Universal background checks

[boedicca]

Universal background checks are meaningless unless the government violates HIPPA and makes mental health information publicly available.

 

[PaulS1950]

by Underhill
I don't think it matters. This is my point.

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it. And the NRA was the one writing the legislation under the guise of protecting our rights. In reality they were protecting the gun manufacturers so they could sell guns to literally anyone with no consequences.

Now I doubt their intent was to put guns in the hands of criminals. But even when we see the results, they refuse any change. And that is the point.

Regardless of what the legislation is, the gun lobby will fight it. And that is a recipe for failure.

If you want to see the smart play, look at the National Sheriffs Association. They have gotten behind some of the more reasonable gun regulations and will probably be at the table when they are written. While the NRA sits outside yelping about no new regulations...

Every gun dealer licensed in the USA performs a background check on the purchaser of a gun at the time of sale. No criminal can walk in and buy a gun. There is no such problem. The problem is that people are uninformed about the process.

The NRA does not write legislation - that is still the job of congress - as spelled out in the constitution.

The "gun lobby" will fight any legislation that affects legal gun ownership and has no effect on the criminals. They do that to protect our rights - your right and my right to defend ourselves. There are first amendment protection groups who do the same thing to protect our first amendment rights. I just wish there was a group who did it toprotect our fourth amendment rights.

The national sheriff's association is a political group that changes its attitudes with the loudest voices. They don't care about anything but their own power. The sheriffs that you should listen to are the ones that are standing up and saying that they will protect the second amendment protections from unlawful acts.

With all that the NRA has done over the last decade the violent crime rate has been reduced dramatically. They are fighting to get rid of criminals - not guns.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This entire renewed gun control debate is nothing more than one party trying to make you believe they are "doing something" about the problem, while actually doing nothing except attempting to make the other party look like they are the bad guys.
You cannot convince me for one second that Obama is so stupid as to believe magazine clips and assault rifle bans and paper trails will solve any degree of gun violence whatsoever. He knows it won't. Anyone who thinks he is actually interested in solving the problem is clearly a blind sheep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So what you guys are saying is that there is literally nothing you would allow the government to do to curb the problem.

Well that is one way to go. I think it is the wrong way.

When you continually say no to everything, even the most mundane concessions, sooner or later they simply stop listening to you.

What, exactly, is the problem? Positing solutions before you define the parameters only makes sense if you think intentions trump results.

I don't think it matters. This is my point.

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it. And the NRA was the one writing the legislation under the guise of protecting our rights. In reality they were protecting the gun manufacturers so they could sell guns to literally anyone with no consequences.

Now I doubt their intent was to put guns in the hands of criminals. But even when we see the results, they refuse any change. And that is the point.

Regardless of what the legislation is, the gun lobby will fight it. And that is a recipe for failure.

If you want to see the smart play, look at the National Sheriffs Association. They have gotten behind some of the more reasonable gun regulations and will probably be at the table when they are written. While the NRA sits outside yelping about no new regulations...

It actually does matter, because this is the place where you back up your posts with evidence. If you can't, you aren't supposed to post here. That means I get to ask you about your position, challenge it, and force you to defend it.

There is a problem with criminals buying guns in gun shops? Do you have evidence of this, or is this just something you believe?

Let us assume your situation is accurate, why do we need more laws to fix it when existing laws already require all gun stores to do background checks?

I will fight laws that restrict rights because restricting rights is the real recipe for failure. No nation on Earth ever collapsed because its citizens were free to exercise their rights. There are, however, numerous examples of nations that collapsed under the weight of their laws and regulations. Maybe you should rethink your position that freedom is a recipe for failure.

By the way, pointing out that the government supports restricting rights is not proof that it is a good idea.

 

[Katzndogz]

Universal background checks will never be universal. It is a very silly feel good law. It prevents a few people who shouldn't be owning guns from having them but it is a miniscule number.

As someone who was under a domestic violence restraining order OJ Simpson could not buy a gun.

What was the caliber of the gun that killed Nicole Brown Simpson?

 

[Vandalshandle]

That is like saying that we should do away with automobile registrations, because it is unenforceable. If I were to argue the oppositions point of view, I would point out that I, myself, sold a car once, and the buyer never regisitered it under his name, and his parking tickets came to me. The counter argument is that every time he drove that car with an expired tag, he risked getting fined.

Universal gun registration is something that we need.

And BTW, not all criminals get their guns illegally. The guy who killed 8 people, and shot Gabby Giffords, bought his weapon legally.

 

[PaulS1950]

Guns are not licensed nor are the people who own them. When you sold your car you should have filed a "report of sale" because it would have kept you from getting the purchasers tickets.

For the same thing to happen with background checks you would have to register the gun and the owner. That has already been ruled as unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Gabby's shooter wasn't yet a criminal - and he obviously passed his background check or he wouldn't have been able to purchase the gun. Unless he bought it from a private citizen, he would have undergone the background check.

You can't prevent crimes without removing, not only all individual rights, but all the freedoms as well. The best that we can do is to prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law.

 

[Underhill]

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it.

Specifically, what laws?

Here is an article for you...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/u...y-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ths is hogwash.
Gun manufacturers sell to wholesalers and dealers, not individuals.

You honestly think the manufacturers don't have anything to lose if this kind of regulation is passed? It means dealers will sell less guns. Of course they care.

More hogwash; the reason we have the NICS at all is because the NRA supported it.

Read the artical and get back to me. These things are not really up for debate.

Here is another article that gets into it. It says,

"And ATF's mission has been undermined in myriad other ways by acts of Congress. For example, ATF is prohibited from creating a national registry of gun transactions. Its agents cannot make more than one unannounced inspection of a licensed gun dealer each year.

Records on background checks of gun buyers must be destroyed within 24 hours. ATF is limited in its ability to share tracing information on guns linked to crimes with local and state agencies.

Moreover, there is something terribly out of whack with an antiterrorism policy that creates a "watch list" of people who are considered too dangerous to board an airplane ... yet those same people can legally buy deadly weapons. And Congress has been too timid to confront that contradiction."

Read more: ATF left toothless on enforcing gun laws - SFGate

 

[Underhill]

Guns are not licensed nor are the people who own them. When you sold your car you should have filed a "report of sale" because it would have kept you from getting the purchasers tickets.

For the same thing to happen with background checks you would have to register the gun and the owner. That has already been ruled as unconstitutional by the supreme court.

Gabby's shooter wasn't yet a criminal - and he obviously passed his background check or he wouldn't have been able to purchase the gun. Unless he bought it from a private citizen, he would have undergone the background check.

You can't prevent crimes without removing, not only all individual rights, but all the freedoms as well. The best that we can do is to prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law.

Nobody is talking about preventing all crime.

Simply making it a bit more difficult for criminals to get a hold of guns. But nobody thinks it will eliminate all gun crime.

 

[PaulS1950]

How can you pass a law that makes it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun .... THEY don't obey the laws

You really can't prevent crime without removing all rights and freedoms enjoyed in a free society.

 

[Underhill]

How can you pass a law that makes it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun .... THEY don't obey the laws

You really can't prevent crime without removing all rights and freedoms enjoyed in a free society.

*sigh

I've been through this several times.

Here's a number for you.

300,000 stolen guns a year. Guns stolen from legal gun owners. Those are legally purchased guns that end up in the hands of criminals.

Those account for 10-15% of guns used by criminals.

Ever heard of a straw purchase? This is when a criminal wants a gun and sends a friend in to buy it for him.

Another huge source of guns is the illegal sale of guns by registered dealers.

Most of those guys that sell illegal guns out of the back of a van get them from one of these 3 methods.

All of which could be helped by better tracking of gun purchases.

Here is a good article on the subject.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is like saying that we should do away with automobile registrations, because it is unenforceable.

No. It is not like that at all. I suggest you reasd what I wrote more carefully.

To enforce UBC you have to know when a weapon changed hands so you can prove it chnaged hads after the UBC went into effect; then you have to prove that a UBC was not performed.
The only way to do that is to register weapoms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it.

Specifically, what laws?

Here is an article for you...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/u...y-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And I asked for specific laws. You may proceed.
Note that you also have to show that the effect of the laws is as you say.

Ths is hogwash.
Gun manufacturers sell to wholesalers and dealers, not individuals.

You honestly think the manufacturers don't have anything to lose if this kind of regulation is passed? It means dealers will sell less guns. Of course they care.

More hogwash, What you said here is not what you said originally.
Gun manufacturers do -not- sell to individuals, and so I accept your concession of the point to that effect.

More hogwash; the reason we have the NICS at all is because the NRA supported it.

Read the artical and get back to me. These things are not really up for debate.

You are right -- you have an example where the NRA does support restrictions on gun ownership. and the falseness of your claim that the NRA opposes all rewstrictionson guns is not up for debate at all.

 

[Vandalshandle]

How can you pass a law that makes it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun .... THEY don't obey the laws

You really can't prevent crime without removing all rights and freedoms enjoyed in a free society.

If your argument is that there is no point in making it illegal for criminals to own guns, because they won't obey the law anyway, then why do we take driver's liceses away from alcoholics, who will drive anyway (and BTW, in my community, there is a guy which is packing for prison, after his 4th DWI).

I have no problem with registration. Registration is not a restriction of freedom. Even the NRA is saying that we do not enforce our present guns laws. Required registration would help us do that. It means that I, a good, law abiding citizen, will no longer be able to sell my 9MM to the first felon who walks up to me at a gun show and buys my gun for cash. If such felon knows that he will have to show proof of identity and undergo a background check, he will not buy his gun from me. Maybe the fact that he would have to go underground to buy a weapon would save someone's life. I have walked the earth for almost 70 years, and I have no idea where I would buy a weapon underground. If he is just some nut, and not a hardened criminal, he may be as ignorant of how to do that as I am. Be aware, I know that gang members wiould still be in the illegal weapons trade. That is a deeper problem, and would require a different solution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is like saying that we should do away with automobile registrations, because it is unenforceable. If I were to argue the oppositions point of view, I would point out that I, myself, sold a car once, and the buyer never regisitered it under his name, and his parking tickets came to me. The counter argument is that every time he drove that car with an expired tag, he risked getting fined.

Universal gun registration is something that we need.

And BTW, not all criminals get their guns illegally. The guy who killed 8 people, and shot Gabby Giffords, bought his weapon legally.

What do cars and guns have in common, other than the fact that people can buy both? Why mention cars in a dicussion about universal background checks, and then delve into taxation, as some sort of argument in favor of registering guns? Is you bias on this issue so severe that you confuse the issues?

It is not necessary to register a car unless you intend to use it on a public road. In other words, if I own a car that never leaves my property, I don't have to register it. On the other hand, what you are proposing is a requirement that everyone register their guns, no matter what it is they intend to do with it. Yet, for some reason, you have no problem with htis, probably because you are afraid of guns.

By the way, the fact that Jarrod Loughner bought his guns legally, and sill used them to commit a crime, is actually an argument against backgrounds checks, not for them. He actually passed the background checks, so they didn't prevent the attack.

 

[blackhawk]

I don't think universal background checks will be any more effective than the current ones if the people want them fine. Of course if there is nothing in someones background to send up a red flag what then?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a problem with criminals walking into gun shops and buying guns. But laws have been put in place that restrict what the authorities to the point where they can do nothing about it.

Specifically, what laws?

Here is an article for you...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/u...y-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ths is hogwash.
Gun manufacturers sell to wholesalers and dealers, not individuals.

You honestly think the manufacturers don't have anything to lose if this kind of regulation is passed? It means dealers will sell less guns. Of course they care.

More hogwash; the reason we have the NICS at all is because the NRA supported it.

Read the artical and get back to me. These things are not really up for debate.

Here is another article that gets into it. It says,

"And ATF's mission has been undermined in myriad other ways by acts of Congress. For example, ATF is prohibited from creating a national registry of gun transactions. Its agents cannot make more than one unannounced inspection of a licensed gun dealer each year.

Records on background checks of gun buyers must be destroyed within 24 hours. ATF is limited in its ability to share tracing information on guns linked to crimes with local and state agencies.

Moreover, there is something terribly out of whack with an antiterrorism policy that creates a "watch list" of people who are considered too dangerous to board an airplane ... yet those same people can legally buy deadly weapons. And Congress has been too timid to confront that contradiction."

Read more: ATF left toothless on enforcing gun laws - SFGate

Nothing about your claim that criminals routinely walk into stores and buy guns, interesting.

As far as it being hard for the government to investigate crimes, frankly, I don't care. Do you think we should allow police to search every house in a neighborhood whenever someone steals something? It would certainly make it easier for them, but I am pretty sure it would bother all but the most insane law and order types.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I've owned somewhere around 2 dozen different guns at one time or another spread out over the years.....

I have had one background check........And that was on my most recent purchase....

I have no problem with background checks if they would actually work....

.

 

[PaulS1950]

How can you pass a law that makes it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun .... THEY don't obey the laws

You really can't prevent crime without removing all rights and freedoms enjoyed in a free society.

If your argument is that there is no point in making it illegal for criminals to own guns, because they won't obey the law anyway, then why do we take driver's liceses away from alcoholics, who will drive anyway (and BTW, in my community, there is a guy which is packing for prison, after his 4th DWI).

I have no problem with registration. Registration is not a restriction of freedom. Even the NRA is saying that we do not enforce our present guns laws. Required registration would help us do that. It means that I, a good, law abiding citizen, will no longer be able to sell my 9MM to the first felon who walks up to me at a gun show and buys my gun for cash. If such felon knows that he will have to show proof of identity and undergo a background check, he will not buy his gun from me. Maybe the fact that he would have to go underground to buy a weapon would save someone's life. I have walked the earth for almost 70 years, and I have no idea where I would buy a weapon underground. If he is just some nut, and not a hardened criminal, he may be as ignorant of how to do that as I am. Be aware, I know that gang members wiould still be in the illegal weapons trade. That is a deeper problem, and would require a different solution.

Nope, my arguement is that we already have many more laws than we need to prosecute criminals but we are not doing that. Prosecution for violent crime is down 40% according to the FBI crime statistics.

Registration is the first step that every country that has confiscated weapons has taken. I do not wish to repeat that history. We are even being warned by those in the UK and Australia not to give in - they did, at least in part and the process didn't work to reduce violent crime in England - in fact it has steadily risen to the point where there is more violent crime in the UK than in the US and they have completely bannedgun ownership.

 

[Vandalshandle]

How can you pass a law that makes it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun .... THEY don't obey the laws

You really can't prevent crime without removing all rights and freedoms enjoyed in a free society.

If your argument is that there is no point in making it illegal for criminals to own guns, because they won't obey the law anyway, then why do we take driver's liceses away from alcoholics, who will drive anyway (and BTW, in my community, there is a guy which is packing for prison, after his 4th DWI).

I have no problem with registration. Registration is not a restriction of freedom. Even the NRA is saying that we do not enforce our present guns laws. Required registration would help us do that. It means that I, a good, law abiding citizen, will no longer be able to sell my 9MM to the first felon who walks up to me at a gun show and buys my gun for cash. If such felon knows that he will have to show proof of identity and undergo a background check, he will not buy his gun from me. Maybe the fact that he would have to go underground to buy a weapon would save someone's life. I have walked the earth for almost 70 years, and I have no idea where I would buy a weapon underground. If he is just some nut, and not a hardened criminal, he may be as ignorant of how to do that as I am. Be aware, I know that gang members wiould still be in the illegal weapons trade. That is a deeper problem, and would require a different solution.

Nope, my arguement is that we already have many more laws than we need to prosecute criminals but we are not doing that. Prosecution for violent crime is down 40% according to the FBI crime statistics.

Registration is the first step that every country that has confiscated weapons has taken. I do not wish to repeat that history. We are even being warned by those in the UK and Australia not to give in - they did, at least in part and the process didn't work to reduce violent crime in England - in fact it has steadily risen to the point where there is more violent crime in the UK than in the US and they have completely bannedgun ownership.

I am part of that law enforcement community that is prosecuting 40% less crime. The reason for that in the Southwest states is that we are doing exactly what the Right wants us to do, and focusing on deporting illegal immigrants (which are misdemenaors), instead. We have 8 courts that are now exclusively dedicated to deporting illigal immigrants. You can check it out by Googling Operation Streamline, made possible by the Patriot Act. The judge and court system in Tucson alone is prosecuting 75 every working day of the year. Those of us in law enforcement, would love to put away all the bad guys, but our bosses make their decisions based on politics.

Granted, Jarrod was a bad example. However, we all know that there are are people buying guns every day at gun shows BECAUSE they could never pass a background check. Allowing someone who could be a convicted violent felon to fall through the cracks that way, and purchase an AR-15 with no background check is, in itself, insane.