“The people who do these mass shootings are crazy!” the NRA says. “It’s not the fault of the guns! It’s not our fault!”
Yes, if only there were some way to try to prevent crazy people from having access to guns. Some sort of, I dunno, background check system. Oh, really? That has been proposed? Well, gee, who would be against something as sensible as that?
The NRA? They’re the ones who are against that?
Clearly I am missing something. Tell me again how this isn’t at least partially their fault?
ventrellaquest.com 
Not a very strong argument, Mike. Using your logic, I could apply partial blame to anyone for any negative happening just about anywhere in the world. (Smart people see right through the kind of bull that you are spewing here.)
This is ridiculous. The one kid stabbed people, shot people, and hit people with his car. Yet, some people still want to twist things to place blame on the gun – or the pro-gun groups – for the ensuing tragedy.
You’re out of your mind, sir!
Gee…maybe if there were more armed people in CA this kid would have been stopped much earlier. How about taking personal responsibility for your own safety and protection? Oh, that’s right. You think the GOVERNMENT is supposed to keep you safe, and people don’t need to do anything to help themselves. They shouldn’t have to, right? The LAW is supposed to protect you. (Yeah, cause the police are always there to protect you when things go bad, and criminals always follow laws, too.)
Sometimes, I think you people are just insane. Or just not too bright at times…
LikeLike
Saying “we should do nothing” is not a solution. Preventing those of us who want to do something means you are helping the problem.
Background checks will never stop every madman from doing crazy things. But it will stop some. If you deny that, then “you’re out of your mind, sir!”
LikeLike
Yes, if only there were some way to try to prevent crazy people from having access to guns. Some sort of, I dunno, background check system.
You mean like the 3 – three – background checks the UCSB shooter passed?
You mean like the Texas CHL background check, the employment background check, the top secret security clearance background check the Washington Navy Yard shooter passed?
Virginia Tech shooter — passed 2 background checks.
So exactly what sort of background checks would have stopped the UCSB shooter?
Bob S.
LikeLike
Right, right, because my argument was that this would stop every single shooting ever. Therefore, your examples where this was not the case destroys my argument completely.
No, wait! I remember now! I never claimed that! How silly of me!
LikeLike
NO, I’m asking how it would stop any of them !
if only there were some way to try to prevent crazy people from having access to guns. Some sort of, I dunno, background check system.
Your words, not mine. California has a background check system, doesn’t it?
The evidence — verifiable, document and historical, shows that the background check process has not stopped mass/spree killers from obtaining firearms. Didn’t stop Columbine shooters who found ways around the check.
Didn’t stop people who had major issues.
So exactly how would it stop any one?
LikeLike
I guess I could just keep repeating myself. Apparently it doesn’t work, though. I’ll try one more time. Read slowly, that might help.
We will never stop ALL gun deaths. But we should do everything we can to prevent them. Background checks no more stop ALL gun deaths than laws against speeding stop all speeders. But it helps, and you have to be purposely obtuse to deny that. All laws help. states that have these laws have less gun crimes. Countries that have these laws have less gun crimes. They don’t have zero, but they have less. The laws work.
The alternative: Do nothing. Yeah, that’s working out great for us.
LikeLike
Keep repeating yourself all you want. I’m asking a very simple and basic question.
Given the historical data — verifiable and documented that mass spree killers have obtained firearms regardless of background checks….just exactly how will a background check stop one?
Please explain in detail HOW it will happen.
The current reality (I’m not sure what color the sky is in your world ) of our world is there is no evidence to suggest background checks will stop any one killer.
So again — can you explain how a background check is going to stop someone who plans to commit murder?
LikeLike
Dammit, you got me. I agree. Let’s just give up and do absolutely nothing. A criminal that wants to break the law will always find a way to do so, so we might as well just get rid of all laws! After all, laws against murder haven’t stopped murders from happening! Might as well get rid of them!
The fact that every other advanced civilized country on the planet has a gun death rate a small fraction of ours is meaningless, because clearly it can’t possibly be because they have strict gun laws. There’s just absolutely nothing we can do! The deaths are inevitable!
LikeLike
Nice try but a straw man argument (let’s do nothing) isn’t the position I’m taking – it is one you set up yourself – repeatedly to knock down.
We can strengthen the mental health system by increasing funding. We can enact laws that makes it easier to involuntarily commit people for observation and treatment. We can clearly define what ‘mental illness is’ and when people are to be denied their rights.
All without a single background check.
the fact that every other advanced civilized country
I always love how anti-rights cultists like you have to use two qualifiers to get the criteria you want. “advanced & civilized” — of course Mexico might resent being left out. Honduras, Belize, Brazil….all the countries with strict gun control laws (forget to mention that did ya?) and yet have higher firearm related homicide rates than America.
Let’s do something — but let’s do something that addresses the causes of the problem, not the tool.
Bob S.
LikeLike
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why is it that if we want Gun Control we cannot work on the mental health problem of the country?
And while it hasnt been mentioned in this thread, one common argument that the NRA uses is “we have enough laws, enforce them”, but doesnt mention that through NRA funded lobbyists, over the last 20 years the agency whose mission it was to enforce said laws has been rendered toothless.
So yes, we need to reevaluate gun enforcement laws in this country.
and Yes we need to improve mental health in this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It doesn’t have to be one or the other; Mr. Ventrella is engaging in a debate tactic called “Straw man” where he sets up an exaggerated position “do nothing at all” as something his opponents are recommending. Nothing could be further then the truth.
I’m just trying to point out the facts that background checks haven’t stopped killers in the past — heck the UCSB killer passed 3!! So if he is claiming to want background checks; isn’t it incumbent on him to explain how magically background checks are suddenly going to stop people?
but doesnt mention that through NRA funded lobbyists, over the last 20 years the agency whose mission it was to enforce said laws has been rendered toothless.
Exactly what laws have been rendered “toothless” — the ones against murder? rape? Robbery?
Or the ones that prevented honest average citizens from exercising their rights — like the ones allowing local law enforcement to veto their rights to keep and bear arms?
Bob
LikeLike
Are you in favor of background checks then, for everyone, at every level, at gun shows, and in every instance? It certainly didn’t seem so from your post.
LikeLike
Mike, I appreciate your effort to have a dialog. I think that it is important that we continue to talk even when we disagree.
LikeLike
Actually, I didn’t say that a law had been rendered toothless. I said an agency, and in this case, I was referring to the ATF.
The NRA has pressured congress, with its money, to keep the ATF weak against enforcing the laws that congress passed. Mostly because they know that nobody would stand for them getting rid of the laws, but looking the other way is something else entirely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you in favor of background checks then, for everyone, at every level, at gun shows, and in every instance?
No I am not. First and foremost, I should not have to get approval from the government to exercise my rights. I shouldn’t have to let the government know that I wish to purchase a firearm.
And before you say I’m paranoid; count the government scandals where it has shown it can not do the right thing; from Iran-Contra to Fast & Furious, the IRS being used to target conservative groups, and on and on.
Second, Background checks are ineffective in stopping criminals and the mentally ill. History has shown that has not. Study after Study has shown it will not work.
From the National Institute of Justice Memo
Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies
Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
National Institute of Justice
Universal background checks
Twitter summary: Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process
These figures indicate informal transfers dominate the crime gun market. A perfect universal
background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns. Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.
so it would require registration to make it work….and still wouldn’t work as long as people could use straw purchasers……and people would. Just like the Columbine killers did.
From the CDC
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services
During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Sorry but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. What is hard about understanding that the UCSB killer passed 3 background checks as did many of the other killers?
Stomping your feet, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “it will work, it will work, it will work” doesn’t change the fact that it has not and will not work.
Bob S.
LikeLike