Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a difference. Laws against theft, assault, or murder, like most laws, are not meant to keep people from doing those things, they are meant to establish a legal basis for punishment once someone does do them. However, what's the point of Universal Background Checks? To keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, right? Well simple logic tells you it won't have the intended effect.
Actually, simple logic would tell you it will have a profound effect on keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Read on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Think about it, if I decide to sell a gun to a criminal without doing the background check, what's to stop me? How will they prove I'm the one who sold it? There are no registries linking me to each gun that I own. In other words, this law, in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, will have to rely on criminals who are selling guns to other criminals to go run a background check. Sounds like a winner... I've asked this question many times on these boards, and as of yet, no one has been able to answer it. Instead, you guys just go off on some rant about abolishing all laws to avoid having to answer it.
For one, if you're trying to say that if a law is tough to enforce then it shouldn't be a law... that's just stupid. There are laws that in order to convict, have to proof what the defendant was thinking at the time. Hard to proof doesn't mean it shouldn't become law.
Second, you seem to think criminals get guns from other criminals who get those guns from other criminals who bought the guns directly from the manufacturer or make them themselves. The fact is, at some point in the chain of event, the criminals got the guns from everyday citizens. Whether it was purchased from a private seller, borrowed, gifted, or stolen; at some point the gun changed from being in civilians' hands to street soldiers. This law can help stop that. There is absolutely no denying that it will help (doesn't mean completely stop) prevent some criminals from getting guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
It won't be a problem for anyone who doesn't care if they break the law i.e. criminals.... It will be a BIG problem for those of us who want to abide by the law.
You kept saying that and never supply any proof, even in hypothetical sense why that is. Like I said, at some point, the guns changed hands from law-abiding citizens to criminals. If we can stop that transfer, and this law will help, we can really hit the criminals hard. Now, yes, they can still go to other states with even laxer laws; but we're talking baby steps here. Rome is not built in one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Apparently the point I was trying to make went right over your intellectual head. No surprise there. The point is, if you don't have a general knowledge about something, then you are not qualified to say what works and what doesn't, because you don't know. It's not a "universal subject".... Do you know what the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is? How about the Gun Control Act of 1968? What about the National Firearms Act of 1934? If you can't tell me what those laws do ( which I suspect is the case ) how do you think you can intelligently talk about adding new laws? You don't even know the current laws.
What I tried to explain to you is that there is many aspect to gun control and trying to cloud the issue by dragging in irrelevant laws isn't going to help your case. We are talking about background check. This is ALL there is to this topic. Background check, period. Those laws you mentioned deal with background check a little bit and then a whole lot of other stuff like interstate, registry, machine guns, etc, etc; that doesn't have a lick to do with our topic.
Do I know those laws you mentioned inside and out? No. Do I have a passing knowledge of they are about generally? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
You go out in the streets and ask them? Or are you just fabricating facts to support what's left of your argument? I would bet that criminals get their guns through straw purchasers, or people who knowingly buy guns so they can sell them on the streets. Wherever there's a market, someone will be there to fill it. Straw purchasers won't care that you pass a new law, because they're already breaking numerous federal and state laws. Think about it.
One of my friends' Dad was busted for guns trafficking. Another one of my acquaintance was send to jail for assault, robbery, and rape at gun point. I partied with guys who had bounties on their heads. And I even taught a gang leader how to play the guitar. So yes, I do know a little bit about how the street works.
And you obviously didn't watch the documentary I provided which shows two gangbangers just walk up to some random guy at the parking lot of a gun show and offer to buy every single one of his guns. Criminals don't just buy guns from other criminals, they buys guns, lots of guns, from everyday people.
The bottom line is that lax background check is a main reason the criminals are able to get their hands on so many weapons.
.
"Vanguard".... lolololololol hahaha. That used to be a documentary series on the TV network "Current" owned by Al Gore, which is one of the most Liberal independent news networks I've ever seen.
There is no left or right in gun violence. There is only facts, just because you chose to dismiss it doesn't make the facts go away. Sorry.
.
Sorry, I don't accept "facts" that come off a Liberal tv network, much in the same way you probably wouldn't accept facts quoted from "Conservative Nation" or similar groups.....
Believe it or not, I actually used to watch the "Vanguard" documentaries on TV before the Progressive tv channel they were broadcast on failed and was sold, and is now Aljazera.... I liked them pretty well. In fact I think I've even watched the one you posted. One of my favorites was the one on how they were trying to redice crime in Rio De Janero in preparation for the World Cup. However, there is no denying that they definately have a Leftist bent to them.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-05-2014 at 12:38 PM..
For one, if you're trying to say that if a law is tough to enforce
I'm NOT saying it will be "tough" to enforce. Speed limits are "tough" to enforce.... I'm saying this law will be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce, as there are no registries linking every gun to a citizen, and therefore no way of proving if the gun was sold without a background check.
Quote:
Second, you seem to think criminals get guns from other criminals who get those guns from other criminals who bought the guns directly from the manufacturer or make them themselves.
Criminals get their guns in numerous ways. Some steal them, some buy them from oither criminals who've stolen them, some get them through straw purchasers, who knowingly buy a gun to sell it to people who are barred from having them. I would say that is probably the main source of illegal guns, and those are the people who won't be controlled by some paper tiger law. In order to be controlled by it, they'd have to willingly obey it, and that isn't going to happen.
Quote:
The fact is, at some point in the chain of event, the criminals got the guns from everyday citizens.
WRONG! It's more than likely that criminals get their guns from straw purchasers, whether that be a freind or family member, or just someone who buys guns for the prurpose of selling them to criminals at inflated prices. Most these these straw purchasers are knowingly selling their gun to someone prohibited from having one.... In other words, they know they are already breaking the law, so what's one more?
Quote:
This law can help stop that.
How? You guys keep saying it can help to stop it, but you don't ever explain how? How is this law going to stop a straw purchaser from buying a gun and knowingly selling it to a criminal without a background check? How will it work? I'm sincerely asking you to explain it to me.
Quote:
There is absolutely no denying that it will help (doesn't mean completely stop) prevent some criminals from getting guns.
Again, you guys keep on reassuring people "oh I promise it will help, it may not be perfect, but it will help" but you NEVER explain how?
Quote:
You kept saying that and never supply any proof, even in hypothetical sense why that is.
???
I've supplied plenty of hypothetical proof of why this will be more harmful to the law-abiding. I've told you already, it blocks many activities that are normal, ethical, and inocent in the gun owning community. I wouldn't be allowed to let a freind shoot a gun on my property without doing a background check. I wouldn't be allowed to let my teenage son use one of my guns to hunt on his own. I wouldn't be able to hand a gun to a hunting partner until we get in the fiel. What makes the difference if I hand a fellow hunter a gun at my house or the field? Why is one ok and the other illegal? This law is riddled with legal pit-falls that will only serve to ensnare otherwise law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop the illegal flow and use of guns to and by criminals. It's very plain to see. If you don't see it, it's because you willingly choose not to.
Quote:
Like I said, at some point, the guns changed hands from law-abiding citizens to criminals.
Can you prove that? Prove how many guns get sold illegaly to criminals every year by unsuspecting private sellers? How big of a problem is it really? Got any numbers? I think that's the least you can do is prove it?
As far as straw purchasers, these are not "law-abiding"..... Just because you have no criminal record doesn't mean you are law-abiding, there's a big difference, and this law will not stop them. All it might do is cause them to raise their prices due to the fact they are breaking one more law.
Quote:
If we can stop that transfer, and this law will help, we can really hit the criminals hard.
I'm not saying a law like this won't stop any guns from being sold to criminals. No doubt there are probably a number of true law abiding citizens who unknowingly sell guns to criminals. I'm just not sure how big of a problem that really is, and neither are you as you haven't given me any studues. I think a far better alternative, is to streamline the background check system so that ordinary citizens can have access to it on a voluntary basis. Right now, I have no way to check the background of a potential buyer, but if I had access to the system, I would do so willingly and voluntarily. People who don't want to do it, won't anyhow, even if it's the law, and straw purchasers certainly won't.
Quote:
Now, yes, they can still go to other states with even laxer laws; but we're talking baby steps here. Rome is not built in one day.
This is exactly what we're afraid of, it's why we won't budge an inch. You guys call laws like this "a start" or "babysteps"..... when will enough be enough? When will we accept the fact that with certain liberties, come certain risks? Freedom is not necessarily safe. Will there ever be a time when we as a country say "ok, we've mitigated as much risk as necessary, we have enough gun laws"???? Of course that time will never come. If we give an inch on this issue, next year you'll be saying we didn't go far enough, and so on and so forth. That's why many gun owners will not compromise and work with you.
Quote:
What I tried to explain to you is that there is many aspect to gun control and trying to cloud the issue by dragging in irrelevant laws isn't going to help your case. We are talking about background check. This is ALL there is to this topic. Background check, period.
You keep trying to portray it that way but it just isn't true. Even for someone who supports the concept of universal background checks, this is still a horrible law. It goes much farther than just "background checks" on gun sales. Poorly written by someone who probably zero understanding of the gun owning community. It's just like the law maker in California who tried to pass a law saying one could only buy say, 50 rounds at a time, and was completely dumbfounded why anyone would need to buy more than that. Some shooting events and competitions go through thousands of rounds at one sitting. You can't possibly regulate something that you don't understand. That's why laws like this should have a lot of insight from hunting groups and shootings leagues, etc.... not apartment dwelling urbanites who've probably never spent a day at the range in their entire lives.
Quote:
And you obviously didn't watch the documentary I provided which shows two gangbangers just walk up to some random guy at the parking lot of a gun show and offer to buy every single one of his guns. Criminals don't just buy guns from other criminals, they buys guns, lots of guns, from everyday people.
The bottom line is that lax background check is a main reason the criminals are able to get their hands on so many weapons.
Again, you've yet to prove that a major source of illegal guns is unsuspecting private sellers. Prove that and you might have a point. This law may help in that regard, but as far as people who buy guns and knowingly sell them to criminals? Laws like this won't do diddly squat.....
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-05-2014 at 12:48 PM..
I'm NOT saying it will be "tough" to enforce. Speed limits are "tough" to enforce.... I'm saying this law will be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce, as there are no registries linking every gun to a citizen, and therefore no way of proving if the gun was sold without a background check.
And?
Many laws still exists that are in practicality hard ("impossible" in your terms) to enforce. No one is debating that it is tough to enforce, but that alone doesn't mean it's a bad law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Criminals get their guns in numerous ways. Some steal them, some buy them from oither criminals who've stolen them, some get them through straw purchasers, who knowingly buy a gun to sell it to people who are barred from having them. I would say that is probably the main source of illegal guns, and those are the people who won't be controlled by some paper tiger law. In order to be controlled by it, they'd have to willingly obey it, and that isn't going to happen.
Yes, some criminals steal guns. Yes, some buy from straw buyers.
But also, by reading your passage, you have inferred and conceded that some criminals do buy guns from honest sellers. Its just that according to your argument, those who commit this act are not in great enough number for you to do something about it.
Guess what. I disagree. Even if one criminal exploited this loophole, that's enough for me to cover up the loophole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
WRONG! It's more than likely that criminals get their guns from straw purchasers, whether that be a freind or family member, or just someone who buys guns for the prurpose of selling them to criminals at inflated prices. Most these these straw purchasers are knowingly selling their gun to someone prohibited from having one.... In other words, they know they are already breaking the law, so what's one more?
Again, if one single criminal had exploited the loophole, that's enough for us to doing something about it.
Unless you're arguing that no criminal in the history of this nation had ever purchased a gun from an unsuspecting private seller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
How? You guys keep saying it can help to stop it, but you don't ever explain how? How is this law going to stop a straw purchaser from buying a gun and knowingly selling it to a criminal without a background check? How will it work? I'm sincerely asking you to explain it to me.
Again, you guys keep on reassuring people "oh I promise it will help, it may not be perfect, but it will help" but you NEVER explain how?
???
It's common sense isn't it?
Before this law: Criminal A contacts private Seller B to buy a gun. They did an exchange and went on their merry ways.
After this law: Criminal A contacts private Seller B. Private Seller B replied, "Hey there is this new law. You have to pass a background check. That shouldn't be a problem right?" Criminal A disappears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
I've supplied plenty of hypothetical proof of why this will be more harmful to the law-abiding. I've told you already, it blocks many activities that are normal, ethical, and inocent in the gun owning community. I wouldn't be allowed to let a freind shoot a gun on my property without doing a background check. I wouldn't be allowed to let my teenage son use one of my guns to hunt on his own. I wouldn't be able to hand a gun to a hunting partner until we get in the fiel. What makes the difference if I hand a fellow hunter a gun at my house or the field? Why is one ok and the other illegal? This law is riddled with legal pit-falls that will only serve to ensnare otherwise law abiding citizens, and do nothing to stop the illegal flow and use of guns to and by criminals. It's very plain to see. If you don't see it, it's because you willingly choose not to.
Actually, what's happening here is that you have not demonstrated why those minor inconvenience are so catastrophic to you. Is not letting your friend shoot at your house with your gun really such an abomination? When I read that, I don't think,"Wow, you are right, those are major issues that need to be addressed." I think,"These people don't have their priorities straight..."
You are not going to win any argument by citing a few minor items that most reasonable people find ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Can you prove that? Prove how many guns get sold illegaly to criminals every year by unsuspecting private sellers? How big of a problem is it really? Got any numbers? I think that's the least you can do is prove it?
As far as straw purchasers, these are not "law-abiding"..... Just because you have no criminal record doesn't mean you are law-abiding, there's a big difference, and this law will not stop them. All it might do is cause them to raise their prices due to the fact they are breaking one more law.
I'm not saying a law like this won't stop any guns from being sold to criminals. No doubt there are probably a number of true law abiding citizens who unknowingly sell guns to criminals. I'm just not sure how big of a problem that really is, and neither are you as you haven't given me any studues. I think a far better alternative, is to streamline the background check system so that ordinary citizens can have access to it on a voluntary basis. Right now, I have no way to check the background of a potential buyer, but if I had access to the system, I would do so willingly and voluntarily. People who don't want to do it, won't anyhow, even if it's the law, and straw purchasers certainly won't.
This is exactly what we're afraid of, it's why we won't budge an inch. You guys call laws like this "a start" or "babysteps"..... when will enough be enough? When will we accept the fact that with certain liberties, come certain risks? Freedom is not necessarily safe. Will there ever be a time when we as a country say "ok, we've mitigated as much risk as necessary, we have enough gun laws"???? Of course that time will never come. If we give an inch on this issue, next year you'll be saying we didn't go far enough, and so on and so forth. That's why many gun owners will not compromise and work with you.
You keep trying to portray it that way but it just isn't true. Even for someone who supports the concept of universal background checks, this is still a horrible law. It goes much farther than just "background checks" on gun sales. Poorly written by someone who probably zero understanding of the gun owning community. It's just like the law maker in California who tried to pass a law saying one could only buy say, 50 rounds at a time, and was completely dumbfounded why anyone would need to buy more than that. Some shooting events and competitions go through thousands of rounds at one sitting. You can't possibly regulate something that you don't understand. That's why laws like this should have a lot of insight from hunting groups and shootings leagues, etc.... not apartment dwelling urbanites who've probably never spent a day at the range in their entire lives.
Again, you've yet to prove that a major source of illegal guns is unsuspecting private sellers. Prove that and you might have a point. This law may help in that regard, but as far as people who buy guns and knowingly sell them to criminals? Laws like this won't do diddly squat.....
"Major source"?? Where did I say that? Where in our collective conscience does things need to deteriorate to that level in order for us to do something?
As for criminals using the no-background check loophole to buy guns, I thought that is common knowledge. Here are some articles that I've found:
You need to lookup what "transfer" actually means. I think you are arguing with me on this point because you think "transfer" means something else.
Exactly. You said, "In rural areas." There is a reason why you are able to own 200 acres of land in the first place.... there aren't many people where you are. Now, I don't want to come across as hating on the rural population because I'm not, but almost by definition, the rural settings are typically outside of the mainstream, which makes them extreme cases almost just by default. If you want to argue that exceptions should be applied to such areas, hey I will not argue with that. But to overturn everything in order to cater to a minority group of population is dumb imo.
Btw, before you turn this into, "Oh, so we in the rural area have no right eh?" Again, this is not about the rural area, it's about making a law that fits all population as best it can. And most the population lives outside of the rural places.
Enforcing laws in rural places are always more difficult. That doesn't mean those laws should be abolished.
You want to talk about "common sense"? Who would enter a competition when he doesn't even have the right gun for it? You know what, if your guy doesn't have the gun, can't borrow one, and can't find one anywhere, maybe he ought to reconsider shooting in that competition? Just a thought.
That would seem to be the case, I'd be ok with an exception given to such circumstance.
On the scale of "problem", what you described is somewhere below "So now I have to put a registration sticker on my license plate!! That takes work!!"
Seriously, if this is a "problem" to you then I don't know what to tell you.
And I've never claimed to be a major gun enthusiast did I?
What I am though, is someone who live with guns all around me. People in my neck of the woods murder/kill/shoot people, sometimes in gang related activities, sometimes for money, and sometimes just for fun. This is no joke, this is not some minor inconvenience, this S___ is real. The shooters, killers, murderers, hardcore gangbangers, they often use guns that are not their own. Just spend one week in my setting and you'll understand. You want to know why gun laws need to be strict? Because people like me are tired of all the shootings and dead bodies. When I hear you whine, yes whine, about "Ohhhh, what if my friend forgets to return the gun, ohhhh....." I can't help but shake my head. What you're saying is that you won't make a little bit of sacrifice, just a tiny bit of inconvenience, for the greater good.
.
It appears you have a gang problem not so much a gun problem.
That is nonsense my friend
There is nothing in the bill that states one can't show off their guns or even let others fire their guns.
Transfer refers to new ownership, and I support the notion of not allowing some felon to trade a stolen mountain bike for a handgun with some random stranger he met on craigslist. If this means that now a background check is required to transfer a firearm with one of my fishing buddies from work, then so be it.
I once traded a dirtbike for an AR, Glock G22, Beretta 92FS, and a Kel Tec P32... Now we were both CPL holders which means we had both been thru a background check. Also the handguns had to be re-registered into my name.
And?
Many laws still exists that are in practicality hard ("impossible" in your
terms) to enforce. No one is debating that it is tough to enforce, but that
alone doesn't mean it's a bad law.
A law that is impossible to enforce isn't a law at all.
Quote:
Yes, some criminals steal guns. Yes, some buy from straw buyers.
But also, by reading your passage, you have inferred and conceded that some
criminals do buy guns from honest sellers. Its just that according to your
argument, those who commit this act are not in great enough number for you to do
something about it.
Guess what. I disagree. Even if one criminal exploited this loophole,
that's enough for me to cover up the loophole.
Again, if one single criminal had exploited the loophole, that's enough for
us to doing something about it.
Ah..... the old "if it saves one life" logic. That might sound pretty good when you first hear it, as long as you don't think too much about it. The reality is it's just not a rational basis for action. There's a lot of things that could be done to save "just one life" but that doesn't mean they should be done. If banning cars saved just one family from a careless drunk driver, should we ban cars? If banning swimming pools saves just one child from drowning, should we ban swimming pools?
Furthermore, using your logic, this law just might cost just one life. As we've discussed, people wouldn't be allowed to just lend someone a gun. Say I have a good female friend who just split from her abusive husband, and he's threatened to "do something about it"..... So, she get's a temporary emergency restraining order against him and she comes over to my house and asks to borrow a gun to keep in her home just until things cool off. Well, I can't just lend it to her without going to a gun shop and getting the BGC, it's late and there are no places open and we live quite a distance from the nearest shop anyway. Sorry sweetie, you're on your own. He comes back that night and kills her. Sorry, but using the "just one life" logic, this law could cost a life and shouldn't be passed. If it could cost "just one life" it isn't worth doing, right?
Quote:
Before this law: Criminal A contacts private Seller B to buy a gun. They did
an exchange and went on their merry ways.
After this law: Criminal A contacts private Seller B. Private Seller B
replied, "Hey there is this new law. You have to pass a background check.
That shouldn't be a problem right?" Criminal A disappears.
That's assuming private seller B abides by the law, and if he chooses not to, what's to stop him? Nothing.
Quote:
Actually, what's happening here is that you have not demonstrated why those
minor inconvenience are so catastrophic to you. Is not letting your friend
shoot at your house with your gun really such an abomination? When I read
that, I don't think,"Wow, you are right, those are major issues that need to be
addressed." I think,"These people don't have their priorities straight..."
You are not going to win any argument by citing a few minor items that most
reasonable people find ridiculous.
It's not about "minor inconveniences, it's about the fact that this law will criminalize the activities of law-abiding citizens more than that of criminals. That's really the goal of all gun control laws at their core. Think about it. The government can't control criminals with laws, because criminals don't care about their laws. Law-abiding citizens on the other hand can be controlled, and victimized by the law.
As for the articles you posted, they all seemed to be from left leaning sources or from Bloomberg. Sorry, but Bloomberg isn't exactly a bastion of truth and facts when it comes to the gun control debate. I read a little of the Washington Post article, but again, it's argument assumes that straw purchasers will abide by a background check law.
There is no left or right in gun violence. There is only facts, just because you chose to dismiss it doesn't make the facts go away. Sorry.
.
Is that why my home state of Illinois, outside of the Chicago metro area has a gun violence rate similar to Canada (which is touted as a wonderful goal) while the Chicago area has a rate 5-6x higher?
But hmmmm.....the solution seems to need to be NATIONAL because the problem is gun availability is the problem despite widely disparate results even in areas with the same gun laws.
Weird, Lincoln park IL had a murder rate around 1 per 100k each year while Austin, IL just a few miles away is up in the 30-40 range.
Seems to me that the whole "gun control" debate uses the occasional mass shooting or tragedy (and I support more mental health reform) to pretty much cover over the fact that major metros really don't want to spend much money when brown people are shooting brown people in specially designated hell holes.
P.S. It's not racist, because those cities are democrat. Ignore the man behind the curtain. Thanks.
It appears you have a gang problem not so much a gun problem.
Shhhhhh.....don't burst their bubble that what is really racist enforcement, policing and funding of parts of Chicago aren't anything other than the......complete fault of their political rivals.
BWAH HAH HAH HAH.
Seriously, 2 neighborhoods 3 miles apart, same laws....30-40x higher gun murder rate. Geee, must be the darn availability of guns.
Freakin' liars. Racist liars at that.
Sad fact is that calling them out over it, like Sharpton STARTED to do a number of years back....gets you a slap on the wrist and a quick exit out of town just like MLK got.
If you are a black leader and want to get completely disenfranchised...complain about the cities disparate treatment of poor minority areas. Quick way to get Sheehanded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've asked this question many times on these boards, and as of yet, no one has been able to answer it. Instead, you guys just go off on some rant about abolishing all laws to avoid having to answer it.
Now we were both CPL holders which means we had both been thru a background check. Also the handguns had to be re-registered into my name.
