Monday, April 9, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg on the Background Check System

The New York Daily News reports

Across the country, more than 80% of gun owners support simple fixes to the background check system that would help stop the flow of guns to criminals. The ideologues who run the gun lobby don’t want us to know that, but it’s true.

Americans of both parties support common-sense steps that would save lives and protect our police. But the gun lobby doesn’t, and it has scared Washington silent.
This is the most unconscionable part of the pro-gun resistance. What used to be called "the gun show loophole," and is probably better referred to as "the private sale loophole," is only part of it. Bloomberg's plan is not only to require background checks on all gun transfers but to ensure that the data base which is used in those checks is more reliable.

Incomplete reporting to the national data base especially regarding mental health cases is sorely in need of repair. Even, in many cases, misdemeanor domestic abuse and felony convictions are not entered in a timely manner.

This is the first of the three weaknesses in the system which needs to be corrected, the other two being straw purchasing and theft.

Everyone agrees criminals should not have guns. This is one way to do something about it.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Private sales are not a "loophole" in the law, but rather an intentional part of it.

    The anti's couldn't get private transfers included in 1968. The Brady's couldn't get them included in 1993 and you will not get them included now.

    No thank you, move along.

    As far as the 80% number, you all can believe that if it makes you feel better but we all know it is not true. I guarantee you that out of 80 million gun owners, if 64 million really believed like you said, they would pass your laws for you.

    1. The 80% quote was about simple fixes to the background check system, not about thinking like I do.

  2. When the NRA talks, what gets said is a lie, but when Bloomberg talks, it's gospel truth? I don't think so.

    Mikeb, let me help you out. The way that you see the NRA? That's how we see Bloomberg and the Brady Bunch. What you think about us? That's what we think about gun control advocates. So when you quote Bloomberg, understand that we know what he really means. Remember that ridiculous video that you showed us at Superbowl time? Bloomberg claimed that he supports the Second Amendment. Show me one regulation or law that he's supported or enacted that we would also support, and I won't call him a total liar.

  3. When that wrinkled old douche-bag (Bloomberg) gives up his armed security, he can still go fuck himself.......

    And the horror Scalia intorduces Kagan to Hunting.......

    “Justice Scalia has made a huntress out of me,” she joked. She said the two are planning to go hunting in Montana in October. In his chambers, Scalia has a large animal head he calls Leroy, Kagan said. “He insists I’m going to shoot myself an antelope,” Kagan said. “Justice Scalia insists I need my own Leroy.”


  4. Bill to end Long Gun Registry passes final vote


    "I am very, very happy and very pleased right now," said Hoeppner in an interview with the Daily Graphic Thursday. "It's a victory for so many Canadians across the country. In every region of the country, law -abiding Canadians have been stuck with this draconian piece of legislation that targets them. I'm very pleased that it is finally done."

    Why is it only the Quebequeer's that insist on fucking their law abiding subjects......

  5. Bloomberg aint dead yet? That guy looks like death warmed over.

    1. High definition isn't a universally good thing.

  6. You mention "common sense", but there is nothing common about sense, as evidenced by the commenters here.

  7. As I read it, there is a right to bear arms, but not a right to OWN arms. Make guns the property of the state, entrusted to those showing a capacity for responsible use of them. Problem solved without constitutional conflict.
    Also, declare the NRA a terrorist organization. Gitmo is too good for them.

    1. Now, you're an idea man. Don't be a stranger.

    2. Offlogic, make sure that your armor is on tight. And don't imagine that such views will have any success in this country.

  8. As a proud liberal gun-owner, not a knee-jerk bleeding heart, I fully support your right to keep whining about gun control.
    Please remember though, the 2nd amendment is there for when the 1st one is taken away.

    1. You don't sound like any liberal I ever knew. In fact you sound just like those whacky conservative Republican gun owners.

      Do you really oppose fixing the background check system? That's what this post is about. Did you take the time to see that my "whining about gun control" does not include bans or confiscations? I would like to see stricter controls in order to keep guns in the right hands. That's all.

    2. Mikeb, haven't I shown you that I hold a number of leftist positions? But of course, orthodoxy is more important than free thought.

      K55f, I'm glad to see more variety in the gun rights side. We need to recognize gun owners on all positions along the political spectrum.

    3. MikeB: "Did you take the time to see that my "whining about gun control" does not include bans or confiscations? I would like to see stricter controls in order to keep guns in the right hands. That's all."

      Of course it includes confiscations. You clearly want to confiscate guns from what you call "the wrong hands", and you have been very clear that somewhere between 10% and 50% of current gun owners are "the wrong hands". You are playing that trick again where to you the word “confiscation” means removing every gun from every private citizen.

    4. Sorry TS, that's not confiscation. That's requiring stricter qualifications.

    5. Confiscation means guns were taken away. Are you suggesting that in your proposals you would grandfather in all current gun owners? So after you become king and institute your ideals, and there is a known raging alcoholic with an assortment of 30 guns- that person would be allowed to keep their guns?

    6. I've seen gun grabbers say, well, so long as we compensate gun owners for the guns that we take, it's not confiscation. It's our job to see that this never even moves beyond the the stage of ridicule.

    7. Unfit people shouldn't have guns. When someone beats the shit out of his wife with the barrel of his 1911 and the judge rules that he should give up his guns, do you object to that?

      When a lawful gun owner commits a felony by shooting at the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to sell him Jesus, do you object to his being deprived of his guns?

      Call it whatever you want, but unfit people should not have guns. Do you really disagree with that?

    8. I don't know anyone who would object to disarming the examples that you gave. Those two are violent criminals. But the people who will get disarmed under your schemes are good citizens. Criminals will have guns regardless.

  9. As a gun owner and hunter, I've been delighted that in the recent weeks fact that the NRA works hand-in- glove has been exposed. Considering the fascistic leaning Reich-wing corporatist nature of the big funders of ALEC should be a powerful motivator to all freedom loving Americans.

    1. Thanks for the link and the comment.

    2. Are you sure that this isn't a Democommie sockpuppet?

      Regardless, the NRA is doing just about everything that I want from it. ALEC only has influence because voters allow things to be so. That's true about anyone's money in politics.

  10. We in Sweden have "draconian" gun laws, and (surprice surprice) we only have a fraction of the gun related deaths USA have per capita...
    We only have guns/rifles for hunting and target practices btw. NOT "protection" and still, the death rates are way down from yours, But sure,(as NRA fanatics uses to claim, when they are not saying they must have their guns to protect the goverment against the commie... (excuse me "muslim terrorist") out to invade them).
    We in Sweden probably wouldnt be able to attack our own army if they and our goverment would turn aganist us (as I am sure the NRA people would be able to overthrew their own (nuclear backed) army/goverment if they turned evil (say, as under Bush v2.0))

    1. Thanks for the update from Sweden. I love your sarcasm about the NRA types fighting off the tyrannical government.

    2. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. The Swedes used to be the conquering Norsemen who struck terror into England and France and the Mediterranean and on and on. Sweden had a glorious run under Gustavus Adolphus, but no more. Do be careful about buying into the European and snobbish attitude about the United States.

      But why don't you have a look at the Czech Republic--lots of guns, but a low murder rate. How can that be?

    3. Actualy, we (as in "the swedish people" started to live well in the the 1900s, Before, during our "imperial years" when we where making wars, our people starved more often than not...
      (and we have had a few "Gustav Adolf", the last one lived between 1882-1973, he was OK, and DIDNT start wars.
      (btw, Sweden and Denmark is the two contries that has been having wars the most, up to a little more than a hundred years ago it was unusual with peace between us, but nowdays, we are at peace (we even have a bridge between our contrys nowdays a couple of kilometers from where I live) It realy sucked being a "normal" swedish citizen during our "glory days" when we where invading other contries and our goverment invested in that instead of the people....

      Btw, Czech republic murder rate is 1.67, Sweden have 0.86 (less than half), USA have 4.8 (all per 100000 citizens for a year)

      (thats ALL murders, not only gun related, feel free to produce numbers only including guns, I dont think they will show Czech republic better than Sweden however...)

    4. I forgot...
      please include "accidental deaths" by guns in those numers if you find any!
      "oops, sorry son!"

    5. (OK, i meant "slightly more than half" about swedish/czech murder rate...)

    6. Is Democommie posting as an anonymous Swede? No one else calls me son around here.

      But let's consider what he had to say. The Czech murder rate per hundred thousand is 1.67, while the Swedish rate is 0.86. Do you notice that it's a difference of less than one person per hundred thousand? Now I realize that Europeans don't have constitutional protections of guns, but here in America, we get irritable when people try to take away our rights while at the same time having no comprehension of how to analyze data.

      But we get irritable when people try to take away our rights, period. Ask George III, if you need more information.

    7. "No one else calls me son around here."
      You mean that you accidentaly shot your son? (I didnt refer to you, rather the "oops, sorry I shot you in the dark my son"-comment You will never hear here!)
      (And no, I am not the same person You refer to!)

      And back to the data....
      It is almost twice the murderrate in the Czech republik than in sweden....
      (or "in the USA, there are only slightly 4 more gun murders/100000..." if you prefere that.... )

      Thats NOT including "accidental" shootings

      Could you present your numbers (murders/gun murders (and preferable "accidental murders) thanks!

    8. Anonymous Swede, 0.86, 1.67, and 4.8 are all within four of each other. The middle is twice the lowest, and the highest is five times the lowest, but as I said before, that's an artifact of the low value of each. You're going on as if five times something is huge by itself, but five times one is five. Neither one nor five is a large number. Especially the comparison of Sweden to the Czech Republic is being histrionic. Yes, the latter has twice the former, but twice is only because both are very low.

      I don't have figures for the accidental shootings in Europe that you keep going on about, but do you have a point there?

    9. Five times higher is NOT low, esp. since its a average value (I assume you have slightly higher numbers in your main cities than average?)

      And we are still only talking about murders, I read somewhere that "accidental shootings" in homes is a large percentage of weapon related deaths (and they are not counted into "murders" (even if some of them probably are)),
      Here we have hard tests and checks for wannabee weaponskeepers and hard rules for weaponskeeping (my fathers weaponcabinet/box is more like a safe), those rules makes accidental shootings in homes almost unheard of...
      we are responsible for how the weapons are kept (as "not getting in minors hands" or being easily taken in burglaries aso.)
      (even hunting related shootings are few here, somebody like Dick Cheeney would NOT get to keep his weapons/license here after his f**kup)

      Handguns (the few we have for targetshooting its NOT for "protection") are hard to get permits for..
      (and btw, our rules also keeps people from storing a multitude of weapons more sutiable for a small army, or military weapons)
      (and forget "concealed weapons" or even being armed on the street/in a city if you are not a member of the police (or military (and they have strictly enforced rules about how to use them))

      And I dont understand your point that the Czech (and we) murder less of each others with guns than your citizens?
      Is it a reason for you to have slack weaponlaws that Your people obviously use those weapons to murder (and kill) more people than the czech people or us?
      (it should be the reverse, you should have HARDER rules if your population are more killcrazy than other)

    10. "as I am sure the NRA people would be able to overthrew their own (nuclear backed) army/goverment if they turned evil"

      Hold on, you are saying the United States would nuke its own people to counter an uprising of armed citizens?

    11. Anonymous Swede, the more you tell us about the laws of your country, the more pleased I am to be an American.

    12. TS, not according to me, but according to quite a lot of the gun nuts, their "god given right" to hoard weapons is to "protect" them from a future (or according to some of them, todays) possible "evil" goverment, where they would protect themselevs aganst the goverment and its minors (invcluding the military). And if you accept that premise, the goverment has those weapons (and quite a owerwhelming conversional military force also if you dont agree with those more extreme nuts)
      (that it doesnt work in practice (see the cults that have tried to keep them out with guns) is another thing...

      Greg Camp

      No problem, as I said, we dont try to invade other contries anymore, not even the bastards in Denmark ;-) ...
      (it would be interresting to find out what evil laws you are thankfull to not have however, and why??

      That we have few weapons so few people get shot, accidentialy or otherwise, that we have demands on the weaponowners to have them locked so children (or burglars) dont get to them easily, or that we have strigent test for permits (no "buying over the counter" for Joe Anonymous in a gun exibition show)?
      Or is it the above, that we probably would lose if our goverment/military turned against us (and they doesnt even have nukes).
      Or that we have less weapons to use if the evil "islam terrorists" invade us?

      Please tell!...

    13. Anonymous Swede (who's sounding more and more like Mikeb or Democommie), do you realize that these laws apply only to people who obey them? You may have a more law abiding society, and good for you, but nothing in what you named will keep criminals from getting guns. America has long and porous borders through which all kinds of illegal goods and persons pass every day. The laws that you listed only make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns or to defend themselves with guns.

    14. Greg, you keep saying that but it's still not true. The UK is proof. Criminals will only get guns if they are available. With proper gun control laws, you law-abidig gun owners would be constrained to hold onto your guns much more than you do now. Then, like England, we would have a safer society with an intentional homicide rate that not something to be ashamed of.

    15. As we've discussed, that homicide rate isn't much higher than the U.K.'s, especially when compared to other nations. In addition, you've been shown that homicide rates and gun laws have little to do with each other. How can a nation with strict gun laws have a high rate, while a nation with good laws have a low rate? Your side claims that strict gun laws lower crime, but the evidence tells us that there are other reasons at work. Why should we change our laws for nothing?

  11. Not "Everyone agrees criminals should not have guns."