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.
"Background checks" seem to be the low hanging fruit for gun grabbers to start with.
Can anyone point out a shooting that would have been prevented by a background check?
Help me with this logic here...
If a background check is intended to prevent the sale of weapons to those with subject backgrounds, and if as a result that person with subject background doesn't purchase a weapon, perhaps that he/she was going to use in a criminal way, how can we know if/when that background check prevented the sort of shooting you want proof had been prevented?
If a background check is intended to prevent the sale of weapons to those with subject backgrounds, and if as a result that person with subject background doesn't purchase a weapon, perhaps that he/she was going to use in a criminal way, how can we know if/when that background check prevented the sort of shooting you want proof had been prevented?
One of the most important effects to letting everybody carry a gun if they want to, is deterrence. If all so-called "gun control" laws were eliminated (i.e. if the 2nd amendment were obeyed at last), making it legal for any adult to carry, most of them still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And a criminal who's thinking about robbing someone, or raping or even murdering, he'd have to think twice knowing that there are probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. He'd never know which one(s) it is, and so couldn't know who to defend against until too late.
And so he may well decide not to commit his robbery or murder at all. A few truly insane criminals would still go ahead. But a large number of crimes would now never happen in the first place, and without a shot being fired.
But how would we know, exactly, how many crimes got prevented this way? The effect is, simply nothing happened. How to you quantify that, effective and beneficial though it is?
One of the most important effects to letting everybody carry a gun if they want to, is deterrence. If all so-called "gun control" laws were eliminated (i.e. if the 2nd amendment were obeyed at last), making it legal for any adult to carry, most of them still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And a criminal who's thinking about robbing someone, or raping or even murdering, he'd have to think twice knowing that there are probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. He'd never know which one(s) it is, and so couldn't know who to defend against until too late.
And so he may well decide not to commit his robbery or murder at all. A few truly insane criminals would still go ahead. But a large number of crimes would now never happen in the first place, and without a shot being fired.
But how would we know, exactly, how many crimes got prevented this way? The effect is, simply nothing happened. How to you quantify that, effective and beneficial though it is?
The famous quote "an armed society is a polite society"
NV just voted in private sale BCs and have quickly found out they are next to impossible to enforce. If a criminal is caught with a gun from a private sale, unless it was a very recent straw type purchase, tracking it back to the seller is rather fruitless as the original person who bought the gun could have sold it to someone else long before this act went into effect. The only way they can effectively enforce it is via a registry, which they ain't gonna get.
All my personal guns were bought years, in some cases decades, ago. I wouldn't sell a gun to someone I don't know well but on the very remote chance that someone did do something bad with it there's no way to tell that he didn't buy it from me ten years ago. Just as an example of the uselessness of private BCs.
I see them as a stepping stone to central registries. And that may well get pushed through in some states, and may well catch the attention of the anti types in Congress an start a push for a federal registry. That way even in states like mine where opposition to a registry is vehement, there's a federal one to cover it.
And how many firearms owners are going to flock in to register their guns? CA tried an outright ban on guns like the AR 15 and hardly anyone actually turned them in. The same would happen with any central registry, state or federal. Thus private sale BCs are pretty worthless. Straw purchases carry a stiff penalty here as well. Always have. But their hard to catch at the source. In reality, they don't happen that often because they are fairly easy to track back, and recent ones under this new BC law would make trying it pretty risky. But for the millions of guns already in circulation, those can change hands with impunity.
Most folks are going to say they'll be damned before they call in a BC to pass on an heirloom to their son or daughter. Private BCs have more holes in them than a pasta strainer. And that gives the anti gun types a platform to push for registries and who knows what else.
Even here in WA is basically unenforceable.
I have no problem with background checks for private sales (actually I agree with them) if they are implemented in a painless quick manner...the equivalent of a NICS call when you buy a firearm at a gun shop...charge me $10-20 (max) for the process and be done in half hour. I Washington state after the passing of the law we were left at the mercy of few gun shops that offer this service to private citizen and charge whatever they feel and make you wait days.
Anyone can rent a table. Private person. Private sale. No background checks.
At the many gun shows I have attended I have seen people walking around with rifle on sling with a large white sign on back "Gun For Sale". No background check. No nothing. So any fruitcake can buy a gun from any private individual.
With zero background check.
And we now have another member of the "I know nothing about guns or gun laws, and I will demonstrate my ignorance for all to see" club.
The "Gun show loophole" isn't that guns can be bought at a gunshow without a background check. It is that it can happen at a gunshow but it can't happen at other locations (thus the "loophole"). And that is simply incorrect.
Again, for those in the cheap seats: There is no difference in the (Federal) laws governing the sale of guns at gunshows versus any other location.
This isn't a question of opinion, but rather a question of fact. And the facts are very clear.
Chalk up another person who has no problem with giving government the authority to control and restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms.
You already give that authority when you buy a gun at a gun shop....and, sorry, I agree with restricting a convicted murderer from owning a firearm. Let's be reasonable and not totally unreasonable like some antis.
You are not giving the government permission to restrict without a documented reason.....
As a matter of fact, I support a minimum proficiency mandatory test for CCP holders like a driving license....I do not want someone that cannot hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards to carry a firearm in public....in your property you can do whatever you want (again, like a car)
You already give that authority when you buy a gun at a gun shop....and, sorry, I agree with restricting a convicted murderer from owning a firearm. Let's be reasonable and not totally unreasonable like some antis.
You are not giving the government permission to restrict without a documented reason.....
As a matter of fact, I support a minimum proficiency mandatory test for CCP holders like a driving license....I do not want someone that cannot hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards to carry a firearm in public....in your property you can do whatever you want (again, like a car)
Your freedom stops where mine begins.
A convicted murderer shouldn't be out on the street looking to buy a gun in the first place.
A convicted murderer shouldn't be out on the street looking to buy a gun in the first place.
I agree.....but he may be a convicted murder that got released (if he did not get a life sentence) or someone with serious violent crimes on his/her records...no gun for this person.
I agree.....but he may be a convicted murder that got released (if he did not get a life sentence) or someone with serious violent crimes on his/her records...no gun for this person.
If an individual is too violent to be able to exercise their constitutional rights, they are too violent to live among society. They should either remain incarcerated for life or they should be put down like a rabid dog.
My personal opinion is that the only people who should lose their constitutional rights on a permanent basis are those who have committed severe violent crimes such as murder or even assault with a deadly weapon if there are no extenuating circumstances. Those people should never be let back out on the streets anyway, so no issues.
Those that commit a nonviolent felony or those that commit a violent felony with extenuating circumstances should have their rights returned when released or after a suitable probationary period. The fact that someone who has a felony because they possessed to much marijuana or didn't pay their taxes and therefore can never again be considered a full citizen falls under the category of undue punishment and is rather ridiculous.
Last edited by JimRom; 10-20-2017 at 02:07 PM..
Reason: Autocorrect
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.
