Background Checks ARE The Best Way

[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

48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns,

And this is a lie....there is nothing to background checks that keep criminals from shooting police officers....

Do you realize that we have had shootings in the last week or two where the criminals involved were convicted felons....who got their guns illegaly without background checks....the gang banger who murdered the man at Millenium Park in Chicago....was a multiple, weapon felony convict....multiple illegal gun possession charges....and on the street where he murdered that man...

The Charlotte guy shot by police...another felon who could not legally own the gun that he had when he was shot...no background check....and the ATF is talking to the criminal who sold him the stolen, illegal gun....


Please....do you think through this stuff.......or do you just react out of emotion?

 

[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.

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

Are they too dangerous to have a gun?
Yes?
Then they are too dangerous to be released.
Why do you disagree?

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Most gun violence is by repeat-offenders.

 

[2aguy]

More punishment for law abiding citizens.
If anyone actually wanted to curb gun violence, they would focus on mental health and inner city violence. The majority of gun violence. Majority of gun violence done with ILLEGAL guns

Those things also need to be addressed, big time. I am not saying it is the one and only solution to gun violence. It is a sensible thing to do, though, especially if the person transferring the gun illegally (without a background check) is held equally accountable for any crimes committed with the gun. It would significantly slow the traffic of illegal weapons on the streets.

No...because it isn't doing it now...and when they are caught selling guns...they face prison, yet still sell the illegal guns.......and as I have linked to artticles that point out over and over...Prosecutors are not interested in taking a gang bangers grand mother or baby momma to court over an illegal straw purchase.....it is not a winning case...since they just say they were forced to do it under threat.....

 

[2aguy]

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?

And of course, we do not see suicides in countries that have banned civilian firearm ownership, like Japan and all those wonderful Scandinavian countries, right?

Oh, wait...never mind.

Not to seem cold, but I was more interested in the OTHER areas where universal background checks have had an impact. Are suicides the only area where you can make an argument?

Universal background checks do not stop mass shooters...the Umpquaa shooter was in a universal background state....and mass shooters...can already pass background checks...and buy their guns from gun stores....or the steal their guns....after murdering the owners.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Sorry...that isn't true....

 

[2aguy]

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.

This is not true....

Since 2013, States with 'Universal' Background Checks Have More Deaths, Injuries - Breitbart

In his latest book, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, John R. Lott Jr. shows that states with “universal” background checks had more deaths and injuries since 2013.
It should be noted that “universal” background checks are the same thing as “comprehensive” background checks. Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the gun control lobby consistently call for “comprehensive” background checks as a solution to mass public shootings and other high-profile firearm-related crimes.

Lott notes that “universal” background checks only exist in eight states, and six of those states “didn’t adopt them until 2013 to 2015.” So he caveats his findings by granting that “eight states is a small sample,” and the data from those states is small as well. Yet the extant data shows that “since 2013, states with ‘universal’ background checks have experienced 124 percent more mass public shootings and dramatically higher rates of death and injury.” In fact, “per capital, there were 267 percent more deaths and 1,431 percent more injuries.”

The examination of eight states over a short time period is balanced by Lott’s study of 19 states over the longer time period of 2000-2015. Lott wrote, “During at least part of the time period from 2000-2015, nineteen states (plus Puerto Rico and DC) had background checks on the private transfer of guns for at least part of that period.” Because at least one state canceled its background check requirement during that period, Lott stressed that “states are only counted as having background checks on at least some private transfers during the years in which the regulations were in effect.”

His findings — “States with background checks had a 15 percent higher per capita rate of mass public shooting deaths and a 38 percent higher rate of injuries.”

Mass public shootings increased in states with background checks on private transfers during the time period 2000-2015 as well, but Lott labeled the increase as “very [slight]” at .44 percent.

Because of the limited data on the “universal” checks specifically, Lott is careful to avoid drawing large conclusions. But he does stress that his findings show there is no support for claims that more checks would have stopped the Umpqua Community College attack (Oregon, October 1, 2015), the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood attack (Colorado, November 27, 2015), and the San Bernardino terror attack (California, December 2, 2015). These were the three most recent attacks at the time Lott was writing his book.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

and you remove these dangerous people from society how?

Small caliber round under the left ear.

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?

You seem willing to determine level of danger via universal background checks. Why don't you use that?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

So?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes...it makes it more expensive to own a gun, and if you don't live near a gun store and your police are already over worked...you will have to wait to get the check done...a check that is useless in the first place....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes...it is....it is a 14th and 5th amendment violation of our Right.........it is a Poll Tax on the Right to bear arms....

 

[2aguy]

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?

Easy.....when you catch a criminal with an illegal gun...you lock them up 30 years....like the gang banger who shot the guy in Millenium Park...he was a multiple gun felon....out walking around..had he been in jail for 30 years on one of the many illegal gun possession charges, that man would still be alive.....

allowing criminals to walk free costs over 250,000 dollars a year...

 

[August West]

More punishment for law abiding citizens.
If anyone actually wanted to curb gun violence, they would focus on mental health and inner city violence. The majority of gun violence. Majority of gun violence done with ILLEGAL guns

So crimes committed with ILLEGAL guns don`t count? How hard is it to obtain a gun illegally when all you need to do is open up enough unlocked card doors?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

how fascist of you

 

[M14 Shooter]

More punishment for law abiding citizens.
If anyone actually wanted to curb gun violence, they would focus on mental health and inner city violence. The majority of gun violence. Majority of gun violence done with ILLEGAL guns

So crimes committed with ILLEGAL guns don`t count? How hard is it to obtain a gun illegally when all you need to do is open up enough unlocked card doors?

California Police departments seem a good source as well.
Southern California Police Agencies Missing More Than 300 Weapons
Police might not know where their guns are, and the law says that's OK

 

[TNHarley]

More punishment for law abiding citizens.
If anyone actually wanted to curb gun violence, they would focus on mental health and inner city violence. The majority of gun violence. Majority of gun violence done with ILLEGAL guns

So crimes committed with ILLEGAL guns don`t count? How hard is it to obtain a gun illegally when all you need to do is open up enough unlocked card doors?

Already illegal guns don't count when you are talking about NEW laws..
See, we call that a CIRCLE OF STUPIDITY

 

[strollingbones]

this just goes on and on...neither side willing to compromise at all....i loved when the nra..said ...government was going to take the arms and refuse to give purchase permits to people on social security ...when in reality....what they said....people who were unable to manage their affairs and have guardians like my moms does...should not have guns or purchase permits....my mother is incompetent and does not understand what a gun is a...and yet the nra thinks its okay to arm her?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Its simple :
Guns are a Constitutional right. Extended background checks beyond the ones WE ALREADY HAVE is nothing more than making it more difficult for responsible gun owners.
Why do you get to choose what rights we get to keep in this country? Your or that fallacious cop don't. It is CONSTITUTIONAL.
Are you ready to regulate free speech, religion, private property(even more), reasonable searches etc?

Background checks already apply to the majority of guns sales. They should apply to all sales/transfers, not just some (except family transfers/loans as are already included in the law). It is these loopholes that are being taken advantage of by criminals. In states where the loopholes have been closed, it has caused a significant reduction in gun crime. What's the down side?

 

[OldLady]

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

way too early for that

 

[M14 Shooter]

this just goes on and on...neither side willing to compromise at all...

The anti-gun loons have not offered compromise; they only demand acquiescence.
Thus, the pro-gun side as no reason to give an inch.