I'm Sure Everyone Knows This, But Here's a Reminder

[BULLDOG]

How does that differ from current background checks?

Because current federal background checks do not require universal gun registration...in fact, we need to fix NICS so that all you get when you go for your check is a yes or no without any record keeping....

Any reason universal checks couldn't be done the same way, other than your vivid imagination, and the fear driven by the NRA?

Because I can say I own my gun......you won't know if it went through a background check if you don't have the gun registered to me.........so that is why they want universal registration...and they get that with UBCs.....

Applies to anyone with a gun now dumb ass.

No shit stain, it doesn't....I don't have to register my gun to own it....moron.......and because of that, if they ban a gun, I could always simply hide it and say I never owned it...which is why they want to register guns first...so when assholes like you come around in your brown shirts, you will have my name and what guns I own....and if I don't cough them up, it will be off to prison......

You don't think private sales could be set up the same way as existing checks? A check isn't registration little boy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Because current federal background checks do not require universal gun registration...in fact, we need to fix NICS so that all you get when you go for your check is a yes or no without any record keeping....

Any reason universal checks couldn't be done the same way, other than your vivid imagination, and the fear driven by the NRA?

Because I can say I own my gun......you won't know if it went through a background check if you don't have the gun registered to me.........so that is why they want universal registration...and they get that with UBCs.....

Applies to anyone with a gun now dumb ass.

No shit stain, it doesn't....I don't have to register my gun to own it....moron.......and because of that, if they ban a gun, I could always simply hide it and say I never owned it...which is why they want to register guns first...so when assholes like you come around in your brown shirts, you will have my name and what guns I own....and if I don't cough them up, it will be off to prison......

You don't think private sales could be set up the same way as existing checks? A check isn't registration little boy.

Dear obtuse-ass person: Yes it is. We can even get into how it works and all that if you like.

Personally, I'd recommend you STFU about things you know nothing about.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any reason universal checks couldn't be done the same way, other than your vivid imagination, and the fear driven by the NRA?

Because I can say I own my gun......you won't know if it went through a background check if you don't have the gun registered to me.........so that is why they want universal registration...and they get that with UBCs.....

Applies to anyone with a gun now dumb ass.

No shit stain, it doesn't....I don't have to register my gun to own it....moron.......and because of that, if they ban a gun, I could always simply hide it and say I never owned it...which is why they want to register guns first...so when assholes like you come around in your brown shirts, you will have my name and what guns I own....and if I don't cough them up, it will be off to prison......

You don't think private sales could be set up the same way as existing checks? A check isn't registration little boy.

Dear obtuse-ass person: Yes it is. We can even get into how it works and all that if you like.

Personally, I'd recommend you STFU about things you know nothing about.

If you think a background check and gun registration are the same thing, you don't know what you are talking about..Are you gonna get as goofy as that other idiot now?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Because I can say I own my gun......you won't know if it went through a background check if you don't have the gun registered to me.........so that is why they want universal registration...and they get that with UBCs.....

Applies to anyone with a gun now dumb ass.

No shit stain, it doesn't....I don't have to register my gun to own it....moron.......and because of that, if they ban a gun, I could always simply hide it and say I never owned it...which is why they want to register guns first...so when assholes like you come around in your brown shirts, you will have my name and what guns I own....and if I don't cough them up, it will be off to prison......

You don't think private sales could be set up the same way as existing checks? A check isn't registration little boy.

Dear obtuse-ass person: Yes it is. We can even get into how it works and all that if you like.

Personally, I'd recommend you STFU about things you know nothing about.

If you think a background check and gun registration are the same thing, you don't know what you are talking about..Are you gonna get as goofy as that other idiot now?

When the gun you buy is recorded, that's registration, moron. They know who bought what.

Hah! Know what? I bet I don't even show as having any in their system.

Maybe 1, idk, that was bought wayyy before anything like NICS, and I own 6.

There was state registration back then..of some sort.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

 

[PredFan]

More bull shit. Do you ever stop lying? There already background checks and
no, there is no gun show loophole. I can privately sell alcohol and cigarettes to anyone without seeing an ID.

You really don't know what you are talking about. I can say I assume a 15 year old thug is a resident and can legally buy a gun. With no background checks there's no way to prove I'm lying.
How to Sell a Gun in Texas (Private Sales) - Face to Face Transfer, and Other Options
Face to Face - Personal Sale

This is the most common transaction and by far the most profitable one to boot. In the state of Texas you do not have to transfer ownership of the firearm via a dealer, nor do you have to have the firearm re-registered as there is no such firearms registration in the state of Texas.

Your only obligation is to reasonably assume that the purchaser is a Texas resident and legally able to own and possess the firearm. Often times people will request a Texas Drivers License to ensure they are a state resident, write a bill of sale, and sometimes take information from the purchaser. All of these are not required, but to some, are good practice to ensure you, as the seller, are performing your duty properly. Each seller's methods vary, and some buyers are defensive about providing personal info to strangers due to identity theft.

Once the transaction is performed you are done. There's no paperwork, no phone calls, etc. to be made.

Gun shows are good avenues for placing your guns in a buyer-rich environment. If you are unsure how to attract a buyer, I suggest a gun show.

Private transactions are not illegal and you won’t stop then with another Law. If you could read at an adult level you would know that I was proving that with my analogy.

More bull shit. Do you ever stop lying? There already background checks and
no, there is no gun show loophole. I can privately sell alcohol and cigarettes to anyone without seeing an ID.

You really don't know what you are talking about. I can say I assume a 15 year old thug is a resident and can legally buy a gun. With no background checks there's no way to prove I'm lying.
How to Sell a Gun in Texas (Private Sales) - Face to Face Transfer, and Other Options
Face to Face - Personal Sale

This is the most common transaction and by far the most profitable one to boot. In the state of Texas you do not have to transfer ownership of the firearm via a dealer, nor do you have to have the firearm re-registered as there is no such firearms registration in the state of Texas.

Your only obligation is to reasonably assume that the purchaser is a Texas resident and legally able to own and possess the firearm. Often times people will request a Texas Drivers License to ensure they are a state resident, write a bill of sale, and sometimes take information from the purchaser. All of these are not required, but to some, are good practice to ensure you, as the seller, are performing your duty properly. Each seller's methods vary, and some buyers are defensive about providing personal info to strangers due to identity theft.

Once the transaction is performed you are done. There's no paperwork, no phone calls, etc. to be made.

Gun shows are good avenues for placing your guns in a buyer-rich environment. If you are unsure how to attract a buyer, I suggest a gun show.

Blah blah blah, it’s not illegal to privately sell a gun, nor should it be. And you could make it illegal but that would do nothing to criminals at all.

Who wants to outlaw private sales? Have you been listening to those voices in your head again?

You would love to and you know it. Restricting it by forcing people to do background checks on everyone, including their family, would have no effect on crime at all. Just like every other gun Law out there.

So now you can read my mind. Did these fantasy s come on gradually, or all at once?

No
Mind reading necessary. All that is needed is post reading to know what you are about.

 

[mudwhistle]

For everyone who forgot leftists are liars and/or have no idea what they're talking about. Or any combination of both.

Bad links.

 

[Moonglow]

A felon can buy a firearm out of a newspaper or an ad on the poster board at the local store..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

John (the fraud) Lott debunked big time!!

Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions.

This is outrageous!!!
Only liberals are allowed to push studies with severe statistical errors.

 

[2aguy]

Because current federal background checks do not require universal gun registration...in fact, we need to fix NICS so that all you get when you go for your check is a yes or no without any record keeping....

Any reason universal checks couldn't be done the same way, other than your vivid imagination, and the fear driven by the NRA?

Because I can say I own my gun......you won't know if it went through a background check if you don't have the gun registered to me.........so that is why they want universal registration...and they get that with UBCs.....

Applies to anyone with a gun now dumb ass.

No shit stain, it doesn't....I don't have to register my gun to own it....moron.......and because of that, if they ban a gun, I could always simply hide it and say I never owned it...which is why they want to register guns first...so when assholes like you come around in your brown shirts, you will have my name and what guns I own....and if I don't cough them up, it will be off to prison......

You don't think private sales could be set up the same way as existing checks? A check isn't registration little boy.

The check isn't the problem moron. The problem is that private checks would need to have all guns registered....again, otherwise you won't know if the gun I have was purchased with the mandatory background check on private sales...I can buy it illegally, and tell you I got the background check...and unless you know who the gun is registered to, you can't say boo about it.

 

[2aguy]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

That isn't the argument asswipe. The argument is that no law will stop the criminal from doing what they want. We can only punish them when they break the law. But, the law abiding gun owner will comply with the law because they don't want to suffer the consequences of a stupid law that turns them into a felon for something that wasn't breaking the law till you passed the new law making it illegal......they have too much to lose, the criminal and the mass shooter don't care.....that is why we don't trust you, your gun laws punish law abiding gun owners while criminals do what they want.

 

[2aguy]

A felon can buy a firearm out of a newspaper or an ad on the poster board at the local store..

No...they can't. That is against the law, and when they are caught with that gun they can already be arrested and put in jail. If you actually want to stop them from doing this, put a 30 year sentence on criminals buying guns illegally...otherwise you are just playing games and showing us you don't care about criminals, you just care about punishing law abiding gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

John (the fraud) Lott debunked big time!!

Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions.

This is outrageous!!!
Only liberals are allowed to push studies with severe statistical errors.

And no, he didn't do any of those things .... he has addressed those lies in various places...here is one...

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC

Abstract


In an article titled “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy” published in the American Law and Economics Review in 2011, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang report on their inability to replicate regression estimates appearing in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.

They suggest that there are flaws in the data that John Lott had supplied to the NRC.

This suggestion could sow seeds of doubt with respect to the many studies that have used that data.

The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications. However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.

 

[2aguy]

The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

John (the fraud) Lott debunked big time!!

Not only was Lott’s assertion that more guns leads to more safety formally repudiated by a National Research Council panel, but he had also been caught pushing studies with severe statistical errors on numerous occasions.

This is outrageous!!!
Only liberals are allowed to push studies with severe statistical errors.

And the National Research Council? Here is that one...

http://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/13

In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent.

The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited inChapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135).


This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.


And here....

Letter in Scientific American and rebuttal by original author - Crime Prevention Research Center

Moyer cites the National Research Council (NRC), but fails to accurately describe its findings. The council was more supportive of right-to-carry laws than it was of any other gun law.

As is typical of NRC reports, the 2005 “Firearms and Violence” by the council refrained from endorsing any of the over 100 different gun regulations it studied.

However, there was one unexpected dissent by preeminent criminologist James Q. Wilson. Dissents in NRC reports are extremely rare. In the 10 years prior to the NRC report there were only two dissents out of 236 reports. Wilson, who had always supported gun control, had been on four previous panels but never had written a dissent. Finally, however, he pointed out the NRC’s own regressions consistently show right-to-carry laws reduce murder rates.

Moyer quotes physician Garen Wintemute: “Few studies…suggest that liberalizing access to concealed firearms has, on balance, beneficial effects.” But Moyer ignores 24 peer-reviewed publications just showing that crime in the U.S. drops after people are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

She references a recent unpublished paper by John Donohue, Abhay Aneja and Kyle Weber, but, unlike other studies, they don’t measure the number of permits issued, account for any other gun-control laws or deal with well-known statistical errors (such as truncation problems from a lot of zero values in the crime rates). The study also relies almost exclusively on trends in Hawaii to predict violent crime rates in Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska and Utah.

Take one example of Moyer’s sloppiness or bias in her article. Moyer has a long discussion of Arthur Kellermann’s work on the risks of guns in the home, and notes that Kellermann studied “444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home.” But Moyer fails to note that, in fact, in only eight of these 444 homicide cases was the murder weapon a gun that had been kept in the home (The New England Journal of Medicine, February 3, 1994, p. 368). If Moyer had even read the 1998 edition of More Guns, Less Crime, she would have learned this.

 

[Crixus]

I'm assuming it's just a buzzword with no meaning, Democrats love those. They can repeat them over and over, then pretend the meaning is obvious, everyone knows, and anyone who doesn't is stupid, inherently.

Well, yes, the meaning is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education. If you don't understand that universal background checks means everyone who buys a gun should be required to go through a background check, then you are stupid, inherently. Are you proud of that trait?

I guess Leftists see proving me right as some sort of victory. People are already required to get background checks, which makes that a buzzword.

The only thing you’ve proven is that you’re wrong and that you and most others on the right are dishonest and liars.

The issue is Federal law that allows private intrastate firearms transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.

The law needs to be amended to require checks for private intrastate sales as well: universal background checks.

Some states have already implemented UBCs, such as Colorado, where the courts have upheld that measure as Constitutional.

The right’s opposition to UBCs is unwarranted, nothing but a slippery slope fallacy.

Wrong...if you buy across state lines you have to send the gun to a licensed dealer.....and get a background check. And the UBCs in Colorado and Washington state, have failed...........

Our opposition is not unwarranted because we know the only reason gun grabbers want them is to get universal background checks so that when they get the power, they know where the guns are when they ban and confiscate them.....just as happened in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York state, and California . This isn't a made up concern this has happened all over the world.......

You think there will be mass gun confiscation. You're nuts

Agree. Even if they tried it would be impossible.

 

[Crixus]

For everyone who forgot leftists are liars and/or have no idea what they're talking about. Or any combination of both.

I’m still trying to figure out what they mean when they say “universal background checks “. Every libtard says they need them, but can’t say specifically what it is.

I'm assuming it's just a buzzword with no meaning, Democrats love those. They can repeat them over and over, then pretend the meaning is obvious, everyone knows, and anyone who doesn't is stupid, inherently.

Well, yes, the meaning is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education. If you don't understand that universal background checks means everyone who buys a gun should be required to go through a background check, then you are stupid, inherently. Are you proud of that trait?

I guess Leftists see proving me right as some sort of victory. People are already required to get background checks, which makes that a buzzword.

The only thing you’ve proven is that you’re wrong and that you and most others on the right are dishonest and liars.

The issue is Federal law that allows private intrastate firearms transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background The Texans have no excuse for passing on Colin Kaepernick after Deshaun Watson's injury.

The law needs to be amended to require checks for private intrastate sales as well: universal background checks.

Some states have already implemented UBCs, such as Colorado, where the courts have upheld that measure as Constitutional.

The right’s opposition to UBCs is unwarranted, nothing but a slippery slope fallacy.

UBC? What the hell is that ? There is no such thing as a universal background check. At the beginning of 2017 I was a resident of Colorado. I bought an AR15 a Winchester model 70 featherweight in 30/06 and a Howa lightening regardless to 6.5 creedmore and several hundred round in a private sale with no imaginary background check. You have YRT to define what a universal background check is . What you described is nothing more then filling out. 4473 on a private sale.

 

[hazlnut]

Discredited gun researcher John Lott’s misleading Las Vegas massacre claims are falling apart


This shitheal must be a glutton for punishment.

He embarrasses himself again... floating fantasy nutter crap...

Overall, the association between stronger gun laws and lower gun violence is well-established. As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center has concluded, “A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

Numbers don't lie, bitches.

But fairy Lott does.

 

[Crixus]

Discredited gun researcher John Lott’s misleading Las Vegas massacre claims are falling apart


This shitheal must be a glutton for punishment.

He embarrasses himself again... floating fantasy nutter crap...

Overall, the association between stronger gun laws and lower gun violence is well-established. As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center has concluded, “A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

Numbers don't lie, bitches.

But fairy Lott does.

We understand. It’s the turettes. You just can’t help it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any reason universal checks couldn't be done the same way, other than your vivid imagination, and the fear driven by the NRA?

Because I can say I own my gun......you won't know if it went through a background check if you don't have the gun registered to me.........so that is why they want universal registration...and they get that with UBCs.....

Applies to anyone with a gun now dumb ass.

No shit stain, it doesn't....I don't have to register my gun to own it....moron.......and because of that, if they ban a gun, I could always simply hide it and say I never owned it...which is why they want to register guns first...so when assholes like you come around in your brown shirts, you will have my name and what guns I own....and if I don't cough them up, it will be off to prison......

You don't think private sales could be set up the same way as existing checks? A check isn't registration little boy.

The check isn't the problem moron. The problem is that private checks would need to have all guns registered....again, otherwise you won't know if the gun I have was purchased with the mandatory background check on private sales...I can buy it illegally, and tell you I got the background check...and unless you know who the gun is registered to, you can't say boo about it.

No. No more than with a new gun from a dealer.

 

[Moonglow]

A felon can buy a firearm out of a newspaper or an ad on the poster board at the local store..

No...they can't. That is against the law, and when they are caught with that gun they can already be arrested and put in jail. If you actually want to stop them from doing this, put a 30 year sentence on criminals buying guns illegally...otherwise you are just playing games and showing us you don't care about criminals, you just care about punishing law abiding gun owners.

Hey, they have capital punishment for murderers yet that doesn't deter murder ...