A Call to Reason: Why Background Checks Don’t Work

[Pete7469]

Libtards are exempt BTW because everyone knows they're incapable of reason. This is directed at those who respect gun rights but still feel compelled to grant the federal government the power to infringe on these rights. Please answer the poll after reading the entire article and post.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

At least they don’t work the way people think they do. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the population can’t get past their initial conclusion that background checks make sense. That’s why I want to ask you to make a conscious effort to suspend your own presumptions and beliefs for a moment and try to maintain an open mind as you read this column.

Not only is common sense not that common, it often doesn’t make much sense. Along with the obvious, there are almost always peripheral issues that come into play on any given subject. What we see on the surface is usually only a small portion of the picture. Ulterior motives, mitigating factors, and the law of unintended consequences are always in play.

Psychologists and social scientists have long understood that people are inclined to stick to a belief even when they are presented with clear evidence that their belief is incorrect.

In short, people are obstinate.

Recent research has shown that this is not just a psychological issue, but also has a physiological basis. Our brains are actually wired for this behavior, and it accounts for a great deal of the strife and conflict we see in politics, religion, and our regular daily lives.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

---Jeff Knox

The rest of the article is here

I will take his point a step further. As far as I'm concerned a person allowed to walk around in public should have ALL of their rights intact. I don't care if they were violent felons, If they've served their time and have been released they deserve the right to self defense. If someone is a psychopath and anyone knows them, be it a parent, friend or doctor they should have that person contained in some manner that prevents them from doing harm, but no matter what someone will always fall through a crack. All laws, policies and barriers are created by man, and everything created by man can be breached by another man.

We are wasting billions of dollars and we aren't preventing a single crime. Not one. Someone with nefarious intentions will find a way to achieve his goals. If the moonbat messiah had a magic wand and made all the guns and ammo on the planet disappear, "poof" just like that, within an hour someone will have manufactured a device that will propel an object designed to harm or kill that will be concealable.

As more and more senseless gun control laws are being rolled back I'm hoping we can get rid of the entire GCA of 68 and 86. These burdensome laws are doing nothing for public safety, and are in fact creating a lucrative black market.

 

[pismoe]

RIGHTS aren't granted in the Constitution as Rights are recognized as preexisting in the Constitution , Bill of Rights . Rights are pre existing and they are God given or what some people refer to as 'natural' Rights !!

 

[lake avenue]

The supreme court ruled that rights from the constitution can be reasonably regulated. I don't understand how background checks don't work, and your quote doesn't very well explain it. If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.

 

[HenryBHough]

When government undertakes to infringe upon Constitutional rights is there any longer such a thing as "public safety"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libtards are exempt BTW because everyone knows they're incapable of reason. This is directed at those who respect gun rights but still feel compelled to grant the federal government the power to infringe on these rights. Please answer the poll after reading the entire article and post.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

At least they don’t work the way people think they do. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the population can’t get past their initial conclusion that background checks make sense. That’s why I want to ask you to make a conscious effort to suspend your own presumptions and beliefs for a moment and try to maintain an open mind as you read this column.

Not only is common sense not that common, it often doesn’t make much sense. Along with the obvious, there are almost always peripheral issues that come into play on any given subject. What we see on the surface is usually only a small portion of the picture. Ulterior motives, mitigating factors, and the law of unintended consequences are always in play.

Psychologists and social scientists have long understood that people are inclined to stick to a belief even when they are presented with clear evidence that their belief is incorrect.

In short, people are obstinate.

Recent research has shown that this is not just a psychological issue, but also has a physiological basis. Our brains are actually wired for this behavior, and it accounts for a great deal of the strife and conflict we see in politics, religion, and our regular daily lives.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

---Jeff Knox

The rest of the article is here

I will take his point a step further. As far as I'm concerned a person allowed to walk around in public should have ALL of their rights intact. I don't care if they were violent felons, If they've served their time and have been released they deserve the right to self defense. If someone is a psychopath and anyone knows them, be it a parent, friend or doctor they should have that person contained in some manner that prevents them from doing harm, but no matter what someone will always fall through a crack. All laws, policies and barriers are created by man, and everything created by man can be breached by another man.

We are wasting billions of dollars and we aren't preventing a single crime. Not one. Someone with nefarious intentions will find a way to achieve his goals. If the moonbat messiah had a magic wand and made all the guns and ammo on the planet disappear, "poof" just like that, within an hour someone will have manufactured a device that will propel an object designed to harm or kill that will be concealable.

As more and more senseless gun control laws are being rolled back I'm hoping we can get rid of the entire GCA of 68 and 86. These burdensome laws are doing nothing for public safety, and are in fact creating a lucrative black market.

So why make people get driver's licenses?

 

[pismoe]

driving on public streets is said to be a Privledge while Arms and the second amendment is a RIGHT 'Carabineer' !!

 

[BluesLegend]

RIGHTS aren't granted in the Constitution as Rights are recognized as preexisting in the Constitution , Bill of Rights . Rights are pre existing and they are God given or what some people refer to as 'natural' Rights !!

^^^ Damn straight, eat it libs.

 

[rightwinger]

Gun laws work

 

[BluesLegend]

You libs can have those jack booted communist puke states to yourselves.

 

[rightwinger]

You libs can have those jack booted communist puke states to yourselves.

You may keep your redneck back woods states

 

[FA_Q2]

The supreme court ruled that rights from the constitution can be reasonably regulated. I don't understand how background checks don't work, and your quote doesn't very well explain it. If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.

They don't really 'ensure' that though. Criminals have free access to weapons as they are not willing to follow the law.

I will give you that background checks on retailers makes sense but universal background checks are silly by their very nature. Unless you are tracking the weapons there is no way to know if bob sold a gun to john. If you cannot establish that then you also are unable to establish weather or not he did a background check. Feel good laws that accomplish nothing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

But they'll get one anyway if they want one, because as you pointed out, they are a criminal.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.

Correct, they'll just acquire them illegally. That's what makes them useless, hence the OP's point. All background checks do is put an undue burden on non-criminals, like all bed wetter feel good laws do.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gun laws work

Your chart is false.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sort it by the last column, Gun Murders Per 100,000. Vermont has the least and also has virtually no gun laws whatsoever. Washington D.C. has the most murders and has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. In fact, most of the states in your chart in reality are nowhere near the top of states with lowest gun related murders.

 

[lake avenue]

If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

But they'll get one anyway if they want one, because as you pointed out, they are a criminal.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.

Correct, they'll just acquire them illegally. That's what makes them useless, hence the OP's point. All background checks do is put an undue burden on non-criminals, like all bed wetter feel good laws do.

They can acquire them illegally =/= allow them to buy them legally.

Heroin and Child Prostitutes can be acquired illegally, should they be sold legally?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Correct, they'll just acquire them illegally. That's what makes them useless, hence the OP's point. All background checks do is put an undue burden on non-criminals, like all bed wetter feel good laws do.

They can acquire them illegally =/= allow them to buy them legally.

Heroin and Child Prostitutes can be acquired illegally, should they be sold legally?

Are they a Constitutional right?

 

[lake avenue]

Correct, they'll just acquire them illegally. That's what makes them useless, hence the OP's point. All background checks do is put an undue burden on non-criminals, like all bed wetter feel good laws do.

They can acquire them illegally =/= allow them to buy them legally.

Heroin and Child Prostitutes can be acquired illegally, should they be sold legally?

Are they a Constitutional right?

The supreme court has ruled that any constitutional right can be regulated and restricted so long as the main purpose of the right is intact. They could ban all rifles and it would still be fine, you can still own an "arm" (in this case, anything that's not a rifle) and therefore it's fine. While that's obviously not okay, my point is that, in a legal sense, background checks do not infringe on your rights in a significant way.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The supreme court has ruled that any constitutional right can be regulated and restricted so long as the main purpose of the right is intact. They could ban all rifles and it would still be fine, you can still own an "arm" (in this case, anything that's not a rifle) and therefore it's fine. While that's obviously not okay, my point is that, in a legal sense, background checks do not infringe on your rights in a significant way.

Background checks are not free. There is a cost associated with them. Last time I bought one it was $30. That is an infringement.

 

[Kondor3]

Should the government infringe on rights granted in the constitution, for "public safety".

No.

Should the government establish and enforce standards for the licensing of gun-owners and the registration of firearms?

Yes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libtards are exempt BTW because everyone knows they're incapable of reason. This is directed at those who respect gun rights but still feel compelled to grant the federal government the power to infringe on these rights. Please answer the poll after reading the entire article and post.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

At least they don’t work the way people think they do. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the population can’t get past their initial conclusion that background checks make sense. That’s why I want to ask you to make a conscious effort to suspend your own presumptions and beliefs for a moment and try to maintain an open mind as you read this column.

Not only is common sense not that common, it often doesn’t make much sense. Along with the obvious, there are almost always peripheral issues that come into play on any given subject. What we see on the surface is usually only a small portion of the picture. Ulterior motives, mitigating factors, and the law of unintended consequences are always in play.

Psychologists and social scientists have long understood that people are inclined to stick to a belief even when they are presented with clear evidence that their belief is incorrect.

In short, people are obstinate.

Recent research has shown that this is not just a psychological issue, but also has a physiological basis. Our brains are actually wired for this behavior, and it accounts for a great deal of the strife and conflict we see in politics, religion, and our regular daily lives.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

---Jeff Knox

The rest of the article is here

I will take his point a step further. As far as I'm concerned a person allowed to walk around in public should have ALL of their rights intact. I don't care if they were violent felons, If they've served their time and have been released they deserve the right to self defense. If someone is a psychopath and anyone knows them, be it a parent, friend or doctor they should have that person contained in some manner that prevents them from doing harm, but no matter what someone will always fall through a crack. All laws, policies and barriers are created by man, and everything created by man can be breached by another man.

We are wasting billions of dollars and we aren't preventing a single crime. Not one. Someone with nefarious intentions will find a way to achieve his goals. If the moonbat messiah had a magic wand and made all the guns and ammo on the planet disappear, "poof" just like that, within an hour someone will have manufactured a device that will propel an object designed to harm or kill that will be concealable.

As more and more senseless gun control laws are being rolled back I'm hoping we can get rid of the entire GCA of 68 and 86. These burdensome laws are doing nothing for public safety, and are in fact creating a lucrative black market.

Given your posting history, this post included, you're in no position to call anyone a 'tard.'

And like most on the right, you're comprehensively ignorant of the law, as background checks are in fact Constitutional, where their constitutionality is not dependent upon how 'effective' they are:

“Plaintiffs argue that the evidence shows that private background checks are not happening at the frequency expected, and thus the public interest is not actually being served. However, for purposes of determining constitutionality — particularly via facial challenge — arguments about whether the statute has been successful are not relevant. Colorado is not required to show that the statute has already achieved success if its rationale for imposing the law is substantially related to an important purpose.”

https://www.coloradoattorneygeneral...4/06/26/062614_krieger_opinion_outfitters.pdf

In addition to background checks being Constitutional, they are also supported by a majority of gun owners as a matter of appropriate public policy:

“While gun owners, unlike the public at large, oppose gun control measures such as banning assault-style weapons, a big majority of gun owners (85%) support making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. That matches the level of support among the general public for doing this.”

Most Gun Owners Favor Background Checks for Private Gun Sales Pew Research Center

Consequently your statement that background checks “grant the federal government the power to infringe on these rights” is factually wrong, and the premise of your thread fails accordingly.

 

[g5000]

The rest of the article is here.

There is a lot of repetition and not a shred of logic used in that article.

The idea of background checks between private parties is to close one more channel used by people who should not be buying guns. It will make it harder for felons to acquire them.

And saying that background checks don't work because people who shouldn't get them are still getting guns is as stupid as saying laws against murder don't work because people are still being murdered.