Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What are the cons of universal background checks?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by montgomery381, Jan 31, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Best case: Ineffective. Waste of time. Waste of money. Inconveniencing innocent people simply exercising their rights. Dems DON'T want to inconvenience illegals who want to vote by producing an ID... nor do they want to prove a person's credentials to run for President, but suddenly we need to jump through hoops to own a gun.

    Ripe for worst case scenario: Databases, registration, arbitrary denial (think "no fly list"), expanded categories (think felon, misdemeanor DV, restraining order, mental health issues, etc.... rumors that ANY assault charge, drug charge, etc. may be a prohibiting qualifyer...). Ultimately you're on lists when it comes to confiscation.

    Lots of dangerous things can be sold FTF without hoops.... why are guns so special?

    Cars, knives, gas, chainsaws, hatchets, bows, arrows, rope, lighters, glass bottles, cloth, etc. A creative person can do a lot of damage with the things I've just listed...
     
  2. buttrap

    buttrap Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,088
    Location:
    Oregon
    I am all for the idea. Free data base that costs nothing at all to use and just run a DL on your puter thats just lists people that are barred to own a gun before you sell or buy one. They will never do that as that has no "control" for them and it would help a lot.
     
  3. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,380
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    The news said (Fox) that 44% of criminals in Chicago involved in a gun crime were set free. Low bail, probation, warning, plea bargain, no charge etc. The prosecutors are either too overburdened or lax in doing their job. The cops are likely underpaid, swamped, harassed, and fed up with the system. The cry for UBC's is a desperate plea for help. We all know of course, that the law is irrelevant and ignored to the gang bangers who use these guns......

    We must have a SURGE plan against this element of our society. Let us saturate these areas of the city with cops, witness, and undercover snitches. Then, the legal system MUST do its job using existing laws.
     
  4. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    314
    Sherriffs are NOT psychiatrists, they don't understand the difference between someone with mental issues that is dangerous, and someone with mental issues that is NOT dangerous. One of the cons of a universal background check is that more non-violent people will be rejected from their CCW simply because some Sheriff takes a glimpse at their medical file without understanding the full story.
     
  5. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,607
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    Background checks have proven statistically ineffective in implementing their stated goal, which is to prevent dangerous folk from getting their hands on firearms and Doing Bad Things with them. A simple NICS denial looks like a win, until you factor in the fact that a denial cannot be shown to have any bearing on the actual rate of crimes commited with a firearm.

    In exchange for that, background checks prevent at least ten thousand folk EACH YEAR from buying a gun when they should, by law, be allowed to do so. If I needed a gun for lawful self-defense and was denied the right to buy one until I successfully appealed the denial, I might be a mite ticked off (and especially so if I knew how ineffective the actual check has been in preventing violent crime).
     
  6. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    Here is the gist of the argument in favor: right now a convicted felon can purchase a gun from an honest seller by misrepresenting himself that he is not a convicted felon. In this scenario, although the law is being broken, only the buyer is knowingly breaking the law.

    Once the background checks become universal, then in order to have an illegal sale, both buyer AND seller will have to break the law. Since I believe that most gun-owners are honest, law-abiding citizens, this will surely cut down significantly on the amount of illegal sales. I don't see how anyone can argue that it would be ineffective.
     
  7. SoCalNoMore

    SoCalNoMore Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Emphatically no. In 1994 Los Angeles County- Cities near Hacienda Heights; home invasion robberies went from an average of 1 a months to 5-7 a week. Asian gangs were simply walking in to homes and at gun point taking what they wanted. Still to this day, a used SW 45 sells for about $50 on the street.

    A background check does nothing to stem gun violence, especially "mass" shootings like we have seen in the last few years.

    As was said before by a post above, background checks will lead to registration that leads to confiscation. If you don't believe it, just listen to the far left liberals that are on camera stating "we need all guns off the street", "we can do this in one generation, now is our chance".

    Even if a legal buyer of firearms was selling guns to his crook friends, do you think that chain of custody will help find the killer?

    Another scenario- I buy a home protection firearm, 5 years later it is stolen. I report it stolen to the local PD. 10 years after that it is used in a homicide (assuming the gun is recovered) then its traced to me. That trace is done, leads to nothing.

    Most of the gun violence (gangs etc. like Chicago) we hear about and don't hear about is done with stolen guns that are never recovered.

    A background check would not have prevented any mass shootings. What would have prevented some if any, was a better system to flag people with mental illness. The challenge is, there is not real way to prevent a person from snapping and killing people. The gun grabbers for what ever reason think that a reduction in guns on the street will save lives. It won't. Deep in their minds they think we need to abolish the 2A to save lives.

    Not to mention, not ever state participates in the system and not all agencies share data. Another thought- its not too hard to get a fake ID and buy a gun from anyone.

    IMO- we have a societal problem where people are not as civilized as we used to be.
     
  8. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    Can you back up either of these claims? How can anyone claim that universal background checks are ineffective, when we've never had them? (Especially when in other countries that DO have them, such as Israel, they are considered highly effective.)

    And how can it be that 10,000 law-abiding people a year are prevented from buying firearms as a result of the current system in place? How can that possibly be?
     
  9. SoCalNoMore

    SoCalNoMore Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Exactly, the system is only as good as the data that is in it. Again, it only hinders law abiding buyers. Lets say an innocent guy is flagged. How does he appeal and at what cost?
     
  10. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    This possibility could already occur at a gun store, right? Surely there is an appeal mechanism already in place?
     
  11. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    As far as it being free to the seller and buyer, this seems to be a continuing concern. But I hold that the responsibility for paying for background checks should be solely the responsibility of the parties to the transaction.
     
  12. Hoppes Love Potion

    Hoppes Love Potion Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Florida
    If UBC is required, then what happens to all guns that were transferred previously through private parties? There's no way to prove they were acquired legally. You will be presumed guilty and cannot prove yourself innocent.
     
  13. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    This is why I am also for a national registration and database for all guns in this country. There will be no way for universal background checks to truly be effective without this. And it will prevent anyone from being falsely accused, if that is your concern.
     
  14. cjett

    cjett Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    They need to stop drugging our kids up because they are a little hyper active in school and the teachers are to lazy to deal with them. None of this took place when I was in school in the 50's & 60's that I recall.
     
  15. Bianchi?

    Bianchi? Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    Registration leads to confiscation. Universal background checks will require registration in order to be enforceable. Therefore, UBC's will require registration which will lead to confiscation.
     
  16. hogshead

    hogshead Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Timmy 4 why dont you move a glorious country where guns are banned and stop trying to infringe on our second amendment rights. I will help you pack. Or you could join the Brady Bunch. I think you would fit right in.TROLL
     
  17. montgomery381

    montgomery381 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    151
    As I said in my opening, I don't want UBC. Everybody made good points but Hoppes Love Potion ( great name by the way) and timmy4 really confirmed my feelings on the matter in a nice concise manner. UBC would be completely ineffective without registration and I am 100% against any type of registration. I think this was on of those things that I needed to hear other people confirm it. Thanks for the posts. And I apologize if I may have induced any painful face palms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
  18. SoCalNoMore

    SoCalNoMore Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    First of all, out of the 10k people only (If my memory serves me correctly) 14 people were actually prosecuted for being a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.

    Second- just look at California to see that strict checks do nothing to stem gun violence.
     
  19. SoCalNoMore

    SoCalNoMore Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    107
    Again, UBC and complete registration and chain of custody will not do anything to reduce violent crimes committed with firearms. When a gun is stolen, it is out of the chain.

    Information is too easily falsified, honest people will be flagged for no reason because of a mistake or stolen identity. How much money and time do you want to spend because a cyber criminal stole your identity and sold it to a crook how buys a gun and kills someone?
     
  20. radiotom

    radiotom Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    332
    What are the cons of universal background checks?

    Criminals won't participate. :banghead:
     
  21. sawdeanz

    sawdeanz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Location:
    Florida
    I just read an article in the Tampa Bay Times about background checks for ammunition purchases, and at the end they quote Senator Blumenthal as saying the law's burden "is minimal to the government, and the gun shops, and the individual."

    What pisses is me off is that these guys fail to acknowledge the facts. If a shop has to hire additional workers on their dime to deal with extra regulations (whether it be background checks on ammo or all guns) then that is the definition of a burden. If you are ok with placing that burden in the name of saving children, thats fine and totally legitimate, but at least acknowledge it. These guys have obviously never been to a gun shop on a busy day, where customers have to wait an hour for their purchase to go through.
     
  22. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    1. They don't stop crime.
    2. They are an infringement of a right.
    3. They add cost to lawful purchases.
    4. They detract law enforcement resources from fighting crime.
    5. They deter those who need a weapon NOW for self-defense.
    6. They lead to registration /confiscation.
     
  23. HOWARD J

    HOWARD J Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,244
    Location:
    S/E Michigan
    In MI they run a background check on you for a handgun, rifle & shotgun
    even at the gun show---I don't know about slingshots.
    I sure they do on crossbows
     
  24. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,607
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    But they still won't be effective even under a national registration scheme. Look to countries like AUS and UK that still have a thriving black market for guns, even in the face of national registration.

    Laws only stop those who would obey the law. How hard is that for some folk to grasp?
     
  25. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    The present proposals in Washington concerning a Universal Background Check without exception simply require that all private sales would have to be made through an FFL.

    Objections to this have been previously stated, but I would point out that today, with no further legislation, anyone making a private sale to another individual who wants that person's background checked has the option of going to an FFL and having the transaction made through them. Or they may leave their firearm(s) with a FFL dealer, placed on consignment.

    So real object of the various proposals is to force private sellers to do this.

    If this goes through a lot of present office holders may find they touch a hot stove.

    I have another thought for Timmy4.

    At the present time handguns are registered in relatively few states, and rifles and shotguns in even less. Those made before 1968 are mostly untraceable. The total number is probably in the many millions. If a Universal Registration Law was passed, how could these firearms be brought under the umbrella if owners refused to cooperate?

    Could the responsible legislators survive the next election? :uhoh:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page