Universal Background Checks Suck

Status
Not open for further replies.
The NICS was an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those who were prohibited from possessing guns. It has generally failed to do this. Recordkeeping failures by registrars, police departments, mental health agencies and others leave many large gaps in the database. Many who misuse firearms have none of the disqualifying events in their history. Many use a straw purchaser. Many will steal or buy from persons who stole guns. Some will make guns. Some may use weapons that are not guns as defined in federal law. And some may resort to other means to accomplish their mission, such as running over someone with a car, placing them in fear with a replica, or setting their residence afire. What will extending a failed process accomplish? Nothing. The same as stacking more laws on top of existing laws that are not enforced or effective.

We should be willing to discuss methods of reducing the incidence of injury by people with bad intent. But we should not agree to extending processes that have been proven ineffective.

Never a compromise? Recall that the NFA was originally intended to cover handguns as well as machine guns and other guns used by criminals. The proponents couldn't get that done, so took handguns out and silencers in. Think what it would be like to have all handguns restricted as silencers and short barrel rifles are now.
 
Direct theft (including at the crime scene), finding it abandoned, or having it stashed from back when they could legally possess it, amounts to a rather small percentage. I think we can agree on that.

No, I don't believe that we can agree with that. The prohibited have no qualms about stealing firearms, nor with trafficking, nor with "car boot back alley" sales. That is because they are criminals, and no number of new laws is going to stop them.

You also ask where all the black market guns are coming from, but it doesn't appear that criminals have any problems bringing lost of illicit drugs into this country.
 
No, I don't believe that we can agree with that. The prohibited have no qualms about stealing firearms, nor with trafficking, nor with "car boot back alley" sales. That is because they are criminals, and no number of new laws is going to stop them.

That's based on the data in the pdf. Trafficking and "car boot back alley" sales, I addressed separately.
 
Tell you what fellas, I've said my piece. Disagree with it all you want but I see merit in a UBC system, if it's done correctly and individuals are punished for circumventing it wherever they can be.

So I'll see myself out and you can all get back to agreeing with each other, as fruitless as that may be.
 
Tell you what fellas, I've said my piece. Disagree with it all you want but I see merit in a UBC system, if it's done correctly and individuals are punished for circumventing it wherever they can be.

So I'll see myself out and you can all get back to agreeing with each other, as fruitless as that may be.
It ONLY has "merit" if you believe that the government (and cronies) should have an absolute monopoly on the means of armed force.

Fifty plus years of PUBLIC statements prove beyond ANY rational doubt that the other side will NEVER be appeased by ANYTHING short of an absolute governmental monopoly on the means of armed force.

Fifty plus years of examples also prove that there have always been so-called "gun owners" willing to sell real gun owners up the river. The National Firearms Association and AHSA are only two examples. The fifth column efforts continue to this day.
 
We do not insult each other over differing views about UBC. We do not demand ideological purity. We discuss the merits of the issue.

Since this thread has deteriorated to rants (which have been dealt with), it is closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top