Background Checks ARE The Best Way

[M14 Shooter]

Shall we abolish the law against robbing banks, then? Serves no purpose since people will break the law?

Non-sequitur
The laws against robbery exist not to prevent robbery but so we can punish those who commit robbery.
You seek a law that will, supposedly, prevent a crime rather than punish people after a crime is committed.
Apples / oranges.

 

[pwjohn]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

I don't think that's what he meant. If it isn't handy, maybe you'll wake up in the morning feeling better?

According to the gunners on this thread, that's exactly what they expect since criminals will ignore the law anyway. So why bother having a law against robbing banks!

 

[Iceweasel]

This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.


"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.

Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.

Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.

I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.

Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.

Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”

Question 3 fixes this.

In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.

It’s indisputable that background checks work.

This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.

I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.

Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.

No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.

I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.

As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.

Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."

Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

Stopped reading at the part where they say felons can buy on line. People who say this are liars by omission and should be dismissed as nothing more then gossip columnists.

I'm sure the Chief will be pleased to hear it. Unless you have an extensive law enforcement background, I'm more likely to take his word for it.

Chances are all he ever was was a desk jockey, brown noser.

I think you should try reading the article. Patrolman, MP before that.

I've been a member on a LE board for 10 years so I know what the deal is, you don't.

 

[pwjohn]

At least it's better than nothing.

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

That's a deeply stupid argument!

Its against the law to rob banks, but people still rob then. Most everyday of the week I hear.

Wow, talk about stupid! Robing a bank is clearly hurting another; it is infringing on the rights of others through the act of theft. My owning a firearm does not constitute taking what doesn't belong to me and infringes on no one. In fact, it's an inalienable right that the government cannot infringe upon.

Are you really so thick you can't see the difference?

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to the gunners on this thread, that's exactly what they expect since criminals will ignore the law anyway. So why bother having a law against robbing banks!

See post #41.

 

[mudwhistle]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

Dying from being shot is worse than dying from a knife attack, being blown up, or beaten repeatedly about the head and shoulders.

Everyone knows this....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

Background checks violate your rights every bit as much as a policeman stopping you, absent any probable cause or resolvable suspicion, from walking down the street and detaining you until he determines you are not an escaped prisoner or have any outstanding warrants.

 

[Iceweasel]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

I don't think that's what he meant. If it isn't handy, maybe you'll wake up in the morning feeling better?

According to the gunners on this thread, that's exactly what they expect since criminals will ignore the law anyway. So why bother having a law against robbing banks!

Stupid reply. We have gun and murder laws now. No one suggested eliminating them or that they make no difference. It's how we incarcerate people.

And when did it become the responsibility of government to try to stop suicides?

 

[eflatminor]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

I don't think that's what he meant. If it isn't handy, maybe you'll wake up in the morning feeling better?

Then why doesn't America, with all her firearms, not rank anywhere near the top in the list of countries by suicide rate? Further, how is it possible that 50+ countries have higher suicides rates, despite their effective bans on civilian firearm ownership? A firearm isn't "handy" in any of those countries, yet off themselves they do, at a much higher rate than gun handy America.

Sounds like facts are of no concern to you. In grown up world, emotional arguments aren't arguments at all and valuing intention over actual results, well that's just fucking insane. Hey, a recurring theme with you!

Yes, I'm quite emotional about the fact that in the 18 states where universal background checks have been enacted, there have been nearly 50% reduction in gun related DV deaths and police deaths. Explain that, Mr. Grown Up.

First, you'll have to cite that stat and two, gun related deaths, and all crime for that matter, are down in all states.

Statistics 101.

Try again?

 

[OldLady]

This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.


"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.

Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.

Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.

I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.

Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.

Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”

Question 3 fixes this.

In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.

It’s indisputable that background checks work.

This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.

I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.

Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.

No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.

I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.

As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.

Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."

Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

Stopped reading at the part where they say felons can buy on line. People who say this are liars by omission and should be dismissed as nothing more then gossip columnists.

I'm sure the Chief will be pleased to hear it. Unless you have an extensive law enforcement background, I'm more likely to take his word for it.

The chief is nothing g more then a political sycophant licking his masters bootheel. I dealt in guns for years. More so then some soft Yankee main wannabe cop. He basically says a felon can order guns online. This is not true at all. You can order and pay for guns online all day, but unless you have an FFL you will be going through the exact same process as if you went to a gun store. Now, if I were ti go to a popular auction site I could just look around until I find a private seller in my area an bam, non transfer gun sale. See that's the issue I have with people like the chief there. He has yet to explain how any murder anywhere has been prevented by any back round check at any time.

I guess the reduction in gun deaths in the 18 states that have enacted universal background checks don't mean anything to you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess the reduction in gun deaths in the 18 states that have enacted universal background checks don't mean anything to you?

fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eflatminor]

At least it's better than nothing.

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

This law would not restrict any good, law abiding citizen from owning a weapon or protecting themselves in the least.

Bullshit. They take time, cost money, are often wrong, and infringe on our inalienable right of self defense.

By your logic, you're fine with background checks before one can buy a book. Doesn't restrict you're right to read what you like, it just means the government has to approve that right first. No big deal.

 

[Care4all]

A better way is to remove dangerous people from society permanently.

and you remove these dangerous people from society how? and who are the dangerous people in society? How do you know they are dangerous? Have they committed a crime and not been charged? Why aren't they in prison for their crimes already?

Send them to prison for no crime and costing tax payers $70,000 a year to house them in prison per year per person?

 

[eflatminor]

At least it's better than nothing.

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

That's a deeply stupid argument!

Its against the law to rob banks, but people still rob then. Most everyday of the week I hear.

Wow, talk about stupid! Robing a bank is clearly hurting another; it is infringing on the rights of others through the act of theft. My owning a firearm does not constitute taking what doesn't belong to me and infringes on no one. In fact, it's an inalienable right that the government cannot infringe upon.

Are you really so thick you can't see the difference?

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

Wrong. Is passing a background check prior to your writing a book or taking possession of a book an infringement on your rights?

Of course it is. Same goes for a firearm.

 

[eflatminor]

At least it's better than nothing.

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

That's a deeply stupid argument!

As we all know, Its against the law to rob banks, yet they still get robbed most everyday of the week.

Shall we abolish the law against robbing banks, then? Serves no purpose since people will break the law?

No, your argument for background checks is akin to telling banks they can't put a lock on the safe until the government approves grants them approval to install that lock. That all that cash is sitting their unlocked is unimportant to you. Same goes for the unarmed person. They can wait for their right of self protection.

Yea, screw that.

And if you can't tell the difference between taking what doesn't belong to you (robbing a bank) and the right of self protection, well, you're dumber than I imagined.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A better way is to remove dangerous people from society permanently.

and you remove these dangerous people from society how?

For one: Prison, after conviction..
If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be released to society.

 

[2aguy]

This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.


"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.

Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.

Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.

I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.

Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.

Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”

Question 3 fixes this.

In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.

It’s indisputable that background checks work.

This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.

I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.

Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.

No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.

I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.

As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.

Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."

Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

Sorry..this is a joke......criminals use straw buyers, people with clean records to buy their gun at gun stores..the very place this moron praises for their background checks....and the private sales......criminals are not getting them from strangers...they get them from friends and family because they are afraid that an unknown private seller will be a cop.....

So if you insist on background checks at private sales....they will not effect crimnals since criminals don't buy from people they don't know....and if they want a gun from a private seller they will simply use someone with a clean record to buy the gun....

Can you understand how pointless background checks for private sales are? And the number he gave as to criminals stopped from getting guns.....wrong....those are initial denials that are later put through because of a screw up

The best way to deal with criminals and guns is to arrest them and lock them up when you catch them...that you guys simply refuse to believe this, understand it...just shows you are not serious about gun crime....

The main reason anti gunners want background checks on private sales....because then they can demand universal gun registration...because universal background checks don't work without gun registration....and even then they don't work...

 

[Care4all]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

Just more painful...and the people contemplating committing suicide are already in too much pain to handle....jumping in front of a train would not be as easy as just putting a bullet in ones head.

 

[Care4all]

A better way is to remove dangerous people from society permanently.

and you remove these dangerous people from society how?

For one: Prison, after conviction..
If they are too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be released to society.

Really? So, even if they served their sentence you would keep them in prison longer?

 

[M14 Shooter]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

Just more painful...and the people contemplating committing suicide are already in too much pain to handle....jumping in front of a train would not be as easy as just putting a bullet in ones head.

:yawn:.
People use guns to kill themselves because they have committed to killing themselves.
Even if you could devise some sort of gun control law that would prevent these people from using a gun - and you cannot - they will find another way.