Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 67,008
- 17,032
I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the questionI think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?What harm to you see with universal background checksfirst of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.I don't know... what do you think?Oh, you mean like this guy?Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?
Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.
A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."
"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.
"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.
The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.
"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.
"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"
Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.
Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.
Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.
He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."
He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.
Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."
"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.
Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.
"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.
Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.
Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.
Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.
In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?
We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......
My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...
You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.
Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.
