That Background Checks Would Reduce Gun Violence, Is Common Sense

[dairygirl4u2c]

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented.

studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.
 

this shows that people are denied because of background. it shows that peopele are arrested because of background. it shows that people often don't buy guns, because it is illegal for them to have them. 
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/stats-show-background-checks-are-effective/article_ac6626fd-8bf5-55d7-83cf-d464e379000a.html

 

you may say youself "most" of those checks are annoyances. that means not all of em are. and you say bad people will find a way to get a gun, but to say what i said before, not all of them will. bob is violent prone. he can't get a gun legally. so he doesn't. when he goes off and doesn't have a gun, someone is saved. this is simple common sense. sometimes people like bob will get the gun, sure. not always. in fact id guess not usually. again most people are not black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. 

even if some livesa saved wasn't statistically significant, it's still lives saved. it can only help. but it's more than statistically significant. it's obivous that it'd help reduce gun violence.

 

if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution and at least have checks?

there's no question checks would be helpful, and at the very least give more checks a shot

 

-----------------------------

the following shows that gun control in general has worked. i wont dispute that other studies show sometimes it doesn't work etc... but it's evidence never the less. 

-they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.
-japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Meduseld]

Maybe I'm losing my mind from finals, but I'm pretty sure you started another topic on this that's BELOW this one right now.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Meduseld

[PhuturePriest]

Maybe I'm losing my mind from finals, but I'm pretty sure you started another topic on this that's BELOW this one right now.

 

Finals are from the Devil, but it appears some of your memory still remains intact.

[Papist]

Enforcing the already 10,000+ gun laws would reduce gun violence, common sense.

[Ice_nine]

Maybe I'm losing my mind from finals, but I'm pretty sure you started another topic on this that's BELOW this one right now.

 and in two weeks she'll probably start another thread with the same title.

 

welcome to phatmass

[Meduseld]

Finals are from the Devil, but it appears some of your memory still remains intact.

 

Thank God. My sleep schedule is so far off, when I looked at the clock I honestly had to question whether it was 5am or 5pm this morning.

 

Enforcing the already 10,000+ gun laws would reduce gun violence, common sense.

 

:bravo:  Yup.

 

 and in two weeks she'll probably start another thread with the same title.

 

welcome to phatmass

 

Oh, I'm new here, but those are always fun. I love handling those!  :bananarap:

[EmilyAnn]

If it's common sense then why do you keep going on about it?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Enforcing the already 10,000+ gun laws would reduce gun violence, common sense.

 

one thing i agree with the NRA spokesman about is this... it would help if we enforced existing laws. one thing i can say for certain i disagree with, is that we shouldnt have 100% background checks. cause we should. 

 

this sthread is different than the others in that this focuses on background checks. 90% of people agree with me. i want to just expose the illogic of those who dont. 

so i'm waiting to get someone who doesn't agree

[jeffboom]

NOOOOOOOOO NOT AGAIN!

 

Even I want to stop talking about guns.

Edited May 12, 2013 by jeffboom

[CatholicsAreKewl]

NOOOOOOOOO NOT AGAIN!

 

Even I want to stop talking about guns.

I disagree.

[Jesus_lol]

90% of people, you included, have no idea what current gun laws are in the USA. That was also an extremely vaguely worded, non specific poll question

 

background checks exist for every type of gun purchase in the USA, except for person to person, face to face, sales that are in the same state. If it crosses a state line, it needs to go through a FFL and background check. If it is mailed, or done over the internet, it goes through a background check.

 

 

The only thing exempt from it are the type of sales that are pretty much impossible to regulate. Ie, going over to your next door neighbors house and buying his shotgun to use for duck hunting. How exactly do you plan on enforcing that Jim runs a background check on Bob? especially since it is designed into the system, that Jim cant call up the NICS system and run a check?

 

Gun owners in the states want the NICS check system to be opened up so they can choose to run checks. Making it mandatory opens a whle new can of worms.

 

So dairy, just FYI, no 40% of transfers are not done without background checks. That number is false. it was originally 36%, and is taken from polls done over 20 years ago before the current background checks laws were enacted.

 

and 90% of people vaguely support the idea of background checks. Good, so do most gun owners. That is because there are already background checks on pretty much every type of enforceable transfer. Most people dont know that.

 

90% of people do not specifically support everything in the recent background checks laws. Stuff that requires a national gun registry(as a canadian, i can tell you, those dont work out so well), making a grandfather have to drive out to a FFL and pay a large fee to run a background check on his grandson to give him a .22 rifle, etc.

 

there was other stuff regarding what is a transfer. like, if the gun owner leaves the house for a few weeks, then he needs to run a background check on his wife to transfer the guns to her while she is still home. Or not allowing me to give my friend one of my spare shotguns to use for a day out hunting.

 

The private transfers are a whole can of worms.

 

The only legislation that will get through that somehow exempts all these scenarios, in the future will just be held up as a loophole that has to be removed in order to make it effective. The current bill says "we will make it without a national registry, dont worry about that."

 

So in a few years, when the next knee jerk hysteria is on about guns, they will say "well, we cant enforce thse measures without the gun registry! need to close that loop hole! and all these family members are still transferring guns without checks, close that too!"

 

And once again, it will all be in response to some tragedy that wouldnt have been affected at all by the proposed laws. Background checks were not what failed to prevent Sandy Hook.

 

The Manchin Toomey bill was full of junk, and 90% of people did not support it.

 

Think about it this way, If i asked the general public "do you support measures to reduce child porn on the internet?", i would probably get like 90% saying Yes, right?

 

then, what if i used that number to say "90% support my new legislation SOPA/CISPA/ACTA/ETC, to regulate the internet!" never mind all the other crap in the bill allowing for removal of liberties and restrictions on anonymity, internet commerce, etc.

 

That would be pretty manipulative, yes?

[jeffboom]

Enforcing the already 10,000+ gun laws would reduce gun violence, common sense.

 

Papist, as much as I hate to say it, I agree with you. 

[Jesus_lol]

Also, i think i totally called this.

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/128906-that-more-gun-control-would-reduce-gun-violence-is-common-sense/?p=2584056

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

 

 

your main point seemed concerned with the current check proposals. im not sure why, though, cause all we are talking about is the theory of background checks and their worth. i'm not even necessarily for or against specific proposals. 

at the end of the day though, meaningful legislation could be passed. it might inconvenience too many people that it shouldn't, but that's life. people don't think nothing about going to the BMV to transfer a car, why should guns be special? we wouldnt even have to keep databases of names, just someone to do a clearance on your background, and maybe give you a permit to hold. i wouldnt be opposed to treating guns like cars though completely.... anything opposed to that is based on far fetched governemnt is taking over conspiracy theories.

 

background checks may not have caused sandy hook but that doesnt mean we sholdnt use it as an opportunity to make better gun laws. plus if the checks reqiuored swearing that noone lives at your house who shouldnt have access etc..... checks did cause sandy hook cause that kid shouldnt have had access.

you also said checks are only for state to state selling etc, then go on to say there are checks for almost every "enforceable transfer". something tells me you are not being consistent in what you claim to know. 

giving a shot gun for a day may need exceptioned.... we should keep it all similar to cars and liceneses. worth towards that.

but at the end of the day im not arguing specifics, just that we have better checks.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also you didn't "call" anything. i explained why i make the threads that keep showing people dont follow common sense with gun laws. and i explained why i did it all. i admit i should have made a thread about checks sooner and focused on that.

plus it's not like you ever showed up with all these points about checks sooner.... all this time, all these threads, and the closest anyone has gotten to making sense is from you. but again you waited till now to speak, and a lot of it didnt really even follow against the basic idea that more checks mreans less violence etc.

 

you think you totally called that, but i totally called this...
"what do you want me to say? ive acknowledged there's othe studies that show different results in certain states and countries. and then i responded that we should at least have background checks. and the studies and common sense behind that. and then no one disputes it, i assume cause it's not disputable. 

in the future i will focus on background checks. 

i also point out that australia and japan for example made an all out massive restriction on guns, no dilly dallying and connections with other countries etc. the other studies have less tight restrictions. "

Edited May 13, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c