Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[henry quirk]

"I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules."

Sure, but I've got a few of my own which I'll list in a bit.

#

"Honest answers to questions, no bullshit."

I don't bullshit, I'm always honest, I say fuck a lot.

#

"No personal attacks."

Act like a human being and you got no worries; ignore what I write and act like tw, then you get what you get.

#

"Keep to the point."

I always keep to the point (as I'm cussnin').

#

"This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people."

Works for me.

#

"Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time."

Yeah, well I'm only 'here' when I have the time...I've gone weeks and months without doin' the cellar...I'm only here now cuz I got time to kill...if that changes, I'll be gone again...so: we'll just have to play this by ear and hope for the best.

#

"Willing to give it a go?"

Yep.

#

My rules...

1-When it cones to guns, my essential argument/question is: as I've committed no crimes with my shotgun, why should I (or any law abider) accept restrictions or hobbling in ownership or use of my gun because of the bad acts of others?

Throwin' stats at me will get you a 'that's all well and fine but 'I' didn't do anything wrong so why must 'I' get hobbled?' Not sayin' you can't use stats; am sayin' those stats aren't gonna address my concern/question and I'm probably not gonna spend a whole lotta time on those stats.

2-Being plain-spoken (though mebbe a tiny bit idiosyncratic) in presentation, nuthin' annoys me more than to have what I post ignored, miscatagorized, or misused...this is why tw gets up my nose...he's a fuckin' liar and fuckin' distorter and fuckin' ignorant. You, Pete, don't strike me as those things. So, don't misuse me and we should get along splendidly, even if we disagree.

Summing up...

I have my own particular, peculiar, interest in the issue(s) and I always operate out of that particular, peculiar position. For example: I won't defend or condemn the NRA cuz I don't give a fuck about the NRA, so I won't be prodded or cajoled into doin' either.

Don't pretend I say one thing when you damn well know I've said another. Don't ascribe motivations to me beyond what I ascribe to myself, beyond what's apparent in my posts. In short: don't be tw.

You undestand what I'm sayin' here, or am I just repeatedly muddyin' the waters?

[henry quirk]

...just sayin'

[Pete Zicato]

Sounds good. Moving this to another thread.

[henry quirk]

:thumb up:

[Flint]

Background Checks.

Are they good? Are they bad? Could they be improved?

If there are issues with the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed? If there are issues with any proposed improvements to the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed?

[henry quirk]

"Background Checks"

This may be one I can't dismantle cuz I've had my gun for a long time...got it well before mandated fed checks and here, in Louisiana, there is no mandated state check.

In short: I've got mine, didn't have to jump through hoops to get mine, so fuck it.

Not a answer, I know, so let me try...

On the face of it, I got no problem with background checks. A good chunk of what I do for a living involves background checks. I suppose the nature of the check is what concerns me.

I guess the over-riding thing for me, with background checks is: is there the presuming of innocence or guilt at the start? Checking with the intent to prove the gun buyer is guilty of sumthin' is different than checking with the assumption of innocence.

In one, you'll hunt till you find sumthin' to deny the purchase; in the other you'll simply check the facts as they exist, as they're recorded.

So, background checks are fine if done narrowly (no, you don't get to root through the gun buyer's undie drawer) and with the right ethic (the presuming of innocence).

Now, the effectiveness of checks is another thing entirely.

Obviously, the wider, deeper, more draconian, the check, the more effective. If you can go through the undies drawer you just might find sumthin' awful, sumthin' that justifies denying that gun purchase. Unfortunately you also piss liberally on the gun buyer's self-ownership and privacy.

Old notion: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.

I, of course, skew toward the more liberty the better (and I'll take care of my own safety, thank you very much). So, of course, I skew toward the narrow, minimal background check, knowing full well such checks will be less effective.

Does this answer satisfy?

[xoxoxoBruce]

If background checks are use to deny people a gun just because they are stone crazy, how long before people are denied because they don't eat kosher, or wear white after Labor Day?

Pretty stupid statement, right? But it's the same reasoning I hear time and time again.

[henry quirk]

If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.

The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).

Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.

In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).

[Griff]

So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective.

[sexobon]

Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there.

How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out.

[henry quirk]

"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."

Nope.

##

"Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there."

Yep.

#

"How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out."

You know what Griff's doin' as well as I do. Like tw, Griff knows what I'm sayin', doesn't like what I'm sayin', can't refute what I'm sayin' philosophically, so he willfully misinterprets what I'm sayin'.

Standard horseshit.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.

The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).

Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.

In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).

[sexobon]

That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.

[henry quirk]

Griff,

You highlighted sumthin' of mine...

'I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers)'

...presumably as an evidence of this...

"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."

You just make my point for me.

I am presumed innocent till proven otherwise.

Proving me otherwise takes place within the confines of 'due process', meaning I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property while being investigated for crime. And I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property because one or more think me 'odd'. This includes a background check. My skivvies drawer may contain all manner of nastiness, some perhaps sufficient to disallow my purchasing a gun, BUT you can't look there without damned good reason (which has got to be more than 'he's odd'). The bar is set HIGH and the legit background check should, can, only dig through what's a matter of public record (which itself should be largely shallow).

So: it's not that I want ineffective background checks; it's that I accept, in a free nation peopled by free men and women, our employees (should) have extraordinarly limited power over us (far less than we [should] have over them).

Now, if you support relieving folks of privacy, support violating personhood, support removing or denying property based on what someone might do, well, then you march, lockstep with idiots like tw, along that road leading to 'politburo'.

Me, I'll be walkin', in a loose, relaxed way, in the opposite direction.

As I say up-thread: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.

It would be nice if a balance could be had, but I don't think that's possible.

[henry quirk]

"change the Constitution"

Plenty who want to, on both sides of the aisle.

Dumb motherfuckers ought to leave well enough alone.