Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Colion Noir Explains that Criminals Won't Obey the Background Check Law

"C'mon, people, criminals are criminals."

Like everybody else, I would imagine he first heard this inane response to gun control suggestions from Wayne La Pierre. I can't believe he's repeating it.  I suppose he really thinks his fast-talking slickness is too much for us. Of course most of his listeners are already believers and for them he can say no wrong.

Any honest discussion of how criminals get guns discounts the example he used in the video, criminal to criminal. The important transaction is the one in which a gun moves from the lawful owner to the criminal. This is especially important since almost all guns used in crime initially start out as the lawful property of someone. I described the four ways here.

Background checks on private sales would eliminate one of the 4 ways. We don't need criminals to obey that law, we only need the law abiding to do so.

Now in order to slickly slide that one past us, Colion spent the next three-quarters of the video mocking Vice President Biden, which I happen to agree with.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Criminals don't obey laws--let's not have laws!

    Also, do these people lock their doors when they leave their homes?
    Do they lock the door of their car and take the key when they drive their car?

    Also, when criminals break the law, they are punished.

    So, even though criminals may break laws, the deterrence does actually work.

    It's idiotic to say that if there isn't a 100% reduction in crime, that it makes no sense to try to reduce the problem.

    If that's the case, walking around with a gun is even dumber since it is more likely that these idiots will shot themselves or a family member than a criminal.

    1. Malum in se vs. Malum prohibitum, Laci.

      And, it is not because there isn't a 100% reduction in crime- it is because there is a 0% reduction in crime. You remember my gun laws vs. violent crime rate calculation, right? It calculates to ZERO correlation.

    2. Laci,

      Many people, including myself, oppose laws that harm one group of people in order to benefit another group of people. And for the record, infringing someone's liberty is harmful. That's why false imprisonment, kidnapping, and rape are illegal. Those actions prevent a citizen from going about their business. Civilian disarmament (gun control) prevents citizens from going about their business when it involves firearms. If you want to purchase, trade, or even build your own chair, you are free to do anything you want. But if it is a firearm, suddenly we no longer have that freedom. That is harmful. It is a narrowly focused example of false imprisonment.

      We could eliminate many deaths and injuries if we banned pools, bicycles, and cars. Why is that a no-go? Why is banning firearms okay when banning pools, bicycles, and cars is not okay?

      - TruthBeTold

    3. I agree there is an upside to gun ownership, but unlike the lying gun-rights fanatics, I don't believe it outweighs the downside. In order to pass your idea off as true, you need to subscribe to the millions-of-DGUs-a-year theory.

    4. All I have to do for me is to say that guns do me more good than harm. They have done no harm to me, and I have done no harm with them, in any case.

  2. "It's idiotic to say that if there isn't a 100% reduction in crime, that it makes no sense to try to reduce the problem." I agree with you on this. We should pass laws that will reduce the problem. Universal background checks just isn't likely to be one of the measures that reduces the problem of armed criminals.

    Think of what the response is to a perceived threat at something like a political event. What is the government's usual response? Usually they will beef up the presence of armed security guards right? If the government's response to provide security is more armed forces, why shouldn't our response to reduce crime be to arm more legal citizens?

  3. Here comes Laci, repeating his usual nonsense. Why did you carry a gun, Dog? If it wasn't for protection, were you packing just in case you saw a target paper you could pop some rounds into?

    But let's move on to the video. The argument that criminals don't obey laws is valid when the proposed law would only affect law-abiding people. Mikeb, you go on and on about the sources of guns, but what you refuse to recognize is that there are so many guns in the system now that background checks won't be effective for decades, if not a century. Guns last a long time, even with only rudimentary care. Those guns won't magically disappear if some new law gets passed. In fact, they would become valuable items in the black market.

    So again, because you can't come up with a way to address the real problems, you want our government to look busy by passing a law that would only make it more difficult for law-abiding gun owners.

    You also argued against a compromise. Write a bill with a reasonable background check system--no permanent records, no registry, free to use--and include national carry reciprocity, and you'd get a lot of support. But you won't do that.

    Enjoy continuing to lose.

  4. If, as the gun control advocates' claim that 90+% of the populace supports universal background checks, then this issue is easily solved. Make the NICS system available to the general public and change the form by removing all information about the firearm. If the 90% figure is correct, then you will have instantly reduced the firearms being transferred rate from the claimed 40% to 10% or possibly even less. After all, if the only concern is restricting prohibited persons' access to firearms, it doesn't matter what the firearm is.
    The concerns of gun control opponents regarding back door registration will be eased because information about the firearm won't be given to the government. This will also eliminate the objection that going to an FFL for the transfer will cost money.
    This would accomplish the same goals espoused by the gun control advocates while addressing the concerns of the gun rights advocates. A win/win if you will.