Case Shows Why Background Checks are wrong and other lessons.

[Cancel3]

Yep a 20 gauge with #2 shot will punch about a 2 inch hole in a person at normal room distance. Much more effective than a pistol.

But just about as easy to miss with a shotgun.

I like a shotgun because the sound of racking a shell in a pump gun is pretty excellent deterrent.

 

[uscitizen]

But just about as easy to miss with a shotgun.

I like a shotgun because the sound of racking a shell in a pump gun is pretty excellent deterrent.

I think long guns are more natural to aim and besides when that shotgun barell is pointed at you it looks big enough for a freight train to drive out of.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Back ground checks are not unreasonable. Even the most vapid pro-2nd Amendment advocate has a vested interest in regulating the legal sales of arms to convicted violent criminals. While preventing legal sales of firearms to convicted criminals does not prevent them from getting practically any firearm they want (including those I cannot have as a law abiding citizen) does not mean we should simply give up on taking reasonable measures to prevent crminals from illicitly purchasing firearms through legal dealers.

It is the waiting period that is ridiculous. An instant background check only takes a 3-5 minute phone call. The dealers don't even need computers.

One, please don't presume to speak for me as a pro 2nd amendment advocate.

Two, background checks do one thing only and that is cause a hassle for law abiding citizens whos name gets confused with someone who does have a record. A criminal knows they will not be able to buy a gun from an FFL and therefore does not even try.

Three, background checks would be completely unnecessary were the gun laws and justice system actually put to the use that they were advertised as.

 

[Cancel3]

One, please don't presume to speak for me as a pro 2nd amendment advocate.

Two, background checks do one thing only and that is cause a hassle for law abiding citizens whos name gets confused with someone who does have a record. A criminal knows they will not be able to buy a gun from an FFL and therefore does not even try.

Three, background checks would be completely unnecessary were the gun laws and justice system actually put to the use that they were advertised as.

The ONLY way criminals know they can't buy guns from an FFL dealer is because of background checks.

You act like you don't want dangerous convicted felons buying guns, but then you don't want the only method for determining whether they are dangerous convicted felons.


Suppose I have been convicted of a violent crime, done my time and gotten out. Without a background check, what would stop me from walking into Earl's Gun & Pawn and buying a gun??

 

[Cancel3]

One, please don't presume to speak for me as a pro 2nd amendment advocate.

And don't try to claim that someone can ONLY be a pro-2nd ammendment advocate if they believe as you do. Thats a bit egotistical, wouldn't you say?

 

[KingCondanomation]

The ONLY way criminals know they can't buy guns from an FFL dealer is because of background checks.

You act like you don't want dangerous convicted felons buying guns, but then you don't want the only method for determining whether they are dangerous convicted felons.


Suppose I have been convicted of a violent crime, done my time and gotten out. Without a background check, what would stop me from walking into Earl's Gun & Pawn and buying a gun??

The desire not to have your purchase trackable.

Before background checks and after, criminals buy their guns off the street. It's easier for them to not be tracked than a legitamite legal sale.

Like all gun control, they only end up hurting those who are innocent and law-abiding.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The desire not to have your purchase trackable.

Before background checks and after, criminals buy their guns off the street. It's easier for them to not be tracked than a legitamite legal sale.

Like all gun control, they only end up hurting those who are innocent and law-abiding.

Say something enough and it becomes true.

The tactics of the Republican/Fascist party.

 

[Onceler]

The desire not to have your purchase trackable.

Before background checks and after, criminals buy their guns off the street. It's easier for them to not be tracked than a legitamite legal sale.

Like all gun control, they only end up hurting those who are innocent and law-abiding.

If that were true, then background checks would never result in criminals being denied access to guns.

Do you think that's true?

See, you can't just say stuff, and hope it's factual. It has to actually be factual.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The ONLY way criminals know they can't buy guns from an FFL dealer is because of background checks.

which doesn't seem to stop them from buying a gun anywhere in this country anyway, does it? So what good is a law if it only affects the law abiding?

You act like you don't want dangerous convicted felons buying guns, but then you don't want the only method for determining whether they are dangerous convicted felons.

I don't want convicted violent felons out on the street to begin with. If they can't be trusted with a weapon, their ass should still be behind bars. pretty damned simple if you ask me.

Suppose I have been convicted of a violent crime, done my time and gotten out. Without a background check, what would stop me from walking into Earl's Gun & Pawn and buying a gun??

what would stop you from buying a gun out of the trunk of the local black market gun dealer? Plus, in my world, you would still be behind bars.

And don't try to claim that someone can ONLY be a pro-2nd ammendment advocate if they believe as you do. Thats a bit egotistical, wouldn't you say?

egotistical? not when i'm right it isn't. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I'm an absolutist, a purist, and i'm fucking right.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Say something enough and it becomes true.

The tactics of the Republican/Fascist party.

Watermark is a dumbfuck retard,
Watermark is a dumbfuck retard,
Watermark is a dumbfuck retard,
Watermark is a dumbfuck retard,
Watermark is a dumbfuck retard.

holy shit, you're right. say it enough and it does come true.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If that were true, then background checks would never result in criminals being denied access to guns.

Do you think that's true?

See, you can't just say stuff, and hope it's factual. It has to actually be factual.

do criminals still get guns? wow, how's that truth shit working out for ya?

 

[Onceler]

do criminals still get guns? wow, how's that truth shit working out for ya?

Some, but hardly all. Arguing against something as reasonable as a background check for a gun purchase is a loser argument; I understand another poster on the thread when he mentions the long waiting period, but a background check?

It's silly; it's no different than someone who is pro choice arguing vehemently for late-term abortion.

 

[Cancel3]

So every violent felon is given life without the possibility of parole?

 

[KingCondanomation]

If that were true, then background checks would never result in criminals being denied access to guns.

Do you think that's true?

See, you can't just say stuff, and hope it's factual. It has to actually be factual.

Fair enough, my facts come from a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" by a economist professor named John Lott in probably the most statistically extensive series of studies on the subject. I've read the entire book and urge anyone else to as well.

The key part:
"John Lott, Jr., in his book *More Guns, Less Crime* found "no crime-reduction benefits from state-mandated... background checks before people are allowed to buy a gun" (20).

Disarmament advocates frequently claim that background checks stop X number of criminals from buying a gun, but that's false. Criminals merely resort to theft or the black market to get guns. But many honest people are left defenseless. Lott continues, "No statistically significant evidence has appeared that the Brady [background check] law has reduced crime, and there is some statistically significant evidence that rates for rape and aggravated assault have actually risen by about 4 percent relative to what they would have been without the law" (162).

Background registration checks especially hurt the poor, who lack both the funds to pay for the added costs of the checks and the legal expertise to prove themselves innocent to CBI if they are wrongfully denied. But poor people in high-crime areas most urgently need firearms to defend their families. Lott summarizes, "Law-abiding minorities in the most crime-prone areas produce the greatest crime reductions from being able to defend themselves" (70)."
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1017

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Some, but hardly all. Arguing against something as reasonable as a background check for a gun purchase is a loser argument; I understand another poster on the thread when he mentions the long waiting period, but a background check?

It's silly; it's no different than someone who is pro choice arguing vehemently for late-term abortion.

any loser can argue for background checks.

see, I can type stupid shit also. Background checks are nothing but the first stage of registration which leads to confiscation. Wrapping background check legislation in a neat little package and calling it 'common sense' is an art form perfected by tyrants and worshipped by sheep.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So every violent felon is given life without the possibility of parole?

If they aren't to be executed, yes.

 

[Cancel3]

If they aren't to be executed, yes.

Well, I think you would have to admit that is never going to happen. (I don't think it should)

So we are left with working out a system that allows some control over criminals having access to guns.

 

[Blackflag]

Fair enough, my facts come from a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" by a economist professor named John Lott in probably the most statistically extensive series of studies on the subject. I've read the entire book and urge anyone else to as well.

The key part:
"John Lott, Jr., in his book *More Guns, Less Crime* found "no crime-reduction benefits from state-mandated... background checks before people are allowed to buy a gun" (20).

Disarmament advocates frequently claim that background checks stop X number of criminals from buying a gun, but that's false. Criminals merely resort to theft or the black market to get guns. But many honest people are left defenseless. Lott continues, "No statistically significant evidence has appeared that the Brady [background check] law has reduced crime, and there is some statistically significant evidence that rates for rape and aggravated assault have actually risen by about 4 percent relative to what they would have been without the law" (162).

Background registration checks especially hurt the poor, who lack both the funds to pay for the added costs of the checks and the legal expertise to prove themselves innocent to CBI if they are wrongfully denied. But poor people in high-crime areas most urgently need firearms to defend their families. Lott summarizes, "Law-abiding minorities in the most crime-prone areas produce the greatest crime reductions from being able to defend themselves" (70)."
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1017

I don't think the Brady bill did shit because most crimes aren't committed using those weapons. I am very pro 2nd ammendment, however, I think background checks are a good thing. If nothing else, they'll prevent gun shops from getting sued for selling guns to felons that then go and harm someone. I agree with Good luck that the check isn't the problem. It is the waiting period.

 

[uscitizen]

The desire not to have your purchase trackable.

Before background checks and after, criminals buy their guns off the street. It's easier for them to not be tracked than a legitamite legal sale.

Like all gun control, they only end up hurting those who are innocent and law-abiding.

the desire not to have your purchase trackable ?

Now I can use your argument for homeland security.
What do you have to hide ?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, I think you would have to admit that is never going to happen. (I don't think it should)

So we are left with working out a system that allows some control over criminals having access to guns.

so you're saying that because the system should not do life without parole or executions, we're stuck making law abiding citizens deal with infringements on their constitutional rights?