Radio played a soundbite that almost sounded like Durbin made the same point a LaPierre.
“You’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks,” LaPierre said. Instead, he added, “We’re going to make all those law-abiding people go through the system, and then we’re not going to prosecute people if they do go through them [and make false statements].”
LaPierre was stopped by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the judiciary committee chairman. As it happened, Durbin — an outspoken supporter of tighter gun laws — had the floor next. “Mr. LaPierre, that’s the point,” Durbin said, meaning that the background checks would, in theory, stop the criminals that sought to pass them. “You missed the point.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) interjected that background checks would mean "criminals won't go to purchase the guns, because there will be a background check! We'll stop them from the original purchase." Addressing LaPierre, Durbin said, "You missed that point completely!"As the audience began to cheer, LaPierre interrupted Durbin, "Senator, I think you missed the point!" As tensions grew higher, committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was forced to bang his gavel and call for order.
So, after the video review, it appears that the two sides view the equation like this:
NRA; Increasing background checks will do little good since they only affect the law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't submit to background checks and will procure guns from illegal channels.
Senatorial Statist; Criminals won't submit to background checks so they will stop trying to purchase guns!
Which opinion seems like a more realistic world-view to you?