Eliminating background checks will reduce crime?

We had 192 years without a major gun law or 218 years without background checks in this nation and for the most part we did fine. (1776-1968), (1776-1994)

Licensing gun owners either through an endorsement on a drivers license or a "Firearms ID Card" like NJ, IL, MA is a ludicrous idea. Licensing of gun owners is done in Canada, Europe and Australia and they have little if any in the way of gun rights as we do in the U.S.

A constitutionally protected right like the Second Amendment must not be "licensed" anymore than the right to free speech or the right to vote should be licensed. Licensing is a way for government to set up 'terms' and 'conditions' for that alleged 'right' and the threat of government to invariably increase the requirement or standards to retain or acquire that license.

Thus overnight the government can deem certain sections of the population no longer eligible to hold that license in sweeping legislation if it wanted. Or the government could require people to be re-licensed under new terms and conditions. The government will compel you to comply under the threat of jail and stiff fines if you didn't get re-licensed under "new conditions". This is what what done in Australia.

Regarding Firearms ID Cards, ask a New Jersey Gun Owner what they have to put up with in order to get one. Ask them how much it costs and how long they have to wait for it.

UBC Universal Background checks are just a step away from gun registration!
Any kind of UBC proposal must be defeated. UBC is registration! If UBC ever passes nationwide, the burden will eventually be on you to prove that you didn't acquire a certain firearm illegally after UBC passed. You can always say that you received the firearm before the law went into effect, being able to prove it will be another matter.

UBC passes and the 'the next step' will be to call for all firearms to be declared through UBC and tied to one particular owner. Whatever firearms are in your possession will have to go through UBC and entered in a database and you will get a receipt 'proving you own it' .

This will be an amnesty period, and when it ends then all firearms "not tied to an owner" will no longer be allowed to be registered (tied to an owner) and cannot be sold, loaned or transferred..it will become contraband.

And the only firearms that will be available through the UBC are new firearms from the factory or all firearms that previously went through the 'amnesty' period. All other firearms will be contraband and there will be criminal penalties for having contraband firearms in ones possession.

And, it would not surprise me that when they go through the amnesty period they might refuse to enter into the UBC database a certain class of weapons. They can call it a "gun roster" like they have in Massachusetts and California. They can call up an assault weapons ban simply by not "approving" transfers of certain rifles. And since it cannot be transferred into the UBC, it is now contraband.

Thereby outlawing them (by mandate, or by column entry). This could happen on the spot while the owner is trying to have them entered in the database. But since they could not register those certain firearms, those firearms will become contraband after the amnesty.

So those who favor UBC and so called 'reasonable restrictions', have absolutely no idea, no clue where UBC will lead to. We would be a step or two away from becoming another Australia or the UK .
.

monotonous_iterancy said:

.

But, if anyone at all can buy from an established shop, and that gun is later used in a crime, the buyer can still be identified through sales receipts, video footage, and similar things.

Click to expand...

How is video footage, identification thru sales receipts, Form 4473 and "similar things" any different than the background check other than the background check delays or forbids certain folks from completing a transaction? Background checks are as common today as cell phones and are used by most employers when hiring. Volunteer for anything to do with kids they will run a background check on you.

For the most part, real criminals can get guns cheaper off the black market than buying them in a legitimate store and for the most part are untraceable unless someone talks. Stolen guns go for pennies on the dollar on the street. A real criminal is not going to go into a store and be identified and recorded by video footage and other paperwork done at the time of a transfer. This is why background checks do not hinder crime in the first place.

Stolen guns go for pennies on the dollar on the street.

Click to expand...

This is where the reality lies. Criminals buy stolen TVs, fashionable wheels, guns and other hot items because they don't want to pay retail. Repealing background checks doesn't affect their underground marketplace.

Mass media perpetuates the myth that these laws help far more than they really do. A crime is solved before the last commercial because the murder weapon, abandoned at the scene of the crime, is registered to the offender.

In "Breaking Bad," a fictional series that touted itself as researching their script material to ensure real world accuracy, the anti-hero pays a premium to buy a gun with the serial number ground off. But what good does it do him to carry something that immediately identifies him as a criminal if it's found? The only thing this "script accuracy" does is convince viewers that background checks and registration matter for some inexplicable reason.

monotonous_iterancy said:

So in other words, your driver's license is turned into a national ID card of sorts? No thank you. What if someone doesn't have a DL? Why should they have to get a firearms license? How can firearms be a right when it requires a license?

To license is to ask permission. To permit is to control. It seems like a more dangerous thing than what we have now.

Click to expand...

So how do you prove your identity now when you buy a firearm? Are you ok with the current background check requirement?

My idea has nothing to do with a national firearms card or anything similar. As long as we are under the current background check system, I would prefer the individual to be verified and no record of the sale to exist. Show whatever ID is legal under the current system, just cut out the 4473 and all other state record and registration requirements.

Unlikely, but I can dream.

Cook and Ludwig, hardly part of the gun lobby, had this to say:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10918704

Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

Click to expand...

I read elsewhere that they also looked at violent crime numbers, but declined to include those in their published results.

More than just the summary here: http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JAMA_Brady_2000.pdf

I don't know that scrapping the Brady Law would lower homicides. Everything I've ever seen says that criminals don't get their guns from 01 FFLs in the first place (http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf), so I'm not sure the Brady Law actually accomplishes anything one way or the other.

What it does do is give the anti-gunners a nice soundbite and an excuse to continue the 1968 GCA and push for UBCs.

Background checks are an infringement. They do nothing to reduce crime and abuse. We got along without them quite well for almost our entire history.

Let them fade to black. Pronto.

In response to post #9 that criminals pay higher prices for illegal guns. Others have touched on that but I would add that if someone wants to move stolen goods (even regulated ones) they're going to sell at a discounted rate (hot potato anyone?).

Especially in the cases when they don't know what they have. A Colt Python might be seen as a 'revolver with too long a barrel'. $150 takes it.

And to the part in the OP about gun organizations favoring background checks, I have seen 10 that oppose them for every 1 that favors them.

stchman said:

The OP has some valid points, but it will never happen. There are too many folks out there (politicians, anti-2A, etc.) that feel background checks work. If you tell them the vast majority of criminals DON'T buy their guns at Cabela's, Bass Pro, Dick's, LGS, the think you are just some gun crazy nutjob.

Click to expand...

I think anti gun people know that background checks are useless as well as everything they propose. It is most gun owners who think background checks are great and work well. It was the NRA that was for UBC

Ryanxia said:

In response to post #9 that criminals pay higher prices for illegal guns. Others have touched on that but I would add that if someone wants to move stolen goods (even regulated ones) they're going to sell at a discounted rate (hot potato anyone?).

Especially in the cases when they don't know what they have. A Colt Python might be seen as a 'revolver with too long a barrel'. $150 takes it.

And to the part in the OP about gun organizations favoring background checks, I have seen 10 that oppose them for every 1 that favors them.

Click to expand...

That 10 to 1 ratio against background checks is not what I have seen here. 10 to 1 in favor is what I see

what would happen is a lot of prohibited persons would be legally able to defend themselves against violent persons (prohibited or otherwise), resulting in a brief spike of shootings followed by a general decline as the worst offenders we've allowed to polute our society kill themselves off, decreasing to a lower level in keeping with whatever rate our violent offenders are brought into our world. I'm not a believer in predestination, but statistics dictate some fraction of our people will do wrong to eachother and lawful self defense is both morally righteous, and pragmatically effective at curbing that behavior. Humans aren't dogs, which is why leashes are a poor remedy compared to fences (or worse)

TCB

Will Eliminating Background Checks Reduce Crime ?

No. Anything that is done to assist a criminal or potential criminal, actually would increase crime.

If a criminal steals a gun, or is given a gun, or is allowed to buy a gun, that person, agency, or whatever source is an accessory to the crime that the criminal commits. Background checks definitely cut off a possible source, for criminals to obtain guns, but not all sources.

Do I like the process when I buy a gun ? No. There should be changes made to allow "honest" buyers, to not duplicate what has gone on before, every time.

This should be discussed and debated on THR, and other forums. Even political debates by politicians: incumbents attempting to pass legislation while in office, or incumbents seeking to remain in office, or those who wish to replace them.

What sayest thou ?

Anyone can buy a cap-and-ball revolver with no background check. Even through the mail. Then he can buy a conversion cylinder, again with no background check. For some reason, converted cap-and-ball revolvers don't seem to be a criminal problem.

The main purpose of background checks is to mollify those who are afraid of guns. The checks don't really do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Nevertheless, if background checks help to take some of the heat off gun owners, they may be useful for that reason alone. This is one of the milder proposals, that doesn't affect legitimate gun owners too adversely.

The whole gun control debate in this country is "in the air," so to speak. It's not based on solid data or rational analysis. Both sides appeal mostly to emotions, in a highly polarized political climate. Reason has nothing to do with this.

AlexanderA said:

... Reason has nothing to do with this.

Click to expand...

Nor the Constitution.

Woody

But, if anyone at all can buy from an established shop, and that gun is later used in a crime, the buyer can still be identified through sales receipts, video footage, and similar things.

Click to expand...

What you are proposing is universal registration at zero day. What's that going to do private sales? Mandatory record keeping? Like many have suggested, you are also not taking into account the criminal element. Keep in mind, other that universal registration, your suggestion will not work, because real-life is not like CSI or Person of Interest TV shows.

Universal Background Checks will lead directly into Universal Registration. If UBC were passed tomorrow there would still be doubt about firearms acquired before UBC. So that would create a problem...wouldn't it?

I mean how could anyone prove that they acquired a firearm before the UBC took effect....?


The answer to this new problem is they would at some point 'come up with a solution' to require all firearms in one's possession already... to now be listed in the UBC "bill of sale database". They would tell everyone this would "protect" the owner from accusations that a firearm was acquired illegally outside of the UBC. All firearms tied to the owner would be listed on a 'bill of sale' to ease people's worries.

So now in order for this to work they would have to have an amnesty period for everyone to register their firearms with the UBC 'bill of sale database' and get a piece of paper ('bill of sale') tying those firearms to an owner. But don't worry, it won't cost anything beyond modest $10 per firearm...after all it's for their protection....and it is cheaper than a FFL.

And after the amnesty period, any firearms will not listed by that time in the UBC 'bill of sale' database will be declared to be contraband.

Which means now if it isn't in the UBC database when the amnesty ends it cannot be possessed, sold or transferred and has to be sent in for destruction under penalty of law. But don't worry, once it is in the 'UBC bill of sale database' you can still sell or buy other firearms with no problems (as long as it is in the 'UBC bill of sale database' ).

A couple of years pass they now will require a license to own any firearms in the UBC 'bill of sale' database. Which means if a person doesn't get a license "to maintain firearms in the UBC 'bill of sale' database, their firearms must be sold. And the modest $10 fee transfer is now a modest $25 in the 'UBC bill of sale database'.

Suddenly the owner of the firearms has to now get a license or he cannot possess any firearms that are listed in the UBC 'bill of sale' database. But don't worry the license is lifetime and it is free.

Two years pass then they change the rules again, now the firearms owners license is a five year license and a $50 fee. Transfer fees to enter or delete from the 'UBC bill of sale database' are now a modest $35 per firearm.

After some time, the five year license is now $100 and now comes with new terms and conditions. Certain new rifles and handguns can no longer be entered into the UBC 'bill of sale' database.

The new firearms roster takes effect, but don't worry it only affects new firearms. Existing firearms in the UBC 'bill of sale' database could still be owned. (whew what a relief...even though transfers to add or delete from the 'UBC bill of sale database'
are now a modest $50 per firearm.

Later on they change the license fee again , now it is a three year license and $200. They say the money goes to maintain the high cost of the UBC 'bill of sale' database.

New gun control legislation changes the fee schedule again, now the fee is $100 per year and must be renewed annually. A brand new firearms roster requires that firearms not on the UBC 'bill of sale' list will have to be turned in for destruction. Even those already in the UBC 'bill of sale' database.

If UBC (Universal Background Checks) becomes law across the land, other legislation as illustrated above will 'need' happen. It will eventually come down to proof of ownership and "the need to prove that the firearms were already owned before UBC took effect". And that is what will be proposed by the politicians and some of the dumb down public. And that could only happen with a UBC "bill of sale" database. a/k/a Universal Registration
.

In your example, if someone shoots the President. the Federal Govt. will throw hundreds of Agents into the investigation.

But for the real world, you are talking about manpower needs that no city, township, county, etc. has the budget for. Already a shortage of police in most States, no money to hire paper-chasers.

First you need the weapon. Good luck with recovering every weapon used in a crime.

Reviewing purchase receipts? What makes you think retailers hold onto them beyond the required 3-5 years for auditing purposes?

Reviewing videos? CCTV vids get recycled within a week, if not 24 hours.

If someone gets wounded or killed in a robbery in a bad part of town you'll get nothing more than a written statement taken down. No budget to follow-up.

Once again I ask, why would it reduce crime? Again, at best, this would only solve more crimes.

3. I'm also aware that the most hardcore anti-gun people aren't really in it for what they think benefits society. It's not about crime, it's about control. But that's not how they sell it.

Click to expand...

Based on the hardcore anti-gun people that I know, it's not about either crime or control. It's about visceral hatred of the gun culture, or what's stereotypically thought to be the gun culture. They're playing the game of "smite the redneck." This is part and parcel of the larger polarization in this country.

Gun Master said:

No. Anything that is done to assist a criminal or potential criminal, actually would increase crime.

If a criminal steals a gun, or is given a gun, or is allowed to buy a gun, that person, agency, or whatever source is an accessory to the crime that the criminal commits. Background checks definitely cut off a possible source, for criminals to obtain guns, but not all sources.

Do I like the process when I buy a gun ? No. There should be changes made to allow "honest" buyers, to not duplicate what has gone on before, every time.

This should be discussed and debated on THR, and other forums. Even political debates by politicians: incumbents attempting to pass legislation while in office, or incumbents seeking to remain in office, or those who wish to replace them.

What sayest thou ?

Click to expand...

So if I sell a pick up truck to a guy and he runs over 4 people on a street corner a week later I am to be held as an accessory to the deaths of the people in your twisted "logic"?

Licensing gun owners either through an endorsement on a drivers license or a "Firearms ID Card" like NJ, IL, MA is a ludicrous idea. Licensing of gun owners is done in Canada, Europe and Australia and they have little if any in the way of gun rights as we do in the U.S. A constitutionally protected right like the Second Amendment must not be "licensed" anymore than the right to free speech or the right to vote should be licensed. Licensing is a way for government to set up 'terms' and 'conditions' for that alleged 'right' and the threat of government to invariably increase the requirement or standards to retain or acquire that license.

Click to expand...

Well, it may be a ludicrous idea but most states now have some form of shall issue, which is licensing gun owners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...ds/sites/14/2014/02/image001-carry.png&w=1484

And in some states it's already linked to your DL. When LE runs my DL here they know I'm CPL positive. If you were starting from scratch your statement may have some relevance but we're way beyond that now. You might as well try to turn back the hands on the clock.

And the most cherished of all rights, the right to vote, has been restricted in TX. to persons who have an ID card (license). To get that you have to prove you were born in the US with a birth certificate.

You can rail all you want against licenses but the constitution does not guarantee an absolute right to much of anything anymore. Maybe that's not right or the way it was originally intended but it's the way it is. You have your constitutional rights and your every day walking around rights now.