Case Shows Why Background Checks are wrong and other lessons.

Thorn said:
I remember thinking at the time that this was so colossally stupid that it couldn't possibly bear up under a challenge in court. But it did slow things down and force the litigants to spend yet more time and money. Where does common sense come in here? This just sounded like a childish vindictiveness, and if I still lived in DC I'd probably do all I could to be sure whoever was responsible for making that policy would never hold public office again.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the people support handgun bans.

What are you going to do to the voters who will vote them in despite your efforts? Fire them?
 
Solitary said:
But your"slippery slope" ideology and the screams about background checks destroying freedom just doesn't wash.

The background checks prevent criminals from buying handguns legally. The guns on the black market are significantly higher priced. So if the bacjground checks keep poor people from buying guns, then they also keep many criminals from buying guns as well, since they dramatically increase what they have to pay.
And do you think that california is going to do less gun registration if you repeal the background check laws? Of course they are not.
Click to expand...
They actually don't. Guns are cheap to get on the street, cheaper than stores with no sales tax either:

"The shooting underscored a persistent problem of juveniles using guns in crime: The weapons are simple to get and cheap. They are for sale not just on street corners in Kent but throughout the region.
"People can get stolen guns for 50, 100 bucks," said Gabe Morales, a local gang expert who works with police and at-risk youths. "It's easier to get a gun than it is to get a car.""
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/377311_guns02.html



Solitary said:
The analogy of the bear and throwing a bone is not accurate.

The laws have been passed and then allowed to die or been overturned. The factual information shows that increased restrictions on firearms does not decrease crime.

So we have already established that any further restrictions on firearms is based on emotional, knee-jerk reactions.

Your logical arguments against background checks (with which I disagree) are also not going to change the emotional, knee-jerk reactionaries.

What you get is the middle of the road people (the majority) who have to choose between people who are spouting emotional propaganda and people demanding that they have a right to buy a gun, any kind of gun, anytime and anywhere they want.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what you had in the 90's. In fact most public opinion on gun control is dictated by emotion - whether it be school shootings which the lefty played on to pass more gun control or Sep 11 which made people feel that guns for the ultimate protection and self-defence is desirable.
It could switch again, and having background checks as a "reasonable" measure only gives the left an emotional foot-in-the-door on the subject from which they can build on and pass more "reasonable" restrictions.

I know of no example in history where any group of people were deterred indefinetely with a legislative bribe, do you?
 
Yes, Dano, it is definitely lack of sales tax, and not the fact that underground guns are usually stolen from law-abiding responsible citizens, that contributes to their cheap price. 50 dollars is about 7% cheaper than the guns at my store.
 
KingCondanomation said:
They actually don't. Guns are cheap to get on the street, cheaper than stores with no sales tax either:

"The shooting underscored a persistent problem of juveniles using guns in crime: The weapons are simple to get and cheap. They are for sale not just on street corners in Kent but throughout the region.
"People can get stolen guns for 50, 100 bucks," said Gabe Morales, a local gang expert who works with police and at-risk youths. "It's easier to get a gun than it is to get a car.""
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/377311_guns02.html




That wasn't what you had in the 90's. In fact most public opinion on gun control is dictated by emotion - whether it be school shootings which the lefty played on to pass more gun control or Sep 11 which made people feel that guns for the ultimate protection and self-defence is desirable.
It could switch again, and having background checks as a "reasonable" measure only gives the left an emotional foot-in-the-door on the subject from which they can build on and pass more "reasonable" restrictions.

I know of no example in history where any group of people were deterred indefinetely with a legislative bribe, do you?
Click to expand...

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there will always be gun laws now. The idea that the 2nd Amendment allows all citizens to own guns of any type may sound good to you, but its never going to happen.

The question now is whether we present gun owners as responsible members of our society or whether we are seen as children throwing temper tantrums for machine guns.

Background checks are not a problem. They do deter criminals.

Leave that alone and fight things that we can win and things that matter.



Otherwise, the next Columbine or VaTech is going to result in a grassroots movement to amend the US Constitution. And then we are fucked.
 
Thorn said:
I haven't seen such figures. Do you have a source for that statement?
Click to expand...

I assure you. Anyone who gets into office in DC is going to support gun control. Your efforts would be endlessly futile; it would be like campaigning to get Mississippi to vote for Obama.
 
OH for fucks sakes, can we stop this bullshit? Any cost you add to anything is going to be a deterrent to SOME to buy it.
Just about anyone would buy a DVD player for 5 bucks, nearly no one would buy it for $100, somewhere in between lies many cutoff points for each person where they would decide that it's not worth the cost.
That's just an economic LAW, and it's no different for guns.
 
KingCondanomation said:
OH for fucks sakes, can we stop this bullshit? Any cost you add to anything is going to be a deterrent to SOME to buy it.
Just about anyone would buy a DVD player for 5 bucks, nearly no one would buy it for $100, somewhere in between lies many cutoff points for each person where they would decide that it's not worth the cost.
That's just an economic LAW, and it's no different for guns.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there is a big difference between your exaggerations about it & the reality of the extra cost.

You guys really shoot yourselves in the foot on this argument w/ all of the hyberbole & fear tactics.
 
KingCondanomation said:
OH for fucks sakes, can we stop this bullshit? Any cost you add to anything is going to be a deterrent to SOME to buy it.
Just about anyone would buy a DVD player for 5 bucks, nearly no one would buy it for $100, somewhere in between lies many cutoff points for each person where they would decide that it's not worth the cost.
That's just an economic LAW, and it's no different for guns.
Click to expand...

I agree. The cost factor of the background checks is not the issue and should never have been the issue. Unless it adds a significant amount to the price, it is not enough of a negative to have the background checks removed.
 
Solitary said:
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there will always be gun laws now. The idea that the 2nd Amendment allows all citizens to own guns of any type may sound good to you, but its never going to happen.

The question now is whether we present gun owners as responsible members of our society or whether we are seen as children throwing temper tantrums for machine guns.

Background checks are not a problem. They do deter criminals.

Leave that alone and fight things that we can win and things that matter.



Otherwise, the next Columbine or VaTech is going to result in a grassroots movement to amend the US Constitution. And then we are fucked.
Click to expand...
You are so stubborn, honestly I don't know why I bother debating you because just like 95% of everyone who is older than someone else you will never give in.
The FACTS are that it deters criminals AND law abiding people, MORE criminals are just going to instead resolve that by buying off the street.
Background checks resulted in a slight increase in rape and assault, that is an INESCAPABLE fact and I don't really care whether it's harder to convince the public, if it increases crime and not decreases like it was supposed to then it should be scrapped.
If anything public opinion RIGHT NOW is the best chance we've ever seen for repealing gun control.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You are so stubborn, honestly I don't know why I bother debating you because just like 95% of everyone who is older than someone else you will never give in.
The FACTS are that it deters criminals AND law abiding people, MORE criminals are just going to instead resolve that by buying off the street.
Background checks resulted in a slight increase in rape and assault, that is an INESCAPABLE fact and I don't really care whether it's harder to convince the public, if it increases crime and not decreases like it was supposed to then it should be scrapped.
If anything public opinion RIGHT NOW is the best chance we've ever seen for repealing gun control.
Click to expand...

You're just spewing these out from a one-sided perspective, like they are "facts." Have you really compared what you see as the violence "caused" by a background check, to the violence that might be caused by the thousands of criminals who would have legal access to guns if there was no background check?

No - you haven't.

Oh, and I know - they'll "just get guns, anyway." All of them. Everyone who is ever denied via a background check knows the street, and knows how to get 'em. That's a great "fact".
 
KingCondanomation said:
The FACTS are that it deters criminals AND law abiding people, MORE criminals are just going to instead resolve that by buying off the street.
Background checks resulted in a slight increase in rape and assault, that is an INESCAPABLE fact and I don't really care whether it's harder to convince the public, if it increases crime and not decreases like it was supposed to then it should be scrapped.
If anything public opinion RIGHT NOW is the best chance we've ever seen for repealing gun control.
Click to expand...

This is, again, assuming that all criminals are gang members or career criminals who could easily get guns off the street, when in fact, half of all people who murder have no previous felony conviction. Seung-Hui Cho definitely wouldn't have known how to get illegal guns.
 
Background checks didn't "cause" a small increase in rape and assault dano. You just have statistics from somewhere some place that say that there was a small correlation at one period in time during one passage of the law. It's absurd to say that a five minute phone call CAUSED it.
 
Watermark said:
This is, again, assuming that all criminals are gang members or career criminals who could easily get guns off the street, when in fact, half of all people who murder have no previous felony conviction. Seung-Hui Cho definitely wouldn't have known how to get illegal guns.
Click to expand...
Um, if someone had no previous felonies then they would pass the background check anyway. Welcome to self-ownage...
 
Onceler said:
You're just spewing these out from a one-sided perspective, like they are "facts." Have you really compared what you see as the violence "caused" by a background check, to the violence that might be caused by the thousands of criminals who would have legal access to guns if there was no background check?

No - you haven't.

Oh, and I know - they'll "just get guns, anyway." All of them. Everyone who is ever denied via a background check knows the street, and knows how to get 'em. That's a great "fact".
Click to expand...
I NEVER said all of them, I said they could more easily than law-abiding people.

I'm not interested in arguing opinion. Read the book like I have and then get back to me. I've not seen any book with more detailed stats on guns than Lott's.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You are so stubborn, honestly I don't know why I bother debating you because just like 95% of everyone who is older than someone else you will never give in.
The FACTS are that it deters criminals AND law abiding people, MORE criminals are just going to instead resolve that by buying off the street.
Background checks resulted in a slight increase in rape and assault, that is an INESCAPABLE fact and I don't really care whether it's harder to convince the public, if it increases crime and not decreases like it was supposed to then it should be scrapped.
If anything public opinion RIGHT NOW is the best chance we've ever seen for repealing gun control.
Click to expand...

I have been this stubborn since I was a teenager. So its not that I am older.

Your claims that it is an inescapable fact are, in fact, bullshit.

What is inescapable is that rapes and assaults went up slightly. That it coincides with when SOME areas instituted background checks does not automatically mean the background checks are responsible for the increase.

And you have no evidence that it increases crimes. But there are criminals being prevented from buying guns legally. Your constant arguments that they can still buy them illegally does not change the need to do all we can to restrict access to firearms by criminals.

According to this website:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/bcft/2007/bcft07st.htm

Of the 1.6 million applications for transfers or purchases were denied by the FBI on the NCIC system, (between March 1994 & Dec 2007) 36% of those denials were due to felony convictions or indictments.

So your claim that it does not help is nonsense. While we cannot stop the black market, we did stop 576,000 people who had been convicted or indicted from buying a firearm in the ONLY way we can.

And during that same time period, 87 million transfers or permits were subject to background checks.

That means that 98% of the background checks were approved.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I NEVER said all of them, I said they could more easily than law-abiding people.

I'm not interested in arguing opinion. Read the book like I have and then get back to me. I've not seen any book with more detailed stats on guns than Lott's.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. If 90% of the convicted felons that were denied guns bought their gun on the street, that means 10% didn't get a gun.

So the background check resulted in 57,600 felons NOT having a gun.

(and yes, those numbers are all supposition)
 
Solitary said:
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there will always be gun laws now. The idea that the 2nd Amendment allows all citizens to own guns of any type may sound good to you, but its never going to happen.

The question now is whether we present gun owners as responsible members of our society or whether we are seen as children throwing temper tantrums for machine guns.

Background checks are not a problem. They do deter criminals.

Leave that alone and fight things that we can win and things that matter.



Otherwise, the next Columbine or VaTech is going to result in a grassroots movement to amend the US Constitution. And then we are fucked.
Click to expand...

Or, we could actually demand that the people retain the sovereign power of this country by having adequate arms to do so, as was originally intended by the framers and founders. Why is that so hard to imagine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top