A couple days ago, I asked those of you who are pro-gun and have sold guns privately how, without a background check, you made sure you weren't selling to someone who would fail a background check, and would it bother you to know that you might be an unknowing accessory to a shooting crime.
Thank you, to those who answered. I'm disappointed that only a few of you did so. A couple hundred of you chose not to answer. So I went to some of the pro-gun blogs to look at repostings of my question and the comments people left there, as well. Here are some links to those:
So, here is what you had to say:
The most common response was that you only sell to those you know or that carry a concealed carry license. Selling only to someone you know personally and who won't abuse their right is a responsible thing to do, and I approve. Using a concealed carry permit is a good second choice. You assume that, since they passed a background check to get the permit and haven't had it revoked that they are safe. Generally you're probably correct. The problem is that not all violent crimes result in the withdrawal of conceal carry permits, and those crimes vary widely from state to state, and I wonder about the comparative speed of reporting to the NICS background system compared to the speed of removal of the certificates from the offenders. Of course, you are also discounting the majority of gun owners, who don't have a CCL. Running a background check takes only 5 minutes in Oregon.
Another choice that a couple of you mentioned is that you would approve of a firearms owner identification card as a stand-in for background checks, like Illinois' FOID card. This is updated quicker than most CCLs and is controlled by law enforcement. I could go for this. This is something which I feel is very promising and is a fine compromise. Personally, the 5 minute background check is probably more reliable in my mind, but at least you wouldn't have to go to a FFL to be reasonably sure the person you are selling to is safe. Also, almost no states have such a card and would need to spend quite a bit of money to implement it. Now, the usual paranoia applied to some who felt unhappy with having government oversight at all, but this is true for CCL too. (to you guys, I think you need to get over your "tyranny paranoia", fellas.)
A couple of you suggested using other, publicly-available internet background check programs, of which there are several out there. Just be aware that they may have very different databases they pull from and might not include all of those reported to the federal background check system or be updated frequently. Fees will vary, too. But, it's better than nothing, right? I didn't get the feeling that anyone actually does this, including the couple who suggested it.
There's also the suggestion that the federal NICS background check system be available to anyone, online. I think there are some serious privacy issues there. I think many people would feel uncomfortable having their private background information available to just anyone. For now, I'd say let law enforcement have exclusive access.
A handful of you simply expressed scorn at having a background check at all (one wrote "Who fucking cares?", one suggested repealing as many rules as possible, and another said flatly "I assume all I sell to are honest."). To those few I say that you are playing a dangerous game with people's lives, for your own benefit.
Several of you who said you would only sell to those who show you a CCL card also suggested this is common practice. I hope so, but I know for a fact that many times (if not most times), private sales take place without one. Consider, for instance, online sites where private sellers offer their weapons online, for my city and region, for everything from hunting rifles to pistols to semi-auto assault rifles. Here's a sampling:
Almost all of the listings for sales in those links are from private sellers, and not a single one I could find said in their add that they were screening the buyer in any way whatsoever.
My personal preference would be that the buyer and seller go through an FFL for the sale. In Oregon, this would require the filling out of a form, a small fee (I've heard a cost between $14-$20), and a 5-minute (literally, in nearly all cases) phone background check. It's a system that is already in place, unlike a FOID-like card, is updated much quicker, and is relatively speedy. If someone is already shelling out $200-$1000 for a firearm, I doubt that small fee would prevent the sale, nor a quick jaunt over to the nearest FFL.
So that's the legal issues, but many of you followed up your reply with a comment basically saying (and I'm paraphrasing), "I'm not legally bound to be concerned about how the buyer is going to use his weapon, and I don't have a moral obligation to be concerned, either." Some of you went on to compare the unknowing sale of a gun to a potential killer as being of no more concern than unknowingly selling a car to a drunk driver or gasoline to someone who would burn up victims tied to a mobile home or something. In other words, once the gun sale is done, you wash your hands of it and sleep with a good conscience, just as you would selling any other item.
Sorry, I'm not letting off the moral hook that easy. It's true you have no legal obligation. But when you sell a lethal weapon, don't you feel you should do all you can to prevent it from falling into criminal hands? When I sell a car, I get the buyer's license information. If they don't have a driver's license, I wouldn't sell. It's that simple (comparable to the CCL or FOID card check for guns). Of course, if someone has a driver's license it doesn't mean they're safe drivers, but at least I've done that small part. If I didn't do at least that amount of checking, I don't think I'd be able to sleep afterward. How could you? If there were a 5-minute background check system that would exclude sales to those who have a history of dangerous or impaired driving, you bet I'd be a supporter of it. Wouldn't you?
There is currently a bill in the U.S. Senate to tighten background checks, improve reporting to the NICS system, and to require a check for all private sales. I'm a supporter of this. Here's a good recent article on this:
"Almost all of the listings for sales in those links are from private sellers, and not a single one I could find said in their add that they were screening the buyer in any way whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean that they don't/won't do so. I probably would not put that in my ad either, although if I were ever to sell a firearm to someone I didn't know, I'd want to do a background check.
"Sorry, I'm not letting [you] off the moral hook that easy."
ReplyDeleteThat presumes that we give a crap about what you think. If you are under the misapprehension that any of us care how you feel, I suggest that you get some counseling. A good counselor will help you get over the belief that your opinions should dictate the behavior of others.
Good post, Baldr. The comparison between selling gasoline is specious. Gasoline for cars is not designed to kill people whereas guns are. No background checks at all is not an option unless you believe it's O.K. for felons, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally ill people, drug pushers, and minors to be able to buy anything they want. A few of your readers responded with reasonable answers. Some used the same old tired arguments and called people like you and me "anti gunners". We are actually anti people being shot by people with guns and that is why background checks on all sales are one way to stop that from happening. But actually, background checks won't solve everything because most gun deaths happen among friends and family rather than anonymous thieves, robbers, etc. So selling to a friend or family member may not mean that you are selling to someone who will never use that gun to shoot someone. That is a part of our gun culture. We shoot more people in this country than any other industrialized country not at war. Other countries actually have gun laws that keep people from shooting each other. About 2 million people have been stopped from buying guns at the point of sale at FFLs since the Brady Law was enacted. It works.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're leaving out is the fact that we don't trust you. We have no reason to believe that you'll stop with any proposed new regulation. Given your comments about gun owners, we do have good reason to believe that you want a lot more restrictions, perhaps even an outright ban on private ownership. Until you can change that impression of you, we'll make no deals. No compromises. We'll fight you every step of the way.
ReplyDeleteYou can call us paranoid. You can call us extremists. But until we can trust you, we're not giving in.
Put it this way: Would you trust us? Would you compromise with us? You mock or criticize every gun law that we want. You've never shown any willingness to move in our direction. Since you've given no hint of budging, neither will we.
"a 5-minute (literally, in nearly all cases) phone background check"
ReplyDelete"a 5-minute background check system"
That might seem reasonable, if it were not for the fact that most major gun control groups have called for the replacement of 5-minute background checks with a mandatory minimum waiting period of 5 days or more.
gregorycamp: "We have no reason to believe that you'll stop with any proposed new regulation. Given your comments about gun owners, we do have good reason to believe that you want a lot more restrictions"
ReplyDeleteBut is there any more evidence of that? Why, yes -- here comes some now.
japete: "But actually, background checks won't solve everything because most gun deaths happen among friends and family rather than anonymous thieves, robbers, etc."
"There is currently a bill in the U.S. Senate to tighten background checks, improve reporting to the NICS system, and to require a check for all private sales."
ReplyDeleteThis bill appears to dictate gun regulation to the states. Yet many editorials about the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act" have said that gun regulation is best left to the states and that it's bad for federal legislation to dictate gun regulation to the states.
So which is it?
The thing is, many owners would be amenable to compromise- if we got something out of it. In the case of regulations on gun owners, compromise is less 'meet in the middle' and much more 'structural rigidity has been compromised.'
ReplyDeleteIn other words, once the gun sale is done, you wash your hands of it and sleep with a good conscience, just as you would selling any other item.
ReplyDeleteYes. It is just another item. It's not a magical talisman; it doesn't cause persons to do violent things; it doesn't make any one crazy, or 'do' anything else. A gun is an inanimate object, nothing more.
If there is evil, it is the person, not the item. I am not in the least responsible for the actions of others unless I knowingly participate in their acts.
You have no "moral hook" to set.
It is indeed no different than selling a car to a drunk. And a car is no less a lethal weapon; indeed, it's more lethal, by sheer numbers.
Why gosh, Baldr, if you sell a car to a person who uses it to kill a family in a case of vehicle violence, don't you have a moral responsibility? By golly, I'm not letting you off the moral hook that easily, Baldr . . .
Yeesh.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteYou've had time to put up a childish post, surely you can approve a few comments.
Unless you are going to try to lie and say you've not gotten more comments.
Let's talk about responsibility -- have you ever paid someone money for an item -in a person to person transaction?
How do you know that (s)he didn't use that money to purchase a firearm and harm someone?
Have you ever paid someone to do work for you around the house or on your car ?
How do you know they didn't use that money to buy a gun and harm someone?
If you are going to try to hold gun owners responsible for what other people do -- are you going to share in that responsibility?
Yours is a specious argument, meant only to defray debate, GMC70 and Bob S.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is that you should take as many steps as possible to insure the gun isn't sold to a criminal, most notably a background check. Selling anything at all, like a car, or giving money (BoB), and not knowing how it will be used, is hardly comparable to transfer of a lethal weapon which is engineered for the primary purpose of killing people efficiently. Feel free to take up the cause of "background checks for car sales", GMC70. I'll back you on it.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteHow about showing how my argument is specious instead of just insisting it is.
You claim a gun owner has responsibility for an item after is it transferred to another, right?
So, how does making one step further remove that responsibility?
How about a knife? If you sell a knife or hatchet -- do you conduct a background check?
Knives or other cutting instruments were used in 13% of murders and 8% of robberies in 2010 according to the F.B.I UCR.
Intent is none-transferable Baldr. -- Or are you claiming if I presented you with a firearm, that it would cause you to commit murder?
So, still not letting you off the moral hook Baldr.
Tell me how many cars you've sold, how many murders and tragic accidents you've enabled.
How many knives have you bought and sold without a background check.
You seem confused, Bob. I'm arguing that you have a moral imperative to do what you can to insure that the lethal weapon you are selling doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Period. That's an easy argument to make. That's a different argument than the one you are putting on me. If someone buys the gun, and you've done the background check before the sale is complete, then you've done all you can to have prevented it and are not morally responsible. If the buyer still goes on to kill someone, at least you've done all that you could to prevent it, and bear no moral responsibility for the tragedy.
ReplyDeleteIf there's a background system to check guns, it should be used. Such a system doesn't stop gun rights, and it has been documented many thousands of times to stop criminals from buying.
I think there's really something wrong with someone who buys and sells knives meant to kill people, but there's no comparable system for background checks for knife sales. There's nothing you can do about checking, so there's no moral imperative other than to refuse the sale if you get a negative "gut feeling" about the buyer during the sale.
You seem really put off by this simple idea, Bob. Do you have something to hide? Would you fail a background check?
Yours is a specious argument, meant only to defray debate, GMC70 and Bob S.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because you say so? How is it different from your responsibility for selling a car?
You have no "moral hook" to set here, Baldr, or, if you do, you are on the same hook.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteI want to be clear -- you are claiming that gun owners have a moral obligation to insure that they do all they can to insure the firearms they sell/give away do not fall into the wrong hands, correct?
Is there a time frame on that? Should something I sold 25 years ago be held against me?
If the buyer is the sort who would abuse their gun rights in some manner, then likely it wouldn't take them 25 years to do so, and likely it would be apparent right away with a background check.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, in my view, if you sold a gun at any time, even 25 years ago, without taking whatever steps were in your ability at the time to make sure you are not selling to a prohibited person, then you bear a moral responsibility for their misuse of it. Of course, 25 years ago, there was hardly a national background system to check against, and conceal carry licenses were less common, so the options you had for checking were more limited.
"You seem confused, Bob. I'm arguing that you have a moral imperative to do what you can to insure that the lethal weapon you are selling doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Period."
ReplyDeleteSo I take it that you would never REQUIRE a person, to do such a check. Right? You would merely educate them that it is a "moral imperative" and encourage them to do the right thing.
No laws. No criminal penalties for not obeying such an imperative.
After all if it is IS an imperative then people will want to do it because it is the right thing to do.. (as it is defined)
So. Change the law to allow NICS checks by anyone that wants to make a call, and be done with it. If it's a moral imperative, then that's all it would take.
If not. Well then it obviously isn't a moral imperative to those selling guns and your question is answered without making a LAW ABIDING person a criminal.
Somehow I think that YOU want the force of law behind any such "moral imperative"
Do you think people are inherently good or not? Do you trust the average person or not?
"But, yes, in my view, if you sold a gun at any time, even 25 years ago, without taking whatever steps were in your ability at the time to make sure you are not selling to a prohibited person, then you bear a moral responsibility for their misuse of it."
ReplyDeleteI assume that you would be TOTALLY against knowingly selling to drug cartels and gangs across borders. Yes?
So let's start with the US government. By Holder's own words the guns THEY let get loose in Mexico are going to show up in crimes for years to come and this isn't one here and there by a private person. It was something like 2500..
They SOLD them and KNEW that criminals were buying them. How awful is that?
You say that even if it was 25 years ago, you are responsible if you didn't do everything you could to prevent a bad person from getting the gun.
How about if you did exactly the OPPOSITE? Sought out bad guys and sold them guns, that you knew would be used in drug crimes?
How bad would that be on your "moral imperative" scale?
100% pure evil? That's about where I put it, but I'm an extremist.
Have you called for Holder's impeachment or a special prosecutor to find those involved and put them in jail? A quick browse of your older posts doesn't turn up anything? Link?
I assume that THEY of all people, bear the same, if not MORE, moral responsibility and we can prove that at least one of those guns killed a border agent.
How many more thousands of innocent mexicans need to die before you speak up?
Where is the moral imperative to oppose this when your own government (and the leader I'm guessing YOU voted for) appointed the man likely responsible and, by the same token, could fire him for either lying or being incompetent and allowing such a thing to happen on his watch.
We are already all over this and you haven't even joined the party as far as I can tell.
Is it OK when the government does it and but NOT ok when a private citizen makes a private sale to someone that is most likely NOT a criminal?
Isn't that an odd way to set priorities?
Point is. If you want to talk moral imperative, let's start by holding the government to the standard you would set for everyone.
If you can do that, then you will save far more lives that trying to restrict the sale of private property by private people.
I guess we all choose our fights based on our moral principles. I see innocent mexicans dying at the hands of guns supplied by the US Government to rate way higher on the "violates my moral principles" scale than some. Perhaps it's just me.
@ 18Echo: In a perfect world, people would do the right thing and take steps to identify and check on the buyer. But clearly that doesn't always happen, as has been demonstrated again and again (for instance, by undercover video of sales by private sellers at gun shows). Thus, as with most laws, a law is necessary to impel them to do the right thing and prosecute those who don't. Such a background check doesn't make law abiding citizens into criminals when purchasing from an FFL, nor will it when purchasing from a private seller.
ReplyDelete@ 18Echo (your last comment): Yes, you guys love to point out the "Fast and Furious" debacle. For the record, I don't support such programs, and feel it was a tragedy. There is never a good reason to allow guns into the hands of criminals. Those responsible should be held accountable. But I should also point out that such programs have been done before, including by the Bush administration. And it is a common law enforcement to use materials (guns, but more commonly drugs) to catch the bad guys.
ReplyDeleteSo, to answer more specifically: Yes, I agree, the government violated my moral principles in that case.