Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should there be background check for gun purchases/ownership?
Yes 53 63.86%
No 30 36.14%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2015, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,286 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15645

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
To transfer a handgun many states require that both ends go through a FFL and Form 4473 check. In MD a person not only has to go through the 4473 but also a background check by the MD State Police.

To buy a long gun from non-adjoining states requires that both ends of the transfer go through the 4473 process.

You don't transfer it to someone you don't know or are certain about.

Whether you thought the individuals in the news stories I linked went through the background check.

Your original point was that we already have background checks, that was incorrect as "Most states" do not require a background checks for private sales.

Maryland does not require background checks on shotguns or rifles (non-assault). How about Georgia and many of the other states that are a major source for illegal guns, what is their requirement.

Would you want to enforce your bolded statement, what does that even mean, legally. Once again how do you know the person in a private sale.

Yes some people illegally obtain guns, so?

 
Old 10-04-2015, 06:52 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,390 posts, read 60,575,206 times
Reputation: 61001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Your original point was that we already have background checks, that was incorrect as "Most states" do not require a background checks for private sales.

Maryland does not require background checks on shotguns or rifles (non-assault). How about Georgia and many of the other states that are a major source for illegal guns, what is their requirement.

Would you want to enforce your bolded statement, what does that even mean, legally. Once again how do you know the person in a private sale.

Yes some people illegally obtain guns, so?
I'll have to tell the gun dealers here that. It'll save time when buying my next shotgun if I don't have to fill out that 4473 form, which is indeed a background check.


I don't know about Georgia, perhaps this map answers your question:

Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-04-2015 at 06:58 PM.. Reason: rude
 
Old 10-04-2015, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,286 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15645
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
I'll have to tell the gun dealers here that. It'll save time when buying my next shotgun if I don't have to fill out that 4473 form, which is indeed a background check.
I said private sales not through an FFL, why is this so difficult??


Here let me help you:
Quote:

Georgia does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed
dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm
http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-in-georgia/

Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-04-2015 at 06:58 PM.. Reason: edited quoted post
 
Old 10-04-2015, 06:57 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,390 posts, read 60,575,206 times
Reputation: 61001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I said private sales not through an FFL, why is this so difficult??
Because you keep jumping around.
 
Old 10-04-2015, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,286 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15645
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Because you keep jumping around.

Jumping around? My post a while ago:

Quote:
Private sales do not go through background checks.
 
Old 10-04-2015, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,884 posts, read 10,975,748 times
Reputation: 14180
I wonder how well the "new" Washington State Law is working out?
Let's see, Prop 594, wasn't it?
right after it went into effect, there were gun owners in parking lots swapping guns back and forth without background checks.
There were NO arrests.
I haven't heard of ANY prosecutions yet, and I would have heard about it because my son lives there.
Yessir, it seems to be a real valuable law!

"Private sales do not go through background checks."
In Washington State, BY STATE LAW, they are supposed to. Actually, if you LOAN a rifle to your neighbor so he can go hunting, you are supposed to get a background check! If you are at a range, and someone wants to shoot your rifle or pistol, you are supposed to get a background check before you allow it.
the law doesn't seem to be working very well...
 
Old 10-04-2015, 07:29 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,624,265 times
Reputation: 18521


Where is the background check on inherited firearms?
I have never bought a gun, but i own dozens.........

The right of the People, to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.
Keep:
Verb: 1.) Have or retain possession.
2.) Continue, or cause to continue in a specified condition, position, coarse,..

Noun: 1.) Food, clothes, and other things needed for living.
2.) Charge; Control


Bear:
Verb: 1.) Expose.
2.) Present
3.) Take on the load.

Arms:
Noun: 1.) Upper body appendages
2.) Weapons


Bear Arms:
1.) Carry Weapons
2.) Expose Weapons
3.) Present Weapons


So, the right of the people, to have, carry, expose, or present weapons, shall not be infringed.
 
Old 10-04-2015, 07:38 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,624,265 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I wonder how well the "new" Washington State Law is working out?
Let's see, Prop 594, wasn't it?
right after it went into effect, there were gun owners in parking lots swapping guns back and forth without background checks.
There were NO arrests.
I haven't heard of ANY prosecutions yet, and I would have heard about it because my son lives there.
Yessir, it seems to be a real valuable law!

"Private sales do not go through background checks."
In Washington State, BY STATE LAW, they are supposed to. Actually, if you LOAN a rifle to your neighbor so he can go hunting, you are supposed to get a background check! If you are at a range, and someone wants to shoot your rifle or pistol, you are supposed to get a background check before you allow it.
the law doesn't seem to be working very well...

Yet, another Non-enforcable, feel-good law. That instills a false sense of security, to shut up the liberal, "someone is gonna shoot me" idiots. They cannot see how stupid a law like that is.
They might as well ban water, since more people are killed every year by it, than guns in the USA.
 
Old 10-04-2015, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,133,169 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Between November 30, 1998 and January 2014 there have been;

617,970 background checks due to a felony convictions.

111,648 denials to fugitives from Justice.

107, 072 denials due to convictions for domestic violence,

90,896 due to drug addiction or use of controlled substances

51,010 for state prohibitions.

45,391 due to protective orders or domestic

24,565 due to an indictment

13,316 due to mental health

13,117 unlawful alien

5,656 denied person file

796 dishonorable discharge

59 for renounced citizenship

That's, 1,081,496 denials, how that is considered ineffective is simply beyond me. If the argument is that after these "criminals" attempts to purchase weapons from licensed dealers will get their weapons from somewhere else, where to they get them. Well, when you consider the fact that only 10% to 15% of firearms used in crimes are stolen, clearly the secondary market of gun shows, private dealers and straw purchasers comes front and center. If the "ineffective and unreasonable" requirement for all buyers purchasing weapons from gun shows or private dealers were implemented and reasonable limits on the number of guns purchased during certain time periods, the access of guns to criminals would not be stopped but one hell of a bent in the supply guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
^^^This says it right here^^^

Best post of the thread!!
 
Old 10-04-2015, 10:02 PM
 
7,578 posts, read 5,326,422 times
Reputation: 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
According to NICS data, there were more than 156 Million applications submitted between 1998 and 2012. In other words, that 1 million figure that you are touting as proof that the system works actually proves my point. Less than 6 tenths of one percent of applications from 1998 to 2014. Tell me again how effective that background check process is, please.
Sure, I'd be glad to which is odd because I wouldn't think that I would have to explain this to anyone but the most rockheaded gun rights absolutist.

First it demonstrates that background checks stopped over one million people who had no right to a firearm didn't get one through legal firearms dealers. Over 1,000,000.

Second it demonstrates that background checks (as you note) are not an undue burden to the vast majority of gun owners. So it shouldn't be unreasonable to impose background checks on all private sales to at least further close off guns from reaching those who have no right to possess to them. Will it cure the problem of gun violence, absolutely not just laws against anything stop any particular crime from being committed. Which oddly enough is the only objection that gun absolutist seem capable of coming up with.

Quote:
Actually, I take back my previous post. Pre employment drug testing is probably more effective than background checks. Therefore, background checks make even less sense than pre employment drug testing from an ROI perspective.
Your argument is rather specious on two levels. Dismissing the prevention of over a million people prohibited from buy a gun as being ineffective is pretty disingenuous to say the least particularly when making such a law more effective has been fought tooth and nail. I suppose it would be better that that one million purchases had just gone ahead. Of course that is the sort typical sort sophistry one has come to expect.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top