The illogic of universal background checks.

No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other.

Click to expand...

IIRC, there is no definite evidence either way.

IIRC, there is no definite evidence either way.

Click to expand...

Almost pulled me back in there for a second

great - ok. let's sell guns to anyone with something which somewhat ressembles an I.D. no questions asked, no background checks...

jeeze... and then we wonder why we loose public support

bayesian said:

So, this, and countless threads before it have basically not been intellectual arguments where people come together to convey information and come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. This discussion is a perfect example of why we typically don't allow the discussion of politics at the dinner table.

Postion A: This law will not stop gun related crimes as criminals will still be able to get guns.

Position B: This law will reduce gun related crimes as criminals will find guns less accessible.

No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other. So, lets just get to dessert and give up on these endless threads. If you are the 7% that thinks background checks are terrible, then hey, go nuts. If you, like 93% of the population, thinks that this is worthwhile, then just call the freaking vote and be done with it.

And if you are wondering where these numbers come from and you are going to post a response asking, then read the freaking thread before you post as you are part of the pointless rehashing of the same arguments that is making this board tiresome.

Click to expand...

Sure it is.

You fellas give stats and opinions that make UBCS seem dandy.

Then someone drops logic back into the equation that shoots the whole plan to crap. What's to disagree about?

Also, where's this 93/7 split? Polls? Surveys? Votes? We don't get a vote...well we did. Unfortunately, reason and some semblance of sanity sadly failed to enter the Capitol last November.

texasgun said:

great - ok. let's sell guns to anyone with something which somewhat ressembles an I.D. no questions asked, no background checks...

jeeze... and then we wonder why we loose public support

Click to expand...

I remember when I couldn't read either. I was very young.

Reading comprehension fails some folks.

Clean97GTI said:

What restrictions are you referring to? You already bear this "restriction" as you call it as enshrined in the constitution. The ability of the government to remove your rights with due process is well established.
Background checks simply provide a proactive possibility of finding the disqualified rather than reactive.

Click to expand...

I'd rather see it removed. So no, I wouldnt be in favor of increasing its reach.


And I dont get it as a 'proactive' deterrent, since as we've just seen that it wasnt (my example of the CT shooter and any released felon that just goes and finds a gun some other way).

I remember when I couldn't read either. I was very young.

Reading comprehension fails some folks.

Click to expand...

Ok, that's it. No dessert for you.

bayesian said:

Ok, that's it. No dessert for you.

Click to expand...

That's not nice.

larryh1108 said:

I don't think the public knows what those of us who have permits to carry have to go thru to get it. I have a LTC in CT and I had to take an 8 hour class which included firing a handgun, I submitted my fingerprints, I had to undergo a thorough local background check including my previous address as well as an FBI complete background check. My entire life was examined before I got my permit. I believe most permits to carry have a similar requirement. If the public understood the process I don't think most of them would think we're a bunch of lawless criminals who carry guns. Also, to those who keep pounding the "shall not be infringed" statement, what would you classify the process to get a permit to carry? There are millions of people who have a LTC and they are in every state except IL. I would be more comfortable in a room of them, armed to the teeth, than a room of people who never applied or got approved for a LTC. I believe we are responsible and safe and have proven over our lifetimes to be the upper echelon of citizens in the USA. I hope the President sees this but for some reason all the decision makers in our government turn their eyes away from this fact. We are the best of the best Americans out there and we are looked down upon as fanatics and goons. I seriously doubt the general public even has a clue to what we have to do to get a LTC. They fear us out of ignorance.

Click to expand...

Well not really. Several states have no requirements except the basic background check and fingerprinting and some dont require cc permits at all, like AK, VT, AZ, WY.

So I dont think you can make that claim. OTOH, I like being able to make the claim that apparently NO real oversight is needed since there isnt any evidence that training for permit holders makes a difference.

And I do like pointing out that they are indeed surrounded by thousands of law-abiding permit holders every day

9MMare said:

I'd rather see it removed. So no, I wouldnt be in favor of increasing its reach.


And I dont get it as a 'proactive' deterrent, since as we've just seen that it wasnt (my example of the CT shooter and any released felon that just goes and finds a gun some other way).

Click to expand...

Right now, any released felon can look in their local newspaper, find a classified ad and go buy a gun from a private party with no questions asked.
A mandatory check or at least something on a state issued ID would throw a red flag.

and Cho Seung-Hui had a history of mental illness.A more thorough background check or reporting process might have stopped him

Or he could find said seller in the paper, meet, kill him and steal the gun.

No background check required.

except the basic background check and fingerprinting

Click to expand...

Well, that is the major part of the process. If you passed a background check and were fingerprinted and got your permit then you have proven to be an upstanding citizen during the course of your life. I don't know if the entire population of all the states that require nothing or a small fee to get a permit add up to a CA or NY. The point is the general public thinks anybody who wants to carry a gun can just go buy one and then they become a threat to society when, in fact, the opposite is true. We do everything in our power to not lose this right that we deserve due to our spotless background and history of doing the right thing.

and Cho Seung-Hui had a history of mental illness.A more thorough background check or reporting process might have stopped him

Click to expand...

Cho Seung-Hui didn't need a more thorough background check, he needed treatment.

In all seriousness, I believe we would be much better served with the Idea of a stated status on pictured identification. It is something that we have to provide for purchase of a firearm anyway. It would reduce the cost of processing sales and do the same thing that the ATF form does now. First response I know will be that someone could commit a felony and purchase a firearm before the license is changed. That's no different from what we have now as you can lie on the ATF form after committing a felony. In my area the call goes to the county. If you are under indictment anywhere else they have no knowledge of it. This change would not be perfect but argueably nothing would. This would be just as effective and be less intrusive. As far as having a gun registry, why would the FBI waist there resources when there is already a trail to every gun sold on file? Every FFL is required to keep all ATF forms, with serial number on form, on file for quite a number of years. I cannot remember the exact number but I think it is ten years it may be more.
This has the same information that a registry would have without the FBI or ATF using there resources to keep it. If you have ever filled out one of these forms for a firearm, then there is a definitive paper trail from manufacturer to your door.
In an additional note I am starting to think that perhaps a mandatory safety training may be needed. I've never met someone who wouldn't recommend it,and as much as I disgust myself by bringing it up, I am starting to see a serious lack of education among first time owners. I grew up with guns and I have to acknowledge that many things that I see as common sense, first timers are not savvy to. A big failing it that was more than evident recently in a failure to have firearms safely and securely stored. That is something that a little education and safe practice may have solved.

meanmrmustard said:

Or he could find said seller in the paper, meet, kill him and steal the gun.

No background check required.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

A released felon knows the law. They wont go looking for a gun casually. The penalty is high. And if they want want to commit crimes again...they will acquire one however is necessary.

As for checking for mental history...well, maybe 'deeper' checks into that would prevent some deaths but is it worth all of us losing more of our privacy? I'm not so sure about that (in response to previous poster).

larryh1108 said:

Well, that is the major part of the process. If you passed a background check and were fingerprinted and got your permit then you have proven to be an upstanding citizen during the course of your life. I don't know if the entire population of all the states that require nothing or a small fee to get a permit add up to a CA or NY. The point is the general public thinks anybody who wants to carry a gun can just go buy one and then they become a threat to society when, in fact, the opposite is true. We do everything in our power to not lose this right that we deserve due to our spotless background and history of doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

???? anyone who wants to carry a gun can...if they choose to break the law...and many do. And many otherwise law-abiding citizens just ignore that law (ack!).

And this 'holier than thou' attitude is a bit much. Just because you've never been convicted of a felony does not mean you are some pillar of society. You could still be cheating on your wife, beating your kids, kicking your dog, stealing from work, or just be a jerk overall, etc.

A gun owner would never know if that nice guy he met at the local hardware store last month and came to his church each Sunday, just wanted to buy a gun "under the table," of if he were a Federal Snitch who'd rat him out. Fear is very powerful persuader.

Therefore, without the Mandatory Registration Law of previous and current guns already owned, the Universal Background Check Law would be virtually ineffective, even though new sales and transfers would be monitored.

Click to expand...

The part about the Mandatory Registration Law being needed is a non-sequitor.

The proper analysis is that with or without registration many law abiding would be deterred from face to face sales.

I am not advocating for registration, however, mandatory registration would increase the likelihood of getting caught breaking a "no face to face" law.

Maybe Obama just figured out a way to reduce unemployment

Click to expand...

Obama didn't figure out ****.


There is no way to financially fund a UBC or Mandatory registration of ~300million firearms. That is the biggest hurdle they will face. We are already in a downward spiral with his 2nd term that its not even remotely possible to enforce; not saying they wont try.

Which is why they go after "scary" features and mag capacity instead. Its also why these stupid gun laws are limited to certain states. The government can never pull off a UBGC ( I shorten it to UBC ) because of states like Alaska, Texas, Arizona, and Florida etc.

Is there anyone on this board who honestly thinks that your real name couldn't be figured out by an evil power bent on the domination of American citizens? Have you ever wrote a letter to a representative? Ever served in uniform? Have a CCW permit? Ever bought a gun at a store with a 4473 on file for it?

I have done all the things above. I am sure that if there were a hypothetical "they" who was out to track down and eradicate people like me, they wouldn't need to use an instant check system to find me. Hell, they could probably just look on Facebook.

As much as I thoroughly oppose an AW ban or magazine capacity restrictions, I do believe that legal guns become illegal guns through sales without background checks.
I support a system being created for private sellers to be able to run a check and record a number.
With the rights we have also comes responsibility. If your conscience is truly clean with the idea of not having background checks, then write your congressmen. As for me, I support it - not because I want to give the anti-gun people something as a concession, but because I think it is the right thing to do.

As I understand it, even the Swiss with their universal issue of assault rifles to each male citizen, have background checks and require a license to buy a handgun. My home state of PA requires all handguns to be transferred by a dealer and a second form specifically for the state must be completed unless the transfer is between immediate family members.

Anyone who has been through PA can tell you that no one there is giving up their guns.
Apparently the Swiss also are not too worried about it.

I am not even advocating that permanent records ever be kept - just allow average guys to run a check for private sales.

If your concern is that an out of control government could use background check records to trace and eventually target gun owners, what do you think will happen when they trace your THR account? Or when they see the monthly purchases on your credit card from Midway and Cabelas?

I think every argument has been stated, re-stated and flogged.