“There are 250 million guns in this country. And as we heard earlier in the program, where there’s a will, there’s a way. And most of the killings are done with handguns. People find a way to have guns. I’m for (more gun control laws). But we have seen a 50 percent reduction in homicide in this country over a generation. And a lot of other things are more effective in reducing gun violence. Let’s do it. Let’s just not expect it will have a big effect.” – David Brooks in Shields and Brooks on guns, Iran and whether Clinton’s emails will turn into a scandal [at pbs.org]

Recommended For You

54 Responses to Quote of the Day: It Won’t Work, But Let’s Do It Anyway Edition

  1. ” There are a lot of ways I think to reduce violence that are — produce bigger outcomes than the gun control stuff”

    Yup. One of those ways is to be armed…

  2. Brooks is an idiot. When I hear him and EJ on NPR it’s like a “who can say the dumber thing” contest.
    “Of course violence apparently has no connection with gun ownership and gun control laws do not work but let’s spend more time and money passing more useless laws that have no bearing on the issues we are attempting to resolve with for the past 20 years or so have been resolving themselves independently of any gun control.”

    Maybe he was having a stroke during the interview?

    • no – he is just hedging his bets to make sure he still gets invited to Clinton soirees over the next yr.

      • I think you’re on to something. Brooks is apparently the kind of guy who is highly concerned with making sure the “right people” think he is “reasonable”, rather like Kathleen Parker. And in their social milieu, the “right people” are all lefty elitists.

      • That kind of social whoring is bad enough when it’s some hack talking head, but when it’s a Supreme Court Justice…..*ahem*…….Justice…Kennedy…..*cough*……CJ Roberts….,*AHEM*…….excuse me, as I was saying, on the SC such pandering could derail the country with devastatingly unconstitutional rulings.

        That’s why I dig it when Cruz says he didn’t become a senator because he desperately needed 99 new friends.

      • Something just sounds oxymoronic about “Clinton soiree”, like chewing aluminum foil or nails on a chalkboard.

    • How f’ing stupid can you be to think that taxing the bullets that someone is going to use on a shooting spree will stop them from going on the spree? What, maybe 200 rounds at the very maximum so even at a 100% tax that translates to 60$ for 223. Yep, I’m sure that will stop the person.

      Great example of the idiotic Leftist echo chamber.

      • Completely agree!
        You gotta be 51 cards short of a full deck to believe taxation is gonna prevent a mass murder!

    • “Brooks is an idiot. When I hear him and EJ on NPR it’s like a “who can say the dumber thing” contest.”

      Agreed that he’s an idiot, but I suspect that his function is somewhat more complex than just his inanity.

      Hamburger chains carry a Triple patty burger not because they sell very many of them, but because its mere existence creates a false comparison in which their Double patty burger seems “reasonable” .. and they do then sell a lot of the Double burgers. Their studies show they would not sell as many of them, though, without the existence of the Triple burger option beyond it.

      People such as Brooks are there to say the flumoxingly stupid thing which makes the wildly stupid things proffered by others sound more like “common sense”.

      Obscuring and changing the line in the sand, that is always their goal – ‘Fundamental Transformation’, as some ice cream vendor said a few years back.

      It is continually forgotten that the ‘Crazed Right-Wing Nutjob’ Federalists of our Founding era comprised then what was considered The LEFT. Marinate. It’s mind-expanding.

  3. So we get back to the question of “Why are we doing this?” and it comes back to politics and appearances rather than public safety.
    As we’ve learned from things like prohibition and war, doing things for appearances sake still has a price.

  4. The classic Goldilocks gun control argument: Big, expensive, unconcealable assault rifles are the problem. No, wait, small, cheap, concealable handguns are the problem.

    Trust me, there’s a gun in the middle that isn’t a problem that we’ll allow you to keep.

    Yhea, right.

    O2

    • The fact of the matter is they have no clue how many guns are in this country no one does really. But if I was a betting man I’d say it was a hell of a lot more than what they are saying.

      • Agree – no way to know how many guns are owned legally or for that matter illegal. Guns are passed on from individual to individual as a gift, loaner, or outright sale. I have handguns that were acquired as above and have provided handguns to family member on occasion. Pretty common practice

  5. This is what John Ross called ‘rubbing their noses in it’ Yeah we know gun control wont do shit, but we should ‘rub their noses in it’

    Dan Baum called it ‘smashing the enemies idols’

    If that’s all they have, I feel sorry for them.

  6. What struck me about this discussion is the void of expertise in advocacy of BCs at point-of-sale. The advocates fall into two groups:
    – gun controllers who have some claim to expertise on the controls they want; and,
    – general public polls of people who – by and large – haven’t thought about the topic much.

    No one is asking gun owners, gun dealers or criminologists.

    Seems to me that we need to make these points:
    – the real experts – criminologists – say that the BC at point-of-sale can’t be made to work;
    – the phony experts – gun controllers – admit that there is no evidence that any gun controls have worked;
    – the voters with political clout and skin-in-the-game will resist and won’t comply
    therefore, uninformed voters really ought to question gun controls in general, and UBC specifically.

    If they want lower crime rates they have to roll-up-their-sleeves and work on hard social issues. The gun-control debate is a distraction.

    • A deliberate distraction from having an honest discussion on the social issues, something both Republicans and Democrats avoid like the plague.

  7. Can someone please explain the gun show loophole to me? I have never bought a gun at a gun show from a vendor without filling out a 4473. I also happen to live in the Lafayette la area and attend the gun show every 3 months or so. I have gone for the last 2 years and at least 1 BATFE agent is available. Just sayin.

    • This is how I explained it to my pot smoking buddy:
      If you wanted to buy your weed from a medical dispensary you’d need a prescription. That’s your 4473.
      If you couldnt get a prescription you’d buy your weed anywhere but a dispensary.

      Then I asked: have you ever had any problem getting it without a prescription?
      The answer: of course not.

      The “loophole” is just the black market. That’s all it is. Anything not in that “loophole” is lawful. When they say “gunshow loophole” the reality is “back of the van loophole” or “darkened alley loophole” or “some guys kitchen loophole.”

      • It was a rhetorical question. I just want someone important to publicly shame anyone who thinks there is a gun show loophole. I explained this to an anti the other day. He was so confused…

        • Would you please elaborate? What was confusing about it?

          While I reject your characterization of the Gun-Show Loophole as being only the “black-market” that is surely an element of the issue; or, better put, the eternal evasion around the regulatory issue.

          Certainly this Anti understood the black-market for drugs. Why did he not grasp that there is also a black-market for guns? Why did he not believe that the black-market for guns would NOT COMPLY with UBC?

          If we could understand what you characterize as “confusion” then we might figure out how to raise awareness in the general public. By way of illustration, suppose we commission a gifted artist to sketch a cartoon. We show a government window with a sign: “Background Checks”. There is a line of pairs of people waiting. One is characterized as a: trafficker; girlfriend; burglar. The other is characterized as an armed-robber; gang member; rapist. The former characters are depicted carrying guns awaiting transfer; the latter characters with money to pay for the guns.

          Naturally, some such cartoon would work for people who don’t recognize the black-market and the way-around UBC. But, if the “confusion” is not in the black-market scenario, then we would need to know what is at the heart of the misunderstanding.

      • Except when most people say “gun show loophole” they aren’t talking about a real black market, because private sales between individuals (without a background check) are perfectly legal in most places.

        • And, even “grey market” is a mis-characterization of most of the non-dealer sales.

          The grey market is really a violation of the retailer’s agreement with a distributor. Rather like the Abramski straw-buying case. The FFL was allowed to discount a new Glock to a LEO for whatever promotional benefit Glock perceived this discount to LEOs might be. Apparently, the FFL knew that Abramski was going to transfer the gun to his relative and that the discount wasn’t consistent with the spirit of the distributor/retailer agreement.

          Generally, there is no prohibition about selling any property by it’s owner to a buyer (with few exceptions such as for prescription drugs.)

        • We are talking about a good ole exchange from one party to another. Not one of those lemonade stands.

        • Perfectly legal to have private sales of long guns between individuals in my state, there is nothing black or gray about it. I did it last week. I met with a guy in the parking lot of Tractor Supply, I looked over the shotgun he brought, he looked over the rifle I brought, we were both satisfied with the trade and made an exchange. I brought forms for bills of sale just to have a record of sale, but it wasn’t necessary. Nothing criminal about it.

      • No no no!

        Private sales of firearms between two individuals in the same state are completely totally legal, and there is NO Federal requirement for a BC. (Individual sstates have their own laws and this doesnt apply to NFA items.)

        Some people who COULD pass a 4473 BC don’t want to get BC’d for a variety of reasons, some of which may seem paranoid but not all of which would exclude passing a BC.

      • I take exception to your characterization: “The “loophole” is just the black market.” This is both FALSE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

        Suppose I want to hang out a shingle as the purveyor of gasoline or propane to the public. I’d need a license and my facilities would be subject to safety inspections. Thereupon, I could sell to all comers in the “primary” “retail” market for ordinary consumers of these dangerous products.

        Suppose your neighbor has an empty tank. He needs to run an errand, mow the lawn or barba-q some stakes. He asks you if you can sell/lend him a tank of gasoline or propane. You simply hand it over in exchange for an expectation of some favor, a couple of bucks, or the return of you container refilled. This is the “secondary” market; it might be “retail” as in a grey-market or black-market; or, we may have no characterization for it whatsoever. Lots of things we regulate in the primary market (lemonade sales, bakeries, car sales) we regulate NOT AT ALL in the secondary market. Children set-up a lemonade stand for half a day; we bake cookies for a school bake-sale, we sell our used cars.

        The “gun-show loophole” is a rather poor description for the secondary market. The fact is that Federal law does not impose its NICS BC check at point-of-sale on NON-dealers. A minor aspect of this phenomena is the “gun show” where hundreds (perhaps thousands) of friends, acquaintances and strangers meet and some of these non-dealers sell or swap guns. They don’t do BCs PRIMARILY because they are FORBIDDEN access to the NICS system. Sometimes they sell to well-known friends; sometimes to acquaintances and sometimes to strangers. Some of these sellers would do BCs on strangers and some acquaintances; but that CAN’T. There is no provision for the show operator to maintain a NICS-check desk for those sellers who would LIKE to take this precaution.

        A more important aspect of the “gun-show” “loophole” is probably the sale facilitated by some sort of advertisement by a non-dealer. Here, the buyer is probably not a good friend or acquaintance. Most likely the buyer will be a stranger who comes to know the seller purely because of the advertisement. Here again, the seller has no ready access to a means of running a NICS check on the stranger who responds to his advertisement.

        Here, the argument COULD be made that the non-dealer seller and buyer can drive to the nearest FFL who can run the BC. But the nearest FFL may be closed when buyer meets seller; and, if open, may be 10 – 50 miles away. The FFL may charge $50 on a $500 sale; 10%. Why should the buyer and seller absorb a 10% “tax” plus the cost and inconvenience of the drive to the FFL for a BC that is essentially ineffective?

        Likely, the much bigger problem is with “straw-buying”. A criminal induces his “girlfriend” to buy him a gun because she doesn’t have a record. Or, a trafficker induces a woman to go on a shopping spree in a dozen different gun shops to replenish the trafficker’s inventory. How do we persuade this naive and desperate young woman – likely with hungry babies to feed – that she should run a NICS check on her “boyfriend” or “trafficker”?

        Another problem is with burglars selling guns they have stolen. How do we persuade burglars to run a NICS check on their customers who they know to be armed robbers?

        In the end, our really HUGE objection to UBC really rests on sending peaceable law-abiding gun users to prison for skipping a BC when they:
        – give their wives or children guns as gifts
        – sell their acquaintances guns (when they know those acquaintances already have guns)
        – lend guns to acquaintances (when they know those acquaintances already have guns)
        We are neither going to comply with such an outrageous notion of “Universal” nor are we willing to go to prison for refusing to consent to such a law.

        • Mark, I’m having a really hard time reconciling that the same brain could write such a well-reasoned and thorough explanation as that, but also write “barba-q” some “stakes”. 🙂

        • Spelling was never my strong suite. Spell-check has helped me a lot; but I don’t put in all the effort I could to make my texts accurate.

          My spelling errors are among my least serious faults. I hope they serve, at least, to amuse some readers of this board.

    • There is no such thing as a loophole in law. The phrase refers only to following a law in ways one dislikes.

    • It’s very simple. To the low information voter, someone who’s never been to a gun show, the phrase “gun show loophole” implies that the entire gun show is some wild, illicit bazaar where guns, ammunition and more dangerous items are indiscriminately offered and sold. Really, they must picture it like a Middle East open air gun market, complete with Hollywood lighting and smoke for best effect.

      The fact that gun shows have licensed dealers completing Federally required checks on individuals, often in the presence of local, state and ATF agents, must be a fallacy to them. After all, they’ve been told otherwise.

  8. He knows, deep down, what the score is. But he knows enough not to admit it, given that his job(s) depend on remaining unaware of it.

    • I think this is true for a lot of the people employed as “talking heads” on the network news programs. The programs are actually run by a production staff which does the hiring, scheduling, and other behind-the-camera management stuff. The people in front of the camera are thought of as “talent” and, even if highly paid, are basically run by the production staff. Talent hired as “the conservative” are expected to look and sound conservative while talent hired as “the liberal” are expected to play a similar role. If they don’t play their role, they aren’t invited back and, of course, don’t get paid. If you’re talent, brought in to be “the conservative”, you’ll likely be coached by a 20-something producer on the direction the show is expected to take and what you’re expected to say. We shouldn’t be too hard on these guys. After all, they are just trying to make a living.

    • What they’re really asking is “will the media be able to ignore the Clinton e-mail scandal and let it quietly go away like they have for virtually every other scandalous or criminal activity that members of this administration have engaged in?”

  9. This discussion spun off of the point of the original post, namely, that liberals want to do with guns what they want to do with so many other pet issues: do it if it makes us FEEL good. Symbolism over substance. As long as I take action that makes me feel compassionate, it matters not if my objective is really and truly, empirically accomplished. This is the mindset we are fighting.

    Of course, the ironic flipside of this is that once a collectivist victicrat has decided the compassionate issue he wishes to support, right or wrong (here, civilian disarmament), he will use any means necessary to accomplish his compassionate objective, including lying, because the self-declared “moral” end justifies all manner of immoral means. It’s for the poor and the children, ya know.

    And so the left often finds themselves reasoning in a tautology, a circular argument, where grabbing guns makes me feel good because it saves lives, and it saves lives because it makes me feel good.

  10. I like how this video shows various view points and opinions on guns.

    Oh wait. It was the extreme leftist Brooks with the idiot communist Shields. And it was a “woe is me, Americans have guns” cry fest.

    Well, if those two are crying, I’m happy.

  11. I think Mr. Brooks has two personalities: one is pro-firearm and the other personality is anti-firearm. As far as I could tell, each point that he stated alternated between pro-firearm and anti-firearm.

    If the thoughts of all gun-grabbers are as scrambled as Mr. Brooks, no wonder they choose their life path based on emotions.

  12. After trying to engage in intelligent, educational exchange with gun control supporters, I have come to the conclusion that the best response is:

    F*%k you!

    No more well thought out arguments, no more polite exchanges. They are now my enemy and will be treated as such.
    I will not try to convert them as they are suffering from irreparable dain bramage. They have a terminal illness and cannot be healed. They must be consumed and destroyed by their own beliefs. They have been cushioned, protected and comforted by the sacrifice of others for so long, they cannot perceive danger, the need to defend themselves or others and deserve to be eaten alive by those predatory criminals that are looking to destroy them.

    • Put bluntly; but this is correct. NONE of our efforts need be wasted on Antis.

      We need to concentrate on winning over the large pool of people who are not yet committed Antis. These folks may not have thought much about guns; or, they may have developed a mix of sentiments.

      We don’t so much need to answer the Anti’s claims. Instead, what we need to do is to speak to the likely sentiments of this open minded audience.

      For example, the Anti’s claim that no one successfully defends herself successfully. It’s not important that this argument is false. We don’t need to waste time proving it false. It suffices to recount the story of the Cheryl Browne, lately of NJ who waited 44 days for her pistol purchase permit to clear a State mandated finger-print check. Why was she denied her Constitutionally guaranteed right to the OPPORTUNITY for the means to an effective self-defense before she was knifed-to-death in her driveway? Why could she have had no prayer of a carry permit?

      Poster-children work; that’s why Progressives use them. We need to do what works on an audience that can be persuaded.

      The pool of undecideds is beginning to dry-up. More of them are drifting toward gun-rights than are being convinced of the Anti histrionics. Nothing will bring the debate to a close faster than to convert the remaining undecideds to our camp.

  13. Brooks. Standing his ground in face of the obvious, even when he himself recognize the truth in the facts.

  14. Wow-trying to be funny. The hildebeast scandal will NEVER go away. Plenty of us and non-left media will keep it going…and after the Frontline NRA hit piece(they’re too successful!) I sure don’t mind if PBS is defunded. Never a dime from me. They run ads anyway…and Sesame St.(CTW) could fund to whole network…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *