How Again is Gun Control Beneficial?

[ConHog]

The problem is that you may be new to the market because your life is in imminent danger and you need a firearm immediately.

Good grief, how many cases of that do you really think there are? No youtube links please., just tell me do you HONESTLY think that many people are like "oh shit that fucker will kill me tonite if I don't buy a gun now?" No, in most cases those are situations which build up over time and you have plenty of time to go through the legal process. Although as I said with technology I personally think 9 days is too long. 2 days would be plenty.

 

[ConHog]

The kind of guy who would think gun as a way to deal with hurt or anger, however, is most likely the kind of guy who knows how to get a gun on the street any time he wants one. Using a gun to deal with hurt or anger would not occur to me, nor have I ever been in the crime/drug culture, but even I would have no trouble obtaining a weapon any time I wanted one.

I prefer to do it honestly, legally, and without concern of what a 'street' gun has been implicated in, however. And if I felt the need to purchase a gun in a hurry, it would be because I feared for my life, safety, or that of loved ones. And I wouldn't want to have to wait nine days to get one.

Using your logic, if waiving the waiting period or implementing a quick on line instant background check would save a single life, it would be worth it.

Note, I am NOT saying that no background check should be done. I am NOT saying that anybody should be able to purchase a firearm without providing positive ID and waiting for a quick background check to make sure he or she isn't an illegal, isn't on parole, isn't wanted, isn't an escaped mental patient, or whatever. But with today's technology there is no reason the 'no authorized gun' crowd can't be placed into a single, easily accessible base for law enforcement personnel and gun dealers similar to the 'no fly' list or cancelled credit cards--a data base that can be accessed from the counter while the customer waits.

The nine day waiting period is far more political ideological nonsense than practical.

Oh, I definately agree that the technology has probably outpaced this law. I mean we live in a day where I can go to to the bank website of my choice and borrow $50K in a manner of minutes without so much as saying boo to an actual person. There is no reason why a gun check couldn't be done instantaneously as well.

My preference would be for a tiered system

If you're a known quantity, meaning in the system as having bought guns in the past clean record etc etc etc you should have immediate access

If you're relatively new to the market, and maybe there might be some questions as to your intent, you wait the 9 days

and then of course those that should be denied period

and obviously a person can move up and down the tiers as their behavior dictates

I don't want even the first time gun buyer to have unnecessary restrictions just because 'he might' have something illegal in mind. If he has a clean record, which a background check would show, there is no reason he should not be able to purchase a gun to protect himself whenever he chooses to do that.

Right now we don't own a handgun. There is no record anywhere of either of us ever having owned a gun, though we do have a rifle in the house. (And a Red Ryder BB gun but that's another story. Christmas Story actually.) We have had no criminal charges, much less convictions, on our record at least any more serious than a traffic ticket.

We have been giving serious thought to replacing the handgun we gave away years ago. And if we should feel particularly threatened we would want the right and ability to do so immediately.

At the point you start giving it serious though you get your ass down to the gun store and start the process instead of sitting at home for 2 weeks bitching that you should be able to buy a gun now dammit. How difficult is that?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is that you may be new to the market because your life is in imminent danger and you need a firearm immediately.

Good grief, how many cases of that do you really think there are? No youtube links please., just tell me do you HONESTLY think that many people are like "oh shit that fucker will kill me tonite if I don't buy a gun now?" No, in most cases those are situations which build up over time and you have plenty of time to go through the legal process. Although as I said with technology I personally think 9 days is too long. 2 days would be plenty.

How many cases of that would be necessary to justify ability to buy a hand gun? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? One?

In your own words, if it would save one life, it would be worth it.

 

[ConHog]

The problem is that you may be new to the market because your life is in imminent danger and you need a firearm immediately.

Good grief, how many cases of that do you really think there are? No youtube links please., just tell me do you HONESTLY think that many people are like "oh shit that fucker will kill me tonite if I don't buy a gun now?" No, in most cases those are situations which build up over time and you have plenty of time to go through the legal process. Although as I said with technology I personally think 9 days is too long. 2 days would be plenty.

How many cases of that would be necessary to justify ability to buy a hand gun? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? One?

In your own words, if it would save one life, it would be worth it.

Yes it would be, but on the other hand lives are undoubtedly also saved by not allowing immediate handgun sales. So it becomes a balancing act. I don't know which way saves more lives. If you're honest, you will admit that you don't either.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good grief, how many cases of that do you really think there are? No youtube links please., just tell me do you HONESTLY think that many people are like "oh shit that fucker will kill me tonite if I don't buy a gun now?" No, in most cases those are situations which build up over time and you have plenty of time to go through the legal process. Although as I said with technology I personally think 9 days is too long. 2 days would be plenty.

How many cases of that would be necessary to justify ability to buy a hand gun? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? One?

In your own words, if it would save one life, it would be worth it.

Yes it would be, but on the other hand lives are undoubtedly also saved by not allowing immediate handgun sales. So it becomes a balancing act. I don't know which way saves more lives. If you're honest, you will admit that you don't either.

No, I don't know because there is no data on such a thing. But of the stats I've seen, there have been far more cases of people using a firearm to protect their lives and property than there are of people using a firearm to commit a crime.

So, unless there is a compelling reason not to, and in this case I don't believe there is, I always come down on the side of personal freedom, unalienable rights, and the Constitution. When it is my life or the life of my loved one, I don't want the government having the ability to say I cannot protect myself or must wait nine days or two days to do so.

 

[CMike]

The problem is that you may be new to the market because your life is in imminent danger and you need a firearm immediately.

Good grief, how many cases of that do you really think there are? No youtube links please., just tell me do you HONESTLY think that many people are like "oh shit that fucker will kill me tonite if I don't buy a gun now?" No, in most cases those are situations which build up over time and you have plenty of time to go through the legal process. Although as I said with technology I personally think 9 days is too long. 2 days would be plenty.

Too many times.

The 911 call documents a real life case where a woman saved her life because she got a handgun quickly.

There are many examples of where people feel that their lives are threatened and need to get a gun immeditately.

 

[CMike]

Good grief, how many cases of that do you really think there are? No youtube links please., just tell me do you HONESTLY think that many people are like "oh shit that fucker will kill me tonite if I don't buy a gun now?" No, in most cases those are situations which build up over time and you have plenty of time to go through the legal process. Although as I said with technology I personally think 9 days is too long. 2 days would be plenty.

How many cases of that would be necessary to justify ability to buy a hand gun? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? One?

In your own words, if it would save one life, it would be worth it.

Yes it would be, but on the other hand lives are undoubtedly also saved by not allowing immediate handgun sales. So it becomes a balancing act. I don't know which way saves more lives. If you're honest, you will admit that you don't either.

I side with individual liberty. The ability and right of the honest citizen to exercise their 2nd Amendment right immediately, not when liberals determine that they can exercise their right.

 

[CMike]

Oh, I definately agree that the technology has probably outpaced this law. I mean we live in a day where I can go to to the bank website of my choice and borrow $50K in a manner of minutes without so much as saying boo to an actual person. There is no reason why a gun check couldn't be done instantaneously as well.

My preference would be for a tiered system

If you're a known quantity, meaning in the system as having bought guns in the past clean record etc etc etc you should have immediate access

If you're relatively new to the market, and maybe there might be some questions as to your intent, you wait the 9 days

and then of course those that should be denied period

and obviously a person can move up and down the tiers as their behavior dictates

I don't want even the first time gun buyer to have unnecessary restrictions just because 'he might' have something illegal in mind. If he has a clean record, which a background check would show, there is no reason he should not be able to purchase a gun to protect himself whenever he chooses to do that.

Right now we don't own a handgun. There is no record anywhere of either of us ever having owned a gun, though we do have a rifle in the house. (And a Red Ryder BB gun but that's another story. Christmas Story actually.) We have had no criminal charges, much less convictions, on our record at least any more serious than a traffic ticket.

We have been giving serious thought to replacing the handgun we gave away years ago. And if we should feel particularly threatened we would want the right and ability to do so immediately.

At the point you start giving it serious though you get your ass down to the gun store and start the process instead of sitting at home for 2 weeks bitching that you should be able to buy a gun now dammit. How difficult is that?

She said "it would be because I feared for my life, safety, or that of loved ones. And I wouldn't want to have to wait nine days to get one."

A threat to her life can come immediately without warning.

 

[ConHog]

How many cases of that would be necessary to justify ability to buy a hand gun? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? One?

In your own words, if it would save one life, it would be worth it.

Yes it would be, but on the other hand lives are undoubtedly also saved by not allowing immediate handgun sales. So it becomes a balancing act. I don't know which way saves more lives. If you're honest, you will admit that you don't either.

No, I don't know because there is no data on such a thing. But of the stats I've seen, there have been far more cases of people using a firearm to protect their lives and property than there are of people using a firearm to commit a crime.

So, unless there is a compelling reason not to, and in this case I don't believe there is, I always come down on the side of personal freedom, unalienable rights, and the Constitution. When it is my life or the life of my loved one, I don't want the government having the ability to say I cannot protect myself or must wait nine days or two days to do so.

I in noway believe that there are more cases of handguns being used for self protection than cases of handguns being used for crimes in the is nation. Not for one minute.

The real truth is 90% of handgun, and other gun , owners are like me, and I'm sure yourself. We buy them because we enjoy them, not because we feel like our lives are in danger. Honestly this whole argument is a bit a of a red herring on either side. Not even the craziest person denies there should be a back ground check, we just are discussing time; and I submit that perhaps a background check can't be adequately performed instantaneously even with today's technology.

 

[steeliniraq]

I intend to, ordered a new handgun just today in fact.

Does it make up for your tiny penis and lack of real dignity?

What does a gun have to do with penis size, and more importantly why are fixated on the size of my junk?

Because they can't put forth a good reason so they will make fun of your penis. You know because that is educated and mature.

 

[CMike]

The difference is criminals don't get their guns legally usually.

The restrictions affect the law abiding citizens.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes it would be, but on the other hand lives are undoubtedly also saved by not allowing immediate handgun sales. So it becomes a balancing act. I don't know which way saves more lives. If you're honest, you will admit that you don't either.

No, I don't know because there is no data on such a thing. But of the stats I've seen, there have been far more cases of people using a firearm to protect their lives and property than there are of people using a firearm to commit a crime.

So, unless there is a compelling reason not to, and in this case I don't believe there is, I always come down on the side of personal freedom, unalienable rights, and the Constitution. When it is my life or the life of my loved one, I don't want the government having the ability to say I cannot protect myself or must wait nine days or two days to do so.

I in noway believe that there are more cases of handguns being used for self protection than cases of handguns being used for crimes in the is nation. Not for one minute.

The real truth is 90% of handgun, and other gun , owners are like me, and I'm sure yourself. We buy them because we enjoy them, not because we feel like our lives are in danger. Honestly this whole argument is a bit a of a red herring on either side. Not even the craziest person denies there should be a back ground check, we just are discussing time; and I submit that perhaps a background check can't be adequately performed instantaneously even with today's technology.

Using the rawest data, anybody in the world knows that you are far more likely to inadvertently kill somebody with the automobile you're driving than you are likely to commit a crime, much less kill somebody, with a firearm. And a great many crimes in the USA involve use of an automobile. Yet there is no background check of any kind required to buy a car if you have the cash in hand. Or bomb making materials, dynamite, or other dangerous substances. You have to sign for some of that stuff when you buy it, and I don't have a problem with that.

So why do you folks fear guns so much more than you fear automobiles and other stuff more commonly used to commit crimes?

You said yourself that if I go to the bank for a loan, they can check my entire credit history within minutes. There is no reason in the world that a law enforcement officers or gun dealer should not have the same capability to check a person's residency status and criminal background within minutes. Right now, a highway patrolman can make a quick call and know whether you have a rap sheet, any outstanding warrants, and/or any traffic violations before he finishes writing your speeding ticket.

And this which correlates with other data I've seen that I'm too lazy to look up this morning:

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004)

Conversely, the accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC.

Most non crime related gun deaths are suicides accounting for something just over 50% of all such gun deaths the last time I looked. But somebody intent on killing himself/heself is generally going to find a way to do that.

The vast majority of all gun crime, including deaths, are committed by criminals who are going to get those guns and aren't going to bother signing them out at a gun shop and waiting for nine days to pick it up. And the vast majority of those gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals--gang activity, drug cartels, and such.

 

[ConHog]

No, I don't know because there is no data on such a thing. But of the stats I've seen, there have been far more cases of people using a firearm to protect their lives and property than there are of people using a firearm to commit a crime.

So, unless there is a compelling reason not to, and in this case I don't believe there is, I always come down on the side of personal freedom, unalienable rights, and the Constitution. When it is my life or the life of my loved one, I don't want the government having the ability to say I cannot protect myself or must wait nine days or two days to do so.

I in noway believe that there are more cases of handguns being used for self protection than cases of handguns being used for crimes in the is nation. Not for one minute.

The real truth is 90% of handgun, and other gun , owners are like me, and I'm sure yourself. We buy them because we enjoy them, not because we feel like our lives are in danger. Honestly this whole argument is a bit a of a red herring on either side. Not even the craziest person denies there should be a back ground check, we just are discussing time; and I submit that perhaps a background check can't be adequately performed instantaneously even with today's technology.

Using the rawest data, anybody in the world knows that you are far more likely to inadvertently kill somebody with the automobile you're driving than you are likely to commit a crime, much less kill somebody, with a firearm. And a great many crimes in the USA involve use of an automobile. Yet there is no background check of any kind required to buy a car if you have the cash in hand. Or bomb making materials, dynamite, or other dangerous substances. You have to sign for some of that stuff when you buy it, and I don't have a problem with that.

So why do you folks fear guns so much more than you fear automobiles and other stuff more commonly used to commit crimes?

You said yourself that if I go to the bank for a loan, they can check my entire credit history within minutes. There is no reason in the world that a law enforcement officers or gun dealer should not have the same capability to check a person's residency status and criminal background within minutes. Right now, a highway patrolman can make a quick call and know whether you have a rap sheet, any outstanding warrants, and/or any traffic violations before he finishes writing your speeding ticket.

And this which correlates with other data I've seen that I'm too lazy to look up this morning:

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004)

Conversely, the accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC.

Most non crime related gun deaths are suicides accounting for something just over 50% of all such gun deaths the last time I looked. But somebody intent on killing himself/heself is generally going to find a way to do that.

The vast majority of all gun crime, including deaths, are committed by criminals who are going to get those guns and aren't going to bother signing them out at a gun shop and waiting for nine days to pick it up. And the vast majority of those gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals--gang activity, drug cartels, and such.

You assume I fear guns? LOL - I'm carer military and own an arsenal. I would fight to defend your right to own a gun . That doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window and allowing anyone to buy anything they want whenever they want to buy it.

Automobile deaths are a red herring here. Outside of a few nutcases no one uses an automobile as a weapon, and certainly they couldn't be classified as self defense weapons (although I suppose getting in your car and hauling ass is a pretty good self defense technique.)

Would you agree or disagree that there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns?

 

[Foxfyre]

You assume I fear guns? LOL - I'm carer military and own an arsenal. I would fight to defend your right to own a gun . That doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window and allowing anyone to buy anything they want whenever they want to buy it.

Automobile deaths are a red herring here. Outside of a few nutcases no one uses an automobile as a weapon, and certainly they couldn't be classified as self defense weapons (although I suppose getting in your car and hauling ass is a pretty good self defense technique.)

Would you agree or disagree that there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns?

I should have clarified that you fear guns in the hands of other people rather than fear guns themselves. If you agree that both automobiles and guns can be used criminally and irresponsibly and agree that the results of that can be deadly, to say that guns should be more regulated than automobiles is to admit that you fear guns more.

I definitely agree there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns. And the vast majority of them acquired them through avenues that did not require a background check.

I am not opposed to a background check and in fact think one should be required for all firearms, not just handguns, but I do not want a law abiding U.S. citizen denied the right to buy a gun for personal protection (or whatever other legal purpose he wishes) any more than I want a law abiding U.S. citizen to be denied the right to buy a car that he needs that same day. Yes, run a background check before the sale is rung up just to be sure the person isn't on a list that makes possession of a firearm illegal.

But again, I'm not on any such list. And if I need a gun today, I don't want to have to wait nine days or two days to buy one.

 

[ConHog]

You assume I fear guns? LOL - I'm carer military and own an arsenal. I would fight to defend your right to own a gun . That doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window and allowing anyone to buy anything they want whenever they want to buy it.

Automobile deaths are a red herring here. Outside of a few nutcases no one uses an automobile as a weapon, and certainly they couldn't be classified as self defense weapons (although I suppose getting in your car and hauling ass is a pretty good self defense technique.)

Would you agree or disagree that there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns?

I should have clarified that you fear guns in the hands of other people rather than fear guns themselves. If you agree that both automobiles and guns can be used criminally and irresponsibly and agree that the results of that can be deadly, to say that guns should be more regulated than automobiles is to admit that you fear guns more.

I definitely agree there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns. And the vast majority of them acquired them through avenues that did not require a background check.

I am not opposed to a background check and in fact think one should be required for all firearms, not just handguns, but I do not want a law abiding U.S. citizen denied the right to buy a gun for personal protection (or whatever other legal purpose he wishes) any more than I want a law abiding U.S. citizen to be denied the right to buy a car that he needs that same day. Yes, run a background check before the sale is rung up just to be sure the person isn't on a list that makes possession of a firearm illegal.

But again, I'm not on any such list. And if I need a gun today, I don't want to have to wait nine days or two days to buy one.

You are more than likely correct about that, HOWEVER those weapons had to have reached the market somehow and at SOME point went from being owned for a legitimate purpose to being owned for one less so.

Again we're agreed, 9 days is too long and is a leftover from the days before the internet. But even the most basic of FBI background checks will still be overnight at best. Wouldn't you agree that they are the ones who should be running things? Which is why I prefer a tiered system. If you are on the correct list a simple check with your local police dept and you get your weapon right away. If you're not you have to go through the FBI background check.

I had to go through a background check for my job in the Guard, and it took 3 months to complete, of course it was much more thorough than we're talking here, but it's all relative.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. A close family member has had what is probably a high level security clearance--she of course can't discuss that--and has worked for the DOD for years with no blemishes of any kind on her record. Still to move to a different department she had to jump through a bunch more hoops and get more clearances. Took the government almost six months to complete that. Count your lucky stars you got it done in only three months. There are folks here in Albuquerque who have been waiting for a simple Q clearance for a year now.

But I do not want the FBI or any other federal agency clearing me for anything that I have a Constitutionally protected right to own. If I am mentally incompetent or have forfeited my rights to own a gun via illegal activity, then by all means put my name on a master no gun list that can be accessed within minutes by law enforcement personnel or a gun dealer. If my name isn't there and I have verified that I am who I say I am, I live where I say I live, and I am a U.S. citizen, then I should be able to walk into any store, buy a gun, and walk out within minutes.

 

[HUGGY]

The difference is criminals don't get their guns legally usually.

The restrictions affect the law abiding citizens.

Well..duh. The answer is obvious. Pass a law making it illegal for guns to be obtained illegally!

 

[CMike]

I bought a shotgun, and a background check was done in minutes. I got the shotgun before I left the store.

BTW I passed.

 

[CMike]

I in noway believe that there are more cases of handguns being used for self protection than cases of handguns being used for crimes in the is nation. Not for one minute.

The real truth is 90% of handgun, and other gun , owners are like me, and I'm sure yourself. We buy them because we enjoy them, not because we feel like our lives are in danger. Honestly this whole argument is a bit a of a red herring on either side. Not even the craziest person denies there should be a back ground check, we just are discussing time; and I submit that perhaps a background check can't be adequately performed instantaneously even with today's technology.

Using the rawest data, anybody in the world knows that you are far more likely to inadvertently kill somebody with the automobile you're driving than you are likely to commit a crime, much less kill somebody, with a firearm. And a great many crimes in the USA involve use of an automobile. Yet there is no background check of any kind required to buy a car if you have the cash in hand. Or bomb making materials, dynamite, or other dangerous substances. You have to sign for some of that stuff when you buy it, and I don't have a problem with that.

So why do you folks fear guns so much more than you fear automobiles and other stuff more commonly used to commit crimes?

You said yourself that if I go to the bank for a loan, they can check my entire credit history within minutes. There is no reason in the world that a law enforcement officers or gun dealer should not have the same capability to check a person's residency status and criminal background within minutes. Right now, a highway patrolman can make a quick call and know whether you have a rap sheet, any outstanding warrants, and/or any traffic violations before he finishes writing your speeding ticket.

And this which correlates with other data I've seen that I'm too lazy to look up this morning:

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004)

Conversely, the accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC.

Most non crime related gun deaths are suicides accounting for something just over 50% of all such gun deaths the last time I looked. But somebody intent on killing himself/heself is generally going to find a way to do that.

The vast majority of all gun crime, including deaths, are committed by criminals who are going to get those guns and aren't going to bother signing them out at a gun shop and waiting for nine days to pick it up. And the vast majority of those gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals--gang activity, drug cartels, and such.

You assume I fear guns? LOL - I'm carer military and own an arsenal. I would fight to defend your right to own a gun . That doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window and allowing anyone to buy anything they want whenever they want to buy it.

Automobile deaths are a red herring here. Outside of a few nutcases no one uses an automobile as a weapon, and certainly they couldn't be classified as self defense weapons (although I suppose getting in your car and hauling ass is a pretty good self defense technique.)

Would you agree or disagree that there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns?

There are people who own cars leagally who have no business owning cars.

That doesn't mean that you make it more difficult to own a car for the vast majority.

 

[ConHog]

Using the rawest data, anybody in the world knows that you are far more likely to inadvertently kill somebody with the automobile you're driving than you are likely to commit a crime, much less kill somebody, with a firearm. And a great many crimes in the USA involve use of an automobile. Yet there is no background check of any kind required to buy a car if you have the cash in hand. Or bomb making materials, dynamite, or other dangerous substances. You have to sign for some of that stuff when you buy it, and I don't have a problem with that.

So why do you folks fear guns so much more than you fear automobiles and other stuff more commonly used to commit crimes?

You said yourself that if I go to the bank for a loan, they can check my entire credit history within minutes. There is no reason in the world that a law enforcement officers or gun dealer should not have the same capability to check a person's residency status and criminal background within minutes. Right now, a highway patrolman can make a quick call and know whether you have a rap sheet, any outstanding warrants, and/or any traffic violations before he finishes writing your speeding ticket.

And this which correlates with other data I've seen that I'm too lazy to look up this morning:



Conversely, the accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC.

Most non crime related gun deaths are suicides accounting for something just over 50% of all such gun deaths the last time I looked. But somebody intent on killing himself/heself is generally going to find a way to do that.

The vast majority of all gun crime, including deaths, are committed by criminals who are going to get those guns and aren't going to bother signing them out at a gun shop and waiting for nine days to pick it up. And the vast majority of those gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals--gang activity, drug cartels, and such.

You assume I fear guns? LOL - I'm carer military and own an arsenal. I would fight to defend your right to own a gun . That doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window and allowing anyone to buy anything they want whenever they want to buy it.

Automobile deaths are a red herring here. Outside of a few nutcases no one uses an automobile as a weapon, and certainly they couldn't be classified as self defense weapons (although I suppose getting in your car and hauling ass is a pretty good self defense technique.)

Would you agree or disagree that there are people who have guns in this country who have no business owning guns?

There are people who own cars leagally who have no business owning cars.

That doesn't mean that you make it more difficult to own a car for the vast majority.

Strawman - if you want to have a debate on better control over morons owning cars, start a thread, would be interesting, but has NOTHING to do with this issue.