A workable compromise on "universal" firearm background checks.

[Aldebaran]

The shooting itself is a crime, but in the case of a mass shooter it is not being carried out in the furtherance of a criminal enterprise. What I meant by "actual criminal" was a person who was a criminal before the shooting took place. A bank robber who shoots a guard during his getaway was already a criminal; a heroin dealer who shoots a rival was already a criminal. The reason for the distinction is, as RDKirk pointed out, that the manner of obtaining the weapon, and indeed, the kind of weapon chosen are likely to be different and in a sense constitutes a different kind of problem with respect to practical gun control.

The people you reference in your examples may have already been criminals due to what they were doing when they shot someone, but obviously hadn't been caught and incarcerated yet. The mass shooter was a criminal when he loaded up his gun and drove to wherever he was planning to kill people. As for the kind of weapon chosen--trust me, plenty of people own the type of gun used in the mass shootings that people like to talk about. The AR15. Being America's most popular rifle among civilians, police and military, I guarantee you that more people buy them for legitimate purposes than for mass shootings.

 

[Speedwell]

The people you reference in your examples may have already been criminals due to what they were doing when they shot someone, but obviously hadn't been caught and incarcerated yet. The mass shooter was a criminal when he loaded up his gun and drove to wherever he was planning to kill people. As for the kind of weapon chosen--trust me, plenty of people own the type of gun used in the mass shootings that people like to talk about. The AR15. Being America's most popular rifle among civilians, police and military, I guarantee you that more people buy them for legitimate purposes than for mass shootings.

It is interesting that you are balking at a distinction which Second Amendment supporters frequently make. Banning "assault rifles" I am frequently told, would do nothing to stop guns getting into the hands of "gang-bangers" a proposition with which I am entirely in agreement. So when I endorse a proposal which would not ban "assault rifles" but might reduce the availability of handguns to "gang bangers" you balk because I call them "actual criminals." I don't get it.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is interesting that you are balking at a distinction which Second Amendment supporters frequently make. Banning "assault rifles" I am frequently told, would do nothing to stop guns getting into the hands of "gang-bangers" a proposition with which I am entirely in agreement. So when I endorse a proposal which would not ban "assault rifles" but might reduce the availability of handguns to "gang bangers" you balk because I call them "actual criminals." I don't get it.

I guess we're just not on the same page.