# Background Checks



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

I tried to find the article that is in todays paper, however, it doesn't seem to be online yet, so I posted this one, just for reference.



> President Barack Obama on Wednesday will formally announce the most aggressive and expansive national gun-control agenda in generations as he presses Congress to mandate background checks for all firearm buyers and prohibit assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.The announcement will set off a fierce confrontation with Congress over an issue that has riven American society for decades. Obama's far-reaching firearms agenda has at best tepid support from his party leaders and puts him at odds with Democratic centrists.



Perhaps I missed it in all of the articles that I've read on this matter, or perhaps the reason was never mentioned, but I'm curious...what is the big deal about the background checks?  Now, as I've said before, I'm not anti-gun, however, if it means expanding the checks a bit more, to potentially avoid someone getting access to a gun, that shouldn't, well, wouldn't it make sense to expand the checks?  

Of course, something else that I may've missed is...what exactly does the 'expanded background check' consist of?  Are the people who're against this, thinking that this expansion may infringe in some rights?


----------



## billc (May 13, 2013)

The primary problem is that some officials have already stated that for a "universal," background check to work, they would need a registry of firearms that they could follow them for the purposes of the checks.  Also, these checks would mean if you wanted to give your son your weapon, pass it down to him, you would have to take it to a registered firearms dealer to have the background check done...at the cost of several hundred dollars.  Also, for the purposes of determining if that weapon was a legally owned weapon, you would have to present proof of ownership, which in some cases would be impossible because some weapons were bought years ago and reciepts probably weren't kept.  You could no longer loan people a weapon without first getting a background check, for example, your sister is afraid her ex-boyfriend is stalking her...she would have to have a background check before you could loan her any of your weapons.  Those are some of the immediate concerns about "universal," background checks.  Too many times these "common sense," measures are merely means to limit gun access by making it more complicated and more expensive to get weapons.  For example, Tom Dart, Cook County Sherrif, wants to charge 300 dollars to do background checks in the city of Chicago...if you have limited means, that is a lot of money.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/18/Universal-Background-Checks-Equal-Universal-Gun-Control




> As David Kopel  so ably put it in his Jan. 30 testimony before the Senate Judiciary  Committee, universal background checks necessitate a gun registry if  they are to be enforceable.
> 
> Put simply, this means that once a universal background state statute  is in place, the government will require you to register every gun you  own--shotguns, rifles, and handguns--so that they can be sure you do not  sell a gun privately.
> Which brings us to our second point: universal background checks will  end private sales, period. No more sales to neighbors, no more sales  between a father and his son or a mother and her daughter. No more sales  between friends.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/universal_background_checks_the_liberal_holy_grail.html




> The  UBC will require any citizen selling their gun to go through their  local FFL dealer. That means: you find someone who wants to purchase  your firearm. Both of you go to a gun store and pay the gun store a  processing fee to do the paperwork on the sale. You leave the firearm at  the gun store and if everything turns out okay, the purchaser comes  back 30 days later and picks up his gun. If everything does not turn out  okay (e.g. if the purchaser has an unpaid parking ticket from 5 years  ago) then the sale does NOT go through. You get your gun back. (Or does  it get held by BATFE for "processing?") But that is only the tip of the  iceberg.
> 
> The  worst part of UBC will be the check on the seller (that's you and me).  In the interest of getting illegal guns off the street, the left will  want to throw in this little addition to the universal background check  scheme: the seller must prove that they legally own the gun they are  seeking to sell. I have a very modest gun collection (the number of guns  just barely breaks into double digits). Half of the guns I have bought  in the last several years, the other half go back to the 1970s and 80s.  For example, I have a .22 my parents gave me for Christmas in 1980. My  folks are long gone and I certainly don't have a bill of sale for the  rifle. Half of my guns fit this mold. I have no proof that I own them.  All the government needs to do is write the law so the seller must  provide proof of ownership (original bill of sale, in your name) and we  are all in trouble. By this UBC law, the .22 my parents gave me 32 years  ago is now an ILLEGAL GUN. What about the Mauser your grandfather  brought back from Germany after WWII? Without a bill of sale, in YOUR  name, that is an illegal gun. Under this law, every firearm that goes  through probate could be considered illegal. When you die, you cannot  leave your firearms to your family -- they would be considered illegal  and be confiscated.


----------



## jks9199 (May 13, 2013)

Great point, MJS.  What is a "background check?"  Within the government, there exists a wide range of actions defined as background checks.  Some are simply running someone's name and vitals, maybe not even fingerprints (more on them momentarily) against the various databases to see if there are any hits.  Others add in-depth interviews, verification of multiple page personal history statements by actually going out and confirming the info, interviews with current and past neighbors and coworkers, and even polygraphs.  Let's be real: I doubt anything proposed will include any actual investigation or interviews except at the dealer.  There's simply not enough investigative infrastructure to do a true background investigation on every registered gun sale (private sales are even more of a problem; can you prevent me from selling my gun to someone on my own?  How?).  So... it'll be database checking.  

How good is database checking?  Only as good as the data you put in.  I always get a laugh out of the TV detectives who always get fingerprint hits.  Guess what?  If you haven't been fingerprinted before, you're not in a database.  Even if you have -- you may not be.  Lots of applicant and/or elimination fingerprints are simply compared against the records, not added to the files.  (There are privacy concerns here...)  Even if they are added, those files are sometimes restricted for access because there's a good argument that simply applying for something shouldn't make you subject to criminal investigation hits.  Police databases of criminal activity only include those crooks we've caught...  If you weren't caught, or the data wasn't reported (often currently the case with mental health information), we can check the database all day long.  We won't find you.  

So, let's go totally 1984/Big Brother on this.  Let's fingerprint everyone at about age 5 or 6, and then every year thereafter.  All medical history gets logged and reported to a centralized database.  Great.  We're still only gonna know about what's reported.  The database is only as good as what goes in... and, for some reason, people don't always seek help with mental health issues, especially.  Maybe we should take things a step further, and mandate annual mental health exams for everyone, with a secondary exam to purchase a gun?  And put RFID chips in all guns manufactured that are checked every time you go near toll booths, police stations, maybe even every red light on the road?  Those tags are then compared with the registered owner's RFID (might as well give 'em one if they pass that psych eval...) as an authorized gun possessor and they'd better be in reasonable proximity, or the gun control cops come knocking to see why...  Kinda scary where this starts to lead, huh?

And it still will miss illegal guns (I can make a very effective zip gun for less than 10 bucks... and I'm nothin' special as a gunsmith.) and "under the table" transfers.  It'll miss older guns.   

I don't have a problem with cleaning up the current sieve-like structure of the database checks by establishing clear reporting and entry requirements and holding people accountable for making the entries, and making it clear who gets access.  I don't have a problem, provided we provide a reasonable structure to do it, with requiring a background check like that at gun shows and similar large scale set ups where there would otherwise be lots of "private" transfers.  But I want to be reasonable about it, too.  It's already kind of scary what I can officially find out through various police intelligence/information sharing programs.  Or through public records sources...


----------



## billc (May 13, 2013)

Keep in mind...background checks only work on law abiding citizens.  Criminals won't use them so they won't have a problem with getting around them.  The only people who will be affected by background checks will be people who haven't comitted a crime.  Sandy Hook, he murdered his mother to circumvent the background check.  The movie theater, he didn't have a criminal record...until he walked in with his legally purchased guns and started killing people.  Columbine...not old enough to own the guns, stole them.   Background checks won't stop crime, they won't stop mass shootings.  The are either feel good measures, or are back door means to make legally getting firearms more difficult for law abiding citizens.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2013)

well, here's an honest question:  Given that it is illegal for certain people to be in possession of a firearm, such as convicted felons and whatnot, what steps are reasonable to ensure those people don't get access?  

Is it reasonable to just expect those people to not attempt to acquire firearms?  Is it reasonable to expect them to abide by that restriction on their status?  It's often said, the criminals don't follow the law.  So why would anyone expect them to simply not attempt to get a firearm?  I don't see that as reasonable, I don't believe that convicted felons, as a whole, will simply never try to get a gun.

Or is there a responsibility for someone who is selling or passing on ownership of a firearm to take reasonable steps to make sure they are not selling or passing on possession or ownership of a firearm to someone with a restricted status?  If this is a reasonable expectation, then how do we accomplish it?  Removing the loopholes in background checks seems to me to be a step in that direction, especially with the strawman purchases where people intend to re-sell to others.  If strawman purchasers can be held accountable, it gives law enforcement another tool to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them, and makes it more difficult for strawman purchasers to get those weapons in the first place.

So what steps are reasonable to ensure that people with restricted status do not acquire firearms?  And I realize that no method will be perfect, but I'm willing to see reasonable steps implemented.  The fact that no method will be perfect is not an excuse to do nothing.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

I completely agree that our system for background checks needs a change. But the changes needed are not what they are proposing.

1. Background checks should not cost the citizen half the cost of the gun. In Texas the check is practically free. And takes less than an hour.

2. We should NOT impose extra restrictions that do nothing to stop crime. As Bill pointed out, it does nothing to deter crime of any type.

3. What SHOULD be done is an effort to keep better records of a citizen's criminal history. Any violent crime are needed in a database for these checks. It's already there, and should pop up within minutes of running someone's name and social. So why should a background check take more than a few minutes? It is stupid, and there is no excuse.

The problem is that it seems less about background checks, which are already run on weapon purchases, and more about registry. But how does a registry stop any crime? If someone is going to do a mass shooting, why does it matter if the guns are registered. These people aren't going to care.
What stops theft of a gun or several guns and them being used in crime? And don't say gun safes. It is very simple to steal the safe and break the lock. Given a short period of time you can break just about any safe. And I know that personally I don't have, and refuse to accept need of a safe costing several thousand dollars.

The point is that there is nothing proposed that stops or helps the problems they are claiming it addresses. So we, as law abiding freedom loving American gun owners, oppose it on these grounds. But then we are portrayed as crazy. We are accused of being uncaring or unsympathetic to the suffering of the families of the victims in these horrible acts. When the truth is, it sickens me to see these things happen. And it angers me that instead of actually talking about things that might help, our government is using it to push an agenda that solves no problems for reasons I don't even want to think of. I hope that these people are honestly just dumb enough to believe their own propaganda, it's better than contemplating what other motives could drive them.

So yes, I do think things could be done. Yes I think that they should be done. But no, this is not one of them. And thanks to the propaganda, most people are in such fear and misled so much that they have only made things worse.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I completely agree that our system for background checks needs a change. But the changes needed are not what they are proposing.
> 
> 1. Background checks should not cost the citizen half the cost of the gun. In Texas the check is practically free. And takes less than an hour.



I agree.  Here in California, I don't know what they cost but I believe it is not onerous.



> 2. We should NOT impose extra restrictions that do nothing to stop crime. As Bill pointed out, it does nothing to deter crime of any type.



I agree with the first part: restrictions that do nothing to stop (or reduce) crime should not be added.  

I completely disagree with the second part: the proposed restrictions absolutely could stop some crimes, or at the least reduce their severity.  Making it more difficult for criminals to get firearms and high capacity magazines may stop some crimes, and may reduce the severity of other crimes.  Any time someone has to stop and reload, it gives people who might otherwise get shot, a chance to get clear.  Pretending otherwise is delusional.



> 3. What SHOULD be done is an effort to keep better records of a citizen's criminal history. Any violent crime are needed in a database for these checks. It's already there, and should pop up within minutes of running someone's name and social. So why should a background check take more than a few minutes? It is stupid, and there is no excuse.



I agree with this.



> The problem is that it seems less about background checks, which are already run on weapon purchases, and more about registry.



I am not at all convinced of this.  This is a talking point of the NRA and I do not believe it is based in fact.  

You say that background checks are already done on weapons purchases, but that is only partially true.  While SOME background checks are already done, there are huge loopholes that severely undermine the whole notion of the background check.  The gunshow and strawman purchases and private sales that do not require a background check make it very very easy to circumvent the whole issue.  That's what makes it ineffective.  That is what makes it very easy for criminals to get firearms.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> well, here's an honest question:  Given that it is illegal for certain people to be in possession of a firearm, such as convicted felons and whatnot, what steps are reasonable to ensure those people don't get access?
> 
> Is it reasonable to just expect those people to not attempt to acquire firearms?  Is it reasonable to expect them to abide by that restriction on their status?  It's often said, the criminals don't follow the law.  So why would anyone expect them to simply not attempt to get a firearm?  I don't see that as reasonable, I don't believe that convicted felons, as a whole, will simply never try to get a gun.
> 
> ...



I can see your point. But what stops a person from reporting a gun stolen after selling a registered weapon? The serial numbers on illegal weapons are most often removed. And in states with registry of firearms, it hasn't stopped these actions.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I can see your point. But what stops a person from reporting a gun stolen after selling a registered weapon? The serial numbers on illegal weapons are most often removed. And in states with registry of firearms, it hasn't stopped these actions.



as I said, I understand that nothing is perfect.  But that's not an excuse to do nothing.  Throwing up our collective hands and saying, "well there's just nothing we can do about this, so let's just do nothing about it," that's just silly and completely untrue.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> as I said, I understand that nothing is perfect.  But that's not an excuse to do nothing.  Throwing up our collective hands and saying, "well there's just nothing we can do about this, so let's just do nothing about it," that's just silly and completely untrue.



Well, I completely agree that doing nothing is unacceptable. And while I do not agree with some things the NRA says, and I dislike most of the idiots that the NRA chooses as spokesmen for their cause... I also think that propaganda and idiocy goes both ways. The majority of people that are gun owners believe that measures can and should be taken. We just disagree with proposed action. And we can back this with logic. But that is translated as "They believe we should do nothing" which is completely untrue in most cases.

I hear so many people talk about loopholes. And that is true in some instances that it is being exploited. However, I must ask how many weapons you have purchased? How many from gun shows? Ask this because I have been to many gun shows. And the majority of sellers there have been licensed dealers. Meaning they must, and do, run a background check.
It is simple to require all people, dealer or private seller, to require a background check to sell a firearm at a gun show. As for pawn shops requiring background checks, well in Texas they ARE required to. And nobody really saw it as a violation of rights. We didn't care much, and most people I know think it's a good idea. The ones that don't are criminals that have no business owning weapons and no right to an opinion on the matter.

As far as restrictions on ownership, or loaning guns to law abiding family etc. to protect them when it is needed is causing more harm than good. Anyone selling a gun illegally will find a loophole to exploit. And unless we put GPS trackers in all guns, which I would be completely against, it doesn't stop much and will mostly hinder law abiding citizens. Not to mention cost us all a lot more money. But perhaps that is the goal? Make it cost more and fewer people can own weapons. And those who do pay large sums of money for every aspect of a right, that is quickly becoming a privelage given to a few. The few that can pay.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Well, I completely agree that doing nothing is unacceptable. And while I do not agree with some things the NRA says, and I dislike most of the idiots that the NRA chooses as spokesmen for their cause... I also think that propaganda and idiocy goes both ways. The majority of people that are gun owners believe that measures can and should be taken. We just disagree with proposed action. And we can back this with logic. But that is translated as "They believe we should do nothing" which is completely untrue in most cases.
> 
> I hear so many people talk about loopholes. And that is true in some instances that it is being exploited. However, I must ask how many weapons you have purchased? How many from gun shows? Ask this because I have been to many gun shows. And the majority of sellers there have been licensed dealers. Meaning they must, and do, run a background check.
> It is simple to require all people, dealer or private seller, to require a background check to sell a firearm at a gun show. As for pawn shops requiring background checks, well in Texas they ARE required to. And nobody really saw it as a violation of rights. We didn't care much, and most people I know think it's a good idea. The ones that don't are criminals that have no business owning weapons and no right to an opinion on the matter.
> ...



I think you and I actually have a lot to agree on here.  I grew up with guns and hunting with my dad but I don't currently own any.  I've been considering for some months making a purchase and actually may initiate that this weekend.  Looking for probably either .308 Winchester or .30-06, in a bolt action.  I like a manly cartridge, but that's just me.  Here in California I know a background check is required thru a dealer (which is where I will make the purchase, tho I don't know if that is true at a gun show or between private citizens) and I have absolutely no problem submitting to that requirement.  This is followed by a 10 or 11 day (I can't remember which) waiting period and again, I have no problem with that.  CA law limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, and once again I have no problem complying with that.  These are, in my opinion, absolutely reasonable restrictions.  And I will certainly have a gunsafe of some kind that will bolt to the wall to prevent theft.

Loopholes do exist, whether on the Federal or State level.  Closing those loopholes would be a step in the right direction.  It won't completely solve the problem of crime.  Some criminals will still find ways to acquire weapons.  But not all criminals or potential criminals have the connections to do so, if those loopholes were closed.  Not all of them have access to underground networks to get things on the black market.  Some perhaps do, but not all.  So I absolutely reject the notion that this would not help to diminish crime and the severity of crime in some cases, and that criminals will always get guns and will always get high capacity magazines anyway.  I absolutely reject those notions.

I believe there are some statements that the NRA likes to make in the belief that if they scream it often enough and loudly enough, everyone will believe it.  Stating that these kinds of restrictions would not deter or reduce crime is one of these.  Stating that a background check is really meant to create a registry of ownership is another of these.

The specifics of how these restrictions might be reasonably applied may require some debate.  But pretending that they would have no positive benefit with regard to crime reduction, and would simply be a burden on law-abiding citizens, well that's just not true, that's an NRA fantasy.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> I think you and I actually have a lot to agree on here.  I grew up with guns and hunting with my dad but I don't currently own any.  I've been considering for some months making a purchase and actually may initiate that this weekend.  Looking for probably either .308 Winchester or .30-06, in a bolt action.  I like a manly cartridge, but that's just me.  Here in California I know a background check is required thru a dealer (which is where I will make the purchase, tho I don't know if that is true at a gun show or between private citizens) and I have absolutely no problem submitting to that requirement.  This is followed by a 10 or 11 day (I can't remember which) waiting period and again, I have no problem with that.  CA law limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, and once again I have no problem complying with that.  These are, in my opinion, absolutely reasonable restrictions.  And I will certainly have a gunsafe of some kind that will bolt to the wall to prevent theft.
> 
> Loopholes do exist, whether on the Federal or State level.  Closing those loopholes would be a step in the right direction.  It won't completely solve the problem of crime.  Some criminals will still find ways to acquire weapons.  But not all criminals or potential criminals have the connections to do so, if those loopholes were closed.  Not all of them have access to underground networks to get things on the black market.  Some perhaps do, but not all.  So I absolutely reject the notion that this would not help to diminish crime and the severity of crime in some cases, and that criminals will always get guns and will always get high capacity magazines anyway.  I absolutely reject those notions.
> 
> ...



I think we do agree on a lot of points. But I can see a few we disagree on as well.
The fact is that a limited magazine size doesn't do much good. And causes potential harm if a citizen is forced to defend themselves. I don't care if you have one 30 round mag or 3 ten round mags. Won't change much. And by the time the cops respond the psycho either kills himself, gets put down or surrenders. Reload time isn't very much of an issue when you're shooting unarmed civilians.

Also I don't agree with some of the BS the NRA says. But the registry thing is admitted by the anti gun lobby. As well as other factors the NRA screams. The problem is that they cry wolf so much that it's easy to discredit their whole argument, even the true issues staring us in the face.
Also, I have seen this black market you say criminals have no access to. But if you are in a gang, have a drug dealer, or know people that do or are affiliated with a gang... Well you can get a gun in less than 24 hours. Hell my brother in law did and he isn't a criminal. And we dismantled the guns and turned them over to police, and made a report. Turns out the guns were stolen and had serial numbers filed off. No telling if they were used in violent crimes, and luckily the cops believed the story given and description of the guy he bought them from matched a known drug dealer and felon.
It's seriously not as hard to buy illegal weapons as people believe.

The point of my argument is that they are pushing through these laws, and pushing hard despite obvious opposition by citizens and their representatives. While not exploring better methods. Why don't they take the smaller steps likely to be supported? Make it federal law that sales through gun shows, and pawn shops to require background checks. Private seller or not. They are using a venue to sell their wares,. they must follow that law. But the fact is that many places hosting gun shows require it already. And so do pawn shops. Hell, buying a gun online has to go through a licensed dealer middle man to perform the required background check as well.

But to hear them talk, anyone can walk into any store and buy a gun. Especially in places like Texas, they think we give guns away with every purchase of a six pack of beer.

Truth is, even in a state as relaxed on gun laws as Texas, the restrictions are fairly tough and fair as well. For example if you have a concealed carry permit, you can be arrested for having any alcohol in your system while carrying. If you are convicted of even a misdemeanor, you have your license suspended for like 2 or more years. If you have 2 public intoxications in a year or 2, can't remember which, same suspension.
And background checks everywhere.

The propaganda machine works both ways. I suggest doing more research and not buying into either side. Things can be done. But they aren't willing to do them. They just keep pushing to get their way, and victims of these shootings to do it. It is dispicable.
Also note that gun crime is falling as it is. That is reported from FBI and CDC sources and has been posted in other threads. And cops overwhelmingly are against these laws proposed. And these are people that know gun crime.

Just food for thought. I can see your argument, and I know where you are coming from. A little over a year ago I would have been right there with you. Not long before that I was as anti gun as Arnisador. But after research and long nights of debating both positions my mind was changed. It's not that guns don't add danger, but more that the real problems are being ignored.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> The fact is that a limited magazine size doesn't do much good. And causes potential harm if a citizen is forced to defend themselves. I don't care if you have one 30 round mag or 3 ten round mags. Won't change much. And by the time the cops respond the psycho either kills himself, gets put down or surrenders. Reload time isn't very much of an issue when you're shooting unarmed civilians.



this is simply not true.  Case in point: Newtown CT.  When he stopped to reload, about 10 or so student were able to run out and escape.  That happened while he was reloading, as reported by the survivors.  If he had had to reload more frequently because he was carrying lower capacity magazines, quite possibly far fewer students and teachers would have been killed.



> Also I don't agree with some of the BS the NRA says. But the registry thing is admitted by the anti gun lobby. As well as other factors the NRA screams. The problem is that they cry wolf so much that it's easy to discredit their whole argument, even the true issues staring us in the face.



well, we have a gun lobby (NRA) and we have an anti-gun lobby.  While they can both give their input on the topic, neither should be dictating the laws.  If some are trying to create a national registry and that is not appropriate, then that is a separate issue from having a universal background check.



> Also, I have seen this black market you say criminals have no access to. But if you are in a gang, have a drug dealer, or know people that do or are affiliated with a gang... Well you can get a gun in less than 24 hours. Hell my brother in law did and he isn't a criminal. And we dismantled the guns and turned them over to police, and made a report. Turns out the guns were stolen and had serial numbers filed off. No telling if they were used in violent crimes, and luckily the cops believed the story given and description of the guy he bought them from matched a known drug dealer and felon.
> It's seriously not as hard to buy illegal weapons as people believe.



For every example there is an example to the other side.  Case in point again: Newtown CT.  All the guns he used were legally purchased by his mother.  If the laws had not allowed for high capacity magazines, it's unlikely that his mother would have sought them out on the black market.  As I stated earlier, some criminals will still find access, I don't deny it.  But others will not.  The shooter in CT would have had lower capacity magazines and, due to the need to stop and reload more often, casualties would very likely have been lower.

There's always talk in these discussions about criminals getting whatever they want thru the black market.  The thing is, most of these mass-shootings, like Newtown, and the movie theater in Colorado, were not done by career criminals.  These people had no criminal records.  They used weapons and magazines that were all legally purchased.  So some criminals may still have ways to get things, but it will be tightened up and more difficult, and those mass-shootings done by previous non-criminals, just might not happen so much, or the outcome might be less catastrophic.



> The point of my argument is that they are pushing through these laws, and pushing hard despite obvious opposition by citizens and their representatives.



except that 90% of citizens, including a majority of gun owners and NRA members support universal background checks.  And yet it hasn't passed.  So who is pushing thru the laws in the teeth of heavy opposition?  I don't see it happening.  I see laws being blocked inspite of heavy support by the public.



> Make it federal law that sales through gun shows, and pawn shops to require background checks. Private seller or not. They are using a venue to sell their wares,. they must follow that law.



I believe that is exactly what they are trying to do.  So where's the disagreement?



> But the fact is that many places hosting gun shows require it already. And so do pawn shops. Hell, buying a gun online has to go through a licensed dealer middle man to perform the required background check as well.
> 
> Truth is, even in a state as relaxed on gun laws as Texas, the restrictions are fairly tough and fair as well. For example if you have a concealed carry permit, you can be arrested for having any alcohol in your system while carrying. If you are convicted of even a misdemeanor, you have your license suspended for like 2 or more years. If you have 2 public intoxications in a year or 2, can't remember which, same suspension.
> And background checks everywhere.



all good sounding stuff to me.



> The propaganda machine works both ways. I suggest doing more research and not buying into either side. Things can be done. But they aren't willing to do them. They just keep pushing to get their way, and victims of these shootings to do it. It is dispicable.



aye, and the NRA is a propaganda machine all on its own.  They are the ones not willing to allow anything to happen.  They won't even have a discussion about it, they just scream NO NO NO no mattery what.  What will happen is, if a majority decide to push the laws thru inspite of the NRA's efforts, then the NRA really is to blame if the laws are not fair.  When they do nothing but scream NO all the time, people get tired of it, write them off as a bunch of nutjobs, and decide to do it anyway.  And the NRA then has lost its opportunity to have a genuine dialog and make meaningful contribution to the issue.  They've only got themselves to blame for it.



> Just food for thought. I can see your argument, and I know where you are coming from. A little over a year ago I would have been right there with you. Not long before that I was as anti gun as Arnisador. But after research and long nights of debating both positions my mind was changed. It's not that guns don't add danger, but more that the real problems are being ignored.



I appreciate the dialog on it, I'd say so far this has been the most level-headed and reasonable I've seen here.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> this is simply not true.  Case in point: Newtown CT.  When he stopped to reload, about 10 or so student were able to run out and escape.  That happened while he was reloading, as reported by the survivors.  If he had had to reload more frequently because he was carrying lower capacity magazines, quite possibly far fewer students and teachers would have been killed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For every example of horrid acts done by the criminally insane, such as the theater shooting or sandy hook, there are others that go in favor of the higher capacity magazines. Such as the Korean shop owners in riots defending their stores with guns and 30 round magazines. Their stores stood while others didn't. And several of the store owners went ouut of business after because they couldn't afford to rebuild after the riots.
Also, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns to greater effect than the shooters using AR-15s.

I too support background checks. As long as it isn't an insane cost to either consumer or business. And you are right, most do support it. However it is all the small print crap along with the bill that I don't trust or support. I will never support a registry. I will not support limiting magazine size because there are instances that they could be needed by law abiding citizens defending their lives and property.

I agree that the NRA is doing more harm than good when it comes to the argument on guns. And I'm sure people like Piers Morgan do more harm than good for the argument on gun control. They have their crackpot they have to deal with... We have people like Glen Beck. And both sides probably wish they'd both shut up.

As far as intelligent and level headed dialog, well I try to keep it that way. No point in getting too worked up in debate. It lowers your ability to convey your message, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's one of the great freedoms we have.
Not only that, neither of us changes anything on our own. Even a perceived personal victory here means nothing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Not only that, neither of us changes anything on our own. Even a perceived personal victory here means nothing in the grand scheme of things.



aye, that really is what it comes down to here.  So many people dive into the argument as if the outcome here on Martialtalk is going to settle the issue for the nation.  I can't even engage in a discussion with so many of the people here because of it.  In the end, it doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on here on MT.  It won't directly affect the issue on a local or state or national scale.  We are just people having a discussion.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> aye, that really is what it comes down to here.  So many people dive into the argument as if the outcome here on Martialtalk is going to settle the issue for the nation.  I can't even engage in a discussion with so many of the people here because of it.  In the end, it doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on here on MT.  It won't directly affect the issue on a local or state or national scale.  We are just people having a discussion.



Well it starts as discussions and often becomes personal and argumentative. Either way I generally debate for the sake of debate. Often I argue both sides as an exercise in keeping my blind spot small as possible. Not only that, it's a lot of fun and great mental exercise.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> aye, that really is what it comes down to here. So many people dive into the argument as if the outcome here on Martialtalk is going to settle the issue for the nation. I can't even engage in a discussion with so many of the people here because of it. In the end, it doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on here on MT. It won't directly affect the issue on a local or state or national scale. We are just people having a discussion.




* WHAT!!!! *

You mean Obama, Putin, Cameron and Xi dont read MT and decide foreign and domestic policy based on OUR discussions. I mean Putin IS a martial artist and Xi IS in China.....

DAMN!!!! My world doesn't makes sense anymore :uhyeah:


----------



## Big Don (May 13, 2013)

Anyone who moans about "High capacity magazines" is ignorant in the extreme. MANY different pistols come with magazines that have a STANDARD capacity of 15 rounds. Many AR type magazines have a standard capacity of 20 or 30 rounds. Be honest and say you don't like guns, don't make up idiotic terms like "HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES" to add to your wussy histrionics.


----------



## Big Don (May 13, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> * WHAT!!!! *
> 
> You mean Obama, Putin, Cameron and Xi don&#8217;t read MT and decide foreign and domestic policy based on OUR discussions&#8230;. I mean Putin IS a martial artist and Xi IS in China.....
> 
> DAMN!!!! My world doesn't makes sense anymore :uhyeah:


Damn, and I was gonna invite ol' Vlad to sparring...


----------



## billc (May 13, 2013)

> except that 90% of citizens, including a majority of gun owners and NRA members support universal background checks.



Because they don't understand what the other side means when they say Universal Background checks.  Tell them it may mean increased costs, the inability to pass on firearms without government action, a registry of firearms and then see how high that percent stays...



> Case in point: Newtown CT. When he stopped to reload, about 10 or so student were able to run out and escape.



First, I would like to see the source on that.  Second, I would rather the principal and her staff had had the ability to be armed.  Then, when he showed up, instead of rushing him empty handed, they could have used firearms to protect themselves and those children...and life or death wouldn't be in the ability of the guy to reload.  As in most cases, and at Newton, as soon as he was faced with armed resistance...he killed himself.  Imagine if that armed resistance happened when he met the principal or the office staff...then he would have been injured, killed, captured or suicided...and no one would have to depend on his ability to reload to save lives.


----------



## billc (May 13, 2013)

> Any time someone has to stop and reload, it gives people who might otherwise get shot, a chance to get clear.



Let me fix this for you...

Anytime a victim has to stop and reload, it gives the criminal and his partners a chance to injure or kill the victim and other victims who may be at the scene...


----------



## Jimfaul (May 13, 2013)

I own firearms and personally don't see the issue with expanded background checks and smaller magazine sizes.  The intent of constitutional right to bear arms was to give the citizens the ability to overthrow the government if it trampled on are rights.  The forefathers could not have predicted the military technology we have today.  The only way the citizens would stand a chance if we had access to grenades, mines, tanks, planes and so on.  Since that is never going to happen.  I think we need to seriously think about doing something to restrict the use of firearms in this country.  People don't want to give up their AR15s because they are fun to shoot.  I own one, and really I have no reason to own it other than the fun factor.  Personally I don't think that is a good enough reason to own a firearm.  When I go hunting I only need one bullet.  A bolt action is fine. If giving up my AR15 saves a few lifes then I am okay with that.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 13, 2013)

I've had a background check for every firearm I have ever purchased.  It was not onerous or expensive but simply a small part of the process.  I see no reason why we cannot do background checks and close all the loopholes.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

billc said:


> The primary problem is that some officials have already stated that for a "universal," background check to work, they would need a registry of firearms that they could follow them for the purposes of the checks.  Also, these checks would mean if you wanted to give your son your weapon, pass it down to him, you would have to take it to a registered firearms dealer to have the background check done...at the cost of several hundred dollars.  Also, for the purposes of determining if that weapon was a legally owned weapon, you would have to present proof of ownership, which in some cases would be impossible because some weapons were bought years ago and reciepts probably weren't kept.  You could no longer loan people a weapon without first getting a background check, for example, your sister is afraid her ex-boyfriend is stalking her...she would have to have a background check before you could loan her any of your weapons.  Those are some of the immediate concerns about "universal," background checks.  Too many times these "common sense," measures are merely means to limit gun access by making it more complicated and more expensive to get weapons.  For example, Tom Dart, Cook County Sherrif, wants to charge 300 dollars to do background checks in the city of Chicago...if you have limited means, that is a lot of money.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/18/Universal-Background-Checks-Equal-Universal-Gun-Control
> 
> ...



Yes, after reading the links, I can see how this would make for more work.  On one hand, it would seem like this is something that should've been done all along.  I mean, when people sell a car, either privately or thru a dealer, it involves lots of paperwork, and things have to got thru DMV.  There're steps you have to take when you sell property.  On the other hand, if people are concerned that the UBC isn't workable, an alternative solution should be found.  What that solution is...don't know.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Great point, MJS.  What is a "background check?"  Within the government, there exists a wide range of actions defined as background checks.  Some are simply running someone's name and vitals, maybe not even fingerprints (more on them momentarily) against the various databases to see if there are any hits.  Others add in-depth interviews, verification of multiple page personal history statements by actually going out and confirming the info, interviews with current and past neighbors and coworkers, and even polygraphs.  Let's be real: I doubt anything proposed will include any actual investigation or interviews except at the dealer.  There's simply not enough investigative infrastructure to do a true background investigation on every registered gun sale (private sales are even more of a problem; can you prevent me from selling my gun to someone on my own?  How?).  So... it'll be database checking.
> 
> How good is database checking?  Only as good as the data you put in.  I always get a laugh out of the TV detectives who always get fingerprint hits.  Guess what?  If you haven't been fingerprinted before, you're not in a database.  Even if you have -- you may not be.  Lots of applicant and/or elimination fingerprints are simply compared against the records, not added to the files.  (There are privacy concerns here...)  Even if they are added, those files are sometimes restricted for access because there's a good argument that simply applying for something shouldn't make you subject to criminal investigation hits.  Police databases of criminal activity only include those crooks we've caught...  If you weren't caught, or the data wasn't reported (often currently the case with mental health information), we can check the database all day long.  We won't find you.
> 
> ...



Agreed!  And you're spot on with what you said regarding the current system and it being only as good as what's put into it.  I recall reading an article about the Boston bombers, and the numerous computer watch list systems that various agencies have access to.  I believe it was Tamerlan who was in one of the systems, but his name was put into the system with a different spelling, thus no red flag was raised when it was initially researched with the correct spelling.  

Unfortunately, as I said before, this is probably something that should've been in place years ago.  When it takes a tragedy to send the wake up call that the system failed, of course everyone goes into panic mode, trying to fix the impossible.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

billc said:


> Keep in mind...background checks only work on law abiding citizens.  Criminals won't use them so they won't have a problem with getting around them.  The only people who will be affected by background checks will be people who haven't comitted a crime.  Sandy Hook, he murdered his mother to circumvent the background check.  The movie theater, he didn't have a criminal record...until he walked in with his legally purchased guns and started killing people.  Columbine...not old enough to own the guns, stole them.   Background checks won't stop crime, they won't stop mass shootings.  The are either feel good measures, or are back door means to make legally getting firearms more difficult for law abiding citizens.



That is true.  Perhaps the penalty for crimes with guns should be stiffer than they currently are.  As for the movie theater and SH shooters...IIRC, their mental health and/or comments that they've made prior to the shootings, were known by others, who unfortunately, didn't act in time.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> well, here's an honest question:  Given that it is illegal for certain people to be in possession of a firearm, such as convicted felons and whatnot, what steps are reasonable to ensure those people don't get access?
> 
> Is it reasonable to just expect those people to not attempt to acquire firearms?  Is it reasonable to expect them to abide by that restriction on their status?  It's often said, the criminals don't follow the law.  So why would anyone expect them to simply not attempt to get a firearm?  I don't see that as reasonable, I don't believe that convicted felons, as a whole, will simply never try to get a gun.
> 
> ...



For starters, I'd say make tougher penalties for people who commit crimes with guns.  You're a dirt bag who sells a gun to another dirt bag...lock their *** up for a 10yr min. sentence.  And yes I know the more bags of trash you lock up, the more prisons that'll need to be built, etc, etc, then you have those that are NIMBY..not in my backyard.  They cry for tougher penalties but don't want the prison anywhere nearby.  It seems like its a lose-lose situation.  I'm simply saying that when I pick up someones criminal history and see 30+ arrests...well, it begs the question of why the hell this guy is walking around.

I'd also say to be less restrictive with medical issues.  Sorry, but when it comes to the well being of people, I'd be willing to sacrifice the privacy BS.  You got some MH issues...then dammit let them be known.  And shame on the doctors that learn about potential threats/comments that're made, and they do nothing.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I completely agree that our system for background checks needs a change. But the changes needed are not what they are proposing.
> 
> 1. Background checks should not cost the citizen half the cost of the gun. In Texas the check is practically free. And takes less than an hour.
> 
> ...



1) True, the checks shouldn't require hours.  

2) Agreed, thus the reason why I suggested making gun crimes carry tough penalties.  

3) See #1.  



> The problem is that it seems less about background checks, which are already run on weapon purchases, and more about registry. But how does a registry stop any crime? If someone is going to do a mass shooting, why does it matter if the guns are registered. These people aren't going to care.
> What stops theft of a gun or several guns and them being used in crime? And don't say gun safes. It is very simple to steal the safe and break the lock. Given a short period of time you can break just about any safe. And I know that personally I don't have, and refuse to accept need of a safe costing several thousand dollars.
> 
> The point is that there is nothing proposed that stops or helps the problems they are claiming it addresses. So we, as law abiding freedom loving American gun owners, oppose it on these grounds. But then we are portrayed as crazy. We are accused of being uncaring or unsympathetic to the suffering of the families of the victims in these horrible acts. When the truth is, it sickens me to see these things happen. And it angers me that instead of actually talking about things that might help, our government is using it to push an agenda that solves no problems for reasons I don't even want to think of. I hope that these people are honestly just dumb enough to believe their own propaganda, it's better than contemplating what other motives could drive them.
> ...



Sadly, the good guys always seem to take a harder hit that the dirt bags.  If someone is determined to beat the system, its very possible they'll do it.  But IMO, there has to be something that can make that road as difficult as possible.


----------



## MJS (May 13, 2013)

Drasken said:


> As far as restrictions on ownership, or loaning guns to law abiding family etc. to protect them when it is needed is causing more harm than good. Anyone selling a gun illegally will find a loophole to exploit. And unless we put GPS trackers in all guns, which I would be completely against, it doesn't stop much and will mostly hinder law abiding citizens. Not to mention cost us all a lot more money. But perhaps that is the goal? Make it cost more and fewer people can own weapons. And those who do pay large sums of money for every aspect of a right, that is quickly becoming a privelage given to a few. The few that can pay.



Question for you, and I ask this seriously because I don't know the answer myself.  If you loan a gun to someone for the purpose of protection, and that person uses that gun to protect themselves, are we also under the assumption that the person who had the gun loaned to them, has all of the proper paperwork to carry/have the gun in their possession?  And if they had all the proper paperwork, one would assume that they'd own their own gun, no?  I mean, that'd be like going thru the process of getting a drivers license but not owning a car.  Sure, I suppose that's possible, but it seems odd.


----------



## Drasken (May 13, 2013)

Jimfaul said:


> I own firearms and personally don't see the issue with expanded background checks and smaller magazine sizes.  The intent of constitutional right to bear arms was to give the citizens the ability to overthrow the government if it trampled on are rights.  The forefathers could not have predicted the military technology we have today.  The only way the citizens would stand a chance if we had access to grenades, mines, tanks, planes and so on.  Since that is never going to happen.  I think we need to seriously think about doing something to restrict the use of firearms in this country.  People don't want to give up their AR15s because they are fun to shoot.  I own one, and really I have no reason to own it other than the fun factor.  Personally I don't think that is a good enough reason to own a firearm.  When I go hunting I only need one bullet.  A bolt action is fine. If giving up my AR15 saves a few lifes then I am okay with that.



Not that I support armed response to our government as it certainly has not come to be necissary, but if it does I must once again disagree that we are unable to do anything.
As I have stated before in other threads, we have been fighting small groups of fighters in the middle east for years. If it was so easy to put them down, we would have been done over there in weeks, not years. Also, why are you so sure we have no access to explosives such as grenades if they ever became needed? Kids assaulting Columbine used pipe bombs. A terrorist blew up buildings with common items in a cargo truck. And recently Boston was brought to its knees by 2 young men with improvised explosives and a few guns.

So while these people were crazy and I in NO way condone their actions, and also in NO way imply any need for armed action against our government, I also fully deny the notion that we are helpless. Only a fool would believe such a claim.


----------



## Drasken (May 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> Question for you, and I ask this seriously because I don't know the answer myself.  If you loan a gun to someone for the purpose of protection, and that person uses that gun to protect themselves, are we also under the assumption that the person who had the gun loaned to them, has all of the proper paperwork to carry/have the gun in their possession?  And if they had all the proper paperwork, one would assume that they'd own their own gun, no?  I mean, that'd be like going thru the process of getting a drivers license but not owning a car.  Sure, I suppose that's possible, but it seems odd.



It depends. For example if I loan my gun to my mother in law, who could legally buy her own, in my state she could carry it in her car with no permit. It must remain concealed, cannot be taken out of her car unless on her property without a concealed carry permit and also must lock the car while not in it if the gun remains in the vehicle.

That being said, if I loan the gun to a friend who feels threatened and that friend is a felon I can now be charged for providing a weapon to a felon. The laws are pretty clear cut, but complex enough to try and plug as many loopholes as possible. And that varies from state to state.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> It depends. For example if I loan my gun to my mother in law, who could legally buy her own, in my state she could carry it in her car with no permit. It must remain concealed, cannot be taken out of her car unless on her property without a concealed carry permit and also must lock the car while not in it if the gun remains in the vehicle.
> 
> That being said, if I loan the gun to a friend who feels threatened and that friend is a felon I can now be charged for providing a weapon to a felon. The laws are pretty clear cut, but complex enough to try and plug as many loopholes as possible. And that varies from state to state.



In the example you list though, the gun, is pretty useless to her, in that situation, if she's outside of her home.  If that's the case, then I'd imagine she or someone else in that situation, would be best to just get their own weapon.  

To be honest, I'm not even sure what the laws are here in Ct, regarding letting someone borrow a weapon.


----------



## billc (May 14, 2013)

The background check system in Illinois is simply submitting to a State Police background check and then you receive a Firearm Owners I.D. card.  You show this whenever you buy guns or ammo, at gun stores or at gun shows with actual dealers.  When I purchased my first weapon, from a police officer friend, he photo copied my FOID card and the make and model of the gun for our own records.  I still have it.  

A back ground check should simply be something you put into the data base and it comes back yes or no due to a felony or whatever other criteria each state votes on.  That's it.  In that way the gun dealer or store isn't selling guns to criminals.   No permanent record, no gun registry.  If someone with a felony buys a gun, from a private individual and is caught with that gun, they should go to jail.   That  pretty much deals with the problem of criminals with guns...no background check necessary.


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2013)

Background checks should, generally be instant returns.  There should be two or possibly three responses: Eligible, Ineligible, and possibly Ineligible/notify police.  That last one is the maybe because I don't want business owners in a bad situation, but it allows a flag for missing/suicidal, or classes of wanted persons to be there and have the police notified that they attempted to purchase a gun at that location.


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> That is true.  Perhaps the penalty for crimes with guns should be stiffer than they currently are.  As for the movie theater and SH shooters...IIRC, their mental health and/or comments that they've made prior to the shootings, were known by others, who unfortunately, didn't act in time.



There have been some comments with merit so far, but imho this is the first good suggestion I have seen in this thread that might deter criminals desire to use weapons, or their ability to use weapons.  It is expanded on in the next quote.  Just as importantly, the issue of those whose mental capacity or lack thereof, makes their freedom to roam freely, a serious problem.  And one that must be addressed.

Why keep picking on guns or law abiding citizens and not restrain criminals and those with mental problems that make them dangerous to the rest of society?  That simply cannot be justified.



MJS said:


> For starters, I'd say make tougher penalties for people who commit crimes with guns.  You're a dirt bag who sells a gun to another dirt bag...lock their *** up for a 10yr min. sentence.  And yes I know the more bags of trash you lock up, the more prisons that'll need to be built, etc, etc, then you have those that are NIMBY..not in my backyard.  They cry for tougher penalties but don't want the prison anywhere nearby.  It seems like its a lose-lose situation.  I'm simply saying that when I pick up someones criminal history and see 30+ arrests...well, it begs the question of why the hell this guy is walking around.
> 
> I'd also say to be less restrictive with medical issues.  Sorry, but when it comes to the well being of people, I'd be willing to sacrifice the privacy BS.  You got some MH issues...then dammit let them be known.  And shame on the doctors that learn about potential threats/comments that're made, and they do nothing.



Good points.  Especially as pertains to the dangerously mental ill.  Society has a right to protect itself from those who wish it harm.  Law abiding citizens are no threat.  Guns are not sentient.



Drasken said:


> It depends. For example if I loan my gun to my mother in law, who could legally buy her own, in my state she could carry it in her car with no permit. It must remain concealed, cannot be taken out of her car unless on her property without a concealed carry permit and also must lock the car while not in it if the gun remains in the vehicle.
> 
> That being said, if I loan the gun to a friend who feels threatened *and that friend is a felon I can now be charged for providing a weapon to a felon.* The laws are pretty clear cut, but complex enough to try and plug as many loopholes as possible. And that varies from state to state.



Bold/underlined:  Sorry, but when you commit a felonious act, you lose certain privileges.  That is law in most states.  The lesson; don't commit felonious acts.

I don't oppose background checks that are not in my opinion beyond reason.  In the current debates, I haven't heard of any that pass my muster.  Most seem aimed against law abiding citizens, no matter they say they are aimed at criminals.  I also don't like the idea that I would have to pay for a background check.  Congress is famous, or should I say notorious, for unfunded mandates.  I pay taxes.  Take the cost out of that.  After all, what is new?  The databases already exist.  The electronic means to access them already exist.  The means to populate them needs to be overhauled, but that is true whether or not they are used for gun-buying background checks.  Let the government shoulder the costs.

Change the requirement to protect the identity of those whose mental condition make them a likely threat to the rest of society.  While I understand the necessity of open and free communication between a doctor and patient, most states already mandate disclosure of sexually transmitted disease.  Why not dangerous mental condition?


----------



## Tgace (May 14, 2013)

Having to pay anything to exercise a Constitutional Right should be a non-starter....


----------



## Tgace (May 14, 2013)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nt-of-risk-in-a-society?p=1569189#post1569189


----------



## jks9199 (May 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nt-of-risk-in-a-society?p=1569189#post1569189



Summary for those who don't follow the link:  Background check blocked sale because of similarities in vitals between a guy & someone prohibited.  End result is a note in the file, so he's still getting a hit, but has a chance to sort it out with a phone call.  Probably every sale...

With AFIS tech today, it's not unfeasible to have a fingerprint scanner that checks at least one finger, if not all of them, at the counter on potential hits.  

But it's really not that different from a wanted hit in the street.  I stopped a guy one night, and actually ended up calling the agency rather than hooking him.  Name, DOB, all that was close, and someone had also added the guy I had's SSN to the wanted person file for some reason.  I had enough indicators in the street to make me question the hit, and dig.  Like I said -- I called the issuing agency, and they did two things:  sent me a picture and pulled detailed info about the wanted guy's tattoos.  I didn't take the guy I had in.  But it was real close, and I worked things rather carefully to minimize the alarm to his wife & kids.

So... what's the solution?  Make sure that the right info is in the system.  Give the person at the point-of-sale enough information to confirm the identity, not require a phone call that hopes someone on the other end knows what's up.


----------



## billc (May 17, 2013)

Okay, so now we know that conservatives, pro-life groups, and Jewish groups were being targeted by obama supporters in the I.R.S. (please, don't try to tell me they aren't supporters of obama and the democrats).  This if nothing else, is a huge reason to doubt the fairness of any universal background check plan.   It isn't a stretch to think that someones political affiliations might not end up either delaying their ability to get a background check done, or to be denied all together for permit to own or carry a weapon.  We have seen it here with the I.R.S. and if they can do it, the E.P.A. has been doing it, so any sort of background check plan is now vulnerable to this political activism against certain political parties and philosophies.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> There have been some comments with merit so far, but imho this is the first good suggestion I have seen in this thread that might deter criminals desire to use weapons, or their ability to use weapons.  It is expanded on in the next quote.  Just as importantly, the issue of those whose mental capacity or lack thereof, makes their freedom to roam freely, a serious problem.  And one that must be addressed.
> 
> Why keep picking on guns or law abiding citizens and not restrain criminals and those with mental problems that make them dangerous to the rest of society?  That simply cannot be justified.
> 
> ...



IMHO, I'd say the main issues that die hard gun owners and the NRA have, is the fact that all of these new rules, all of these restrictions, bans, etc, that are in place, and were put in place on a knee jerk reaction, do not address gun crimes, and the folks who shouldn't have guns, yet still get them.  Is it possible for a legit gun owner to snap?  Sure, anything is possible.  But when we pick up the paper or watch the news and hear about mass shootings or shootings in big cities, the one on Mothers Day..no, I'm sorry, but those are the people who are the root cause of the problem.  

Now, perhaps some ideas have been tossed out, but have been overlooked, or deemed not acceptable, in regards to how to deal with the bad guys, but I don't know....it just seems to me, that the plans that're currently in place, and I can only speak for what I see in my state, that they're not addressing the main issues.


----------



## billc (May 21, 2013)

An article that looks at background checks...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/universal-background-checks-shouldnt-we-review-the-statistics/




> I have recently finished a detailed paper  using interrupted time series analysis of the relationship between  background check laws and murder rate. This article is something of an  advance warning &#8212; and yes, was conducted because a vote was coming up in  Congress (and which, who knows, may come up again).
> 
> What startles from my paper&#8217;s findings is how  ineffective those laws have been at what should be the most important  measure: murder rate.
> Of the twelve states that still have these private party  background check laws, four adopted them before 1960, so the relatively  consistent murder rate data from the FBI&#8217;s Uniform Crime Reports  program can&#8217;t be used to test the hypothesis. Of the remaining eight,  changes in murder rates are only statistically significant (at the 95%  confidence interval) for five: three had an _increase _in murder rates after adopting mandatory background checks, two had a _decrease _in murder rates.
> ...





> Here&#8217;s a harsh truth: people that commit murder are _not _ordinary  Americans, and do not obey laws. As the director of the National  Institute of Justice recently observed in a leaked memo to the White  House, a 2000 study found that 26% of criminal guns were stolen (often  from retail stores or in transit), and 8% were the result of retail  diversion by corrupt dealers. _None_ of these criminal transactions will be affected by a background check law.
> ​ In addition, 47% of criminal guns were obtained through  straw purchasers. This is already a crime, for which you can get a  five-year prison sentence. But as police chiefs and U.S. attorneys  admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago, they don&#8217;t  have time to prosecute these straw purchasers right now. Will they have  more time to prosecute people who neglect or intentionally skip the  background check requirement?​


----------

