Expanded background checks

[spook12]

What makes you think felons will not own guns as the result of more background checks?

It is already against the law for a felon to own a gun. There is a black market for guns. Why wouldn't a felon just buy one off the black market? If a human will break one law (like laws against felons owning guns) why wouldn't they break more laws (like laws against purchasing guns on a black market)?

belly-deep, I completely understand what you're saying.

BUT, the system we have now doesn't force the felon into the black market. The system we have now( that a lot of folks are so quick to defend) allows said felon to go make their purchase on the open market.So I'm supposed to defend a system that allows a felon to purchase a weapon,with less hassle and at the same price that I as a law abiding citizen can? No thanks. If a felon was forced to pay black market prices, how many of the light weights wouldn't bother, sure the most hardened criminals are always gonna find a way to get a weapon.

Should we do nothing because we cant do everything?

 

[exponentialpi]

Lope, I don't know what the real relationship is, but that, if you make something harder to do, people will do less of it is basic human behavior. Disagreeing is like saying guys don't like boobs. It's science. I do know you can't just cherry pick a few cities when it is convenient. Yes, both sides do it. I don't know why the gun folks expect anyone to put meaning in it.

I lived in Dallas for a few miserable years after college. It is a very wealthy city. Just south of Dallas was Oak Cliff, which isn't a wealthy city. Dallas had a lot of gun violence. Oak Park was far worse. Same gun laws, same location.

To claim background checks won't make ANY difference is absurd, but I'll agree that it could be possible that it won't make enough difference to warrant the cost of enforcement and a black market (like the war on drugs). If that is the case we need to stop pussyfooting around and just make it legal for any person to buy a gun because for all practical purposes you can't catch an illegal gun owner until he commits another crime because the fourth amendment (thankfully still) prevents the gov. from searching us without just cause.

So what do you think? Should we have meaningful background checks or just stop pussyfooting around and let felons own guns? I guess that is how I see the paths we can take on this issue.

Rob, you are correct in that we can all cherry pick data to support a stance. Isn't it lies, damn lies, and statistics

My grandparents lived on the south side of Chicago. Chicago is used as a prime example due to the level of firearms prohibition that exists within the city. Considering calendar year 2012, there were 506 murders, with 443 committed by firearms. Quite shocking for a city where guns are essentially banned except for the privileged few. It would be interesting to see how many GSW's were reported by the trauma units where the patient lived.

It also seems to be coming out that the two terrorists from Monday's bombing in Boston did not have Massachusetts firearms permits. Massachusetts has a stringent system where a permit is needed to posses firearms, ammunition, powder, brass, bullets, primers, etc. These stringent laws didn't seem to stop them from essentially turning Boston into a war zone Thursday night.

I am not for UBC as folks intent on destruction will always find ways to cause destruction.

 

[RobG]

Rob, you are correct in that we can all cherry pick data to support a stance. Isn't it lies, damn lies, and statistics

My grandparents lived on the south side of Chicago. Chicago is used as a prime example due to the level of firearms prohibition that exists within the city. Considering calendar year 2012, there were 506 murders, with 443 committed by firearms. Quite shocking for a city where guns are essentially banned except for the privileged few. It would be interesting to see how many GSW's were reported by the trauma units where the patient lived.

It also seems to be coming out that the two terrorists from Monday's bombing in Boston did not have Massachusetts firearms permits. Massachusetts has a stringent system where a permit is needed to posses firearms, ammunition, powder, brass, bullets, primers, etc. These stringent laws didn't seem to stop them from essentially turning Boston into a war zone Thursday night.

I am not for UBC as folks intent on destruction will always find ways to cause destruction.

Nobody is claiming that <name your law> will stop 100% of all <name your crime>. It is another tiresome straw-man. You don't have to worry, I get it. I've heard about the high rate of violent crime in the UK too .

I guess with Chicago's laws you can buy the weapons right outside the city limits, so it really isn't a case of people using the black market. Those local restrictions are bothersome to me because you know they are going to be looking to add restrictions to the neighboring areas. I expect the Chicago crime rate is caused by social/economic issues, not too many or too little guns.

 

[sweetnectar]

I guess that when you asked for someone to give a legitimate reason for opposition to stricter background checks, you didn't really want to hear those reasons

You got that right. Seems someone has another ajenda.

 

[RobG]

Rob, states like Connecticut, Illinois, California, and New York, along with DC? Check your statistics again. Also, remember that Professor Lott began his research to prove that restrictive gun laws reduced crime: his results were the opposite of his thesis, and changed his opinion of gun laws........and he was a compatriot of Obama's!!!!!!!

I guess that when you asked for someone to give a legitimate reason for opposition to stricter background checks, you didn't really want to hear those reasons. I thought I had enumerated them for you in a reasonable and rational manner. Obviously, your mind isn't open to a valid discussion against such background checks, and it's even more obvious that you have a problem with pro-gun organizations.........which is your right; but why not cease and desist from trying to convince those of us with strong pro-gun beliefs and justified reasons for opposing the increased background checks that our opinions are wrong, simply because we aren't in agreement with you!

I didn't see this until Nectar said something. I'm not sure what statistics you refer to, but I don't believe unreferenced numbers that could be cherry picked just because a stranger on a hunting board said them. Overall, however, I appreciate the input on this topic and have no issue with anyone who discusses the topic, instead of claiming I have an "ajenda" when I remain critical. I've tried to remain lighthearted here, but this can be a difficult medium to communicate in. I know Expontialpi personally so if I seem a little flippant with him it is because he deserves it for gutshooting all those deer.

I have no idea of the Lott studies - if you give me a synopsis of his work I'll check it out. I am a researcher however and no single study is definitive.

I AM interested in the reasons why you and others opposed these checks, but don't expect me to take your word for it. I listen and check them out. When I find them to be false or weak or nonsensical and then follow up don't accuse me of having an "ajenda" (Nectar); accuse me of caring enough to look into the truth of the matter and thinking critically.

The NRA appears to have basically lied to you (and and all of us) about what the proposed law did regarding transfers among family members. That is what I've found the NRA to be best at, which is one of the reasons why I have a problem with them. I'm not ashamed of having a problem with the NRA, but I don't want to make it a topic of this thread.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'm not ashamed of having a problem with the NRA, but I don't want to make it a topic of this thread.

Like you, I don't wanna do any research but I'll bet you've mentioned that a time or two...subliminal?....not so much.

 

[rhomas]

I didn't take that bit of information from the NRA, I took it from the actual Senate Roll Call Vote, as I stated in the original post. As for Professor Lott's book and his study, how can you even converse on the topic without knowing about his publication? As stated, he was a liberal anti-gun activist and personal confidante of Obama, who started out trying to prove the validity of restrictive gun control laws and their affects on crime. Instead, he found out that his premise was incorrect and proved the opposite of his intentions. He has since become one of the foremost intellectuals on the subject, and his book and studies have become the most oft quoted source for disproving the anti-gun organizations claims that strict gun control results in lower gun violence.

 

[RobG]

I didn't take that bit of information from the NRA, I took it from the actual Senate Roll Call Vote, as I stated in the original post. As for Professor Lott's book and his study, how can you even converse on the topic without knowing about his publication? As stated, he was a liberal anti-gun activist and personal confidante of Obama, who started out trying to prove the validity of restrictive gun control laws and their affects on crime. Instead, he found out that his premise was incorrect and proved the opposite of his intentions. He has since become one of the foremost intellectuals on the subject, and his book and studies have become the most oft quoted source for disproving the anti-gun organizations claims that strict gun control results in lower gun violence.

Rhomas - the topic here was background checks. Somehow it got off topic with someone started throwing around unreferenced claims about gun laws in Dallas and Chicago etc. As I mentioned, I don't believe unreferenced talking points just because a biased stranger posted it on a hunting site. I have no problems pointing out obvious flaws in the presentation and asking for further explanation.

You have referenced Lott and given me something to look into. The way gun restrictions are done in this country I do find it quite believable that they don't help, but that is a different topic than background checks.

I have to go sign a contract with a company in Dallas. God help me if I have to spend much time in that crime infested hell hole. I might have to hire NHY to escort me around

 

[RobG]

Like you, I don't wanna do any research but I'll bet you've mentioned that a time or two...subliminal?....not so much.

Sorry if it seemed subliminal.

 

[belly-deep]

belly-deep, I completely understand what you're saying.

BUT, the system we have now doesn't force the felon into the black market. The system we have now( that a lot of folks are so quick to defend) allows said felon to go make their purchase on the open market.So I'm supposed to defend a system that allows a felon to purchase a weapon,with less hassle and at the same price that I as a law abiding citizen can? No thanks. If a felon was forced to pay black market prices, how many of the light weights wouldn't bother, sure the most hardened criminals are always gonna find a way to get a weapon.

Should we do nothing because we cant do everything?

As I see it, felons are going to get guns. Period.

And if they can't get them easily, they're going to start breaking through our windows to get them, right?

Black market has to come from somewhere. It might come across the border. But in all likelihood, given the fact that we have soooo many guns in the US already, it will come from within. That means from our closets. I don't want my house broken into because suddenly my guns are worth 5X their actual price on the black market.

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

Belly deep, spot on.

(FYI.... as of April 4th, 86 homicides in Chi town. . .may be a record year. . .stay tuned)

 

[smarandr]

I'm too lazy to go through three and a half pages of posts this morning so I don't know if I'm redundant with my two cents; regardless here it is:

I fail to see the difference of buying a gun from Cabela's is any different than buying a gun at a gun show. How is one of the transactions an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights and the other is not? If the object of a background check is to keep disqualified people from obtaining guns, then I'm all for requiring a background check on nearly all transactions.

Sure, a guy with evil intentions will probably still be able to get his hands on a gun in a country like ours where guns outnumber people. But there's no sense in making it easy for them; let's force them underground to the black market. Hell, maybe a few of them will get shot themselves when they are trying to purchase a Saturday night special in the back alley or breaking into Belly Deep's house. Win-win.

 

[spook12]

As I see it, felons are going to get guns. Period.

And if they can't get them easily, they're going to start breaking through our windows to get them, right?

Black market has to come from somewhere. It might come across the border. But in all likelihood, given the fact that we have soooo many guns in the US already, it will come from within. That means from our closets. I don't want my house broken into because suddenly my guns are worth 5X their actual price on the black market.

I've said before but will state again I'm no fan of background checks. Unlike some on either side of the issue I don't proclaim to know what the outcome would be if they where made mandatory on all sales or eliminated all together.

One thing I do know however is that I feel no burden to defend a system that is more restrictive on me then it is on a felon. I'm sorry but I just can't buy into the idea that they are gonna get them anyway so I should assist in making it as easy as possible.
We know that a methhead is gonna get his meth,and I'm sure you have never felt the need to assist him in that, why then should we assist a felon in making an illegal gun purchase by insuring that the system is in place for him to?

 

[noharleyyet]

Sorry if it seemed subliminal.

Quite alright, the NRA will unsubliminally champion your 2A rights for free.

 

[RobG]

Quite alright, the NRA will unsubliminally champion your 2A rights for free.

Now drifting totally off topic... Today I read where some republicans are calling for the Constitution to be suspended for the Boston marathon bomber. Does it really matter if the NRA is fighting for the 2nd by blocking UBC, but putting into office people who would allow the whole Constitution to be summarily taken away from you based on the opinion of someone in the executive branch? Don't people see the problem with that? The difference is stark.

 

[noharleyyet]

Robby boy, it was your senate:

good read; http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/

 

[RobG]

Robby boy, it was your senate:

good read; http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/

A lot of truth in there. In the same tone, if the Rs want me to believe they aren't going to trash the Constitution they should stop calling for the trashing of the Constitution. I'm not for AW bans, but I'll defend someone who is before supporting a candidate who would call for Constitution Rights of a U.S. citizen to be suspended. There is no comparison between the two infringements or ultimately to the threat to the 2nd.

Back to the topic - I haven't seen much to convince me that this bill was a really bad one. Was that the answer I was looking for all along? No, I honestly hoped (and thought) the argument against this bill had some meat.

 

[noharleyyet]

Re-read A cons posts.

 

[rhomas]

This entire thread is a fuggin' joke in the first place. People who support background checks and despise the NRA will never listen to alternative opinions, and certainly aren't going to change their minds, and I know that since I don't support background checks and love my NRA, your leftist views aren't going to change mine!

I'm just wondering how many of the threads similar to this are bona-fide, serious and inquisitive, and how many are the antics of some of Bloomberg's shills who have infiltrated hunting and shooting sites in an effort to gather information to be used against pro-gun organizations and supporters!!!!

From what I've seen in several threads here, I'm having serious doubts about the true intent of some of the posts and comments I've read. I just can not understand any serious gun owner supporting any government program that undermines the rights of Americans to own whatever type of firearm they desire to own.........regardless of the purpose of such ownership. I also have a hard time understanding how people who are supposedly gun owners and hunters can be willing to let a governmental agency dictate what, how, and when our rights to gun ownership can be questioned.

As for the latest spin, the Boston Bombers acted as terrorists, and as such forfeited their citizenship rights by acting as enemy combatants against the citizens of the US. I fail to see any correlation to being opposed to background checks and gun control and treating them as the enemy can be considered a contradiction.

 

[RobG]

I'm just wondering how many of the threads similar to this are bona-fide, serious and inquisitive, and how many are the antics of some of Bloomberg's shills who have infiltrated hunting and shooting sites in an effort to gather information to be used against pro-gun organizations and supporters!!!!

Crap, busted, and I nearly had NHY's address. These threads are so much more effective than using the information from hunting licenses and concealed weapon permits.

I still like you anyway Ron.