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

[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.

You're arguing for no laws on the grounds that laws are not capable of achieving 100% success in their intent.

That is clearly insane.

 

[2aguy]

Gun laws are worthless. None of them work. None of them. We have 100 years of history with gun control and it's all worthless.

You're an idiot.

Of course they work.

Everyday someone is arrest for illegal possession of a handgun or other weapon.

Everyday someone is deterred from purchasing and illegal.

By your idiot logic, rape laws don't work because rapes occur.

Fucking moron. Get off this board. It's for adults.

No...pre-crime gun laws don't work...background checks, registration and magazine limits.....actual laws, the ones that say using a gun to commit a crime works...you are caught using it and go to jail, or the law that says that convicted criminals can't have guns work...you catch a previously convicted criminal in the mere possession of a gun...you arrest them and send them to prison because they are barred by law from having a gun...

No background check, registration or magazine limit needed..............

Rape laws work when you catch someone who attempted or completed a rape...what you guys want is a background check that would keep a rapist from ever raping in the first place.....that would work as well as background checks for guns work....

You are the fucking moron...you need to actually think things through, and not just emote about them....

We have rape laws that prevent rapists from raping.

You fail.

You fail.

You Fa-aaaiL....

Congrats.

So you are saying women who claim they were raped are lying because we have laws that say you can't rape people?

 

[2aguy]

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.

You're arguing for no laws on the grounds that laws are not capable of achieving 100% success in their intent.

That is clearly insane.

Actually, for myself, I argue that we have laws about comitting crimes with guns...when you break those laws and get caught you go to jail......you guys want laws that try to prevent law breaking before it happens, background checks, gun registration and magazine limits...all in the attempt to prevent people from breaking the law with the gun before they break the law with the gun.....and those laws do not work....criminals easily avoid them...as the criminals who murder 8-9,000 people with guns do each year 8,454 in 2013) and as did all of the mass shooters who either submitted and passed background checks, registered their guns and used legal magazines with 10 round limits...and still committed mass murder, to those who stole their guns to commit mass murder or purchased them illegally to commit mass murder....

So the best laws......are already in effect....we don't need new Tom Cruise, Minority Report movie, pre-crime laws for guns.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're an idiot.

Oh, the irony.

Of course they work.
Everyday someone is arrest for illegal possession of a handgun or other weapon.

If background checks work and keep guns from those who cannot legally own them, how can someone be arrested, every day, for0 illegal possession of a handgun or other weapon?

By your idiot logic, rape laws don't work because rapes occur.

Law against rape are intended to punish people to commit rape, not prevent rape from happening
Laws against felons buying guns are intended to punish felons that buy guns, not prevent felons from buying guns.
Only a fool believes that a law can prevent people from breaking the law.

Get off this board. It's for adults.

And yet, you're still here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 !!

I don't know if you are aware this but the Bill of Rights still has limitations. Take the 1st amendment for example. Defamation and child pornography are illegal. That means we can set limits on the 2nd.

Yes...because these things cause harm to others.
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause harm to others?

Background checks are extremely important as are closing gun show loopholes.

The "gun show loophole" does not exist.

Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.

Every anti-gun loon, virtually all of whom are Democrats, wants to restrict the right to arms as much as it can possibly be restricted, including the banning of rifles, shotguns and handguns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're wrong.

If we can register our vehicles, which can kill, but which are merely intended to transport - because they can be dangerous...
We can register our guns, which can kill, and which are intended specifically to kill - because they inherently are dangerous.

False analogy.
We register cars as a condition to use them on state-owned property; cars that are not used on state-owned property need not be registered

Registering a gun does not infringe upon your right to own one (or a hundred).

It is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to same end places an undue burden on said gun owner.
Thus, infringement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You said this....

We have rape laws that prevent rapists from raping.

And then this.

You fail

 

[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.

You're arguing for no laws on the grounds that laws are not capable of achieving 100% success in their intent.

That is clearly insane.

Actually, for myself, I argue that we have laws about comitting crimes with guns...when you break those laws and get caught you go to jail......you guys want laws that try to prevent law breaking before it happens, background checks, gun registration and magazine limits...all in the attempt to prevent people from breaking the law with the gun before they break the law with the gun.....and those laws do not work....criminals easily avoid them...as the criminals who murder 8-9,000 people with guns do each year 8,454 in 2013) and as did all of the mass shooters who either submitted and passed background checks, registered their guns and used legal magazines with 10 round limits...and still committed mass murder, to those who stole their guns to commit mass murder or purchased them illegally to commit mass murder....

So the best laws......are already in effect....we don't need new Tom Cruise, Minority Report movie, pre-crime laws for guns.....

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen. You're claiming that's a bad thing.

You're nuts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

 

[The Rabbi]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

They just cant figure this out.
Some laws have a deterrent effect but for the most part laws dealing with crime are there to punish people after the crime occurs, not prevent it.
But there is no inherent crime even in a felon possessng a firearm. I know several felons who would be perfectly trustworthy with a firearm and it's a shame they cant have one. One is on this very board.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Fuckinay.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

His response in every case when he is trapped is to put words in people's mouths and then ridicule the words he himself wrote. He is a sad sad man.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

I see you still cannot respond to someone who negates your argument without lying
Some things never change, I guess - no need to waste any more time on you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

I see you still cannot respond to someone who negates your argument without lying
Some things never change, I guess - no need to waste any more time on you.

To claim that drunk driving laws do not deter drunk driving is based on an assumption that no one refrains from driving under the influence because they know it's against the law.

That is retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

His response in every case when he is trapped is to put words in people's mouths and then ridicule the words he himself wrote. He is a sad sad man.

Do you agree with this idiot that drunk driving laws have no deterrent effect?

 

[The Rabbi]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.

He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

His response in every case when he is trapped is to put words in people's mouths and then ridicule the words he himself wrote. He is a sad sad man.

Do you agree with this idiot that drunk driving laws have no deterrent effect?

That isnt his point. Can you ever repeat someone else's argument with lying, falsifying or spinning it? That' s a serious question btw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?

You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?

Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

His response in every case when he is trapped is to put words in people's mouths and then ridicule the words he himself wrote. He is a sad sad man.

Do you agree with this idiot that drunk driving laws have no deterrent effect?

That isnt his point. Can you ever repeat someone else's argument with lying, falsifying or spinning it? That' s a serious question btw.

Then state in your own words what his point is.