Case Shows Why Background Checks are wrong and other lessons.

SmarterThanYou said:
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? :eek:
Click to expand...

Background checks are also used for things as simple as a restraining order, which hardly warrants a life sentence in jail. Your hyperbole undermines your argument.

As does your contention that a background check infringes on the 2nd amendment. It does not, in any way imaginable.
 
Onceler said:
Background checks are also used for things as simple as a restraining order, which hardly warrants a life sentence in jail. Your hyperbole undermines your argument.

As does your contention that a background check infringes on the 2nd amendment. It does not, in any way imaginable.
Click to expand...

bullshit. bullshit, and bullshit. as it stands, someone with a restraining order against them can still pass a background check, because that order of protection isn't put in the NCIC check.

You need to learn how gun laws work before spouting crap as fact

If I go to a gun shop and fill out my 4473 and the 'background check' comes back with a 'no buy' because my name matches too closely with someone else that has a criminal record, now I have to appeal to the ATF to get my gun. How is that not an infringement?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
bullshit. bullshit, and bullshit. as it stands, someone with a restraining order against them can still pass a background check, because that order of protection isn't put in the NCIC check.

You need to learn how gun laws work before spouting crap as fact

If I go to a gun shop and fill out my 4473 and the 'background check' comes back with a 'no buy' because my name matches too closely with someone else that has a criminal record, now I have to appeal to the ATF to get my gun. How is that not an infringement?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the NCIC check is state to state, and that many states still have the ability to check on restraining orders. Could be wrong. Regardless, the point is that there are a wide range of criteria that come under a background check; you're only using "violent murderer who knows how to get a gun on the street anyway." It's the kind of reasoning extremists usually use.

There are many people in America who - by their actions & history - forfeit the right to own a gun, and there is a broad consensus on this. A background check is a very basic way to ensure that many of these people do not get guns.
 
uscitizen said:
the desire not to have your purchase trackable ?

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

As a descendant of a family who LITERALLY had British troops barracked in their home because the father participated in the Battle of Brooklyn Heights, I say


FUCK YOU!
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah and kids still get booze, but not nearly as much as if it was in vending machines in schools.
Sheesh.
Click to expand...

It's illegal to cut off a man's penis. But did that stop Lorena Bobbit? How's that working out for us?

Let's make it legal to cut off men's penises!
 
Blackflag said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the gun shop was worried about getting sued then they may just deny certain non-criminal people a gun. For example if someone comes in to the shop who is obviously nuts but has no criminal record, they may well deny them a gun sale as it looks like a possible future lawsuit.
With a background check, they need only to say to a jury that they ran a check with government and since it passed it doesn't matter if the person is crazy, they did their job and pass the buck off to government.

I understand the theory of why a background check sounds good, I mean it would stop a criminal from buying a gun at a store - simple enough. But from the research above it also deters law-abiding people from buying a gun with the added cost, etc...
On balance from the stats above it didn't make any difference to reducing crime rates and seems to have slightly increased rape and assault. For me that shows that despite good and reasonable sounding intentions it achieved the opposite affect - which is reason enough to oppose it.
 
"I understand the theory of why voter photo-id laws sound good, I mean it would stop someone from voting twice - simple enough. But from the research above it also deters law-abiding people from voting with the added cost, etc... and there is zero evidence that actual voter fraud, ie; people voting twice, people voting fraudently, is at all common, wide spread, or has ever been determinative in an election, unlike election fraud, which has."

Well, Dano is finally making legit arguments.
 
Darla said:
"I understand the theory of why voter photo-id laws sound good, I mean it would stop someone from voting twice - simple enough. But from the research above it also deters law-abiding people from voting with the added cost, etc... and there is zero evidence that actual voter fraud, ie; people voting twice, people voting fraudently, is at all common, wide spread, or has ever been determinative in an election, unlike election fraud, which has."

Well, Dano is finally making legit arguments.
Click to expand...
Go me off ignore now? That's too bad, I was enjoying the holiday from the resident female emo.
As to your sad attempt at satire, you might want to remember that there is no cost to voting, and so the rest of what you wrote is worthless.

And my "legit argument" is based on facts, you know those tricky things that always seem absent from anything you write?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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? :eek:
Click to expand...

So every felony that is remotely violent (even if it was just a threat) is a life sentence?

That is ridiculous. You are making every crime the same? So a murderer is the same as a car jacker is the same as an extortionist?


Also, its more than just your name being similar. This is not as simple as the no-fly list. It checks against your full name, DL#, SSN and other vital info.

There are relatively few cases in which people are refused completely. There are sometimes delays. But, if I am not mistaken, that is limited to 3 days. If they don't refuse you within 3 days you get to buy it.
 
Solitary said:
There are relatively few cases in which people are refused completely. There are sometimes delays. But, if I am not mistaken, that is limited to 3 days. If they don't refuse you within 3 days you get to buy it.
Click to expand...
Sol, if it was found to not help or even make it slightly worse, wouldn't you oppose it? It just seems that what's dictating whether or not background checks are a good thing is how reasonable feeling they sound. Just go by facts:

"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/Infor...em.asp?ID=1017
 
"Sol, if it was found to not help or even make it slightly worse, wouldn't you oppose it? It just seems that what's dictating whether or not background checks are a good thing is how reasonable feeling they sound. Just go by facts:"

Lott clearly has an agenda, and there were many who disagreed with his conclusions & the basis for them.

Again - an average of 135,000 criminals are denied guns every year due to background checks. That's a fact. Deal with it.
 
Solitary said:
So every felony that is remotely violent (even if it was just a threat) is a life sentence?

That is ridiculous. You are making every crime the same? So a murderer is the same as a car jacker is the same as an extortionist?
Click to expand...
No, however, we've certainly gone the opposite way with the laxness of the application of our laws. We should really start reclassifying just what is and isn't a felony, maybe?
 
Onceler said:
"Sol, if it was found to not help or even make it slightly worse, wouldn't you oppose it? It just seems that what's dictating whether or not background checks are a good thing is how reasonable feeling they sound. Just go by facts:"

Lott clearly has an agenda, and there were many who disagreed with his conclusions & the basis for them.
Click to expand...
Such as? He has no agenda, read his book, you'll find it very impartial and objective.

Onceler said:
Again - an average of 135,000 criminals are denied guns every year due to background checks. That's a fact. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
And of those criminals, how many then just resorted to buying one on the street? How many law-abiding people are deterred from buying a gun with background checks?
Lott accounts for this and shows on balance that background checks make it worse.
 
This logic fo well it does not work all the time so it is no good is pretty pathetic.
Just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
The idea that anyone who fails a background check will "just get a gun on the street" is such a myth. It assumes that everyone we're talking about is a career criminal or gang member, familiar with the black market & street savvy.

As mentioned before, background checks can cover a wide range of criteria; there are some people who should not have guns, and most people agree that they should not have guns. The idea that something should be legal because law enforcement on it doesn't work is lazy, and can work with anything. It's bad logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top