected leaders want no part of that. Perhaps some heavy lifting.
I was taught how to shoot and handle weapons in the Boy Scouts(there were no girls in the troop then) by an NRA instructor. We were in awe of him and he was dead serious about what to do and what to never do. That rubbed off on us. I have only shot weapons a few times since and never kept one in the house when our children were living with us. That said, my father had a rifle in the closet and cartridges in a drawer. We all knew never to touch either. It was that simple.
I agree the NRA sounds at times strident but I would say that stems from the the non stop assault their membership is under, as gun owners, and second amendment supporters. Both are routinely tagged by the left and the media(one and the same)as selfish, uncaring, gun industry controlled monsters. America need a real debate on how to stop mass shootings. We can be sure of one thing, our elected officials will be the last to start that dialogue.
Finished a big job yesterday, starting late today.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteI regularly read your blog and seldom comment. However, I will today as I think parts of your post were a little too facile. First, is your statement that, "background checks only take a few minutes to complete". I have purchased a number of firearms over the past several years and I can tell you it is not that simple or straight-forward. The initial step is to compete a somewhat lengthy form that has a number of intrusive questions. And by the way, it is a felon to not answer the questions truthfully. Once the form is completed then the next step is a review with the state and federal database. The minimum time I've spent to be able to legally purchase a firearm is 30 minutes and the maximum has been 3 plus hours. So my experience does not square with your statement.
My second issue is the way you have drafted your statements (or perhaps the way I'm reading them)which would seem to indicate that you believe there is nothing approaching "universal background checks" in place now. That is not the case. A purchaser must undergo a background check now for every firearm that he or she purchases with the exception of long guns (i.e. rifles and shotguns) sold by one private individual to another private individual. Everything else requires a background check.
You buy a pistol or rifle from a gun store - background check.
You but a pistol or rifle from a dealer at a gun show - background check.
You buy a pistol from Scott Armstrong - background check.
Again, the only current exception is if you buy a long gun from Scott Armstrong. In that case only there is no background check. However, it is worth noting that Scott has committed a felon if he sells you a long gun and it turns out you were on the prohibited list. So it is in his best interest to make sure you have a background check just like if he had sold you a pistol.
As was alluded to in an earlier comment, the current proposals have very little to do with "universal background checks" and will do nothing to prevent the misuse of firearms. Instead they will further erode the rights of law abiding citizens
Thanks,
Dean
Like Scott, I learned how to shoot in the Boy Scouts at Camp Trexler. Part of our instruction when we first went to the range was firearms safety. I own several hand guns & long guns. My now adult sons were raised with them in the house. As with Scott's dad, my sons knew where both the weapons and ammunition were kept in separate locations. I also would take them to the target range to shoot. They were taught firearms safety. A responsible gun owner does this.
ReplyDeleteMany of the proposed laws that always come up after a shooting incident are knee -jerk reactions that will not prevent any more shootings. It is true that the real issue for many of the shooters is that they had known mental health issues that were not addressed. In these cases the weapon was just the tool used. The real issue is the mental health of the shooter.
When will the useless politicians get off there dead behinds and address this issue? They will not because it will cost too much to re-create a state/national mental health network like there use to be. Please do not misunderstand me. There were definitely abuse and unimaginable horrors that occurred in those institutions but they kept these mentally challenged individuals off the street. They also provided a frame work that could have been modified to achieve their goal. The pendulum has completely swung the other way since institutions like the Allentown State Hospital was closed. Time has repeatedly shown the failure of "main streaming " these people.
The repeated saying is that guns do not kill people but people kill people is very true and accurate. I fully support background checks to ensure that responsible people own guns.
One lunatic carries an explosive in his shoes and the entire airline industry in the United States requires passengers to take off their shoes to be scanned before boarding.
ReplyDeleteAmericans slaughter one another every day with fire arms and the NRA paralyzes the country with objections to any regulation.
Other industrialized nations have strict fire arm regulations and have virtually no per capita
fire arm deaths.
Regulations work. Yes, it will not stop all incidents or lunatics, but, like seat belt regulations, many lives would be saved.
I bought a firearm at the Ag Hall gun show last weekend.
ReplyDeleteThe entire background check took about 10 minutes, beginning to end.
There are appropriately 20,000 gun regulations in the U.S.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the 20,001 regulation will be the solution.
Pander? What?? Huh???
ReplyDeleteNOW more than ever, PARTICULARLY after we all have had a chance to READ the GARBAGE that was in this "compromise" crap the Democrat Party are celebrating with all their heart, there is absolutely NO F---ING WAY We, The American People Who Are Here Legally, will ever, ever, ever, ever, even want to BEGIN to discuss infringing upon our 2nd Amendment Rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
P.S. - Please say hello to subversive Andy McCabe and Jihadi Congressperson Ilhan Omar for me.
Mark Kelly = wanna be Democrat Party politician.
ReplyDeleteDemocrat Party politician = Gun-Grabbing, Open Borders Advocate who has no absolutely no problem with the failed coup that fired FBI scumbag Andy McCabe just copped to on 60 Minutes.
So Nancy Pelosi, a real-life, actual Democrat Party politician, says declaring national emergencies sets bad precedents for future Presidents who "have different values". Really? Now that's funny!
Because, when Nancy Pelosi starts talking about future Presidents with different values, I start thinking about King George III and his set of values which said American colonists in places like Lexington and Concord really shouldn't have guns.
But, hey, maybe it's just me and my weird sense of humor.
Pleasant evening to all, then.