Background Checks ARE The Best Way

[Iceweasel]

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

That's a deeply stupid argument!

Its against the law to rob banks, but people still rob then. Most everyday of the week I hear.

Wow, talk about stupid! Robing a bank is clearly hurting another; it is infringing on the rights of others through the act of theft. My owning a firearm does not constitute taking what doesn't belong to me and infringes on no one. In fact, it's an inalienable right that the government cannot infringe upon.

Are you really so thick you can't see the difference?

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

Yes...it is....it is a 14th and 5th amendment violation of our Right.........it is a Poll Tax on the Right to bear arms....

Tough shit. You're gonna have to put up with background checks just the same. It's not like you're buying something useful like a loaf of bread, or a socket wrench.

Your stinking life isn't worth saving? That's your problem.

 

[2aguy]

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

That's a deeply stupid argument!

Its against the law to rob banks, but people still rob then. Most everyday of the week I hear.

Wow, talk about stupid! Robing a bank is clearly hurting another; it is infringing on the rights of others through the act of theft. My owning a firearm does not constitute taking what doesn't belong to me and infringes on no one. In fact, it's an inalienable right that the government cannot infringe upon.

Are you really so thick you can't see the difference?

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

Yes...it is....it is a 14th and 5th amendment violation of our Right.........it is a Poll Tax on the Right to bear arms....

Tough shit. You're gonna have to put up with background checks just the same. It's not like you're buying something useful like a loaf of bread, or a socket wrench.

You are the assholes who push them even though they do nothing to stop crime....are you just mentally ill?....or did your parents drop you a lot when you were born....?

Background checks don't work...so we want them......wow...you are a real genius...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

I don't think that's what he meant. If it isn't handy, maybe you'll wake up in the morning feeling better?

Said every person who's out of touch with reality. A person doesn't kill themselves because they had a bad day, they kill themselves because they have felt bad for a very, very long time. You don't keep them from committing suicide by taking one out of limitless options away. Shooting yourself isn't even the easiest method.

 

[eflatminor]

48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns
What a stupid thing to say. Is jumping in front of a train better for him?

I don't think that's what he meant. If it isn't handy, maybe you'll wake up in the morning feeling better?

Then why doesn't America, with all her firearms, not rank anywhere near the top in the list of countries by suicide rate? Further, how is it possible that 50+ countries have higher suicides rates, despite their effective bans on civilian firearm ownership? A firearm isn't "handy" in any of those countries, yet off themselves they do, at a much higher rate than gun handy America.

Sounds like facts are of no concern to you. In grown up world, emotional arguments aren't arguments at all and valuing intention over actual results, well that's just fucking insane. Hey, a recurring theme with you!

Yes, I'm quite emotional about the fact that in the 18 states where universal background checks have been enacted, there have been nearly 50% reduction in gun related DV deaths and police deaths. Explain that, Mr. Grown Up.

First, you'll have to cite that stat and two, gun related deaths, and all crime for that matter, are down in all states.

Statistics 101.

Try again?

His sources weren't in the article. Look it up if you're interested. I highly doubt he pulled the numbers out of his ass.

So you've got nothing. Got it.

Nice mouth "lady".

 

[eflatminor]

Because we know 100% for sure that thugs, terrorists and insane people will NOT obey this or any law, how is restricting the ability of good, law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against those criminals "better"?

By your logic, you're okay with giving the bad guys an advantage. That's not better, that's fucking insane.

That's a deeply stupid argument!

Its against the law to rob banks, but people still rob then. Most everyday of the week I hear.

Wow, talk about stupid! Robing a bank is clearly hurting another; it is infringing on the rights of others through the act of theft. My owning a firearm does not constitute taking what doesn't belong to me and infringes on no one. In fact, it's an inalienable right that the government cannot infringe upon.

Are you really so thick you can't see the difference?

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

Yes...it is....it is a 14th and 5th amendment violation of our Right.........it is a Poll Tax on the Right to bear arms....

Tough shit. You're gonna have to put up with background checks just the same. It's not like you're buying something useful like a loaf of bread, or a socket wrench.

A socket wrench? Hey you're on to something. Given that "blunt objects" are used to murder at nearly twice the rate as a rifle*, perhaps we should require a background check before you buy your're next socket wrench.

You game?

*2014 FBI stats: murders in which a rifle was used, 248; murder in which a blunt object was used, 435

 

[Iceweasel]

Given that "blunt objects" are used to murder at nearly twice the rate as a rifle*, perhaps we should require a background check before you buy your're next socket wrench.

I'm glad I'm stocked up. I even have some 1/2" assault wrenches.

 

[pwjohn]

That's a deeply stupid argument!

Its against the law to rob banks, but people still rob then. Most everyday of the week I hear.

Wow, talk about stupid! Robing a bank is clearly hurting another; it is infringing on the rights of others through the act of theft. My owning a firearm does not constitute taking what doesn't belong to me and infringes on no one. In fact, it's an inalienable right that the government cannot infringe upon.

Are you really so thick you can't see the difference?

Passing a background check prior to your taking possession of a firearm is in no way an infringement of your right to posses said firearm.

Yes...it is....it is a 14th and 5th amendment violation of our Right.........it is a Poll Tax on the Right to bear arms....

Tough shit. You're gonna have to put up with background checks just the same. It's not like you're buying something useful like a loaf of bread, or a socket wrench.

A socket wrench? Hey you're on to something. Given that "blunt objects" are used to murder at nearly twice the rate as a rifle*, perhaps we should require a background check before you buy your're next socket wrench.

You game?

*2014 FBI stats: murders in which a rifle was used, 248; murder in which a blunt object was used, 435

Everything is a hammer. You have gun hammers, plier hammers, cresant wrench hammers, screw driver hammers, socket wrench hammers, and so on.

And yes, firearms are by design meant to kill rather than loosen a nut, or a bolt, so some care should be taken when handing them out. Like background checks.

 

[OldLady]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths

Why do you not understand this is a post hoc fallacy?
Why do you not understand that, as a post hoc fallacy, any conclusion that stems from it is unsound?

 

[Iceweasel]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?

 

[OldLady]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?

Specifically, not having a GUN.

 

[OldLady]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths

Why do you not understand this is a post hoc fallacy?
Why do you not understand that, as a post hoc fallacy, any conclusion that stems from it is unsound?

I'll stop ignoring your inane questions if you will explain in English what in hell you're talking about. If you haven't the energy or the intelligence to explain your argument, I feel no compunction to try to counter it.

 

[Iceweasel]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?

Specifically, not having a GUN.

Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths

Why do you not understand this is a post hoc fallacy?
Why do you not understand that, as a post hoc fallacy, any conclusion that stems from it is unsound?

I'll stop ignoring your inane questions if you will explain in English what in hell you're talking about. If you haven't the energy or the intelligence to explain your argument, I feel no compunction to try to counter it.

The irony, this statement from someone that does not the have the intelligence to understand a post hoc fallacy and its implications.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You argue that since crime fell after the introduction of the background checks, the background checks caused the reduction in crime -- thus your claim that "background checks work".
Thus is, of course, utter nonsense, as correlation does not prove causation.

Do you understand now, or do I need to make it simpler?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Specifically, not having a GUN.

Background checks only affect those who obey the law; those that do not can and will get guns w/o any background check whatsoever.

 

[whitehall]

We don't even do background checks on the "refugees" that the feds want to admit into the Country. What does a "background check" actually consist of in the minds of the cliche driven left? An instant name check for a criminal record isn't good enough? Does the left want a psychological evaluation?

 

[2aguy]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

And the article is wrong.....I don't remember, is there a link to this research and the reviews of the research.....

in the heat of the moment...how does that have anything to do with wether or not a background check was done...again....criminals use straw buyers to get their illegal guns...so how does that change police deaths?

And of those alleged 5,000 stops.....almost all of them will be found to have been people who were rejected...and then after they cleared up the government screw up....went on to pass the check and get their gun....

Nothing you or that article says about background checks has any bearing in reality........

 

[2aguy]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

And here we have the evidence that shows you and your link are wrong....

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/

• Background checks for all handgun sales make women and police safer: The group cites a different report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

In this one, the group uses FBI data to come up with its own conclusions. It does this by compiling data from states with mandatory handgun background checks and those without to arrive at the claim that women and police are about 40 percent less likely to be killed with a handgun in states with mandatory checks.

Fact Checker started re-creating the finding about women but soon stopped after the first four states examined. New Hampshire and Vermont, which have no background check at shows, had much lower rates of women being killed by men than New York and New Jersey, which do require background checks on handguns at gun shows.

But that wasn't the reason Fact Checker stopped this line of inquiry.

The homicide statistics come from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports — and the FBI cautions againstpeople comparing places based on the statistics because not all law enforcement agencies submit their data and there are other factors that can also skew comparisons, such as more densely populated areas vs. more rural places.

Further, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns report was not peer reviewed, it doesn't share the numbers used to reach its conclusions, and it treats correlation as causation, strongly implying that lower rates of violence against women and police was caused by handgun background checks without even attempting to deal with all of the factors that would make the statistics less valid.


One could just as easily come to the opposite conclusion by pointing to the surge in gun sales with a corresponding drop in murders of women over the past 20 years nationwide.

There has been a peer-reviewed study on this topic worth noting. A 2000 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association examined data to see if the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act made a difference. The law was implemented in 1994 and instituted background checks and waiting periods for handgun sales. The study concluded that it was not associated with "reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

So.....your whole thread is based on anti gun groups and their anti gun fake research which they don't submit for peer review........but make sure to get to people like you and the guy from your first post..........

As we keep pointing out to you....nothing about what you or that guy say makes any sense....since criminals get guns without background checks....and if they are going to shoot a cop...they will do it without a background check for their gun....

The verdict by the fact checker....

The verdict

The source links given by Nevadans for Background Checks do not lead to any independent research on gun background checks, but lead solely back to statements by a gun-control advocacy group that are unsupported and ignore conflicting evidence.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

You're looking at the wrong statistic there. Especially given that suicides are included in "Gun deaths", as are police shootings and shootings in self defense. This means that the statistic you're using is completely meaningless.

 

[OldLady]

According to the article in the OP, states with more comprehensive background checks have seen a significant reduction in gun deaths due to DV and attacks on police. These types of attacks are not usually "planned," they are usually shootings done in the heat of the moment. As has been pointed out here, background checks will not stop EVERY inappropriate person from getting their hands on a gun. However, the federal law alone has stopped over 5,000 people in our state from purchasing one. In states with more comprehensive laws, it has apparently prevented enough people from having one on hand to commit a crime of passion/panic to make a large statistical difference.
Regardless of the suicide rate in foreign countries or other ways to murder people, requiring background checks on ALL sales of guns has made a difference. It is a good move and will not further infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will keep more guns from the hands of people who should not have one.
It is a GOOD thing.

You typically speak in generalities and offer your opinion as fact. It doesn't work that way. What SPECIFICALLY prevents a dv shooting?

Specifically, not having a GUN.

Who shouldn't have a gun? Fuck, you are dense.

People with prior DV convictions and ex-felons aren't supposed to get guns. Some people with mental illness (if it is considered dangerous by the doctor).