A Call to Reason: Why Background Checks Don’t Work

[Moonglow]

Oh, I have been trained to have desire to hurt and kill, it's not something you turn on and off like a light switch....

 

[Moonglow]

"A Call to Reason: Why Background Checks Don’t Work"

What isn't working is the premise of this thread.

I bet he has a gunz n roses tattoo on his chest...

 

[2aguy]

Gun laws work

No, They don't work....criminals in each of the state with the strongest gun control laws still get guns...you even listed all of the cities that are the primary killing fields in those states.....and if you look at the list with the lowest gun murder rates...many of them are very small population states and Iowa isn't on the list of strong gun control laws but has a low gun murder rate......dittos Minnesota and maine....the photo is a lie.....typical of an anti gun post......

And you will have to take New York off of the low gun murder rate list.......stop and frisk kept their gun murder rate down, and now that is over...also, deblasio is undermining the police......

 

[2aguy]

Libtards are exempt BTW because everyone knows they're incapable of reason. This is directed at those who respect gun rights but still feel compelled to grant the federal government the power to infringe on these rights. Please answer the poll after reading the entire article and post.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

At least they don’t work the way people think they do. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the population can’t get past their initial conclusion that background checks make sense. That’s why I want to ask you to make a conscious effort to suspend your own presumptions and beliefs for a moment and try to maintain an open mind as you read this column.

Not only is common sense not that common, it often doesn’t make much sense. Along with the obvious, there are almost always peripheral issues that come into play on any given subject. What we see on the surface is usually only a small portion of the picture. Ulterior motives, mitigating factors, and the law of unintended consequences are always in play.

Psychologists and social scientists have long understood that people are inclined to stick to a belief even when they are presented with clear evidence that their belief is incorrect.

In short, people are obstinate.

Recent research has shown that this is not just a psychological issue, but also has a physiological basis. Our brains are actually wired for this behavior, and it accounts for a great deal of the strife and conflict we see in politics, religion, and our regular daily lives.

I have written several times about the issue of mandatory background checks for firearm purchasers. There’s no question that the idea of checking a gun buyer’s background to make sure they are not a criminal or crazy person seems reasonable and rational, and just common sense, but there’s a problem: Background checks don’t work.

---Jeff Knox

The rest of the article is here

I will take his point a step further. As far as I'm concerned a person allowed to walk around in public should have ALL of their rights intact. I don't care if they were violent felons, If they've served their time and have been released they deserve the right to self defense. If someone is a psychopath and anyone knows them, be it a parent, friend or doctor they should have that person contained in some manner that prevents them from doing harm, but no matter what someone will always fall through a crack. All laws, policies and barriers are created by man, and everything created by man can be breached by another man.

We are wasting billions of dollars and we aren't preventing a single crime. Not one. Someone with nefarious intentions will find a way to achieve his goals. If the moonbat messiah had a magic wand and made all the guns and ammo on the planet disappear, "poof" just like that, within an hour someone will have manufactured a device that will propel an object designed to harm or kill that will be concealable.

As more and more senseless gun control laws are being rolled back I'm hoping we can get rid of the entire GCA of 68 and 86. These burdensome laws are doing nothing for public safety, and are in fact creating a lucrative black market.

So why make people get driver's licenses?

Revenue....and it isn't a protected right......and does a drivers license stop someone from driving drunk, or breaking the speed limit, or going thru a red light....?

 

[Pete7469]

"A Call to Reason: Why Background Checks Don’t Work"

What isn't working is the premise of this thread.

What isn't working is the synapses in that clump of useless muck between your ears.

Rational adults are discussing real issues, there's no need for your stupidity here.

Shouldn't you be calling people bigots on one of the gay marriage threads?

 

[2aguy]

If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

But they'll get one anyway if they want one, because as you pointed out, they are a criminal.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.

Correct, they'll just acquire them illegally. That's what makes them useless, hence the OP's point. All background checks do is put an undue burden on non-criminals, like all bed wetter feel good laws do.

They can acquire them illegally =/= allow them to buy them legally.

Heroin and Child Prostitutes can be acquired illegally, should they be sold legally?

Wrong idea....it is against the law for criminals to even possess a gun......if they are caught with a gun they can be arrested and should be jailed...if you have no criminal record, but use a gun to commit a crime...you are now a criminal and can be arrested, and should be jailed for a long time...

What the anti gunners want is essentially the same as a blow tube for drunk drivers....

When you get caught for drunk driving in Illinois, not sure about other states, you are required to have a blow tube put in your car that measures your breath for alcohol...before your car will start...

What the gun grabbers want is for essentially the same thing as having all cars have the blow tube...before you have broken the law by drunk driving....

that is what a background check, registration and magazine limits are.....they are pre-crime measures...assuming you are guilty and must either prove you are not, ( back ground checks) or tracked as a convicted criminal (gun registration) or treated as a convicted criminal who is not allowed certain rights ( magazine limits)

The gun control measures treat law abiding citizens as if they are criminals who must prove they are not...

Drunk driving laws do not do this....you must be caught driving drunk before you are treated as a criminal...

Gun grabbers see all gun owners as criminals who haven't been caught yet....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

RIGHTS aren't granted in the Constitution as Rights are recognized as preexisting in the Constitution , Bill of Rights . Rights are pre existing and they are God given or what some people refer to as 'natural' Rights !!

No one is arguing otherwise.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]” DC v. Heller (2008)

And current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional.

 

[Pete7469]

Who makes the determination what level of danger I pose? Me? The government? A doctor? That's why a blanket policy is best.
And you should look at the stats on how many convicts actually make it in society & don't become repeat offenders. I represent a very small portion.

This is kind of a whole issue that can use it's own thread, but the recidivism rate IMO is due to the lack of a real "Penal System".

Thug culture is embraced in the US, going to prison is a notch in some people's reputation rather than something to be ashamed of. Going to prison isn't something people fear in certain sectors of society. Why should they fear it? All they have to do is hang out, exercise , play dominoes and all their needs are taken care of.

Make prison the hellish place it should be, and people will stop going back.

 

[2aguy]

The rest of the article is here.

There is a lot of repetition and not a shred of logic used in that article.

The idea of background checks between private parties is to close one more channel used by people who should not be buying guns. It will make it harder for felons to acquire them.

And saying that background checks don't work because people who shouldn't get them are still getting guns is as stupid as saying laws against murder don't work because people are still being murdered.

The background check doesn't do that....it won't make it harder since the current system doesn't make it harder.....

Laws against murder are not pre-crime laws....you can't be held by police because you might commit murder...you can only be arrested after you commit or attempt to commit murder...

Background checks assume you are a felon and require you to prove you are not.........in reality a violation of your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself, or the Amendment about search and seisure....

 

[2aguy]

Once again the far left needs to check statics on how many felons steal vs buy gun..

Once again, you are parroting a bogus meme.

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

and straw purchase sales get past background checks easily...why....because the person buying the gun has a clean record...so if they buy the gun at a licensed dealer or are forced to go to a dealer, at increased expense, when they buy the gun from a neighbor, they will still pass the background check...because they have a clean record...

Thus...new and improved background checks will accomplish nothing because they will be void the minute they go on line......

 

[2aguy]

I am all for background checks, just need the far left to stay of writing the laws..

I would like to see buyers registered instead of guns. You pass a background check and then you can buy or not buy as many guns as you like. You go to a gun shop, the seller looks up your names, and if you are on the registered buyers list, you can buy whatever you like, and the government doesn't need to know what you bought or how much you bought.

Sorry...if you are not a criminal you don't need to have your name on any list....

 

[Pete7469]

Gun laws work

No, They don't work....criminals in each of the state with the strongest gun control laws still get guns...you even listed all of the cities that are the primary killing fields in those states.....and if you look at the list with the lowest gun murder rates...many of them are very small population states and Iowa isn't on the list of strong gun control laws but has a low gun murder rate......dittos Minnesota and maine....the photo is a lie.....typical of an anti gun post......

And you will have to take New York off of the low gun murder rate list.......stop and frisk kept their gun murder rate down, and now that is over...also, deblasio is undermining the police......

I think SAF was a draconian solution, and the former soviets had to be looking across the ocean and congratulating themselves because Kruschev was right after all. SAF was a horrible idea. Liberating the people of NYC to carry weapons would have stopped the crime. However since neither solution is now in place I feel bad for the poor bastards stuck in that hell hole.

How many liberals want "stop and frisk" nationwide? Probably very few.

I'm sure they would mind if it only applied to people they hate though.

 

[2aguy]

Gun laws are worthless. None of them work. None of them. We have 100 years of history with gun control and it's all worthless.

You're an idiot.

Of course they work.

Everyday someone is arrest for illegal possession of a handgun or other weapon.

Everyday someone is deterred from purchasing and illegal.

By your idiot logic, rape laws don't work because rapes occur.

Fucking moron. Get off this board. It's for adults.

No...pre-crime gun laws don't work...background checks, registration and magazine limits.....actual laws, the ones that say using a gun to commit a crime works...you are caught using it and go to jail, or the law that says that convicted criminals can't have guns work...you catch a previously convicted criminal in the mere possession of a gun...you arrest them and send them to prison because they are barred by law from having a gun...

No background check, registration or magazine limit needed..............

Rape laws work when you catch someone who attempted or completed a rape...what you guys want is a background check that would keep a rapist from ever raping in the first place.....that would work as well as background checks for guns work....

You are the fucking moron...you need to actually think things through, and not just emote about them....

 

[2aguy]

RIGHTS aren't granted in the Constitution as Rights are recognized as preexisting in the Constitution , Bill of Rights . Rights are pre existing and they are God given or what some people refer to as 'natural' Rights !!

I don't know if you are aware this but the Bill of Rights still has limitations. Take the 1st amendment for example. Defamation and child pornography are illegal. That means we can set limits on the 2nd.

Background checks are extremely important as are closing gun show loopholes. Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.

and you are wrong....you do not have to go through a background check to post, write or speak....you do not have to get a license before you post, write a book or speak in public...and no, getting a permit to use a public space is not the same thing, since many citizens may want to use the space at the same time and a system has to accomodate all of them.......

So you are wrong...if we required you to get a background check to make sure you had never libled someone before you posted on the internet, or wrote a book, or spoke in public...that would be more accurate........hence...you are wrong....

Background checks don't close the gun show loophole......they can't...because a straw purchase is made by someone who can already pass a background check...so they will be able to pass a background check at a gun show as well...
so your very reason for having background checks at gun shows is defeated before it is implemented....

 

[2aguy]

Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.

That is a patently false statement.

I agree that they exist. The point I am making is that they are a tiny insignificant minority that no one in power takes seriously. No democrats in office have taken the position of banning guns altogether. You people live in a fantasy world. You believe bullshit because it validates your feelings about the leftwing.

Yes...and gays are 2% of the population and they are getting marriage redefined by the courts.....gun grabbers are a significantly larger population....and if not for the NRA, and the 2nd Amendment Foundation and other gun rights groups fighting off every attempt, we would have lost our guns years ago......

 

[2aguy]

Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.

That is a patently false statement.

I agree that they exist. The point I am making is that they are a tiny insignificant minority that no one in power takes seriously. No democrats in office have taken the position of banning guns altogether. You people live in a fantasy world. You believe bullshit because it validates your feelings about the leftwing.

Um did you even watch the video? She is talking about assault weapons. Not guns in general, Also, your example is from fucking 1995.

She is still in congress....and why are assualt weapons the weapons they want to ban.....hands and feet kill more people than all long guns combined...so assault weapons kill even fewer people than that...and yet they focus on AR-15s, the one gun no one uses to commit crimes...is she nuts, or is she just going for the easiest weapon first, and when the killings still happen she will move on to the next category of gun.........

 

[2aguy]

Should the government infringe on rights granted in the constitution, for "public safety".

No.

Should the government establish and enforce standards for the licensing of gun-owners and the registration of firearms?

Yes.

There is no reason for firearms to be registered with the government. It's not their concern whether or not you own one or how many.

I hear you.

You're wrong.

If we can register our vehicles, which can kill, but which are merely intended to transport - because they can be dangerous...

We can register our guns, which can kill, and which are intended specifically to kill - because they inherently are dangerous.

Registering a gun does not infringe upon your right to own one (or a hundred).

But it helps all of us - The People - to trace ownership and possession, if-and-when the weapon is used in commission of a crime or in the injuring or killing of a fellow human being.

Tracing ownership and possession introduce accountability in connection with the weapon - something missing historically and increasingly necessary at present and in future.

The battle over whether or not Registration and Licensing are legal has long-since been fought in several jurisdictions, in favor of Registration and Licensing.

What is needed next are Federal standards for Registration and Licensing for all 50 States, and centralized databases for interstate data recording and collaboration on vetting for ownership and possession and transfer and sale and enforcement et al.

Time to level the playing field, between States that require Licensing and Registration, and those that do not, and to get them all playing by the same rules, so that we have seamless operation of such laws and standards across the entire nation - a state of affairs that might very well seem more restrictive in some areas, but which will also loosen things up in a great many more 'liberal' or gun-grabber-dominated jurisdictions.

Perhaps it's time to serve-up a nationwide advisory referendum on the subject during some upcoming general election or another, to truly gauge the Will of the People in such matters - otherwise, present and future needs are likely to force the issue, and it seems likely that such measures - intelligently crafted and worded - will pass any related Constitutional scrutiny.

The alternative would be to amend the Constitution so that LIcensing and Registration cannot be obstructed.

Would you like to see that?

Because it's probably going to come to that, in the not-too-distant future, if there's no "budge" on the traditionalist side.

Either recognize modern realities and needs in connection with firearms and participate in genuine give-and-take on the subject, or face such a Constitutional amendment.

'Cause I really and truly do believe that it will be coming to that (a Constitutional amendment) within the next couple of decades, if this can't be fixed any other way.

Everything you posted is wrong...

Background checks add to the cost of the gun

Registration adds to the cost of the gun

so poor people with little income are made to pay money they don't have to exercise a Constitutional right......

Registration does not help solve or prevent crimes and just wastes law enforcement time, money and manpower...Canada tried to register 15 million long guns....and failed....the amount of money needed sky rocketed, the number of people needed, sky rocketed, and not one crime was stopped or solved..

It is a feel good way to infringe on the right to bear arms...especially poor and minorities trapped in inner city killling fields where the police protect them less.....

 

[2aguy]

...Bullshit. States with gun registration show no lower rates of crime than states without it. Registration always leads to confiscation. See what happened in NY with their stupid Safe Act, when they ordered people to get rid of their "assault weapons." And what is this "designed to kill" bullshit meme? Guns are designed to shoot projectiles. Where you aim the thing is up to the user. The design of something is pretty much irrelevant to its use.

True reform, on a nationwide level, would mean Licensing, Registration and Enforcement (enforcement with actual teeth in it), across the entire span of all 50 States.

It's a little difficult to make a substantive difference with Registration in County A when all you have to do is drive 15 minutes and circumvent it by buying in County B.

When all 50 States are playing to the same Song Book and when buying or selling or registering or licensing in Honolulu is no different than that in Bangor, then we'll see.

For now, the idea looks sufficiently attractive to a sufficiently large number of Americans who are disgusted with the present American rate of gun-crime that it is probably going to materialize whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you fight against it or not.

It has never been tried before on the Federal level in a manner that cannot be circumvented so it is impossible to use historical or existing Local Examples to defend against its prospects for success.

The only remaining question is whether you want this done easily (with sensible, mature collaboration between citizens) or roughly (over your heads, by forcible legal means).

Hell... consider... true Gun Law Reform could be used to authoritatively define which weapons citizens are allowed to have, and, if done right, could even authorize private possession of assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, etc. - so long as they are properly registered and so long as their owners are properly licensed, thereby overriding existing State or Local law which forbids them to so many of our fellow citizens.

Think... use your imagination, fer Crissakes... that particular cup can be made to be more than half-full, on behalf of Gun Owners, rather than Gun-Grabbers... if only you have the foresight and courage to both participate and ensure that such new Standards and Laws are crafted more in your favor than in favor of the Gun-Grabbers.

Or you can remain intransigent and outside the loop - allowing your adversaries to control the conversation and message and lawmaking outcomes.

Reminds of me of the Union Folk linked to the old Hostess Bakeries fiasco... riding that cash-cow until it dropped dead from exhaustion, rather than engaging constructively.

Registration and Licensing are only PART of the picture... the OTHER and even LARGER part is a chance to define what each and every citizen is allowed to possess in any State iin the Union. And, if Gun-Owners are an integral part of that process, they end-up with far more of what they want, than if they remain aloof.

Be part of the National Conversation, rather than merely a roadblock to driven-around, via entirely Constitutional means.

Or not.

Your choice.

Or so it seams, to this observer.

Again...Canada tried to register just 15 million long guns...and failed miserably....we have over 320 million guns in private hands with a gun owning population intent on resisting registration.....so when Canada found it cost more in money and man power than they could afford and finally ended the silliness.......how do you think it will fare in our country where people will actively resist it over more guns in general....15 milllion long guns vs over 320 million....

and registration has always led to banning and forced sales......

 

[2aguy]

Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.

That is a patently false statement.

Agreed.

So many Gun-Grabbers are full of shit clean up to their ears, and will lie through their teeth, to get the guns.

That's why it's so important for Gun Owners to come-off looking rational and collaborative and to have a huge say in how future nationwide standards and laws unfold.

Because those standards and laws are coming.

We're down to whether Gun-Owners or Gun-Grabbers will dominate that next round of the National Conversation.

Personally, it's my hope that the Gun Owners dominate.

So your point is we need to capitulate to avoid being defeated? No, I dont think so. Gun control has been a total failure, both of policy and politically. We are winning this war. No need to surrender now.

You obtusely misrepresent my actual point, and I believe you to be suffering from both shortsightedness and foolhardiness in connection with this issue.

Change is coming, over the next couple of decades.

Will you be part of that change, and will you have your hand on the steering wheel alongside others, or are you going to let others drive the outcome for you?

Based on what I'm seeing here, it seems likely that others will steer the outcome, and that you will end-up with far, far less than you otherwise might have, if you had shown the slightest foresight and imagination and collaboration with your fellow countrymen, who grow bone-achingly tired of all the gun violence and who are determined to end it.

Just remember... when that inevitable day comes, when the Nation moves towards universal gun-control, that you had your chance to steer the conversation, but flubbed it by sulking rather than participating...

A sad day indeed... one that you could have done so much to fashion in your own image while there was still time, had you only participated in good faith.

Your choice.

Your consequences.

A blind man can see this day coming, a mile away.

Get out in front of it, and shape that day more in your favor than not, while there is still time.

the opinion on gun rights isn't going that way......more women and minorities are owning guns especially after seeing the riots and what happens when people are unarmed and the government orders the police to stand down......more women are buying guns, more minorities are buyiing guns, and more Americans support the right to have guns than ever before because according to the polls, they see guns as a self defense tool.....

 

[2aguy]

driving on public streets is said to be a Privledge while Arms and the second amendment is a RIGHT 'Carabineer' !!

So the guy who goes to prison for armed robbery, on the day he walks out, should be able to go to a gun store and buy any gun he wants,

no questions asked?

Your 8 year old should be able to go by a handgun, no questions asked?

All guns should be unregistered and unaccounted for?

Do you think people getting out of prison never buy guns illegally?
What 8 year old goes to a store and buys even a loaf of bread on his own?
Yes, all guns should be unregistered and unaccounted for except by their owners. It's called freedom.

Exactly....I have posted stories about a convicted criminal homeless man in New York...he had a gun and used it to sexually assault and murder a woman who worked at the homeless shelter he was at.....she couldn't get a gun because of the legal hurdles in New York...he had a gun and he was a convicted criminal and homeless.......