Background checks for gun purchases?

[canndo]

This is another one of those "it's no skin off my back" feel good bits of legislation but I wonder if it bears examination.


1. What are we looking for in a background check?

Is the applicant a felon? so what? what kind? did he do his time? was it for white collar crime? in short, what do we actually know that is pertinent to this person's purchase of a firearm?

2. Is he "crazy" - what sort of crazy does he have to be in order to be denied a weapon? Has he been arrested for previous mass shootings? Is he a pedophile? ( suppose if he is, perhaps he can have a weapon as he surely values those little lives enough to keep him from taking them) Is he GAY? could be that Gays have a penchant for going nuts because everyone picks on them.

3. Is he a member of a subvesive organization? Panthers? KKK? perhaps a union member? We know how dangerous those folks are


4. Is he married? we know that married people are likely to be overly belligerent.


5. Postal worker?

6. Play twich games dealing with apocalyptic themes?

7. Is he white? Statistics show that mass murderers are traditionaly white so that should be a red flag right there.

8. Is he a conservative? we know they are not only mentaly unstable but have paranoid tendancies




Really, my points are stupid but the question is valid, what background that i easily available without private detectives and exhaustive psychological evaluations is going to do anything at all about rooting out possible mass shooters?

Sure, I'll support background checks because it may be that some folks who shouldn't have a weapon might be frightened off from even attempting to attain a weapon but other than that, I can't see the real effectivenes of such a requirement.

 

[kelly4]

7. Is he white? Statistics show that mass murderers are traditionaly white so that should be a red flag right there.

Is he male? Statistics show that mass murderers are traditionally male.

Doesn't matter what color he is now does it...

 

[kelly4]

Is he male? Statistics show that mass murderers are traditionally male.

Doesn't matter what color he is now does it...

Sorry Canndo, I thought you were being serious...I didn't even make it to the end before responding.

You do post some very dumb stuff sometimes...sorry for my confusion.

 

[canndo]

Sorry Canndo, I thought you were being serious...I didn't even make it to the end before responding.

You do post some very dumb stuff sometimes...sorry for my confusion.

You might have seen fit to finish. The question is quite simple: Everyone right and left seems to be all for "background checks" but upon closer examination, what do we check for and what difference does it make what we find?

I never post dumb stuff.

 

[st0wandgrow]

I've thought about this too, canndo. EVERY measure being kicked around has some holes in it. Something like background checks would act as a deterrent for people that clearly should not/could not own a weapon (ie people convicted of violent felonies). It would also catch the violent felons that do apply, but are too stupid to realize they shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Outside of that, there is a lot of grey, and this does open the door up to big brother over stepping it's power. Would it be fair to say that someone who is bi-polar is more likely to snap and commit a violent felony? Without looking up the stats, I would say that's a good guess .... but should we deny someone their right to own a firearm based on that alone? I personally don't think so.

What about tracking the sales of weapons and ammo? Should that be done? Would the Aurora CO shooter have been sniffed out prior to the shooting based upon the large volume of weapons and ammo he purchased in a short period of time?

This is a really tough issue, and one that I sit firmly on the fence over. I will admit though, the more I think this through the more I'm leaning towards the pro-gun side of things (even though I don't own any guns). There just isn't a reasonable way to ensure that we are keeping the guns out of the wrong hands without stepping all over other people in the process.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I never post dumb stuff.

LOL and I am always right.

 

[canndo]

LOL and I am always right.

are you? really?

 

[wcrazy78]

Obviously I am a criminal and if I know there's a background check I avoid them through private sales, gun shows depending on what I want, classifieds (not so much anymore) unless you look at estate sales those are easy pickins too...What's a background check?...I can roll out into the city and get anything I want no questions asked...same day delivery too...right outta a trunk or from under some piece of furniture in the room....


Gun control laws like these would not have stopped Sandy Hook as the guy took his moms guns...why even try using logic to discuss this...criminal will get what they need regardless because they don't care...

 

[canndo]

Obviously I am a criminal and if I know there's a background check I avoid them through private sales, gun shows depending on what I want, classifieds (not so much anymore) unless you look at estate sales those are easy pickins too...What's a background check?...I can roll out into the city and get anything I want no questions asked...same day delivery too...right outta a trunk or from under some piece of furniture in the room....




Gun control laws like these would not have stopped Sandy Hook as the guy took his moms guns...why even try using logic to discuss this...criminal will get what they need regardless because they don't care...

this is the same "if it doesn't work 100 percent of the time then why bother" phony argument the gun toters trot out year after year. "it is all too difficult now with respect to guns so at least with regard to guns and gun control, let us do nothing.



There are tends of thousands of laws on the books prohbiting theft. Petty theft, grand larceny, pilferage, extortion, check kiting, identity theft an the like. Yet every year billions get stolen, cars are taken, motocycles, boats, purses, wallets, pensions, bonds, coper, gold. Things are stolen. The common law abiding citizen doesn't steal (usually). It is the criminals who steal. It is clear that laws against theft do not work so why are we bothering to enact even more laws in order to prevent something that clearly is happening anyway?

Laws against murder don't seem to be working for as has been said time after time, guns don't kill people, people kill people and with guns or without, people are still murdered, so why should we have laws against murder on the books? This is not a rhetorical question. If the laws that are supposed to prevent certain behavior are not working, then why do we have the laws?

 

[cannabineer]

this is the same "if it doesn't work 100 percent of the time then why bother" phony argument the gun toters trot out year after year. "it is all too difficult now with respect to guns so at least with regard to guns and gun control, let us do nothing.



There are tends of thousands of laws on the books prohbiting theft. Petty theft, grand larceny, pilferage, extortion, check kiting, identity theft an the like. Yet every year billions get stolen, cars are taken, motocycles, boats, purses, wallets, pensions, bonds, coper, gold. Things are stolen. The common law abiding citizen doesn't steal (usually). It is the criminals who steal. It is clear that laws against theft do not work so why are we bothering to enact even more laws in order to prevent something that clearly is happening anyway?

Laws against murder don't seem to be working for as has been said time after time, guns don't kill people, people kill people and with guns or without, people are still murdered, so why should we have laws against murder on the books? This is not a rhetorical question. If the laws that are supposed to prevent certain behavior are not working, then why do we have the laws?

This may be an artifact of perspective, but I see the antis guilty of just the sort of reasoning in the bolded. Gun bans are driven by a nonrational but emotionally compelling zero-tolerance argument. "No more massacres of children!" ... with the hope-raised-to-belief that if we remove the guns, we remove the massacres of children. Something about babies and bathwater tugs at the bottom of my mind. cn

 

[NLXSK1]

• Laws against murder don't seem to be working for as has been said time after time, guns don't kill people, people kill people and with guns or without, people are still murdered, so why should we have laws against murder on the books? This is not a rhetorical question. If the laws that are supposed to prevent certain behavior are not working, then why do we have the laws?​
  
  
  
  

So we can arrest and detain the murderers. If there were no penalties to murder the murder rate would be considerably higher.

Like you just said, people kill people with or without guns. So leave the guns out of it ok? Focus on the killing. That way you are not restricting my rights.

 

[wcrazy78]

this is the same "if it doesn't work 100 percent of the time then why bother" phony argument the gun toters trot out year after year. "it is all too difficult now with respect to guns so at least with regard to guns and gun control, let us do nothing.



There are tends of thousands of laws on the books prohbiting theft. Petty theft, grand larceny, pilferage, extortion, check kiting, identity theft an the like. Yet every year billions get stolen, cars are taken, motocycles, boats, purses, wallets, pensions, bonds, coper, gold. Things are stolen. The common law abiding citizen doesn't steal (usually). It is the criminals who steal. It is clear that laws against theft do not work so why are we bothering to enact even more laws in order to prevent something that clearly is happening anyway?

Laws against murder don't seem to be working for as has been said time after time, guns don't kill people, people kill people and with guns or without, people are still murdered, so why should we have laws against murder on the books? This is not a rhetorical question. If the laws that are supposed to prevent certain behavior are not working, then why do we have the laws?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm
Please note that the crime rates have dropped almost 2/3 from what they were...regardless of laws through time. Your arguments are purely based on emotional knee jerk reactions as it would appear that you think the laws are not working yet the numbers clearly show they are.
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

 

[canndo]

This may be an artifact of perspective, but I see the antis guilty of just the sort of reasoning in the bolded. Gun bans are driven by a nonrational but emotionally compelling zero-tolerance argument. "No more massacres of children!" ... with the hope-raised-to-belief that if we remove the guns, we remove the massacres of children. Something about babies and bathwater tugs at the bottom of my mind. cn

Their notion however is a correct one. The fewer available guns there are in a society, the fewer gun deaths would be the result. What they have yet to realize is the massive number of guns in circulation in this country and the futility of banning all of them even given an absence of a guarantee that we are able to own weapons regardless of the consequences to society as a whole.


I don't believe that any but the most rabid and thoughtless of the anti's seriouly condone widespread gun confiscation. However, I recently read of a local gun buyback initiative. It was a community effort, it depended upon monies independent of the government itself and it was to be conducted by civilians and police officers who were off duty at the time. Now why would the gun toting community act to put a stop to such a program? Yet that is exactly what they did.

 

[wcrazy78]

Their notion however is a correct one. The fewer available guns there are in a society, the fewer gun deaths would be the result. What they have yet to realize is the massive number of guns in circulation in this country and the futility of banning all of them even given an absence of a guarantee that we are able to own weapons regardless of the consequences to society as a whole.


I don't believe that any but the most rabid and thoughtless of the anti's seriouly condone widespread gun confiscation. However, I recently read of a local gun buyback initiative. It was a community effort, it depended upon monies independent of the government itself and it was to be conducted by civilians and police officers who were off duty at the time. Now why would the gun toting community act to put a stop to such a program? Yet that is exactly what they did.

So they disrupted the buy back where guns got turned in for cash?...crazy...I have heard of buy backs never seen one set up. Something odd about going to turn in an illegal gun to police for money kinda like that show to catch a predator...lol

 

[wcrazy78]

BTW I am totally for background checks for firearms purchase as based on statistics past criminals are more likely to become re-peat offenders.

 

[beardo]

"Shall not be infringed"

 

[canndo]

So we can arrest and detain the murderers. If there were no penalties to murder the murder rate would be considerably higher.

Like you just said, people kill people with or without guns. So leave the guns out of it ok? Focus on the killing. That way you are not restricting my rights.

This then is the purpose of many laws, not to deter so much as punish after the fact, in order that the violators cannot get away with their crimes. So how is this any diffferent than a "gun free zone" where a person will not necessarily be deterred from bringing the gun to a gun free zone but can and will be punished for breaking the law after the fact. The short of it is that the argument "gun regulations do not save lives" is no more or less valid than saying "laws against theft do not curtail robbery". The law itself may not stop the robbery but they do enable the system to punish the law breaker.


That anti-gun laws don't stop all gun related deaths does not negate the value of the law, contrary to what the gun toter logic holds.

 

[NLXSK1]

This then is the purpose of many laws, not to deter so much as punish after the fact, in order that the violators cannot get away with their crimes. So how is this any diffferent than a "gun free zone" where a person will not necessarily be deterred from bringing the gun to a gun free zone but can and will be punished for breaking the law after the fact. The short of it is that the argument "gun regulations do not save lives" is no more or less valid than saying "laws against theft do not curtail robbery". The law itself may not stop the robbery but they do enable the system to punish the law breaker.


That anti-gun laws don't stop all gun related deaths does not negate the value of the law, contrary to what the gun toter logic holds.

Except for that dead document that makes keeping and bearing arms a right... And one of the most important rights. No matter what your opinion is...

 

[beardo]

This then is the purpose of many laws, not to deter so much as punish after the fact, in order that the violators cannot get away with their crimes. So how is this any diffferent than a "gun free zone" where a person will not necessarily be deterred from bringing the gun to a gun free zone but can and will be punished for breaking the law after the fact. The short of it is that the argument "gun regulations do not save lives" is no more or less valid than saying "laws against theft do not curtail robbery". The law itself may not stop the robbery but they do enable the system to punish the law breaker.


That anti-gun laws don't stop all gun related deaths does not negate the value of the law, contrary to what the gun toter logic holds.

You can't seriously be that dumb are you?
Do you really not get it?
A gun free zone disarms law abiding citizens, making them easy pickings for those intent on breaking laws and harming others
also a gun free zone is unconstitutional

 

[canndo]

So they disrupted the buy back where guns got turned in for cash?...crazy...I have heard of buy backs never seen one set up. Something odd about going to turn in an illegal gun to police for money kinda like that show to catch a predator...lol

the point is that there is something driving gun owners ( many of them) that has yet to be addressed. It is almost as though when a gun owner is confronted by ANY legislation, ANY limit, any percieved threat, he sees it as a threat to his individuality, his manhood, his personality.

We see that when a rightist authoritarian is confronted by an idea that he is not equiped to contend with. He responds violently, as though the wholeness of his perrsonality is in jeaporday. He sees it as a threat to his ego or his very being. Unless this reaction is well understood and I confess I do not, then this argument is not about mere ideological or political lines but something far more fundamental.

Sometimes it feels like the gun toters are mishearing statements in support of gun control, it seems almost as if they are hearing "we intend to take away your manhood" Watch and see if you do not sense it yourself.