Universal background checks... really?

[HappyJoy]

He did legally avoid a background check.

No. He didn't. He failed the background check required by law.
It is impossible for him to legally avoid the background checks required by law.

A background check was not legally required in the sale...

Correct. This is not a loophole, this is a lacunae or non liquet
Non liquet - Wikipedia

You people are -wholly- ignorant of virtually everything you discuss - it amazes me that you remember to breathe.

Right, the law needs to be changed because his own status as someone who should not own a firearm was not caught in the private sale. It's called a loophole.

 

[HappyJoy]

I didn't make a concession...

You did - you conceded that you cannot demonstrate the necessity for background checks.
When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I already did.

This is, of course, a lie.
When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

7 people were killed by a shooter who failed the background check system yet was able to circumvent the system by buying from a private seller. Says it all. Your only non-response has basically been "nuh-uh" (paraphrasing).

When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know

Do you think Seth Ator should have been able to buy the gun?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Fact:
This does nothing to demonstrate the necessity of background checks.

Another person who does not know what a fact is.

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's called a loophole.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You did - you conceded that you cannot demonstrate the necessity for background checks.
When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I already did.

This is, of course, a lie.
When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

7 people were killed by a shooter who failed the background check system yet was able to circumvent the system by buying from a private seller. Says it all. Your only non-response has basically been "nuh-uh" (paraphrasing).

When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know

Do you think Seth Ator should have been able to buy the gun?

When you think you -can- demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know

 

[HappyJoy]

Another person who does not know what a fact is.

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

Would he have known how? Would he have been capable of even doing so? He seemed to be kind of a mess.

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

 

[HappyJoy]

It's called a loophole.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not and I even provided a right of center source to back me up on that. What do you got? Oh, that's right, nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's called a loophole.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

Would he have known how? Would he have been capable of even doing so? He seemed to be kind of a mess.

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

If you are not too stupid to know how to buy illegal drugs you would be able to buy illegal firearms. The fact is, everytime we ban something for which there is a high demand, we create a new criminal subculture that supplies the need. If he were smart enough to be able to buy grass, he was smart enough to be able to buy a gun illegally.

 

[HappyJoy]

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well and is used to you know...stop murder from taking place.

 

[Care4all]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

 

[HappyJoy]

It's called a loophole.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole, we're not in a court of law that uses very specific legal definitions. If that's what you're arguing then maybe go to law school first however the term is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well...

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

 

[HappyJoy]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Look forward to hearing this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's called a loophole.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

 

[HappyJoy]

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well...

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Before the murder takes place. Before someone who fails a background check gets a gun. Both are preventative.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's called a loophole.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

Loophole:
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

If someone who failed a background check was able to buy a gun from a private seller where the transaction did not legally require a background check then that would be an inadequacy in the law.

You lose everytime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well...

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Before the murder takes place.

The murder did not take place because of the law, the murder did not take place because the would-be murderer tried but failed.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.