What's wrong on background check's for firearms?

[JImbothefiveth]

When only felons can't have guns, we just make more crimes into felonies.

Well, then we need to stop them from making lots of new felonies, not letting murderers buy legally.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

When only felons can't have guns, we just make more crimes into felonies

Then we need to stop that from happening, not arm murderers.
People accused of very serious crimes can also be put in jail for a time before their trial. Should we stop that in case people decide to accuse everyone of a serious crime? Maybe we should stop the prison system altogether, why should we keep someone confined like that just because he has commited crimes and will probably commit more?

 

[divemedic]

This guy here had to take a leak. Yep, that is a danger to society, all right. He deserves to never own a gun or a vote again. I feel safer already.

Or maybe this was an airborne cocktail waitress who was just being rude and pushy, but knew that she could, because the law says she is in charge, and buddy, you better do what I say. You aren't going to tell her to move her bar cart, and no you aren't going to use the other bathroom, either. Do what you are told, or we will make you a felon. Yep.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

You are of course finding the most ridiculous cases and overlooking the more common ones like armed robbery, home invasion, attempted murder and murder.

 

[JochenWeber]

Guns or no guns, neither most murderers nor many murderers -nor virtually any murderers are ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults. This conclusion is so invariably reached by homicide studies that the study by David Kennedy and Anthony Braga describes the fact that murderers are almost invariably veteran criminals as a "Criminological Axiom."

Naïve, well-meaning people often respond to those facts with, "Still, wouldn't this be a better world without guns?" After studying this subject I believe that guns are a highly effective method of self-defense, I reply, no, the world would be immeasurably worse off without the only weaponry that gives the weak a real chance against predators. After all, there was a time, hundreds of years ago, when there were no guns. Survival was measured by strength of men's arms, as women, children, and the elderly huddled in terror, escaping only by abject submission to their predators.

I conclude that when government passes laws that only peaceable people obey, they're simply leaving the same people at the mercy of violent predators.

The United States already has laws forbidding felons, commit over 90% of murders with the reminder carried out by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. Those laws are by defination ineffective against the lawless.

"Gun control," including background checks, therefore, only "controls" those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

 

[PT1911]

as I said, advocate for a change in the definition of a felony... I will never support the selling of guns to felons... and honestly I find it pathetic that anyone who supports gun rights and rights to protect oneself from BGs would support such a rediculous idea.. no doubt the system is flawed and some are convicted unjustly, but saying all felons can own Fire arms because some may not have commited "bad" crimes is, for the lack of a better word, DUMB!!!!

you are advocating the wrong thing... but I understand your intentions.

 

[divemedic]

A murderer in jail can't buy a firearm. My guess is that there are a lot more guys like that wandering around the streets than there are convicted murderers. If you are bad eough to merit losing your rights, you are bad enough to merit beig in jail.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

If they commit 90% of the murders, why should we make more effective tools easier for them to get?

A murderer in jail can't buy a firearm. My guess is that there are a lot more guys like that wandering around the streets than there are convicted murderers.

I doubt it. If I'm not mistaken, most felons re-offend. I think around 60% are arrested again within 5 years, or maybe it was convicted.

 

[PT1911]

A murderer in jail can't buy a firearm. My guess is that there are a lot more guys like that wandering around the streets than there are convicted murderers.

nice change from known felons to murderers that have yet to be charged.

stop throwing out little one liners and give a suggestion on how to fix this issue.. I am not sure how to go about it, but I KNOW allowing known felons to buy guns legally is definitely not the way to go.

 

[sernv99]

When a convicted felon tries to buy a gun, lies when filling out the form and is turned down; nothing happens

wrong

something did happen, he was denied to buy a gun!!! Seems like the system worked!! Right??!! Denying felons guns??!!

If the framers of the Constitution knew of the type of people living in the US today, I'm placing bets that for sure they would not insert any type of 2nd amendment/RKBA provisions into the Constitution.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I still think they'd have the second amendment. However, I doubt they'd want to arm violent felons. In their time, I doubt a lot of these people would ever be free again.

 

[PT1911]

I still think they'd have the second amendment. However, I doubt they'd want to arm violent felons. In their time, I doubt a lot of these people would ever be free again.

I would go a step further... I doubt they would be holding onto their right to live any longer... Problem solved...

 

[TexasRifleman]

Again, you seem to be leaving out the fact that background checks have only been required since the mid 90s, and the gun crime rate didn't drop when the background checks went into place.

There were felons before the 1990s, why didn't these background checks drop the crime rate if these bad folks were out there buying guns at their local gun dealers?

 

[gripper]

Another thing...this may have been touched on already,but here it is:
It is not "just a background check"-It is the fact that there are not only many things that DQ you today(other than viloent crimes) that would not be in the data base even recently:it is th efact that many issuing autorities at ALL levels like to interpret and reinterpret old backrgrounfd factors in a "new (read-retroactive) light".
In short,the reason why so many in gov't like to constantly agitate for "new laws",is because not enough of us were breaking the "old ones".I say "legal"-they say "loophole".

 

[JImbothefiveth]

However, executing a lot of these people would probably be unconstitutional, they were only convicted for attacking people or robbery or theft.

Again, you seem to be leaving out the fact that background checks have only been required since the mid 90s, and the gun crime rate didn't drop when the background checks went into place.

Violent crime dropped a lot from the early 90s to at least 2006. However, this might be due to CCW.

There were felons before the 1990s, why didn't these background checks drop the crime rate if these bad folks were out there buying guns at their local gun dealers?

It might have. Most felons don't buy legally, however, some felons are stopped. The more that are stopped the better. These people commit 90% of murders.

 

[PT1911]

However, executing a lot of these people would probably be unconstitutional, they were only convicted for attacking people or robbery or theft

I know, I was mostly being sarcastic with that... but the fact remains.. they wouldnt have put up with such crimes.

 

[BhmBill]

I didn't say felons, I said criminals.

I agree with changing what a "felony" is. Also, put the violent ones away forever. I'm not advocating GIVING guns to murderers. I advocate keeping them in a cell or executing them.

All FREE men should be armed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It might have. Most felons don't buy legally, however, some felons are stopped. The more that are stopped the better. These people commit 90% of murders.

Did you read my very long post citing sources from all over the place showing that the Brady Law has had no effect at all on crime rates?

You can't just make up stuff to fit your argument when all the facts go against it.

You're doing the "it seems like it would help" thing which has no basis in reality.

It might SEEM like a good idea, but it has not been shown to change anything at all.

The simple fact is that criminals, both before AND after the Brady Law went into effect, sourced their firearms from other than licensed dealers and gun shows.

something did happen, he was denied to buy a gun!!! Seems like the system worked!! Right??!! Denying felons guns??!!

You don't honestly believe that if a criminal decides to go shopping for a gun, and he's turned down by a dealer, that his search for a gun will end do you?

And again, the crime rate before the background checks didn't change once they were in place.

 

[Zoogster]

It is better to furnish a felon with a firearm, than to deny an honest, law abiding person from purchasing one.

While I agree with that sentiment, I have tried to curb my use of the term "law abiding" when refering to good honest people.
Forced marches without protest or resistance to the ghettos and the trains of Germany was the law. Getting on those trains to the camps was the law, resisting the LEO performing the roundup was illegal.
In fact resisting would make someone not just a felon, but a violent felon.

Or closer to home, the Japanese who were legal US citizens rounded up and put into concentration camps in the USA.
That was the law. Resisting, hiding, or fleeing was unlawful. Resistance would make them a violent felon.
That does not mean they would not be arrested and given a prison sentence if they break the law by resisting, but the 2nd exists to enable that option.

The founders of our nation were unlawful. Those resisting tyranny were unlawful.
Surrendering thier arms at the start to General Gage and his large group of LEO sent to take them was the lawful thing to do. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was totaly unlawful. They were resisting LEO who had come to disarm criminals.
If defeated they should have been arrested and put into prison, they were violent criminals, and they even murdered LEO who came to confiscate thier arms who were merely performing thier duties and obeying orders.
Yet the 2nd would have still enabled them to resist, which is the point.


During the civil rights movement a large number of criminals took up arms to resist the law. While today our government encourages a curriculum (and mandates for those who accept federal funding like most) that focuses on those non-violent individuals such as Martin Luther King jr, the truth is it was not until the increasing threat of a real insurgency with popular support from a large minority that equality was granted. When violent resistance began to take over neighborhoods even ambushing police in places like Oakland and the population supported thier actions.
That was scary to government (especialy considering the Soviet Union could have backed and used them to weaken the US.) That resulted in both equality, but also many restrictions on firearms as well.
Open carry became illegal in places like CA when legaly armed black men, some of whom had previously been arrested and had criminal records marched on the capitol. Protesting while armed became illegal. Having firearms in or around the capitol became illegal.
Anyone arrested for demonstrating especialy if they resisted were guilty of a felony. Resisting arrest is a felony.
During that entire time the government sought ways to prevent resistance.
The 1968 Gun Control Act came along, bringing with it prohibited persons.
Those very people protesting and arrested could be prohibited from legaly having arms.

However previously the 2nd prevailed, it gave the option for resistance. That does not mean those who excercised that option were not violent criminals, some of whom deserved to be put into prison. It simply means the 2nd enabled an option. An option that resulted in the check on power envisioned by the founding fathers.



Lawful and unlawful are not synonymous with unpredatory and predatory.
I do not want predatory individuals armed with things that can hurt me or others, but I also know the constition is a dam against the floodgates of tyranny. Protecting liberty is not about my comfort level.

So when I think of a good person I generaly think of a law abiding individual, but that is a poor criteria. There is people who legaly seize homes, land, and use imminent domain and adverse possession to rob people. They are little different from the criminal that illegaly robs you.
The judge that signs a no-knock warrant for non-violent offenses is no better than a criminal home invader.
Law abiding and right and wrong can be totaly different things.


People should be held accountable for criminal actions.
The Constition should be obeyed.
If people are allowed the walk the streets they should retain the inalienable rights of all.
This will not include most murderers because murders are not ususaly released.
Certainly it will include some I would not want armed, but liberty is not about my comfort, and the 2nd exists to protect us all from even greater threats. Most people will not be victims of violent crime, but everyone's liberties are constantly on the line subject to the stroke of a pen.

Governments of the world killed more civilians in the 20th century than outlaw criminals of the type that rob, rape, or murder, are known to have killed in all of recorded history. We had some very unique founders of this nation, we should not throw it all away for comfort (with measures that would be unconstitional even if effective, but that have proven ineffective.)
Don't be divided and conquered.

 

[PT1911]

If known felons and violent criminals were were legally able to buy guns it would give antis all the argument and power they need to enforce more gun control. Regardless of the effect on crime rates, felons and violent criminals should never be able to legally purchase a firearm... at the very least, if they acquire one illegally, it supports the PRO GUN idea that making guns illegal will do nothing to crime rates... WHY CAN NOBODY SEE THIS? Embrace the irritating form and waiting period and use them to OUR advantage... It only supports the argument that we all support that our guns are a necessary part of our lives not just a right given to us by a group of dead men.

 

[Carl]

Although background checks don't really stop criminals from getting guns, it does limit the places where they can get one.

Then again, if we armed every single person in this country, then all of the criminals would off each other and get shot by law abiding citizens during an attempted felony and they'd all be cleaned out of the system.

 

[BhmBill]

Thank you, Zoogster.

Well said, very well said.

Ol' Benny Franklin sums it up nicely...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Embrace the irritating form and waiting period and use them to OUR advantage... It only supports the argument that we all support that our guns are a necessary part of our lives not just a right given to us by a group of dead men.

Ahhh... sorta like victory through martyrdom.

Let's print t-shirts! :banghead:

 

[PT1911]

Ahhh... sorta like victory through martyrdom.

Let's print t-shirts!

no... sorta like gun control doesnt work....

Felons and violent criminals shouldnt be able to legally purchase guns.. PERIOD. I dont know what the fuss is. Filtering them during the buying process (though it can be refined) only reinforces the fact that criminals are going to get their guns anyway... are you so dense that you cannot acknowledge that... continue to ram your head against the wall. maybe you will knock some sense into yourself.

 

[divemedic]

The facts that many of you are ignoring:

1 Violent criminals get guns when they want them. Obviously, the BG checks do not prevent this from happening, as two other posters have pointed out: crime rates did not change with the Brady law, and 90% of murders are performed by previous offenders. Since 60% of murders are carried out using firearms, that means a significant number of felons are getting them. In other words, BG checks are ineffective.

2 There are many law abiding citizens who are denied their right to own firearms because they are wrongly on the NICS "no buy" list. Since the "good guy" has been denied, he has two choices: either obey the "no buy" order and remain a good guy, or find a way to buy anyhow, thereby becoming a "bad guy" through a straw purchase, or some other way to circumvent the law.

In other words, the BG check is at best an ineffective annoyance, which does nothing to deter crime, or at worst is the anti-gunners' first step in eliminating all gun sales.

I keep hearing on this site how one thing or another is going to "give the anti-gunners a reason" to disarm us, as if they need one. It doesn't matter i no one was murdered for the next three years, because the debate over gun control has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with getting rid of civilian ownership of firearms. To worry about appeasement of people like Helmke in the hopes that if you placate him you can keep the status quo is Pollyanna bootlicking.

I think it is shameful to steal a man's rights over a civil misdemeanor, a Doctor's opinion, or a non-violent felony in the hopes that some left wing communist will leave YOU rights alone. The real criminal here is the person who would do that.