Dems Demand Universal Background Checks Which Wouldn’t Have Stopped One Mass Shooter Ever

Form 4473 and GLOCK (courtesy fbi.gov)

courtesy fbi.gov

Inevitably, after President Trump announced his support for red flag laws yesterday, the civilian disarmament industrial complex immediately criticized him for not calling for passage of the federal universal background check bill. A bill which would have done nothing to stop any mass shooter in recent memory.

As far as we know, neither the El Paso nor the Dayton gunman would have been stopped from purchasing a weapon by an “expanded” background check or any kind of background checks that didn’t have a pre-crime component. Neither shooter had a criminal record. In fact, I can’t find any recent mass shootings that would have been prevented by instituting a universal background check.

Well, that’s not exactly right. The Sutherland Springs church shooter, having been convicted of assaulting his then-wife and stepson, should not have had a gun, but the FBI blew it. The racist Charleston church shooter should have been stopped by a background check, but his narcotics conviction never reached the FBI. Similarly, the Virginia Tech killer bought guns after a court had found him to danger to himself, but the information was never passed on to the federal background-check database.

Perhaps we should have a conversation about tightening up the system that’s already in place before we start passing new laws.

– David Harsanyi in ‘Do Something!’ Is Not Going To Stop Mass Shooters

comments

  1. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Dems Demand Universal Background Checks Which Wouldn’t Have Stopped One Mass Shooter Ever”

    Instead of demanding something they don’t understand, why don’t they explain exactly what they think UBC’s will do, that already hasn’t been or isn’t being done…???

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I know this has been said before, though not nearly as often as I’d like to see, especially by pro-2A supporters. I think this should be a major talking point:

      ** The foundational pillar of American jurisprudence is the assumption of innocence. To have the Gov’t presume me guilty and require me to first prove my innocence before I can be “granted” permission to exercise my right (as enumerated in the Constitution, the very document that lays out the framework of Gov’t) is a complete turn-around of that premise. **

      Why is this not shouted from the rooftops by gun owners every day?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        That’s the absolute root of the problem, and you’d think it would resonate with a lot of people, especially framed in terms of civil rights.

        But it’s not likely to work. We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place here in terms of human nature.

        Mass shooting events are incredibly frightening, and when people are emotionally worked up they’re not receptive to logic. All they want is to make the fear go away. Doesn’t matter whether the solution solves the root problem or not; it could even make the problem worse; but if it dissolves the fear, they’re all for it.

        So here we are, arguing with a large group of people (liberals) who are ruled almost entirely by emotional notions of virtue — in the wake of an event that can scare the logic right out of just about anyone.

        Our anti-gun enemies are very good at manipulating emotion, and they know the score. They know that at the end of the day, emotion rules. They also know that nothing they propose can stand up in the cold light of day; so they exploit the fear when it’s raw and reactive. And even if they get nothing concrete out of it this time or the next, they eventually build a powerful emotional narrative in which guns and people who insist on having them are the bad guys — the source this fear that people just want to go away.

        How do we break through that steamroller combo of raw emotion plus mass-media narrative?

        It can’t hurt if we make better arguments on our own behalf in the meantime, and the “guilty until proven innocent” approach is a good one. If we can stave off the *do something* ™ lobby for just a little while, maybe enough of it will soak in to do some good. Maybe.

      2. avatar Jason Statham says:

        Because you’re trying to present logic to people who’s entire argument is based on emotion.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      We all know what UBC will do. Universal registration. Which is necessary for universal confiscation.

      It all start to make sense when you stop believing leftist’s talking points about saving lives and realize their real goal – public disarmament.

      Have you heard in the news that 1643 people have been shot this year in Chicago, out of which 278 died? No, because leftists don’t really care about lost lives. No, because it doesn’t help push the narrative.

      Ganbangers shooting gangbangers in Democrat controlled inner cities, IE wast majority of so called “gun violence, don’t scare useful idiots enough to make them demand gun control for imaginary safety. But random mass shootings, that can happen anywhere, even in nice neighborhoods do. Never mind how statistically insignificant they are. That’s why the left leaning media plaster them on tv screens 24-7 for weeks.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Let’s have universal background checks on existing and future politicians and demand a perfectly clean record to hold office.

  2. avatar Dennis says:

    It’s all smoke and mirrors, we know that! Disgusting that the usual people had to wipe the drool off their faces before they elbowed their way to the microphones to say, “I told ya”. As long as there are people in the country uninformed enough to believe their drivel we will be forced to keep fighting this same fight. Side note: almost without exception, the same people who gleefully try to deny us our rights, will fight tooth and nail to defeat capital punishment for these crimes.

    1. avatar Diksum says:

      ….and demand the right to kill unborn (and even born) babies.

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        Shhhhh…..you’re not supposed bring that up, remember?

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Of course that’s not the point. You need UBC’s to create a registry to make confiscation feasible.
    If the logistics of UBC’s make for fewer purchases in the meantime that’s just a bonus.
    Not one gun control advocate is actually concerned with saving any lives.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Agree with your statement, but don’t see how UBCs can be enforced before the fact ..only after.

      It all stinks!

  4. avatar Brewski says:

    Maybe if American society stopped celebrating and rewarding stupidity and public displays of ignorance, more people would stop pursuing that lifestyle with such fervor and entitlement.

    There is a time and place for ignorance and stupidity, “professional” politics should not one of those places.

    In the last X years, with the aid of technology (mainly video) there are so many politicians that I’m shocked are allowed to remain in office over things they have said that are recklessly idiotic, unconstitutional, and contrary to the oath of office.

  5. avatar million says:

    “Well, that’s not exactly right.”

    Oh, it’s exactly right. The mass shooters David provides as examples (Charleston, Sutherland Springs, Blacksburg) bought their firearms after undergoing a background check. “Universal” just refers to statutory background checks for private sales. “Universal” or “comprehensive” does not mean that the FBI, Air Force, et al do their jobs and enter court-martials or other disqualifying events into the federal system. At least Virginia tightened up their law regarding mental health reporting after the VATech massacre.

  6. avatar ‘liljoe says:

    Just noticed on the pictures in the cnn article the Ohio shooter appears to have used a pistol with what looks like a shockwave brace… I’m happy they don’t know what they are talking about or that would have been the next target.

    1. avatar Brandon says:

      Unfortunately they are. The lead story on my Google news feed this morning was from the WSJ identifying it as an AR pistol and talking about how they have grown in popularity as workarounds to the SBR laws, etc…The ride we are all about to take just got a lot more interesting.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Perhaps, but I think it helps to show the absurdity of the NFA laws. For example, the only single difference between a typical AR Pistol (say, with a 10.5″ barrel, with no accessories added) and an AR SBR is the buttstock/brace, which are basically the same with only the split design and velcro strap being obvious. Everything else on the gun is functionally the exact same thing. The ATF has even acknowledged that you can temporarily shoulder and/or cheek weld the brace because you’re not altering the original design. And the forward handstops available today are pretty effective, and excellent alternatives to a vertical grip.

        If you start on one end with a classic AR rifle and work your way toward an SBR, and start on the other end with a pistol and make it longer, eventually you’ll meet somewhere in the middle and have virtually identical items. It’s the NFA that makes one legal to own only with registration and taxation, and the other without any of that.

        1. avatar Brandon says:

          I don’t disagree at all about braces, hand stops, etc… demonstrating the absurdity of NFA laws. The NFA shouldn’t exist. Unfortunately the Democrats in Congress, any squishy Republicans they can find, and possibly President Trump will be cheered on by the media to “do something.” Braced pistoles may be seen as the next low hanging fruit similar to the way that bump stocks were. I really hope I’m wrong though.

  7. avatar Dude says:

    So what you’re saying is that the republican sponsored Fix NICS Act would have kept guns from falling into the wrong hands? As in, they “did something?” Of course, after being turned down, they could have purchased guns privately, but they could do the same thing to avoid the universal background checks. If there’s one thing we know about wannabe mass murderers, it’s that they aren’t very concerned with following the law.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “As in, they “did something?”

      ****

      The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

      – Ronald Reagan, August 2, 1986

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      There’s an old IT saying “Garbage In”, “Garbage Out”. Systems are only as good as the data in them. If the data is incorrect, incomplete, or contradictory, the information output is meaningless.

  8. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

    Have you written your congressman, your two senators, President Trump? It is clear to me the only way to prevent these things from being pushed through Congress is to oppose them and let your congressman, and especially your senators know how you feel. Have you donated to GOA this month, this year? If we don’t put our money behind the groups that lobby on our behalf, the end of our rights is inevitable.

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    That is not what Dem.’s/Communists want,for their goals to come to fruition they want/need the complete disarmament of the civilian population in this nation,it’s really that simple.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      The so-called “Green New Deal” is the Holodomor, Hitler’s “hunger plan” for Eastern Europe, Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, and Pol Pot’s “Year Zero” all rolled into one. It would utterly destroy the United States economy and lead to mass starvation.

      That’s not something you can easily impose on people with the means to resist with force.

    2. avatar Dennis says:

      That’s exactly what the goal is, and we’d all do well to remember that! Keep your bulls**t filters turned on high.

  10. avatar MB says:

    What guns laws would have prevented the last 2 mass murders? the last 5, 10? None. Criminals don’t obey laws. Since they don’t obey or fear God, what makes liberals/progressives/socialists think man’s laws are better?

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    May I add…the Aurora,IL factory murderer shouldn’t have gotten a gat. But somehow ISP and their pathetic FOID BS is OUR fault. Homie had an easily found criminal record😫

  12. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Without REGISTRATION, so-called “universal background checks” are an utter nullity. No one need ever obey them.
    Registration has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.
    NO, I REFUSE.

  13. avatar CLarson says:

    The media has whipped up a bogus “white supremacy” wave of terror, trying to link three disparate men with different motives to get us to shut off our brains and let them strip our freedoms away. We just need push back and weather the moral panic. Resist the gas lighting trying to turn us into impotent bed wetters while the tyrants with agendas “do something” to destroy the country more.
    One example, trying to boot 8ch, a free speech board with 1 million users, off the internet because someone re-posted a shooter’s manifesto there. Why not go after Instagram where the shooter actually had an account he used to post his manifesto? Drudge also posted the manifesto (https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm) because it’s newsworthy. The mainstream media would have us believe that these were all Trump supporting “white supremacists” wearing MAGA hats and holding AR-15s. So many poor suckers believe that because their only source is Twitter and CNN.
    We need non-corporate news sources and online places where you are free to speak about real events. We don’t need new useless gun laws and other attempts to trash the Constitution. Hold fast, keep cool, and we can beat back cynical opportunists exploiting a scared populace shocked by tragedy.

  14. avatar DerryM says:

    The call for UBC’s is only a stepping stone to the call to nullify the Second Amendment and outlaw private gun ownership for all Americans. Nothing more, nothing less. The existing “system” has proven time and again to be an ineffective failure.

    There is no “fix” for the existing situation because the root cause is broken people. It is predicated on the notion that no person who has never violated any law will ever suddenly change into a mass murderer and carry-out a heinous attack on others using the benefit of his/her former innocence to acquire the resources to execute said attack. This, too, happens time and again. We don’t know why it happens and, at present, we have no way to predict when it happens. At the same time we know that 100 million other people own and use firearms for lawful purposes for their entire lifetime(s) without harming any other person. We don’t know why that happens, either.

    We do know that the principles of individual liberty are not served by prohibiting rights and freedom to the vast majority of Americans who own and use firearms peaceably and responsibly because a very small few do not. Penalizing the majority because of the acts of a minuscule minority is the stratagem of tyranny.

  15. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    For the love of God stop calling for tightening up the system and enforcing current laws. We got that in PA and isn’t what you think it is. We found out the hard way that there are a lot of mistakes and flaws in the system and a lot of innocent people are now paying for it.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      So you’re saying you prefer that we have moar laws band-aided over what we’ve already got?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Instead of always losing ground, the current laws should be vigorously challenged; especially at every suggestion of new ones.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “For the love of God stop calling for tightening up the system and enforcing current laws.”

      Amen! That shit infringes to begin with. There’s very little difference in calling for the enforcement of current gun control and asking for more gun control. Demanding that unconscionable laws be enforced is giving those laws legitimacy.

  16. avatar MarkPA says:

    So, the cry is: “But we have to do SOMETHING!”

    If that is so, than ‘anything will do’ in response to the demand. Or, so it seems.

    The gun-controllers won’t respond to our logical challenges. No surprise here. But THESE folks are not our problem. The general public – ALSO – doesn’t respond to our logical challenges. That fact is more perplexing; and, is at the core of our problem.

    How should we respond to this demand for “SOMETHING!”? Thus far, our rational analysis seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It’s being spun by controller politicians and the media as if it were stonewalling; notwithstanding that it is nothing of the sort.

    It behooves us to assume that there is always some alternative; and, that there is a possibility that an alternative could be more effective.

    We have left the opportunity to take the initiative to the controllers. They eagerly propose “SOMETHINGs!” with legislation names and acronyms that are appealing to voters who won’t read beyond the acronym. An alternative would be for gun owners to promote a SOMETHING of our own. Of course, it must have an appealing bill name that reduces to an appealing acronym. Beyond that, it need not hold any real promise to address anything – apart from spending tax dollars.

    Such a bill to do SOMETHING proposed by gun owners can also be the vehicle to advance 1+ gun rights issues; e.g., suppressors, national reciprocity. Any such companion legislation needs to be modest in its ambition; e.g., moving suppressors from NFA to GCA. National Reciprocity only for permits including prints and training. Thus, we wouldn’t be seeking “de-“regulation; merely altering the scheme of regulation. Moving from NFA to GFA. Making N-R comparable to the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act, or, like LEOSA.

    What concession would we be prepared to make? That’s the really tough part of the equation. Here is not the place to discuss all the possibilities. Nevertheless, one example may illustrate.

    We understand how the FFL-NICS check works. The controllers want to make it “universal”. Our proposal must – necessarily – include the word “universal”. Nevertheless, it needn’t be a bill that would appeal to Bloomberg. One obvious approach would be to specify that presentation of a CWP is acceptable evidence of a NICS background check. If this is good-enough for FFLs it’s good enough for non-dealer sellers. Such a proposal satisfies the cry for “Universal” Background Checks. (Many other issues to be evaluated and solved).

    I hold NO illusions that any bill gun owners might offer would get passed.

    First, it will face opposition because it includes some rights proposals such as suppressors. That alone would be enough to kill it.

    Second, our proposal would be criticized because it’s not as tough as the controllers’ proposal. E.g., ours would not require a trip to an FFL for a 4473 to be prepared. Nevertheless, that serves as a basis to debate whether the objective is “Universal” Background Checks or whether it’s a proposal to build a registry. That debate serves as a vehicle to criticize LEOs for not bothering to investigate many tracings they could have investigated.

    In any case, the overall goal is to reclaim the position of initiative-taker from the controllers. We can then claim that our proposals are “common sense” and “reasonable” while superior to proposals offered by controllers. Admittedly, our proposals have flaws that will spend taxpayer dollars on measures that can be easily skirted (e.g., by theft, smuggling, clandestine manufacturing).

    Voters may pay attention to our criticism of the ineffectiveness of OUR OWN bill; and, recognize that the controllers’ bills suffer from the same weaknesses.

    I’m NOT interested in any complaints about the illustrated proposal I’ve made above. Rather, I invite a critique of the proposition that we are better-off seizing the initiative rather than leaving the field clear for the controllers. What is the argument favoring allowing the controllers to advance ONLY their proposals?

    1. avatar Political gristle says:

      It can’t happen, the Bolshevik media and leftist politicians will Slap and spin any pro 2A pro gun legislation.
      The best we can do is lock up the system in lawsuits and keep the status quo.
      I don’t like it but it’s working with what we have.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        @gristle: I agree that, right now, our most promising avenue is via SCOTUS. Note that that requires us all re-electing Trump no matter how many objections we have for him.

        Yet, we can’t put all our eggs in the judicial basket. There remains the court of public opinion. If we lose this fight it will be lost in that ‘deliberative’ body.

        Our problem is that that body (voters) don’t deliberate. They don’t think through the logical issues. When tragedies happen, or a Democrat is speaking, they respond emotionally to the cry: “We must do SOMETHING!” How do we respond?

        Beating our chests and reciting “the right of the People . . . ” doesn’t register with voters tied up in emotion. Nor does “due process”. They just don’t care. This human frailty explains the plague of lynching from the Reconstruction through the 1930’s, trailing off in the ’40’s and ’50s.

  17. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Meanwhile, in Hong Kong…

    What’s the butchers’ bill from the authoritah imposing their authoritah harder?

    Potesters are featuring US flags, commenting in particular on the 2A, n how, for example, having the equivalent might help them the next time they get beaten by a mob at a train station (This sounds familiar…) after a peaceful protest…

    — by triad enforcers who just happened to show up (unimpeded by police),

    — en masse, outnumbering their targets (musta had a good head count from that social credit monitoring: Google, Facebook, or home-grown, I wonder),

    — armed n uniformly dressed — must be fashion (or Antifa, but I repeat myself),

    — with metal rods, n sticks (but no hammers; so, different),

    — sending >40 people to hospital (but no gunshot wounds, so they don’t count),

    — with less than a dozen attackers charged (but more than 40 peaceful folk delivered some summary judgment, uncharged),

    Because the govt there doesn’t have any kind on ungentlemanly agreement with organized crime. This isn’t Sullivan act NY, or current Chicago, after all.

    A little summary justice “pour encourager les autres” is a thing to try when the street sweeps, n tear gas haven’t worked. (Up to protesters losing eyes from rubber bullets — but this isn’t “gun violence.”)

    So, what’s the Butcher’s bill?

    No word either way on the borrowed HK thugs also wielding cement shakes. Neither word on battle tanks vs. grocery-wielding disruptors. HK is less spacious than, Tienamen(sp?), so crushing folks beneath the treads is a bit harder. (And also not gun violence.)

    Rep Nukem of the U S was unavailable for comment, but we can anticipate immanent legislation reviving the U S Neutron Bomb program; what’s the point of bringing summary violence against citizens to get your way, if it trashes the facilities in the process?

    Myself, I think a mag size sufficient to defend a whole train station from a govt-orchestrated thug-mob of hundreds might be excessive. Really, how often does that happen?

    But, perhaps a reasonable mag size is enough to disperse an unafiliated Hammer Gang beating commuters at a train station (No word on their wielding sickles, as yet.); to stand off the crowd outside Cocaine Mitch’s (the ones calling for mayhem on camera), or the crew that attacked Tucker Carlson’s front door; or maybe enough to keep Andy Ngo’s blood inside his veins, n outside his brain.

    30 round mags? Seems about right.

  18. avatar Brewski says:

    Fact:

    Short of mind reading tech invading personal privacy, there is no system that can exist that can lawfully predict a law abiding citizen that decides to commit their first crime, whether it’s something minor or a murder.

    It’s these 1st time offenders that typically do “mass shootings” and where the uninformed are “confused” how it happened.

    Even Gun registration will do nothing to prevent first time murderers — you’ll just know they registered their weapon of choice.

    The first step in solving a problem is tasking intelligent and informed people to solve it.

    What we have is a society education failure where those closest to these disturbed individuals don’t recognize the obvious signs of mental illness or precursors to violent behavior.

  19. avatar Pg2 says:

    Click bait story title…..does anyone who can fog a mirror still believe that gun control is about public safety or reducing crime?

    1. avatar grumpster says:

      I hope not. What happened in New Zealand should have made it crystal clear what the motives are of the gun ban crowd – to make subjects out of the populace. Like Colion Noir said in so many words was the progressives answer to the latest shootings is to take guns away from the people being shot at.

  20. avatar mark s. says:

    These events always seem to happen at the perfect times needed to PROGRESS the progressive liberal socialist agenda , whether it’s to run cover for some big news event that’s plaguing one of their own or it coincides with their plans to push the gun confiscating agenda .
    The shooter is always under the care of a Psychiatrist and their intentions are usually known in advance of their actions.
    It’s a perfect LILLY WAVE scenario .

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Expect another incident in about 7-10 days.

      It’s part of the new election cycle.

  21. avatar Nanashi says:

    Reminder LaPierre supports universal gun registration.

  22. avatar Ark says:

    I have yet to see someone cite even a single mass shooter who actually obtained a gun by bluffing their way through a private sale without a background check. It’s just not a real thing.

    1. avatar Dennis says:

      Gotta be real, elected officials and all the media giants would’nt lie about a thing like that!😱

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      @Ark: That’s a good point. When you are a crazy guy interested in committing a crime, where are you going to buy a gun? Why, at the store with a shingle advertising: “Guns for Sale”. It’s the path of least resistance. Why would you go find a shooting range to hang out at waiting for someone to walk by and ask if he were interested in selling his gun?

      Now, on the other hand, if you are a trafficker, it’s worth your while to cultivate a supply channel that reduces your risk of being caught in a trace.

      In any case, none of this arm-chair speculation is really worth-while. Guns leak from the lawful market into the black market thru a “sieve”. Whichever holes that are at the lowest level carry the volume until they get plugged up. Thereupon, holes at higher levels pick-up the slack.

      So long as there are viable channels of supply in the sieve, guns will leak. The only hope is to raise the cost of black-market guns a little.

      So long as there are 80% receivers the cost of clandestine fabrication will be only modestly higher than the cost of a used gun in a gun shop. (Have a straw buyer buy a gun legally; strip the parts off the receiver and reassemble them on a finished receiver. Keep the serialized receiver to prove that the “gun” wasn’t transferred illegally.)

      So long as there are 400 million guns available to be stolen, the black-market wholesale price should be lower than gun shop prices.

      So long as there are uncontrolled borders the black market price should be only slightly above wholesale prices.

      The one best hope of controlling the black market is to enforce felon-in-possession. Make it prohibitively “expensive” to be found with a gun you aren’t allowed to possess. (Too young; felon/2-year misdemeanant; defaced serial number; while committing another crime).

      The black-market in guns will be minimized only IF-and-when possession is deemed to be more risky than getting shot by another thug. Thereupon, thugs will switch to cutlery and clubs to kill other thugs; as is the civilized way of doing things in England.

      To be sure, there will still be a black market for those who really need guns; e.g., robbers targeting armored car drivers. Yet, this market will be acutely narrowed; such that only those with the greatest need and appropriate connections will be able to access the right connections.

      We could reduce the number of gun homicides to the extent that they are thug-on-thug. But, it will require putting a lot of thugs in prison for a long time.

      No impact on suicides. Limited impact on domestic mass shooters (who will still be able to steal 1 gun from a friend’s father). No impact on foreign mass shooters.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    I thought the Charleston shooter was up on charges but not yet convicted at the time he got a gun and that the gun was bought for him anyway?

  24. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Who will monitor all of this?
    It will only matter AFTER the crime…as it always does…
    criminals will still find ways around these measures…
    Maybe we should agree to this if they agree to a border wall and deportation of ALL illegals…including dreamers…and STRICT immigration laws going forward….and NO sanctuary states or cities

  25. avatar Reno1947 says:

    Democrats worship their father satan

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email