Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

[Bootstrap]

Illinois doesn’t allow private sales of firearms without extensive background checks.

So why does Chicago have such a serious gun violence problem?

Because Illinois is right next to states that do allow private sales without background checks. Because it's so easy to order weapons from armslist.com and have them shipped. We don't have borders between states or around cities. Suppose the rest of the country didn't have driver's licenses or car registration, but Chicago did - you would still see a lot of unlicensed drivers and unregistered cars in Chicago.

And of course, "extensive background checks" is an exaggeration. Here's what they do:

Before issuing a FOID card, the Illinois State Police runs the name through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS, an electronic database maintained by the FBI, to determine if an applicant has a criminal record or other violations that make him ineligible to own a firearm.

That's not much different from checking your driving record before giving you a driver's license.

[Bootstrap]

Guns are highly illegal in Chicago, yet they have sky high murder rates.

Guns are not illegal in Chicago. Here's a guide to purchasing a gun in Chicago.

And do you know where to find good long-term statistics on murder in Chicago? Looks to me like they are going down, not up, though I'd prefer a more reliable source than a CBS station. That famous rise in 2014 looks more like a blip if you look at the long-term trend.

[Josh]

Guns are highly illegal in Chicago, yet they have sky high murder rates.

Guns are not illegal in Chicago. Here's a guide to purchasing a gun in Chicago.

And do you know where to find good long-term statistics on murder in Chicago? Looks to me like they are going down, not up, though I'd prefer a more reliable source than a CBS station. That famous rise in 2014 looks more like a blip if you look at the long-term trend.

Interesting trend - gun crime has gone down since gun laws were made less restrictive in Illinois (because of a higher court decision).

How do you explain that?

[Josh]

Boot, let me ask an honest question.

Do you think private citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms for self defence?

Or should this be a right reserved only for government officials?

[Josh]

Incidentally, Pew Research had a useful article looking at which gun policy proposals are supported by members of each party.

I suspect we could do a lot of good by passing just the proposals that at least 50% of Republicans support.

Would you support the 3 on the bottom that 50% of Republicans support?

Do you think it makes sense to pay attention to party lines about this? I know a lot of single issue voters on this issue. Typical partisan pandering doesn’t work with these folks. They have one question: “Are you planning to eventually try to confiscate all guns, and do you believe I shouldn’t be allowed to defend myself and my family?”

[Bootstrap]

Do you think private citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms for self defence?

Or should this be a right reserved only for government officials?

In America, I think private citizens should be allowed to own guns for self defense at least in their own homes. That's in the Constitution and also in our culture.

Outside of the home is more complex. I think places like universities, hospitals, malls, etc. should be allowed to prohibit guns. I really don't know exactly where I think the boundaries should be for carrying guns - and that's really something that the public should debate in a democracy. Some people feel really unsafe if people around them are armed, some people feel they have to be armed to be safe. Somehow, we have to balance the needs of both groups, and the balance may depend on where you are.

I think that people who do carry guns should be as responsible as people who drive cars. They should receive adequate training before getting permission to carry a gun, that training should also include training in avoiding or defusing violent situations, and people with some criminal offenses or mental problems should not be allowed to carry guns. Like cars, I want licenses and registration, and I want to be able to revoke a license for recklessness.

In general, I think cars are a good model for thinking about guns. ("If driving a car without a license is outlawed, then only outlaws will drive a car without a license.")

[Bootstrap]

Would you support the 3 on the bottom that 50% of Republicans support?

No, I really prefer the measures that both sides support. The goal is to have a society where we generally feel safe and free, not a society where some people do.

Do you think it makes sense to pay attention to party lines about this?

You cannot pass legislation without looking at what each party wants. Especially when the White House and both houses of Congress are Republican. So are most governors.

I know a lot of single issue voters on this issue. Typical partisan pandering doesn’t work with these folks. They have one question: “Are you planning to eventually try to confiscate all guns, and do you believe I shouldn’t be allowed to defend myself and my family?”

Sure, I know people like that too, and they will not accept any restrictions at all. Did you know that gun ownership has been going down, and that 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns? These people are single-issue voters.

I think they are in the minority, but the Constitution protects their rights, and the Heller decision spells out what is protected.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... hip-survey

But the new survey estimates that 133 million of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70 million guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

[Wayne in Maine]

Illinois doesn’t allow private sales of firearms without extensive background checks.

So why does Chicago have such a serious gun violence problem?

Because Illinois is right next to states that do allow private sales without background checks. Because it's so easy to order weapons from armslist.com and have them shipped. We don't have borders between states or around cities. Suppose the rest of the country didn't have driver's licenses or car registration, but Chicago did - you would still see a lot of unlicensed drivers and unregistered cars in Chicago.

"Seven of the top ten source dealers are within Illinois, and six of those seven fall within the Cook County suburbs that
border Chicago. The remaining FFL source dealers within the top ten are located in northwest Indiana. Collectively, these
ten source dealers make up almost a quarter of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, despite the existence of many other
federally licensed dealers in Chicago’s vicinity." Source: Gun Trace report 2017, City of Chicago

[Bootstrap]

"Seven of the top ten source dealers are within Illinois, and six of those seven fall within the Cook County suburbs that border Chicago. The remaining FFL source dealers within the top ten are located in northwest Indiana. Collectively, these ten source dealers make up almost a quarter of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, despite the existence of many other federally licensed dealers in Chicago’s vicinity." Source: Gun Trace report 2017, City of Chicago

Nice - thanks for this information. That report is available here: Gun Trace report 2017, City of Chicago. I'll read it when I have more time.

[mike]

The world has no other solution for violence than more violence. And so, I expect that eventually school security will become something similar to airport security.

Is that what freedom looks like? If we keep deciding that gun rights are unlimited and cannot be restricted, that impinges on lots of other freedoms. The Constitution is not the bottleneck here, politics is, but there are some measures that even most NRA members say they support.

Yes, for better or for worse, I think this really is what freedom looks like. Take as another example the freedom for people to drive automobiles, boats, and airplanes. Motor vehicle deaths in 2014 were 33,736. A tragically high number. But is high enough to cause society to give up operating motor vehicles?

This isn't to say that it doesn't make sense for the government to regulate vehicle safety, which they do.

It also isn't to say that the government should not in any way regulate firearms, even in a society where private citizens are constitutionally permitted to carry weapons. It would make sense in my mind for the government to regulate types of firearms or accessories which are legal to own, which they already do to a certain extent as we all know. It would make sense in my mind for background checks to include mental health registries or terror/no-fly lists. Making these regulations or policies more stringent makes sense to me.

However we should not kid ourselves that these measures will stop the problem of bad people obtaining guns and committing crimes with them. That is why an increase in the physical security (read: people with guns) around areas vulnerable to mass shooting of defenseless victims, such as schools, is only to be expected as these tragedies occur.

I say all of these things as a person who does not carry guns for self-defense, does not vote, and is not directly affected by gun regulations one way or another. I also have no interest in lobbying the government to change its policies.