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.
As the number refusals is just over 1/2 of 1% (0.68%) it seems to me the entire background check system is a waste of time. It was only implemented to discourage free individuals from purchasing handguns for their own use. Eliminating this nonsense is a place the government could reduce both expense and annoyance.
Well, that's certainly one point of view. My view is that a system of background checks that denies access to firearms 768,000 times (for the reasons I previously posted) while permitting firearms sales to go forward over 110 million times is (1) keeping some firearms out of the hands of individuals who have forfeited the right to have them, while (2) not preventing any law-abiding citizen from purchasing a firearm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
The denials are so low because no one who knows they will fail the background check will actually go through with it.
Again, there were 768,000 denials - that's hardly "no one."
But your point is taken - most people who know they would fail a background check for a firearm purchase have the common sense to avoid situations (i.e., a federally licensed firearms dealer) where a background check would be conducted.
If that's the case they would be sitting in their offices waiting for a call.
They patrol to catch people in the act of committing crimes, which drives up revenue for the municipality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcallis
They also wouldn't pay families thousands to millions of dollars if their child/family member is killed on their streets. What they argue in Court is just that, proof of argument so they won't have to pay out money!!
What are you trying to say? That it's an LEO's job to prevent crime?
In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails.
By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.
I realize that it disagrees with what you obviously believe so fervently, but the bottom line is that you're just plain wrong. The police have no obligation to protect you. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcallis
Law enforcement spends a great deal of time and money trying to prevent crimes.
This is true. The effort is also largely ineffective.
Look, I'm not anti-police in any way. They're a great group of people with a dangerous and difficult job. I just wanted to make that clear. They're also one of the largest pro-2nd Amendment groups.
You should do a little research on it before writing any more posts suggesting that it's law enforcement's duty to protect the public. It's been explained to you several times now, and you're beginning to look pretty foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcallis
I'm trying to understand your side; I just don't see any good in it. Help me to see the good in it?
Nobody hopes for armed confrontation, but sometimes it's necessary. The people who carry concealed understand that the gun doesn't come out unless it's going to be used, and that's the last thing anybody wants to happen. If it has to happen, it's a tragedy. The "good" in that scenario is that it was the murderous scumbag that lost their life, and not the innocent would-be victim.
Again, there were 768,000 denials - that's hardly "no one."
It's less than 1%. Sure, 768k sounds like a big number, but when used in the proper context, it's pretty insignificant and demonstrative of the fact that the NICS background check is a waste of time, money and resources.
Having faith in local LE is one of the most absurd things I've heard all day. It's hard to actually say what is the most absurd thing when I wade into the swamp that is this particular part of CD of course.
LE around here will probably work harder to not work than they would've worked if they would've done their job in the first place. I have zero faith in them and actually consider most a liability because they are sponges feeding off funds that could actually go to something useful. Basically right up there with congress..
emcallis can hate guns all they like, though, just keep that to yourself please. The rest of us will exercise our rights and also remind anyone we care about that we will do that. My kids know damn well they should never come in my house late at night without calling and they won't. Some of us do actually get it and we don't need to pay the price for the mistakes of a few imbeciles.
I'm buying a gun... on Saturday... AT A GUN SHOW!!!! Woo-Hoo!
(Just had to share! )
Good for you ! No don't forget the ammo either ... must have plenty of that.
It's been like 2 months since I bought one... oops I forgot , only a couple of weeks. And I met the person face to face .. no gun show needed. It's good to have a CPL !
I can see requiring a back-ground check call that's able to be done there on sight, but I strongly disapprove of closing down gun-shows and requiring registration of firearms.
It's already illegal to sell to minors, and to criminals.
The strange thing to most people is I believe my stance on gun control is not only within my liberal political beliefs it is at the core of those beliefs. Individuals have not only the freedom to protect themselves, their friends, their families and total strangers but also the duty to do so. With freedom goes responsibility. The shooter is always responsible for the damage done by the bullet even if accidentally fired. Owning, carrying and using a gun is a very serious affair.
Greg’s definition of gun control: the ability to recognize and select a legitimate target and the skill to hit it with your first shot.
In the city next to me a gentlemen killed his daughter after she was sneaking in the window after coming from a party!! He thought it was a robber. Now if someone was robbing him, they would take his things and go. He can’t replace his daughter. I can’t imagine what this man is going through!
Yes this is tragic, and a very very sad thing this father has to live with. Is it a crime though, no. And I hate to say this and I don't mean any disrespect but had that daughter followed the rules I'm sure her parents set down for her, she would be here today. All this father tried to do was protect his family.
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.
The rest of your post is hog wash, bunch of words that equals to one definition, afraid!
)
