Case Shows Why Background Checks are wrong and other lessons.

[uscitizen]

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!

No thanks you are not my type. Try Dano ?
I was just slinging back the argument of those who supported Homeland security and such under Bush and the republican controlled congress.

 

[Cancel3]

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

So you think, if the background checks cause a significant increase in the cost of the firearms? I have never seen anything to suggest that. I have no doubt that there is a minor expense, but it is only a small portion of the paperwork required of an FFL dealer.

I know of Lotts suppositions, but I saw absolutely no evidence of any large scale denials by the background checks. It SOUNDS like a great reason to outlaw the background checks, but I have seen nothing to suggest that the unjust denials are anything but rare.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I know of Lotts suppositions, but I saw absolutely no evidence of any large scale denials by the background checks. It SOUNDS like a great reason to outlaw the background checks, but I have seen nothing to suggest that the unjust denials are anything but rare.

at one point in time in this country, we used to have the ideal that it was better to see 100 guilty men go free than to have an innocent man unjustly convicted. so much for freedom these days.

 

[Cancel3]

at one point in time in this country, we used to have the ideal that it was better to see 100 guilty men go free than to have an innocent man unjustly convicted. so much for freedom these days.

What?

Your entire idea is to have all felons serving life sentences so we can avoid a simple background check. And you have the audacity to act like we are destroying freedoms?

 

[KingCondanomation]

So you think, if the background checks cause a significant increase in the cost of the firearms? I have never seen anything to suggest that. I have no doubt that there is a minor expense, but it is only a small portion of the paperwork required of an FFL dealer.

I know of Lotts suppositions, but I saw absolutely no evidence of any large scale denials by the background checks. It SOUNDS like a great reason to outlaw the background checks, but I have seen nothing to suggest that the unjust denials are anything but rare.

They are rare and they are not large scale. The difference was small but still small enough to show up with a 4% increase in rape and assault.

They are not a big deal but since they do on balance make crime slightly worse, it is reason enough to do away with them.

I'm sure you know this, but there are many things government does which CAN improve something and correspondingly harm in another way. Background checks have good and bad, the bad just happens to outweigh the good.

 

[Cancel3]

They are rare and they are not large scale. The difference was small but still small enough to show up with a 4% increase in rape and assault.

They are not a big deal but since they do on balance make crime slightly worse, it is reason enough to do away with them.

I'm sure you know this, but there are many things government does which CAN improve something and correspondingly harm in another way. Background checks have good and bad, the bad just happens to outweigh the good.

I disagree. I think the background checks do more good than they do bad.

First of all, in addition to stopping the criminal's access to lawful firearms, the put the brakes on much anti-gun liegislation.

Second of all, the idea that people WOULD or MIGHT buy legal guns in poor areas and high crime areas, but do not because of the added price the background check adds to the gun is just "smoke & mirrors". If the tiny amount added to the cost of the guns is what stops someone from buying it, then they would not be buying ammunition, be going shooting to learn to handle the firearm safetly and properly, and they would probably not be buying something in which to store the firearm safely.

So the chances of accidental deaths would increase more than (my guess here) the increase in the crimes due solely to the background checks.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What?

Your entire idea is to have all felons serving life sentences so we can avoid a simple background check. And you have the audacity to act like we are destroying freedoms?

first, i want all VIOLENT felons serving life sentences or forfeit their lives. violent meaning murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, etc. If they can't be trusted with a weapon, they shouldn't be given their freedom.

that is how you save freedom, not destroy it.

 

[Cancel3]

first, i want all VIOLENT felons serving life sentences or forfeit their lives. violent meaning murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, etc. If they can't be trusted with a weapon, they shouldn't be given their freedom.

that is how you save freedom, not destroy it.

So a kid that commits a violent act at the age of 18 never sees the light of day as a free man?

And what about the mentally ill? Should we require everyone with any mental disorder to be institutionalized for life?




There is a balance in a society. No one is costing anyone their freedoms. But to suggest that anyone who cannot own a firearm should not be allowed to live outside of a prison is ridiculous.

Domestic abuse in many areas can have the rights to own a gun removed. Life in prison for that as well?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I disagree. I think the background checks do more good than they do bad.

First of all, in addition to stopping the criminal's access to lawful firearms, the put the brakes on much anti-gun liegislation.

Second of all, the idea that people WOULD or MIGHT buy legal guns in poor areas and high crime areas, but do not because of the added price the background check adds to the gun is just "smoke & mirrors". If the tiny amount added to the cost of the guns is what stops someone from buying it, then they would not be buying ammunition, be going shooting to learn to handle the firearm safetly and properly, and they would probably not be buying something in which to store the firearm safely.

So the chances of accidental deaths would increase more than (my guess here) the increase in the crimes due solely to the background checks.

this is where the 'slippery slope' comes in to play though. we've already heard some of it in place for this next year. since background checks on gun purchases is common sense, but doesn't do enough to stop criminals from getting guns, we must have background checks on ammunition. Then the next step will be a government issues 2nd amendment card that all a person needs to do is show that card to buy a gun/ammo and it will only cost that individual 100 dollars a year. After all, it will help reduce criminal access to dangerous weapons and ammo. Then the price will go up, or the card will have to be swiped every time at a reader because the id's were starting to be forged. Now we have instant gun and ammo registration and ole uncle ATF can come and pay a visit to you after you've bought 500 rounds of .40 caliber ammo, after all, nobody should have that much ammo laying around.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So a kid that commits a violent act at the age of 18 never sees the light of day as a free man?

absolutely.

And what about the mentally ill? Should we require everyone with any mental disorder to be institutionalized for life?

it's called family. and if no family, then yes, an institution.

There is a balance in a society. No one is costing anyone their freedoms. But to suggest that anyone who cannot own a firearm should not be allowed to live outside of a prison is ridiculous.

explain why not?

Domestic abuse in many areas can have the rights to own a gun removed. Life in prison for that as well?

ever heard of the lautenberg amendment? while it should still be unconstitutional, does prohibit domestic abusers from legally purchasing or owning a firearm, which rarely stops them from committing a heinous crime against that person anyway.

what people aren't getting is that instead of prohibiting people from ownership, we should be encouraging the weak to get strong and get a gun for protection.

 

[Cancel3]

this is where the 'slippery slope' comes in to play though. we've already heard some of it in place for this next year. since background checks on gun purchases is common sense, but doesn't do enough to stop criminals from getting guns, we must have background checks on ammunition. Then the next step will be a government issues 2nd amendment card that all a person needs to do is show that card to buy a gun/ammo and it will only cost that individual 100 dollars a year. After all, it will help reduce criminal access to dangerous weapons and ammo. Then the price will go up, or the card will have to be swiped every time at a reader because the id's were starting to be forged. Now we have instant gun and ammo registration and ole uncle ATF can come and pay a visit to you after you've bought 500 rounds of .40 caliber ammo, after all, nobody should have that much ammo laying around.

And has any of that happened??

In the last several years the number of states that changed from "May Issue..." to "Shall Issue..." has increased dramatically.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in a pro-gun manner.

This "slippery slope" argument is just not realistic. There have been almost no reductions in access to or availability of guns.

The closest thing to anti-gun legislation was the "assault weapon ban" that was passed and then allowed to die. And the crime rates before, during, and after that stupid bill have provided us with plenty of evidence to fight a future ban.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

absolutely.

it's called family. and if no family, then yes, an institution.


explain why not?


ever heard of the lautenberg amendment? while it should still be unconstitutional, does prohibit domestic abusers from legally purchasing or owning a firearm, which rarely stops them from committing a heinous crime against that person anyway.

what people aren't getting is that instead of prohibiting people from ownership, we should be encouraging the weak to get strong and get a gun for protection.

STY, life sentences should be abolished for anyone other than premeditated murderers and sexual predators, and they should never be an option for someone under the age of 18. Life sentences are cruel. Life for an eye, life for a tooth is retarded and it will never be implemented. If an armed robber is truly so dangerous that he can't ever be released he should only be given a life sentence in retrospect, through denial of parole. Anything else is cruel, unusual, and disproportionate.

 

[Cancel3]

absolutely.

it's called family. and if no family, then yes, an institution.


explain why not?


ever heard of the lautenberg amendment? while it should still be unconstitutional, does prohibit domestic abusers from legally purchasing or owning a firearm, which rarely stops them from committing a heinous crime against that person anyway.

what people aren't getting is that instead of prohibiting people from ownership, we should be encouraging the weak to get strong and get a gun for protection.

I am not arguing that gun control prevents crimes. I am arguing that background checks do more good than bad.

The family is going to stop a mentally ill person from harming someone? And the family is going to prevent them from buying a gun? That doesn't even make a good joke.


Your idea that people should be locked away for life just to avoid the minor inconvenience and rare unjustified denial is ridiculous. You are screaming about abridgements of freedoms when there is not such thing happening.

And yet you are perfectly willing to destroy someone's life because of a single violent act, regardless of whther they actually pose a threat to society or not.

You have already said that criminals will get guns regardless. So, since ALL violent crimes will get the same sentence (Life without parole or execution), why would the criminals not just open fire at every opportunity?

 

[KingCondanomation]

I disagree. I think the background checks do more good than they do bad.

First of all, in addition to stopping the criminal's access to lawful firearms, the put the brakes on much anti-gun liegislation.

I used to think like this, throw the left a bone and they'll leave you alone, right? They begged for the Patients Rights Act to "fix" healthcare as that was their alternative to trying for universal healthcare like they did earlier in the 90's. Instead after that failed and made things worse by driving doctors out of business, they blamed the "free market" and now call for universal healthcare once again except this time with more public opinion on their side.
It's like telling a bear to go away by throwing it some food - you are only encouraging them and buying at most, time.

Second of all, the idea that people WOULD or MIGHT buy legal guns in poor areas and high crime areas, but do not because of the added price the background check adds to the gun is just "smoke & mirrors". If the tiny amount added to the cost of the guns is what stops someone from buying it, then they would not be buying ammunition, be going shooting to learn to handle the firearm safetly and properly, and they would probably not be buying something in which to store the firearm safely.

Smoke and mirrors? Everyone has a tipping point on almost anything they buy where they say "Well this just cost too much for the value it gives me". For most people, it would likely not mean they would decline buying it but for SOME it would. And that is exactly what the numbers reflect.

So the chances of accidental deaths would increase more than (my guess here) the increase in the crimes due solely to the background checks.

I suppose this is possible, but accidental deaths are very rare. It's been awhile since I've read the whole book, it may have factored those in.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And has any of that happened??

in different states, yes. for instance, the 'registration leads to confiscation' theory was proven true in california and chicago.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in a pro-gun manner.

Then why aren't the circuit courts following that ruling? oh, i remember. It was said that since scalia said nothing in the decision should be taken to mean that long standing federal laws aren't being overturned, the circuits go with the status quo.

 

[Cancel3]

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.




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.

 

[Thorn]

in different states, yes. for instance, the 'registration leads to confiscation' theory was proven true in california and chicago.

Then why aren't the circuit courts following that ruling? oh, i remember. It was said that since scalia said nothing in the decision should be taken to mean that long standing federal laws aren't being overturned, the circuits go with the status quo.

Didn't something similar happen recently in DC, where the definition of an assault weapon was changed in order to prevent people from keeping certain handguns when they tried to legally register them? I believe that this was in response to a court's overturning the handgun ban in DC just prior to that action, and especially affected the people who had brought the lawsuit. My recollection of this is hazy so please feel free to correct my misstatements.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Didn't something similar happen recently in DC, where the definition of an assault weapon was changed in order to prevent people from keeping certain handguns when they tried to legally register them? I believe that this was in response to a court's overturning the handgun ban in DC just prior to that action, and especially affected the people who had brought the lawsuit. My recollection of this is hazy so please feel free to correct my misstatements.

you are correct. Initially, once they were ordered to issue a license to Heller, DC rewrote their rules to issue a license.....for revolvers only. They redefined machine guns as any firearm that is fed a magazine from the bottom. Assault weapons were redefined as firearms able to shoot 7 rounds without reloading, notable because the .22 revolver that Heller wanted a license for was a 9 shot revolver.

This is the stupid shit we try to prevent, that so called slippery slope. People don't get it that those against guns will find every possible way to make things harder for law abiding citizens to obtain weapons all in the hopes that it will make the demand for criminal weapons too high and unaffordable for the criminal.

 

[Thorn]

you are correct. Initially, once they were ordered to issue a license to Heller, DC rewrote their rules to issue a license.....for revolvers only. They redefined machine guns as any firearm that is fed a magazine from the bottom. Assault weapons were redefined as firearms able to shoot 7 rounds without reloading, notable because the .22 revolver that Heller wanted a license for was a 9 shot revolver.

This is the stupid shit we try to prevent, that so called slippery slope. People don't get it that those against guns will find every possible way to make things harder for law abiding citizens to obtain weapons all in the hopes that it will make the demand for criminal weapons too high and unaffordable for the criminal.

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.

 

[Cancel3]

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.

And THAT, is what needs to happen. To show that common sense is needed in the arena of gun laws.

And that takes educating the public and making sure that what is presented is clear and consise.