“This is crime prevention. That’s what policing should be about. It should be about preventing a crime before it happens. It’s much less costly to prevent it than to move in after a crime has occurred.” – Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick in Oregon’s new background check gun law begins Sunday [at kgw.com]
“Pre-crime” efforts usually go terribly wrong, even in Tom Cruise movies.
More importantly, you’re interfering with civil rights, so screw you, bitch.
Yeah. Usually “crime prevention” = “rights trampled”
Ginny Burdick is the person they thought of when they wrote the Constitution.
She is not a good person.
“”Ginny Burdick is the person they thought of when they wrote the Constitution.
She is not a good person.”
Bad people were nothing new to the founders, and the Founders were more concerned with indifferent cowards, who through their complacency, gave the British tyranny legitimacy.
The founders wrote the Constitution with us comfortable slaves in mind, because we have willingly sacrificed our Liberty for false state security.
I’m sorry, that You have found out first hand what happens to appeasing those statist individuals. The statist of both parties, possess the same ideology of those who were forced out of this country at gunpoint in the late 1700’s.
FedUp beat me to the pre-crime reference punch.
So I’ll just add that the cost to prevent a crime is not cheaper at all. You can’t be everywhere at all time.
Like nearly everything else an anti gunner says this is a lie. In this case the cost is hidden, but no less real. Unconstitutional on its face, of course no matter what the courts say.
In your heart, you know she is right.
I think the Government needs to work on the Pre-Crime Division of the Ministry of Love and more work needs to be done by the Ministry Of Truth to propagate the wonders of Ingsoc.
I love our Dear Leader, Big Sister.
“WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
You make a good point with your 1984 references. It has been many years since I read it, time to find which box of books I put it in. As far as her Bloomberg inspiration goes, they just know: “Some animals are more equal than others.”
You left out the “Ministry of Funny Walks”
“Silly” walks. Sorry, pedantic.
A similar law pushed through by Bloomies and his rich friends in Washington has done nothing – other than be ignored because it is so complex – so good luck with that Oregon gems.
I really think they get to the point that the believe their own lies!
The Ministry Of Truth never lies, they just perform minor adjustments to the truth to enhance accuracy for the citizens.
How do we prevent mentally ill people from getting guns? Part of the reason background checks are ineffective is the disconnect in reporting of mental health to the proper channels.
I have a personal situation where I would be concerned if an specific individual acquired a firearm. I know this person has a high probability of doing themselves or someone harm.
I would like to see some real solutions presented, instead of the typical dreck about “background checks don’t work”.
So this person doesn’t have a probability of doing themselves or others harm if they don’t have a firearm?
And, of course, background checks don’t work. But even if they did “work”, I’d be against them. A govt that can decide who is “allowed” to buy arms is tyranny in the making.
This is just what we need more of (sarc). You “know” this person “will” do harm. That’s some kind of special insight you have there, kind of like the Senator seems to have. And I’m betting your definition of mentally ill doesn’t match my definition of mentally ill.
If you are genuinely concerned about a particular individual, fine. Find a way to address the issue without stepping on his rights…you know, like you would expect if you were the subject.
Background checks do not work. They are a waste of our time, money and patience. They are an insult to our dignity. I’m not willing to give that particular infringement of our rights any support whatsoever.
This person has been involuntary committed to an institution, and arrested in past occasions. So yes, my definition is pretty reasonable. They made threats towards family members, and have an restraining order. Which we know how well those things work. I have my ccw on me whenever possible, and it is mentally exhausting. This person could do harm without a gun, they have physically assaulted people in the past with their bare hands, but it would make it a lot easier for them if they had one.
This person sound dangerous. Dangerous to themselves and others. Why are they not hospitalized/institutionalized or under a professional’s care?
Soooooo…restraining orders don’t work but background checks do?
@Randal: Better include anything else they can get their hands on, baseball bats, knives, ropes, gasoline, cars, etc.. Where does the list end? If someone is that dangerous they need to be locked up.
When it comes to a person being labeled as crazy and being disallowed, I have some sympathy, but we should never trust the government with that decision. My uncle who thought he was St. Gerome was nuts but hardly dangerous, and never forget lots of governments have defined political dissidents as crazy and put them in “mental institutes” aka reeducation camps to marginalize them.
Less costly? Sure, if you think making a new rule about what people do with hundreds or thousands of dollars of their property and putting them in a dungeon if they don’t abide is free. Or better than free; maybe making rules is a goal in and of itself. Doing that makes you an effective legislator and helps build a society where everyone knows they have to cooperate for the greater good.
Blah.
Police prevent crime. They cannot prevent crimes.
It will go into effect, and promptly be ignored. There is no forcing function for compliance. It will only catch a few people in its entire existance from an obscure armslist sale. They want to make people fear selling firearms thereby having a chilling effect on normal practices of firearm owners.
Yeah, make gun ownership more of a minefield for newbs and non-entheusiasts.
Exactly, as it already is. I’ll show guns to friends that are noobs and they have been thought-conditioned to think that the items I’m showing them must be illegal
My friends even ask: “Are they registered?” and refuse to believe that Illinois or Fed doesn’t have any register of firearms.
Whatever drugs you’re taking to create that dream world state in your mind, Senator Ginny, stop taking it, PLEASE?
“Supporters of the new law also cited research which found states that require background checks on all handgun sales saw 48% fewer gun suicides, 48% fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns and 46% fewer women killed by their domestic partners.”
The research links to Everytown’s website. Way to be unbiased.
Of course they conveniently forget to mention that over 90% of gun sales already have a background check done. So far, in WA State this has probably had zero effect on any of these things.
It might be even true for all I know. Question remains, is there less suicides and killings by any means in those states? Or are people who are shot deader than people who are stabbed, choked or run over with wehicles?
In other news – countries with no indoor plumbing have almost 99% less bathtub drownings.
A law that criminalizes the permanent or temporary transfer of a firearm between two private, law abiding citizens is going to prevent exactly zero crimes. Shannon’s Sugar Daddy spread his money around in the metropolitan areas of my state and bought some demonrat whores in the state legislature. These anti civil rights bigots are going to spout all sorts of nonsense as they run for cover in the 2016 elections.
I’m all for reducing crime, this won’t do one damm thing toward that goal. But it will help get used to police state questioning, TSA is also useful in this way, (Check points)
Sorry lady, but making more things illegal does not prevent crime, it creates crime.
Now that’s an argument worth stealing.
Occasionally there’s no clear proof of causation as opposed to correlation, but when mail order firearms were legal there was less crime. Other times causation is blatantly obvious, like the fact that banning cocaine created a black market for criminals which clearly led to more crime. And I could go on all day with traffic laws. If there were no speed limits there would be no speeders. Then there’s the guy that wrote the book ‘Three Felonies a Day’ explaining how we are all criminals now because there are so many inane laws that no one is capable of obeying them all. Yet politicians are judged by the liberal media by what they’ve ‘got done’ as opposed to what bad laws they’ve gotten rid of.
I interpreted your original comment as saying that if you make common harmless activity a crime, you have just, by definition, created an increase in crime.
That too.
Remember which politicians backed this stoopid crap when the shooting starts.
The more laws they create the more corrupt the state. Forgot who said some thing along those lines originally.
I think the above pic is our American answer to: “Margaret Thatcher on a cold day.”
This isn’t going to prevent any crimes at all. All it’s going to do is burden the people performing private sales. Firearm thefts might increase slightly, but more than likely criminals will continue their private sales without background checks because… They are criminals. After the legislators and freedom hating politicians realize the law did nothing at all, they will continue to keep it on the books to inconvenience law abiding gun owners, just like the ridiculous NFA rules. Because a 16.5 inch barrel is acceptable but a 15 inch barrel deserves 10 years in prison.
I wonder if she thinks anyone will actually obey this law? Does anyone think anyone will obey this law?
I actually agree with her, Crime starts by creating laws outlawing acts and objects…. we can start with the lawmakers, the ones who invent ” crime”.
“Mr. Marks, by mandate of the District of Columbia Precrime Division, I’m placing you under arrest for the future murder of Sarah Marks and Donald Dubin that was to take place today, April 22 at 0800 hours and four minutes.”
We do not live life as in Minority Report.
Fine, then.
Since politicians as a group are demonstrably more corrupt than the citizenry as a whole, let’s start by incarcerating all politicians.
After all, if a good idea for crime prevention can help in one place it can help in others.
Sad thing is to the low information voter ie. democrat, she is correct. We who think and read and you can tell by many of the replies that we are quite well read, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Aldous Huxley… this stuff is not being taught in school any longer….A critical thinker can muster through the background check easily. At Sandy Hook the murderer killed his mother(broke the law) stole her firearms(broke it again) and then carried the stolen firearms(broke it again) and then murdered(broke the law again). In the state of Connecticut only licensed individuals may purchase firearms legally. All the firearms owned by the murderer’s mother were legally bought.
She passed the the background checks performed by the DESPP… no law, no police officer could have stopped a deranged murderer from doing what they do….
All the new gun bans and magazine capacity laws and registration will do nothing to deter crime…the city of Hartford has already surpassed the total number of murders committed in 2014… are the police doing their job? Absolutely.
Are the perpetrators of these shooting in Hartford, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. buying their firearms through legal channels? No.
So, Senator Burdick how will your proposed legislation for background checks on all firearm sales deter crime? It didn’t in Sandy Hook, nor in Chicago, Hartford or Baltimore.
Laws are followed by the legal gun owner… Those that use the gun for crime do not follow the law…
.I honestly believe the spike in violence in Hartford is the direct result of the governor and his democrat run legislature telling the DOC to release so-called non-violent offenders…jmho
Well they need to do what they did in OR. Recall elections for the people behind this tripe. Drive these anti rights scum bags into the proverbial sea.
Are they so amazingly highly trained that they can see into the future?
Hey, Democrats: your Dolores Umbridge is showing…
This character was named such for a reason… It doesn’t get any more obvious.
God help me, as soon as I saw that pic I knew an astoundingly idiotic quote was going to follow.
Me too, I think I actually rolled my eyes back so far I saw my brain
I see some pre-civil-right-infringment crime going on right now… let’s throw her in the clink
I thought having stiff penalties for criminal behavior (the ones with actual victims) was the deterrent to crime. This law makes criminals out of people who may have no ill intent to harm anyone. This law also offsets responsibility of criminals with intent to do harm to regular joes just trying to sell their firearm.
I live in Oregon. I have bought and sold guns to and from my shooting buddy, and to others.
This law is a joke! It is a simple matter to make out a receipt for the transaction, and pre-date it.
OR falling to the progressive theater. Prevention, yes, a good thing. But prevention is not checking law-abiding consumers against their Constitutional Rights. Maybe prevention is looking at human behaviors? Oh no, but that is not nearly as good a sound bite as “background checks.”
Winston Smith approves.
Progressive Portland CBS affiliate links to Everytown for “research” cited in article,
and links to previous article, quoting Gov Kate Brown quoting “everytown (sic) study”.
Guess we know who bought whom in Portland, and the Oregon state-house.
Ironically, directly below the article under “More Top Stories” is the top story:
“Gang violence in Portland at All Time High”
Since only the law abiding will follow the universal background checks for all gun sales, one wonders just how much time will Portland PD be spending chasing down the law abiding who ignore this dumb law, instead of chasing the gang bangers who committed the 100 shootings in first 7 months of 2015.
Crime prevention, Ms Burdick? I dont think so, nor do the state law enforcement experts.
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/07/another-oregon-sheriff-says-no-to-enforcing-universal-background-checks/
Dementia is a terrible thing to behold.
I also live in Oregon. I have watched the process wherein political prostitutes elected to public office accepted out of state money to violate the rights of Oregon citizens.
The Sheriffs and Police Chiefs of many cities and counties of Oregon have refused to enforce this law.
Most of these Sheriffs appeared in person in front of the State Legislature and asked them not to pass this law – stating then, they would not enforce it if it passed.
Perhaps, it is the start of the revolt against illegal laws restricting gun rights.
Several counties in Oregon have flat out said they won’t enforce the law so this is turning into some bad PR when the sheriffs think it’s stupid.I have the good sense not to live in Portland so I can’t vote her out, but come 2016 my local legislators better watch their electoral backs.
Wow, okay, so throw everyone in jail. Prevent all dat crime.
Seriously what is wrong with a person that this passes for logic? Or reason? Or justice?