No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other.
IIRC, there is no definite evidence either way.
No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other.
IIRC, there is no definite evidence either way.
Sure it is.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.
I remember when I couldn't read either. I was very young.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
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.
I remember when I couldn't read either. I was very young.
Reading comprehension fails some folks.
That's not nice.Ok, that's it. No dessert for you.
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.
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).
except the basic background check and fingerprinting
Cho Seung-Hui didn't need a more thorough background check, he needed treatment.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.
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.
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.
Maybe Obama just figured out a way to reduce unemployment