U.S. Police Chiefs Call For Background Checks For All Gun Purchases

[SwimExpert]

Why would any law-abiding gun owner oppose universal background checks for ALL firearms purchases?

The same reason a law abiding citizen would oppose the police searching their home without a warrant.

 

[LOki]

Background checks for purchases is like erecting an 8 foot high chainlink fence to keep birds enclosed.

At least 2 of the recent mass shooters used weapons parents bought for them.

80,000 attempted gun buyers were turned away in 2012 due to background checks.

...and then they went home and watched Oprah. Right?

Obviously these ineligible purchasers; these criminals, attempting a patently criminal act--who provided their full name and address to ... the FBI--were summarily arrested and prosecuted. Right? They went to jail, and that's why not one of those 80,000 were able to obtain a gun. Correct?

That is your assertion. Is it not?

 

[LOki]

Actually they are. NYC's laws are already unconstitutional, until they are fixed not one more law.

Serious question: What is so restrictive about NYC gun laws?

This is the process to get a handgun.


Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

And you think New York would be safer if handguns were simply sold over the counter like a loaf of bread or a pair of trousers?

As a law abiding citizen I should be able to purchase a handgun after a instant background check, and get a CCW with a few days after getting some quick training and another background check. Not 3-8 months of waiting and some NYPD idiot deciding if I am worthy or not.

So you support closing the loopholes in the background check laws.

The "gun show loophole" is a myth; fabricated to frighten the weak minded.

 

[Old Rocks]

Citing the popularity of an idea is not the same as showing it will be effective in reducing crime. It will not. Oregon has UBC and we see how that turned out a couple of weeks ago.
Such measures are nothing more than an attempt to stick it to lawful gun owners. It will not reduce crime one bit.

The states with the weakest gun laws have the highest rate of gun violence. Those with the strongest gun laws have the lowest rate of gun violence.

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf

Finally, by plotting the performance of states across the two variables—strength of gun laws versus gun-violence outcomes—we find a clear correlation between the strength of a state’s gun laws and lower rates of gun violence. The statistical relationship is visually apparent (see Figure 3 below), suggested quantitatively by our model’s coefficient of determination (R2 ), which measures the proportion of variation in the dependent variable—gun outcomes—that is statistically explained by variation in the independent variable—strength of gun laws. As Figure 3 below shows, our model produces an R2 of 0.42, implying a significant correlation between a state’s gun laws and its prevalence of gun violence and suggesting that as a state’s gun laws improve in strength, the state is more likely to have lower rates of gun violence.

State rankings by strength of gun laws State rankings by overall gun-violence outcomes 10 states with strongest gun laws 10 states with weakest gun laws Other states R2 =+0.4214 FIGURE 3 Correlation between state gun laws and gun-violence outcomes Source: Center for American Progress analysis based on data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

 

[Lakhota]

Why would any law-abiding gun owner oppose universal background checks for ALL firearms purchases?

The same reason a law abiding citizen would oppose the police searching their home without a warrant.

It ain't the same! It ain't even in the universe of same!

 

[LOki]

There is already a law mandating background checks on gun purchases.

Not at gun shows. Did you even read what you quoted?

Allow me to show you the relevant part:

Current rules on background checks apply to licensed dealers, but up to 40 percent of firearms sales involve private parties or gun shows and do not require checks, the chiefs said.

The "gun show loophole" is a myth; fabricated to frighten the weak minded.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why would any law-abiding gun owner oppose universal background checks for ALL firearms purchases?

The same reason a law abiding citizen would oppose the police searching their home without a warrant.

It ain't the same! It ain't even in the universe of same!

Of course not. It's different, somehow.

 

[LOki]

Citing the popularity of an idea is not the same as showing it will be effective in reducing crime. It will not. Oregon has UBC and we see how that turned out a couple of weeks ago.
Such measures are nothing more than an attempt to stick it to lawful gun owners. It will not reduce crime one bit.

The states with the weakest gun laws have the highest rate of gun violence. Those with the strongest gun laws have the lowest rate of gun violence.

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf

Finally, by plotting the performance of states across the two variables—strength of gun laws versus gun-violence outcomes—we find a clear correlation between the strength of a state’s gun laws and lower rates of gun violence. The statistical relationship is visually apparent (see Figure 3 below), suggested quantitatively by our model’s coefficient of determination (R2 ), which measures the proportion of variation in the dependent variable—gun outcomes—that is statistically explained by variation in the independent variable—strength of gun laws. As Figure 3 below shows, our model produces an R2 of 0.42, implying a significant correlation between a state’s gun laws and its prevalence of gun violence and suggesting that as a state’s gun laws improve in strength, the state is more likely to have lower rates of gun violence.

State rankings by strength of gun laws State rankings by overall gun-violence outcomes 10 states with strongest gun laws 10 states with weakest gun laws Other states R2 =+0.4214 FIGURE 3 Correlation between state gun laws and gun-violence outcomes Source: Center for American Progress analysis based on data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind ofmeaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

 

[Rustic]

This is a no-brainer, this is the simplest thing in the world."

CHICAGO, Oct 26 (Reuters) - Police chiefs from across the United States called on Monday for universal background checks for firearms purchases, saying opinion polls consistently show that most Americans support such restrictions.

The proliferation of firearms is one of the factors behind a rise in homicide rates in many U.S. cities this year, according to senior law enforcement officials at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Chicago.

Acknowledging the power of the gun lobby and the reluctance of Congress to enact stricter gun laws, the police chiefs told a news conference they were not anti-gun but wanted to keep weapons out of the hands of people with criminal backgrounds.

Current rules on background checks apply to licensed dealers, but up to 40 percent of firearms sales involve private parties or gun shows and do not require checks, the chiefs said.

"This is a no-brainer, this is the simplest thing in the world," Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said. "It troubles me all the time."

Backing the effort is an alliance of organizations representing police chiefs and executives, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association and groups representing women, Hispanic and African-American law enforcement executives and police chiefs, as well as campus law enforcement administrators.

McCarthy said he was passionate about the issue after four years on the job in Chicago, which has more shootings and killings than other big cities like New York and Los Angeles and where police seize illegal guns at a much higher rate.

The police leaders called for expansion of background checks to cover all gun purchases and for a stronger background check system to ensure all agencies share the same records including criminal and mental health backgrounds.

More: U.S. Police Chiefs Call For Background Checks For All Gun Purchases

So, the question becomes: Who knows best - the NRA gun nutters or U.S. police chiefs? I'm guessing that "the Major Cities Chiefs Association and groups representing women, Hispanic and African-American law enforcement executives and police chiefs, as well as campus law enforcement administrators" know best.

No thanks...

 

[LOki]

So...background checks are preventing bad guys from buying guns. The federal government is weak on prosecuting the bad guys for trying to buy guns, but stopping them from buying a gun is a good start.

It is common sense this should be extended to gun shows.

Mr Dingle Berry,


Please identify by article section and clause the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks and to prosecute "bad guys" for trying to buy guns.

You miserable piece of shit.


.

Dear Dumbass,

Even DC v. Heller said background checks are constitutional.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Background checks not even mentioned. Not once.

 

[Rustic]

Why would any law-abiding gun owner oppose universal background checks for ALL firearms purchases? Right now, about 40% of all gun purchases are falling through the legal cracks. We should close those cracks!

Easy, it's not necessary Washington redskin...

 

[g5000]

So...background checks are preventing bad guys from buying guns. The federal government is weak on prosecuting the bad guys for trying to buy guns, but stopping them from buying a gun is a good start.

It is common sense this should be extended to gun shows.

Mr Dingle Berry,


Please identify by article section and clause the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks and to prosecute "bad guys" for trying to buy guns.

You miserable piece of shit.


.

Dear Dumbass,

Even DC v. Heller said background checks are constitutional.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Background checks not even mentioned. Not once.

"...longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill".

..."laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

There you go.

You're welcome.

 

[LOki]

Citing the popularity of an idea is not the same as showing it will be effective in reducing crime. It will not. Oregon has UBC and we see how that turned out a couple of weeks ago.
Such measures are nothing more than an attempt to stick it to lawful gun owners. It will not reduce crime one bit.

They know it won't reduce crime, the goal of gun control advocates is to make it so expensive, confusing, and legally risky for law abiding citizens that they just give up their 2nd amendment rights. We know what these lying scum are up to.

A background check is not confusing or expensive. It's the simplest thing in the world.

And entirely meaningless.

 

[g5000]

Citing the popularity of an idea is not the same as showing it will be effective in reducing crime. It will not. Oregon has UBC and we see how that turned out a couple of weeks ago.
Such measures are nothing more than an attempt to stick it to lawful gun owners. It will not reduce crime one bit.

They know it won't reduce crime, the goal of gun control advocates is to make it so expensive, confusing, and legally risky for law abiding citizens that they just give up their 2nd amendment rights. We know what these lying scum are up to.

A background check is not confusing or expensive. It's the simplest thing in the world.

And entirely meaningless.

Very effective. Prevents about 80,000 fugitives and felons and the like from buying a gun every year.

You'd know that if you read the topic.

To save time, see post 207.

 

[LOki]

Citing the popularity of an idea is not the same as showing it will be effective in reducing crime. It will not. Oregon has UBC and we see how that turned out a couple of weeks ago.
Such measures are nothing more than an attempt to stick it to lawful gun owners. It will not reduce crime one bit.

A mass shooting is not evidence background checks don't work.

If the shooter was a prohibited person, it is definitive proof that background check don't work.

Any more than a mass shooting is not evidence that laws against murder don't work.

Untrue. Laws against murder are not meant to prevent murder.

80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work.

Really? Demonstrate.

That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.

So you're saying that each of these 80,000 prohibited persons--who submitted their full name and address to the FBI--were summarily arrested, prosecuted, and convicted... hence did not--indeed, COULD NOT--obtain a gun, because they were in prison?

Is that your assertion?

To prove background checks aren't effective, you'll have to show all 80,000 go on to get a gun anyway.

No. We just have to demonstrate that ANY of them got a gun anyway.

 

[g5000]

The "gun show loophole" is a myth; fabricated to frighten the weak minded.

It is a fact you can buy a gun at a gun show and other private sales without a background check.

 

[Rustic]

So...background checks are preventing bad guys from buying guns. The federal government is weak on prosecuting the bad guys for trying to buy guns, but stopping them from buying a gun is a good start.

It is common sense this should be extended to gun shows.

Mr Dingle Berry,


Please identify by article section and clause the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks and to prosecute "bad guys" for trying to buy guns.

You miserable piece of shit.


.

Dear Dumbass,

Even DC v. Heller said background checks are constitutional.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Background checks not even mentioned. Not once.

"...longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill".

..."laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

There you go.

You're welcome.

No thanks...

 

[LOki]

So...background checks are preventing bad guys from buying guns. The federal government is weak on prosecuting the bad guys for trying to buy guns, but stopping them from buying a gun is a good start.

It is common sense this should be extended to gun shows.

Mr Dingle Berry,


Please identify by article section and clause the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO which authorizes the federal government to conduct background checks and to prosecute "bad guys" for trying to buy guns.

You miserable piece of shit.


.

Dear Dumbass,

Even DC v. Heller said background checks are constitutional.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Background checks not even mentioned. Not once.

"...longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill".

..."laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

There you go.

You're welcome.

Background checks not even mentioned. Not once.

 

[LOki]

The "gun show loophole" is a myth; fabricated to frighten the weak minded.

It is a fact you can buy a gun at a gun show and other private sales without a background check.

So?

 

[Rustic]

The "gun show loophole" is a myth; fabricated to frighten the weak minded.

It is a fact you can buy a gun at a gun show and other private sales without a background check.

Deflection noted...