universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence - how is this not true?

[dairygirl4u2c]

people like to say criminals don't obey the gun laws so why have them. they don't obey drug law, theft laws, murder laws, or any laws... does that mean we shouldn't have those laws? the fact is, some people will not run and get a gun if they have dont have one because they are denied. if they dont have a gun when they might otherwise commit a crime, a crime has been prevented. 
if there's any doubt, why not err on the side of caution and pass the background checks?

this isn't even controversial. ninety percent of people favor checks. and even seventy percent of NRA members. so anyone i'm arguing with on this is in a big minority. and, aren't we forced to conclude the only reason this doesn't pass, doesn't even get to the floor to vote in congress, mean that they are beholden to the gun lobby, and the likes of the NRA? that's the only way to make sense of it as far as i can see. 

forty percent of sales do not involve checks. there is plenty of room for improvement here. if we treated guns like cars, and required licenses, checks, permits, etc, people wouldn't even bat an eye or think diferent about it. only when someone moves your cheese and challenges a status quo do people even care.


[not that we couldn't do more. the more likely a person is to have a gun, teh more likely tehy are to kill someone. this is common sense. but it's also empirically proven....the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more likely they are to commit crimes. countires with that take away guns have less crime. it's a fact. ]

people who might challenge me... do you seriously contend that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun and might commit a crime will run out and get one? those kinds of absolute statements are notoriously known for being false. so what gives?

[little2add]

In addition to criminal background checks, drug testing should be mandatory to purchase firearms and ammunition.  IE: some employer’s drug test before hiring, or you cannot drive drunk.  Why should it be different for firearms?

Testing must include legal prescriptions and illegal contraband, etc. The side effects of some psychiatric medications are known to cause suicidal thoughts.  I think most of the recent killing sprees involved drugs

[Didacus]

I am all for back ground checks and drugs tests when fire arms are the question.  

[Luigi]

Cars kill approximately as many American per year as guns do.

Let's treat guns like we treat cars. The driver has to get a license, so the gun owner should have to get a license I'll leave specific details of who gets a license and who doesn't to law enforcement experts, but I personally approve of background checks (no criminal record, no mental health issues, etc.). Then guns needs to be licensed just like cars are licensed.

If I sell my gun to you, I have to file paperwork (title transfer, etc.) just like I do when I sell my car. That way, the police know who has guns and who doesn't.

Will it stop the illegal use of guns? Absolutely not. No law has ever stopped a crime by someone who wanted to commit it. I mean, there are plenty of people out there who drive unlicensed cars, or drive cars without valid licenses. But tracing the guns after the fact would be easier, and it might prevent some guns from getting into the hands of untrustworthy people.

[Didacus]

Even though criminals may not obey gun laws - this doesn't mean that some regulations should be in place.

[Peace]

Nah. We need to go back to the good old days of the Wild West.

[Socrates]

Nah. We need to go back to the good old days of the Wild West.

Which actually had much lower rates of gun violence than modern times, all Hollywood mythology to the contrary.

[little2add]

/// HAHA

[CrossCuT]

Which actually had much lower rates of gun violence than modern times, all Hollywood mythology to the contrary.

Got some data?

[dairygirl4u2c]

my guess is, if you did away with gun free zones, deaths would increase. i might be wrong though. the bottomline for why i think that, is because there are mroe guns in an area, which means there are probably more deaths. this is reflected by the fact that the more guns a geographic area has, the more overall deaths it has. (not just gun deaths). 
on the other side of the wild west theory, if you armed the populace more on the idea that there would be more defense, you would get what you expected, more defense. but that's only because there's more crime to begin with. 

we have to recognize that our desire to have gun rights comes at the cost of increased deaths. period. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

In 2012 for every justifiable gun homicide in the US (i.e. a person uses a gun to kill someone in self-defense), there were:
- 34 criminal gun homicides
- 78 suicides committed
- 2 accidental gun deaths

[Anomaly]

I visited CDC, Wiki, WHO and Gallup Polls for data

over the last 25 years in USA

Avg 38 to 40 % of households own at least one gun.  It stays pretty steady

Avg 60 to 70 % of homicides utilize a gun   It fluctuates year to year, no significant trend  

However

Homicide rate has dropped in half, from about 9.7 murders per 100,000 to less than 5 per 100,000 despite gun ownership and use remaining statistically steady  

Currently, you are slightly more likely to die in a car accident in our vehicles with air bags and seat belts then by gun.  

You are more than five times more likely to die in an mishap while at home or work then by murder by gun. In fact, more people die by tripping or slipping than by guns each year. 

So, in a Country that already has many guns owned by almost half the citizens and is a steady rate, murder rate is half in 25 years.   

We should be spending time effort and money improving health and mental care, not debating, creating, and attempting to enforce restrictions to gun ownership. 

[little2add]

people like to say criminals don't obey the gun laws so why have them. they don't obey drug law, theft laws, murder laws, or any laws... does that mean we shouldn't have those laws? the fact is, some people will not run and get a gun if they have dont have one because they are denied. if they dont have a gun when they might otherwise commit a crime, a crime has been prevented. 
if there's any doubt, why not err on the side of caution and pass the background checks?

this isn't even controversial. ninety percent of people favor checks. and even seventy percent of NRA members. so anyone i'm arguing with on this is in a big minority. and, aren't we forced to conclude the only reason this doesn't pass, doesn't even get to the floor to vote in congress, mean that they are beholden to the gun lobby, and the likes of the NRA? that's the only way to make sense of it as far as i can see. 

forty percent of sales do not involve checks. there is plenty of room for improvement here. if we treated guns like cars, and required licenses, checks, permits, etc, people wouldn't even bat an eye or think diferent about it. only when someone moves your cheese and challenges a status quo do people even care.


[not that we couldn't do more. the more likely a person is to have a gun, teh more likely tehy are to kill someone. this is common sense. but it's also empirically proven....the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more likely they are to commit crimes. countires with that take away guns have less crime. it's a fact. ]

people who might challenge me... do you seriously contend that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun and might commit a crime will run out and get one? those kinds of absolute statements are notoriously known for being false. so what gives?

background  checks only keep the honest, honest.  Nothing wrong with that, is actual a good idea but if someone intends to hurt or kill there's a million ways to do it besides guns.

Guns ( in the right hands) prevent crime.  The criminal are bad,  not stupid.  (That pray on the weak)

background  checks only keep the honest, honest.  Nothing wrong with that, is actual a good idea but if someone intends to hurt or kill there's a million ways to do it besides guns.

Guns ( in the right hands) prevent crime.  The criminal are bad,  not stupid.  (That prey on the weak)

Edited October 7, 2015 by little2add

[little2add]

Got some data?

see movie:A Million Ways to Die in the West 2014 R CC

[dairygirl4u2c]

if gun deaths went down while gun ownership stayed the same, it is a statistical anamoly and maybe there are other reasons. ( i know when gun deaths went down in previous decades, it was probably because food stamps existed so people didn't need to engage in crime. ) i call it an anamoly because the studies ive seen show across the globe, and across the USA, the more guns a geographic area has, the more likely there are to be death, period. (not just gun deaths but overall deaths)

there's little point in pointing out that people can just get guns illegally if they are set on it. (that's like saying some people will violate traffic laws if they want to. doesn't mean we should't have traffic law. or any laws for that matter) the point is gun regulation will prevent some people from having a gun and thereby committing crimes they otherwise might have had they happened to have a gun. not everyone is black hoodie intent on getting guns by any means necessary,

and there's little point in saying people will just kill with knives. the studies ive mentioned show that gun precense causes overall deaths to increase, not just gun deaths. it's simple when you think about it: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to kill someone. plus remember during that shoot fest years ago i think in december, there were over twenthy people mostly killed and injured... while the same day in a gun controlled country there were twenty plus wounded by knives... wounded v killed, there's a world a difference there. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c