I hadn’t read it, now I have, and, what do you mean all my concerns are addressed? Schools are incredibly short of the money that they need to provide students with a decent education. If huge amounts of extra money were to be made available for providing schools with armed guards, that money would be far better spent on the core mission of providing students with the education they will need to be successful in life. That’s my core concern. It is not addressed at all in that paper.
Also, the paper cited some examples of schools without armed guards having bad outcomes of attacks and some other schools that did have armed guards having less bad outcomes. They did not provide a set of comprehensive comparative statistics. They cited some other papers but there were no weblinks and I’m not going to give them credit that they’re not cherry-picking because it’s the NRA and advocacy rather than analysis is their core job.
olaf
2708
Some friends and I went on a 12 pack of these guys http://www.classicfirearms.com/m44rifle# Worked out to $227 per rifle after shipping and FFL transfer, we pick them up tomorrow.
Let me know what you think. I suspect that Carbine is going to be pretty loud!
They make a noise and a flash Thor himself would be proud of.
This is what a common-sense background check proposal looks like:
Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days. No word on whether this is a one time use thing, but I’m guessing it would be good for multiple purchases.
That’s it. No required fees. No increased call volume to the already overloaded NICS call centers. No required trip to the FFL. And, most importantly for those concerned about privacy, no record of what gun was purchased or any of the other details. In fact, there’s no proof that a gun was purchased at all. Just like with normal NICS checks.
Reputable source; summary courtesy of The Truth About Guns blog.
Houngan
2713
Yep, that’s pretty much my kiosk idea writ large. I’m wary of anything this reasonable coming from congress.
That dealer might not be convenient, and may charge a fee for the transfer service, Coburn said. And forcing everyone to go through a licensed dealer would simply push gun sales into the shadows. “If you make it easy for people to comply with the law, they’ll do it,” he said. “If I’m a gun owner, I want to know I’m not selling to someone who’s on the list.”
Exactly, most of us already self-police by only selling to people with a concealed carry license. Sadly it looks like it’s not enough for the gun control crowd:
“It’s unworkable,” said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, “and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation.”
There you go. It can’t possibly work and we won’t do it anyway, even though it already works and we are doing it (with CCWs.)
Too bad there aren’t more details, I’m curious if this would expand the ability to buy interstate to private citizens without going through an FFL. Here’s hoping they don’t tag a bunch of crap onto it.
Is he right? What incentive (positive or negative) is there for private sellers to do the check? And while you think there’s sufficient self-policing, the point of regulation is to make things, well, regulated. If Everitt is correct that there’s no carrot or stick, I’d agree that it fails as regulation (leaving aside the issue of whether there should be regulation).
Houngan
2715
It’s currently very, very illegal to sell a gun to someone if you have reason to believe they can’t legally receive it. This would just bolster any prosecution’s case against an illegal seller. Beyond that in the fuzzy world, most gun owners are good guys and don’t want to sell to bad guys, so there is a moral imperative.
Based on what you’ve said here, I’m on board with Everitt- it’s bad legislation (e.g., window-dressing) from a mechanical perspective if it has no carrot or stick aspects. Either we politically think that more effective regulation (i.e., more checks) are needed or we politically think that the status quo is fine.
On the status quo, background checks aren’t about forcing someone who has reason to believe they’re selling to an unauthorized individual to stop. The goal would be to postively generate information about the status of a buyer, and presumably stop willfull ignorance on the part of sellers (don’t ask don’t tell).
The legislation would give private sellers a ready way to conduct background checks. Effectively, it expands background checks to a market that may simply ignore them for reasons of convenience, such as cost and access to a local FFL. There are zero drawbacks. There’s really no way to police this market so any punitive approach is a nonstarter and would actually reduce the likelihood that individuals followed the law.
I can agree with the “zero drawbacks” part (assuming a relatively low cost of implementation), but I reiterate- it’s ineffective regulation. Rather, call it another service offered by the government. The question is whether it is being proposed/sold as legislation to implement a service or address political demand for regulation? It certainly ain’t the second and if it’s sold as such, I’d say it is a bait-and-switch and/or an attempt to bleed off political will.
Sarkus
2719
If all you want to do is create a law that allows right minded people to easily follow it, then sure, this works. And it likely will keep guns out of the hands of some bad guys. But without a carrot/stick, it will have no impact on the shady sales that are the real issue.
Houngan
2720
So what’s your counter-proposal, and what is the carrot/stick mechanism? I’m only aware of the exact same thing except you have to go to the store to get it done. This is vastly more convenient, doesn’t incur additional cost on the citizens, and doesn’t swamp an already-swamped system.
I’m not a legislator, so I don’t have a proposal for regulation. But, I’m happy to look at a proposal and provide my thoughts on whether it is, or isn’t effective as regulation. If the counterproposal is, as you say, the same thing (i.e., no carrot or stick for complying) with the hassle of having to go to a store, I agree with you that that sounds stupid.
Off the top of my head, I would assume that stick is probably more effective (e.g., some sort of fine if gun traced back to you as non-checking seller). A carrot might work (immunity from any tort liability for any checked gun sold that results in some downstream harm), but it depends on the current state of liability.
Houngan
2722
The current state of liability is way above a fine, it’s a felony conviction, up to 10 years in prison. Knowing that, do you support the proposal now?
I believe that’s the current state of liability for knowingly selling to a prohibited buyer, correct? Again, that’s a whole different scenario that regulating an affirmative background check. I don’t know why we’re running around in circles on what is a pretty straightforward position (regardless of whether you support it): mandatory checks to require an affirmative review of whether a buyer is prohibited from owning a firearm and to address willful ignorance.
Houngan
2724
What you’re missing there is a methodology. How do you ensure those mandatory checks? The only way I can think of would be to have a penalty flow from a crime gun back to the original purchaser, which would require a comprehensive database as well as a new check framework.
That may very well be the case. As I said, I haven’t put substantial thought into how something like this can be effectively regulated and whether doing so would or would not require a database. Rather, what I’m stating is that the Coburn proposal would be nothing more than a new government service. It is not regulation as it has no mechanism, at all, for motivating compliance.
Off the top of my head, you could at least start with some sort of substantial fine for making a sale without a check. That would, at a minimum, create some basis for police stings or such. The level of effectiveness would, of course, be questionable. It would at least make it facially regulation.
Regardless, the above is a different discussion than the one you’re having: that the proposal is good regulation and that what’s there is good enough to meet the current political demand. To discuss regulation, at all, is to start with the assumption that the status quo isn’t sufficient.
Houngan
2726
Why don’t you, since you like to argue the issue so much?
