5 ms·

85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.

by untog 7y ago

basementcat 7y ago
It is not clear if background checks can prevent this type of event.
- untog 7y ago
  It definitely can in many. Just because it doesn't work every time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
- armada651 7y ago
  How about a background check and a mental check? Gun owners always call it a mental health crisis, so let's make sure all new gun owners are vetted and have to pass a psychological exam.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > How about a background check and a mental check? That would pretty much guarantee that people who need mental health services would deliberately avoid getting it to prevent it from showing up on their records, e.g. a security guard who needs to carry a firearm for their job.
    - basementcat 7y ago
      It gets worse. If you’re flagged with a mental illness, most states will yank your professional license (you lose your job and possible primary income). Our society has an economic incentive to underreport mental illness.
    - armada651 7y ago
      It would not be optional to do the mental exam.
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > It would not be optional to do the mental exam. Uh, what do you think a psychiatric exam is? There's no crazy-o-meter that they stick into an orifice to objectively determine whether you're mentally ill or not. You simply get asked a series of questions which you can reply to in any way you like.
  - umvi 7y ago
    How do you define a "mental check"? "socially awkward people aren't allowed to have guns" as a policy would be a flagrant violation of a constitutional right. The scary thing is that mentally ill people can intentionally mask their illness in order to pass exams.
  - eswat 7y ago
    Replying to the other comments under this reply: in Canada we check for past history of mental illness but don’t flag gun license applicants just because of that. They need to have a history of being treated due to illness that could lead to violence.
  - sk5t 7y ago
    In the interests of keeping things pari passu, how about implementing mental screenings as part of voter registration as well?
s_m_t 7y ago
In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.
- ajross 7y ago
  Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked. It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
  - s_m_t 7y ago
    I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
    - ajross 7y ago
sk5t 7y ago
"Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.

85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.

by untog 7y ago

85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.

basementcat 7y ago

It is not clear if background checks can prevent this type of event.

untog 7y ago
It definitely can in many. Just because it doesn't work every time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
armada651 7y ago
How about a background check and a mental check? Gun owners always call it a mental health crisis, so let's make sure all new gun owners are vetted and have to pass a psychological exam.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > How about a background check and a mental check? That would pretty much guarantee that people who need mental health services would deliberately avoid getting it to prevent it from showing up on their records, e.g. a security guard who needs to carry a firearm for their job.
  - basementcat 7y ago
    It gets worse. If you’re flagged with a mental illness, most states will yank your professional license (you lose your job and possible primary income). Our society has an economic incentive to underreport mental illness.
  - armada651 7y ago
    It would not be optional to do the mental exam.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > It would not be optional to do the mental exam. Uh, what do you think a psychiatric exam is? There's no crazy-o-meter that they stick into an orifice to objectively determine whether you're mentally ill or not. You simply get asked a series of questions which you can reply to in any way you like.
- umvi 7y ago
  How do you define a "mental check"? "socially awkward people aren't allowed to have guns" as a policy would be a flagrant violation of a constitutional right. The scary thing is that mentally ill people can intentionally mask their illness in order to pass exams.
- eswat 7y ago
  Replying to the other comments under this reply: in Canada we check for past history of mental illness but don’t flag gun license applicants just because of that. They need to have a history of being treated due to illness that could lead to violence.
- sk5t 7y ago
  In the interests of keeping things pari passu, how about implementing mental screenings as part of voter registration as well?

s_m_t 7y ago

In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.

jacobolus 7y ago
People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.
ajross 7y ago
Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked. It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
- s_m_t 7y ago
  I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
  - ajross 7y ago

sk5t 7y ago

"Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.