Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.Specifically, not having a GUN.You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
No such thing as an unlicensed dealer.Some will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.Specifically, not having a GUN.You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.
Yet the Charlotte guy killed by police....had a DV restraining order, prior felony convictions for drugs and other crimes.....and he had a gun on him when he was shot by the police...because he bought the gun from a burglar who stole it.....neither one went through a background check........
you would think, the NRA and gun dealers in gun stores, would support this....making the playing field of sales, level....fair...where all who sell guns need to get a background check on the buyer and not just the retail stores singled out for it...?Not all people selling guns are required to perform background checks. That is the problem.Someone who cannot legally buy a gun can NEVER legally buy a gun -- and so, no, they are NOT buying them legally at gun shows or anywhere elseSome will. Some won't. Those who wish for a gun right now and shouldn't have one are able to purchase one legally by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, through an ad in the Weekly Swap Sheet or through a friend/neighbor.Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.Specifically, not having a GUN.
About 40% of people who should not own a weapon purchase one LEGALLY by using the loopholes.
And, for the zillionth time:
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks specified by federal law -- thus, there is no loophole.
I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.Specifically, not having a GUN.You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?
Yet the Charlotte guy killed by police....had a DV restraining order, prior felony convictions for drugs and other crimes.....and he had a gun on him when he was shot by the police...because he bought the gun from a burglar who stole it.....neither one went through a background check........
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that DV and police gun deaths went down 40-50% according to the editorial after comprehensive background checks were implemented. Without calling them "lies," you have nothing to say.I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.Specifically, not having a GUN.
Yet the Charlotte guy killed by police....had a DV restraining order, prior felony convictions for drugs and other crimes.....and he had a gun on him when he was shot by the police...because he bought the gun from a burglar who stole it.....neither one went through a background check........
No...it hasn't........even taking for granted the links claim of 5,000 denied background checks...do you realize that that doesn't mean criminals were stopped....that simply means that someone didn't pass the first try.....their name popped for someone else who had a similar name......they cleared that up and then got the gun....they are lying to you.....actual criminals know this...they use friends and family members to go to gun stores to pass the background checks....
Why is this so hard for you to grasp...?
Ah, yes. Australia, my dream scape. You think that will actually happen here? If nothing happened after Newtown, it never will. As a matter of fact, instead of being revolted by the gun violence, people went out and bought MORE and MORE guns.
We are one sick bunch of motherfuckers, imo.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that DV and police gun deaths went down 40-50% according to the editorial after comprehensive background checks were implemented. Without calling them "lies," you have nothing to say.I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.
Yet the Charlotte guy killed by police....had a DV restraining order, prior felony convictions for drugs and other crimes.....and he had a gun on him when he was shot by the police...because he bought the gun from a burglar who stole it.....neither one went through a background check........
No...it hasn't........even taking for granted the links claim of 5,000 denied background checks...do you realize that that doesn't mean criminals were stopped....that simply means that someone didn't pass the first try.....their name popped for someone else who had a similar name......they cleared that up and then got the gun....they are lying to you.....actual criminals know this...they use friends and family members to go to gun stores to pass the background checks....
Why is this so hard for you to grasp...?
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that DV and police gun deaths went down 40-50% according to the editorial after comprehensive background checks were implemented. Without calling them "lies," you have nothing to say.I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.
Yet the Charlotte guy killed by police....had a DV restraining order, prior felony convictions for drugs and other crimes.....and he had a gun on him when he was shot by the police...because he bought the gun from a burglar who stole it.....neither one went through a background check........
No...it hasn't........even taking for granted the links claim of 5,000 denied background checks...do you realize that that doesn't mean criminals were stopped....that simply means that someone didn't pass the first try.....their name popped for someone else who had a similar name......they cleared that up and then got the gun....they are lying to you.....actual criminals know this...they use friends and family members to go to gun stores to pass the background checks....
Why is this so hard for you to grasp...?
Its Maine....I have no doubt the big cities will flood the polls with stupid people and stupid votes to further erase their 2nd amendment rights.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
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
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that DV and police gun deaths went down 40-50% according to the editorial after comprehensive background checks were implemented. Without calling them "lies," you have nothing to say.I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.
Yet the Charlotte guy killed by police....had a DV restraining order, prior felony convictions for drugs and other crimes.....and he had a gun on him when he was shot by the police...because he bought the gun from a burglar who stole it.....neither one went through a background check........
No...it hasn't........even taking for granted the links claim of 5,000 denied background checks...do you realize that that doesn't mean criminals were stopped....that simply means that someone didn't pass the first try.....their name popped for someone else who had a similar name......they cleared that up and then got the gun....they are lying to you.....actual criminals know this...they use friends and family members to go to gun stores to pass the background checks....
Why is this so hard for you to grasp...?
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....
Tough shit. You're gonna have to put up with background checks just the same. It's not like you're buying something useful like a loaf of bread, or a socket wrench.
A socket wrench? Hey you're on to something. Given that "blunt objects" are used to murder at nearly twice the rate as a rifle*, perhaps we should require a background check before you buy your're next socket wrench.
You game?
*2014 FBI stats: murders in which a rifle was used, 248; murder in which a blunt object was used, 435
Everything is a hammer. You have gun hammers, plier hammers, cresant wrench hammers, screw driver hammers, socket wrench hammers, and so on.
And yes, firearms are by design meant to kill rather than loosen a nut, or a bolt, so some care should be taken when handing them out. Like background checks.
There you go, arguing that correlation = causation again.I never said it would stop every crime. It apparently has stopped a significant number.
Look! Look! Another post hoc fallacy!Why is it so hard for you to grasp that DV and police gun deaths went down 40-50% according to the editorial after comprehensive background checks were implemented. Without calling them "lies," you have nothing to say.
