I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks

Boy, I'm hesitant to weigh in on an argument that clearly is not going to be won on merits. Seriously, I mean that there's a reason that some discussions are not allowed at the dinner table, because the beliefs that are held are not those that are accessible to reasonable back and forth argument about data.

But, ok, I'll give things a shot: the notion of universal NICS checks is to create friction in the process of procuring firearms in a way where the burden will fall most heavily on those individuals that are intent on procuring firearms for illicit purposes. We can, and should distinguish between mechanisms that specifically address one or a small number of incidents (e..g., Newtown) from those that are meant to address a more general problem. The notion of universal NICS is more the latter than the former.

Granted, if you are a citizen with a spotless record, then some burden will fall on you with a system of universal checks. But, far more than you, the burden of checks will reduce (note, I said reduce, not eliminate) straw purchases, and other means for diverting firearms into the illicit market. If your standard for supporting a particular action, is it is a 100% solution, then I'd be interested in hearing about what birth control methods you use...

Still curious on how straw buying will be even remotely reduced, guns won't get stolen, or how bad guys aren't going to get weapons.

Abstinence is 100%

Abstinence is 100%

Click to expand...

Ok, I've got nothing on this then...

bayesian said:

Ok, I've got nothing on this then...

Click to expand...

Hey, you asked!

Actually, my terminology is bad here, sorry. I don't mean straw purchases, but rather purchases by on the private market by individuals that would be unable to purchase.

My bad, I know the difference. It's a bit past my bedtime...

bayesian said:

Actually, my terminology is bad here, sorry. I don't mean straw purchases, but rather purchases by on the private market by individuals that would be unable to purchase.

My bad, I know the difference. It's a bit past my bedtime...

Click to expand...

Assuming they're a law abiding criminal (oxymoron), they'd fail.

BUSHMASTER - "By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market."

Click to expand...

Bushmaster, you (and several others here) are living in a dream world. It is quite obvious that you know absolutely nothing about real criminals. You're just projecting your own "values" on to vicious, law breaking thugs.

Years ago when I was going through the Academy of one of the largest LEO agencies in the United States, during a class break, an instructor (Sgt., cadre) came outside to talk to several of us. He was a tough, no-nonsense, very streetwise cop.

He said, "Let me tell you people something, and you'd better not ever forget it. Criminals are exactly like you and me ... except for one thing. They don't think the way you think."

Sounds kinda glib? Huh uh. He was 100% correct. Let me give you an example. (And there are millions of them nationwide.)

Several years later I was talking with a dude who was out on parole from San Quentin. He'd gone to prison for Assault, With Great Bodily Injury. Spent 6½ years in the slam. He'd been a minor drug dealer. Said he always carried a gun. Another drug dealer burned him on a dope deal.

I asked him, "Where'd you get the gun?"

He said, "Off the street. No problem, a few bucks laid in the right place and I could get whatever I wanted. Still can... if I wanted. I had a .32 and a .357."

He said he'd found the drug dealer one night, pulled out his .32 and forced him into his car. He made the drug dealer drive. They went up into the high desert. He walked the drug dealer out into the desert and shot him four or five times with his .32. Then he walked back to his car and drove home.

He told me he thought he'd killed that #^%@*#@, but instead, the wounded drug dealer managed to crawl out of the desert to the highway where a passing car stopped, got him in the car and raced to a hospital in the next town. He lived, fingered who shot him, and the guy with whom I was talking ended up in Quentin.

I asked him, "Well, did you learn anything from all that?"

He did not say, "Yeah man, I learned to get a job and go straight."

He did not say, "Yeah, I learned how I should obey the law and not treat my fellow man in such a despicable manner."

No, he said without so much as an instant's hesitation, "Damn right! I learned that next time I'll take my three fifty seven!" And he meant every word of it.

Couple of months later he was arrested for dealing dope again plus being a felon in possession of firearms and went back to prison, Folsom, this time. Three stolen guns, so I heard from one of the cops who arrested him.

You see, Bushmaster, and several others here, he did not think the way you think. You're all making a big mistake to believe criminals are smart and logical. Very, very, very, very, very few are.

He, and all his criminal ilk, don't think the way you think. Nor do they worry about economic incentives, profit and loss statements, double entry accounting, nor what the Dow Jones closed at today. Laws are meaningless to them including "Background Checks."

If you believe so, you are profoundly naive and ignorant of criminals.

Doubt that this'll change the minds of those who believe that more and more and more compromises and restrictions on honest citizens will ever satisfy the gun grabbers, 'cause they won't. Nor will more laws and restrictions have any effect on criminals, but there it is.

L.W.

The flaw of well intentioned Laws are..........



wait for it............



CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.


Construct what ever scheme you want, and picture in your head, Thug 1 selling thug 2 a gun out of the trunk of his car. ALL of those laws, plans, well intentioned as they MIGHT be, are useless... and worse, they apply to us and only to us.

Leanwolf +1....written while I was posting!

The flaw of well intentioned Laws are..........



wait for it............



CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

Click to expand...

Right, so lets repeal all of the laws and go home.

Problem solved.

Bushmaster1313: I think it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of the insane

Click to expand...

Alright. Let's hear your working definition of "insane". Would it include one example of temporary insanity, such as behavior brought on by biochemical imbalances--for example behaviors that have been associated with long term lack of light such as is seen in Northern climates during the winter? Would it involve long term low-grade insanities such as clinical depression or bipolar disorder? If someone is "insane" but the condition is treatable with medication, should the person have their rights surrendered forever if the medication is temporarily ineffective, or they miss a dose because they are stuck in traffic, or from some other cause are unable to get to it? Would victims of childhood abuse be automatically categorized as insane if they displayed socially malformed behaviors in school such as being confrontational, or developmentally delayed?

Is the receipt of a "crazy check" enough reason to bar someone from owning a handgun? An entire class of African Americans would fall into this category. Schizophrenia is 70% more likely to be diagnosed among blacks than whites. Are we prepared for them to become the next "Jews of Europe" and be disarmed more extensively?

Suppose future changes to diagnoses in the mental health field are created which recognize fascination or desire to own weaponry as an adherent mental condition. "Obsessional Force Disorder", let's call it, wherein the mere desire to own weaponry, photographs of weaponry, engage in conversations about weaponry or watching "excessive" amounts of gratuitous violence in TV, films and video games is determined to be a mental disorder. Thus making everyone who has ever posted on this board now clinically recognized as insane and ineligible to possess guns, ever.

Do we really want to trust a group of psychiatrists whose treatment for behavioral issues has been the issuance of more and stronger mind altering drugs into our society--6 year old kids who fidget need Ritalin? Really?--with the ability to classify, by the mechanism of their profession, who should or should not be allowed to own a gun?

My opinion as I've already expressed before is that felons or the mental ill--once they have completely their incarceration or treatment--should have all rights restored. Long term loss of rights would seem to me to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment Once the "debt to society" has been paid..restore the rights. Loss of rights FOREVER seems to me to be inherently what is addressed by this amendment.

Listen to yourselves folks: Murderers are going to murder anyway, so, any laws against murder are pointless...

(yeah, i know i'm being wildly unfair, but so are some of you...)

How do you prevent folks from abusing the system? Me checking a guy who wants to date my daughter? The local newspaper checking citizens at random, looking for the chance of a juicy story? Check on the neighbors?
This involves personal and medical privacy. If the Whig party candidate for mayor does not pass a check, that was not authorized by him, then you know he is either a felon (public record) or has mental health problems.

create friction in the process of procuring firearms in a way where the burden will fall most heavily on those individuals that are intent on procuring firearms for illicit purposes

Click to expand...

I am at a loss on how it will make it more difficult for criminals? Most do not follow legal means now. How hard is it to get fake IDs? Or illegal firearms now, not sure any new law will even slow them down. (just raise the price they will have to pay).

Jim

Bushmaster maybe you should join the Brady Campaign.

bayesian said:

Listen to yourselves folks: Murderers are going to murder anyway, so, any laws against murder are pointless...

(yeah, i know i'm being wildly unfair, but so are some of you...)

Click to expand...

Sadly, you're right.

Citizens who obey a law do so out of respect, fear, ethics, or all three.

Those that don't usually lack the aforementioned three.

going by most responses on here about how background checks aren't 100% effective therefore should be abandoned, I guess we should get rid of speed limits, laws against rape and murder. Clearly since people violate those laws, they are ineffective.
While we are going with completely fallacious and logically flawed ideas, let's get rid of laws protecting free speech and religious freedom. After all, censorship happens in spite of these laws.

Do you guys see how ridiculous your argument are?

bushmaster1313 said:

and the data cannot be used for wrong purposes

Click to expand...

You are putting an awful lot of trust in people you don't know, especially when some of the highest LE officials in the nation were caught up in something so convoluted and corrupt as F&F. You truly think that info will never be used inappropriately?

I am for FFL transfers whenever the reporters agree to be gagged until asked to speak, and only speak the truth under penalty of law.

I am at a loss on how it will make it more difficult for criminals? Most do not follow leagal means now. How hard is it to get fake IDs? Or illegal firearms now, not sure any new law will even slow them down. (just raise the price they will have to pay).

Click to expand...

At a loss? Really? Most criminals aren't Lex Luthor... They are knuckleheads that know other knuckleheads.

Ok, make them all get fake IDs. Were you ever a teenager? Did everyone have fake IDs? Or just some people? So, if alcohol sales didn't require any ID, would it have been easier to by beer? Look, requiring ID to buy alcohol doesn't keep alcohol from teenagers, but from the way some of you talk, because some teenagers get beer, we should get rid of the requirement to show ID before buying the beer.

That is beyond stupid.

Sadly, you're right.

Citizens who obey a law do so out of respect, fear, ethics, or all three.

Those that don't usually lack the aforementioned three.

Click to expand...

uhm... Ok... You're point is?

I am not in favor of the idea of universal nics checks.

I have come to the conclusion that the people who propose such a thing (mandatory universal background checks) are for the most part well meaning. They are simply very misinformed and idealistic about how the criminal element operates. Bacgground checks will do nothing to deter someone intent on illegally obtaining a firearm. Just like today, the criminal element will continue to steal from both non-criminals and each other, then sell the goods (guns, drugs, electronics, whatever) to each other and those who are willing to take the rik of buying stolen property to save a few bucks. Sometimes a lot of bucks. The average "fenced" item gets the seller aproximately 1/10th of the retail value. Hence the attraction to buy stolen items. In short, requiring background checks will not eliminate either the source of black market guns (theft) nor the market for them. All it would do is place another restriction and financial burden, however large or small, on those who comply.

I keep seeing the bifurcation fallacy here - either something is 100% effective, or it's useless.

Click to expand...

Looking at the inverse, if something is not 100% ineffective, then it's worth doing.

The issues that Trent and others brought up about the cost, minimal value, hassle, time, unreliability, etc. ,we should accept, for what reason? To make people feel safe? To possibly save one life? To give the antis a bone in hopes that they will quiet down and go away?

I would never support this on a national level. At best, I would accept the state's right to set it's own rules. Since I live in AZ, I'm not too worried about that prospect happening.

bayesian said:

uhm... Ok... You're point is?

Click to expand...

Urg.:banghead:

That most naturally "good" people already possess a sense of right and wrong, and don't aspire to murder, rape or steal.

"Bad" people lack those things, and will break whatever laws they want.

My point? Good folks don't need laws to be good. Bad folks don't give two steamy deuces about your laws.

Bushmaster, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU MAN???