A workable compromise on "universal" firearm background checks.

Speedwell said:

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.

Click to expand...

Speedwell said:

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.

Click to expand...