That Background Checks Would Reduce Gun Violence, Is Common Sense

[dairygirl4u2c]

"you think criminals will obey gun laws? you're a special kind of stupid aren't you?"

 

for all the reasons ive said in this and other debates.... this is one of the stupidest things ive ever heard, and yet saddly so commonly spread around. 

[Jesus_lol]

 

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. 
 

 

yeah, there are background checks for everything but person to person transfers within the same state. If you buy a gun from a gun store, or gun show, it has a check. if you buy one from walmart, there is a check. if you buy one from a online store, there is a check. If you buy one from someone else online(like a ebay type deal/classifieds) and it is shipped to you, there is a check. If you buy one from someone in a different state, there is a check.

 

the only thing that doesnt, is if you sell your gun person to person, to someone in your own state, face to face. And it is illegal to sell to anyone you suspect might not be eligible to own a gun. Same sort of thing as selling a dirtbike to your next door neighbor, the government stays out of that.

 

As I said, every enforcible transfer. If you made it illegal for me to sell a gun to my next door neighbor without a check, how do you propose to enforce that? simple question.

 

 

 

Currently, the public are not allowed to use the NICS system to run a check on someone buying a gun from them. if they wanted to run a check, they would have to drive for possibly hours to the nearest gun store, and pay them a fee for the privilege of selling a gun to someone else. How much do you think people are going to abide by doing that? 

 

would you sell an ipod on craigslist, then make the seller come with you to Best Buy to pay them a fee to sell it to him?

 

Now, gun owners wuld like to have the NICS system opened to the public, so they had a way of doing checks on people they sell guns to, because as big a surprise as it is, people dont want to sell guns to felons.

 

One way many people do it with sales to strangers, in states that allow it, is to ask to see the other person's Concealed Carry Permit, as those prove that the person has passed a background check. That is how we do it here in canada with gun licenses, show each other the card, do business. I dont have to call the RCMP or drive hours out of my way to go to the nearest gun store.

 

Funnily enough, here in canada it is much easier to buy a gun or ammo online than the USA. 

Edited May 13, 2013 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

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.

 

Actually, this is the third identical thread he/she/it started about this in the past couple weeks.

 

 

Starting the first thread was bad enough, but well within the confines of typical liberal/dairy stupidity.

 

Starting a second duplicate thread was seriously pushing the outer boundaries of netiquette, common decency, and sanity.

 

But three identical threads? 

 

THREE?!

 

I mean, Sweet Mother of Semi-automatic Assault Rifles! -   Three threads!

 

Really.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

please by all means inform me how the topic thesis is wrong. i'll just show you as i always do how wrong you are. keep showing the whole world as i always do your mental deficiencies and psychological issues, and how much of an unoriginal cookie cutter conservative you are..
keep note that this is about background checks and not control in general. im sure you have nothing relevant to say at this point, but will go on about something irrelevant as you always do. 

Edited May 14, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jesus_lol]

I find a certain amount of hilarity, in being a canadian that has to explain to americans, how their own laws work. And not just to people who are indifferent on the whole subject matter, but people who hold opinions on those laws, and I can assume(by the willingness to devote hours and probably eventually days of their lives arguing/posting on the subject) have a certain amount of passion/investment in those opinions.

 

 

Like, really, fence sitters and people who have idle opinions but dont really care about the subject, there is really no reason to expect you to know too much about the subject. But people who are devoting a fair amount of their time and emotions towards arguing on the subject, you should really be seeking to actually learn more about what you talk about.

 

People who argue with intensity that "full automatics available in walmarts, are killing children and should be illegal" amaze me. It is a pretty easy thing to find out that full autos have been very strictly regulated since 1934, and new production banned since 1986, and are priced well outside the range the average person can afford, even for 30 year old pre ban rifles(try 30 grand for a m16). A little further looking would reveal that in all of north america(canada counts, we still have thousands of grandfathered full autos), only 2 crimes have been committed with registered full autos.

 

 

People who insist that "background checks need to happen" and dont realize that they already exist and cover pretty much everything that they reasonably can...

 

I feel kinda weird about it, even as a person who doesnt live in your country, seeing all these easily disproven arguments coming up. You may have deeper concerns that need addressing, sure, and you may be right, but when you lead with stuff that I found out years ago to be false, as a non gun owning(at the time) canadian wishing to understand the issue and turning to google, etc... that really doesnt help.

 

And this isnt aimed at anyone in particular, just something ive noticed a good bit on this site and moreso on reddit, etc. I'd imagine many of you feel the same way about other issues(L_D and science, etc, the catholic catechism, etc) where uninformed, but highly opinionated people decide to start debates.

 

While there is often snark involved if it has been a long day, I do honestly try to educate on the subject where I can, if people have questions. Many are surprised when they see certain facts and myths laid out in front of them, and either change their mind, or leave the discussion with the same opinion but better informed. 

 

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i appreciate your input as being among hte more informing on the issue. not that it's convinced me that we dont need more checks. 

 

''As I said, every enforcible transfer. If you made it illegal for me to sell a gun to my next door neighbor without a check, how do you propose to enforce that? simple question.

 

same way we enforce car sales from person to person. there are varying arguments for whether there should be databases and types of checks, but we can at least have more checks 

you also should have o should be more specific about what you mean by enforcible transfer. isn't a person to person enforcible? all sales that should be checked are enforcible? that'd be self evident if this is what you meant, 'all sales that should be checked require checks'. maybe im missing something. 

 

your example of someone driving hours to sell a gun., is just an example of an unfortunate situation. if they were selling a car, we wouldnt think anything of it. 

 

on a side but related note, australia has strict requirements to buy a gun, and had dramatic gun violence reduction. england has loose requirements. this isn't so much about criminal checks per se so much as "how justifiable is it that you have a gun". so when we talk in vague terms about the better or worse results of different countries, it comes down to as it always does, about details. and to large extent, what type of checks o conditions they have on guns

Edited May 14, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

...

Edited May 14, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Fewer hammers would mean fewer nails driven by hammers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

proof that the screening process matters a lot, note screening is more than background check....

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws

 

[PhuturePriest]

I find a certain amount of hilarity, in being a canadian that has to explain to americans, how their own laws work. And not just to people who are indifferent on the whole subject matter, but people who hold opinions on those laws, and I can assume(by the willingness to devote hours and probably eventually days of their lives arguing/posting on the subject) have a certain amount of passion/investment in those opinions.

 

 

Like, really, fence sitters and people who have idle opinions but dont really care about the subject, there is really no reason to expect you to know too much about the subject. But people who are devoting a fair amount of their time and emotions towards arguing on the subject, you should really be seeking to actually learn more about what you talk about.

 

People who argue with intensity that "full automatics available in walmarts, are killing children and should be illegal" amaze me. It is a pretty easy thing to find out that full autos have been very strictly regulated since 1934, and new production banned since 1986, and are priced well outside the range the average person can afford, even for 30 year old pre ban rifles(try 30 grand for a m16). A little further looking would reveal that in all of north america(canada counts, we still have thousands of grandfathered full autos), only 2 crimes have been committed with registered full autos.

 

 

People who insist that "background checks need to happen" and dont realize that they already exist and cover pretty much everything that they reasonably can...

 

I feel kinda weird about it, even as a person who doesnt live in your country, seeing all these easily disproven arguments coming up. You may have deeper concerns that need addressing, sure, and you may be right, but when you lead with stuff that I found out years ago to be false, as a non gun owning(at the time) canadian wishing to understand the issue and turning to google, etc... that really doesnt help.

 

And this isnt aimed at anyone in particular, just something ive noticed a good bit on this site and moreso on reddit, etc. I'd imagine many of you feel the same way about other issues(L_D and science, etc, the catholic catechism, etc) where uninformed, but highly opinionated people decide to start debates.

 

While there is often snark involved if it has been a long day, I do honestly try to educate on the subject where I can, if people have questions. Many are surprised when they see certain facts and myths laid out in front of them, and either change their mind, or leave the discussion with the same opinion but better informed. 

 

This post was reasonable. I shall therefore close my ears and start talking incoherently.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's one thing to be against checks for the practical results, some of which have been recently discussed. it's another thing to act as if you are against them cause they wont cause any difference in violence if we had them. i'm showing how the latter is false, you can think the former all you want, even if i vehemently disagree. but at least with the former, you're not being illogical. (you sort of are with the former too, cause there's no substantial reason guns should be treated differently than cars too much, or treated with reasonable exceptions as is done with the first amendment

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

for someone to argue that background checks would not reduce gun violence, and respond to my points that they would reduce violence. 

[Winchester]

bump

for someone to argue that background checks would not reduce gun violence, and respond to my points that they would reduce violence. 

 

The background checks are being enforced how? By men with guns, right?

[havok579257]

The background checks are being enforced how? By men with guns, right?

 

by the boogymen who come to your house and murder you.  I mean I see it in the papers all the time.  goobermt murders innocent man in his house for nothing.
 

[Jesus_lol]

Ok Dairygurl, what percentage of guns used for crime are being purchased through legal avenues without doing a background check?

 

 

And of that small percentage of firearms used in crime, what percentage of those criminals will not simply use other illegal methods to obtain a gun?

And then, of that even smaller percentage of guns being used in crime, what are the chances that the person who buys them and uses them for criminal means will not simply pass the new background check and get the gun anyways? this is fairly common.

 

 

Be honest with the numbers and how likely this is to actually make a real difference in crime instead of just shifting crime around. Then consider the real costs and impacts of expanding the current and fairly decent background checks system. There are only really theoretical benefits to what has been suggested, but there will be very many real inconveniences and restrictions on the law abiding people who legally buy and sell guns, or even just lend them out.

 

 

It is starting to look a lot like Reagan's trickle down economics.