Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? Demonstrate.80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work.
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?That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.
Is that your assertion?
No. We just have to demonstrate that ANY of them got a gun anyway.To prove background checks aren't effective, you'll have to show all 80,000 go on to get a gun anyway.
Demonstrate.Irrelevant. The only thing that could stop Roof is to repeal the Second Amendment, which is not going to happen.
However, background checks do stop 80,000 people a year from getting a gun who shouldn't have one.
Not a deflection. I debunked his claim that the loophole is a myth. It is entirely true you can legally buy a gun without going through a background check. That's a giant loophole.Deflection noted...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.
Gun violence is a local issue, most places have much bigger fish to fry...Really? Demonstrate.80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work.
See post 207.
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?That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.
Is that your assertion?
Nope. My assertion is that 80,000 felons and fugitives and like are prevented from buying a gun every year.
See post 207.
No. We just have to demonstrate that ANY of them got a gun anyway.To prove background checks aren't effective, you'll have to show all 80,000 go on to get a gun anyway.
No, to prove background checks are "entirely meaningless" (your words), you have to demonstrate all 80,000 still got a gun.
Entirely. Your word.
You are making the idiotic logical fallacy which would also say that since there is still murder, then laws prohibiting murder are "entirely meaningless."
Are you not reading post 207? Irrefutable proof right there.Demonstrate.Irrelevant. The only thing that could stop Roof is to repeal the Second Amendment, which is not going to happen.
However, background checks do stop 80,000 people a year from getting a gun who shouldn't have one.
They have bigger fish to fry than homicides?Gun violence is a local issue, most places have much bigger fish to fry...Really? Demonstrate.80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work.
See post 207.
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?That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.
Is that your assertion?
Nope. My assertion is that 80,000 felons and fugitives and like are prevented from buying a gun every year.
See post 207.
No. We just have to demonstrate that ANY of them got a gun anyway.To prove background checks aren't effective, you'll have to show all 80,000 go on to get a gun anyway.
No, to prove background checks are "entirely meaningless" (your words), you have to demonstrate all 80,000 still got a gun.
Entirely. Your word.
You are making the idiotic logical fallacy which would also say that since there is still murder, then laws prohibiting murder are "entirely meaningless."
It's none of the government's business, it's a right.Not a deflection. I debunked his claim that the loophole is a myth. It is entirely true you can legally buy a gun without going through a background check. That's a giant loophole.Deflection noted...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.
Most places in America have next to no gun violence...They have bigger fish to fry than homicides?Gun violence is a local issue, most places have much bigger fish to fry...Really? Demonstrate.80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work.
See post 207.
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?That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.
Is that your assertion?
Nope. My assertion is that 80,000 felons and fugitives and like are prevented from buying a gun every year.
See post 207.
No. We just have to demonstrate that ANY of them got a gun anyway.To prove background checks aren't effective, you'll have to show all 80,000 go on to get a gun anyway.
No, to prove background checks are "entirely meaningless" (your words), you have to demonstrate all 80,000 still got a gun.
Entirely. Your word.
You are making the idiotic logical fallacy which would also say that since there is still murder, then laws prohibiting murder are "entirely meaningless."
No. I don't.Really? Demonstrate.80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work.
See post 207.
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?That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.
Is that your assertion?
Nope. My assertion is that 80,000 felons and fugitives and like are prevented from buying a gun every year.
See post 207.
No. We just have to demonstrate that ANY of them got a gun anyway.To prove background checks aren't effective, you'll have to show all 80,000 go on to get a gun anyway.
No, to prove background checks are "entirely meaningless" (your words), you have to demonstrate all 80,000 still got a gun.
Yes. I stand by it. Background checks are entirely meaningless.Entirely. Your word.
No. Law prohibiting murder are not meant to prevent murder. Murder is malum in se.You are making the idiotic logical fallacy which would also say that since there is still murder, then laws prohibiting murder are "entirely meaningless."
The Car Show Loophole.When they talk about ALL gun purchases in the OP, they are saying they want background checks to apply to ALL gun purchases and that they currently don't. They don't apply to 40 percent of ALL gun purchases.Which is not a gun show or private sale.Yes, and my statement was accurate.
I must perform a background check on every buyer I sell to from my store.
Read the OP. Then come back and try again.
Dude get over yourself already, the OP is not only talking about gun shows and private sales it pertains to ALL gun purchases.
Damn you are one dense fuck!
Damn, you are one dense fuck.
Where are the lowlife scum criminals getting their guns? I doubt its from law abiding citizens so why are gun control advocates out to pile on heaps of laws and regulations onto law abiding citizens?
How are lowlife scum criminals getting their stolen cars?
Demonstrate that 80,000 felons and fugitives did not obtain a gun after they failed their background check.80,000 felons and fugitives prevented from buying a gun every year, thanks to background checks.
It is pretty hard to defend being opposed to that.
Yet to be demonstrated.Look, I know the long term strategy of the liberal leaders is to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate everyone's guns. They don't say it out loud, and a lot of common everyday liberals don't know that is the long term strategy of their leadership.
So it is understandable that someone who loves and supports the Second Amendment will feel like they can't give an inch. I get that.
But this background check thing is the right and sane thing to do.
Yet to be demonstrated. Actually proven to be wrong.It actually works and actually prevents dangerous criminals from acquiring guns.
No one is.The Constitution says we can remove someone's rights through due process. We take away a lot of freedoms from felons. Taking away their right to a gun is no different, and only an idiot would be opposed to that.
Your post 207 demonstrates nothing. For all that your fatuous post 207 tells us, 80,000 fugitives and felons and the like went out and committed 80,000 acts of lethal violence immediately after failing their background check, in order to obtain a gun without one.Very effective. Prevents about 80,000 fugitives and felons and the like from buying a gun every year.And entirely meaningless.A background check is not confusing or expensive. It's the simplest thing in the world.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.
You'd know that if you read the topic.
To save time, see post 207.
Nope. You debunked nothing.Not a deflection. I debunked his claim that the loophole is a myth. It is entirely true you can legally buy a gun without going through a background check. That's a giant loophole.Deflection noted...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.
76,000 people were stopped from buying a gun. Thanks for validating what I said.As has been proven, showing an ID has prevented 80,000 people a year from buying a gun who should not have one.
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.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right....like voting. Why should either require an I.D.?
No one has ever shown that Voter ID has prevented or is the only means to stop the types of voter fraud which occur.
Apples and oranges fallacy.
The number of criminals stopped by the checks is also quite small. In 2010, there were over 76,000 initial denials, but only 44 of those were deemed worthy for prosecution by the federal government and only 13 individuals were convicted. Even those 13 cases don’t tend to be the “dangerous” criminals Obama claims are being stopped. There are additional state prosecutions, but those are rare as well.
Your post 207 demonstrates nothing. For all that your fatuous post 207 tells us, 80,000 fugitives and felons and the like went out and committed 80,000 acts of lethal violence immediately after failing their background check, in order to obtain a gun without one.Very effective. Prevents about 80,000 fugitives and felons and the like from buying a gun every year.And entirely meaningless.A background check is not confusing or expensive. It's the simplest thing in the world.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.
You'd know that if you read the topic.
To save time, see post 207.
NOTHING in your post 207 establishes that ANY of those 80,000 did not end up with a gun.
I've shown it at least twice, and 2AGuy just showed it again.As has been proven, showing an ID has prevented 80,000 people a year from buying a gun who should not have one.
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.
Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right....like voting. Why should either require an I.D.?
No one has ever shown that Voter ID has prevented or is the only means to stop the types of voter fraud which occur.
Apples and oranges fallacy.
You haven't shown shit.
.
Yet it is fully refuted EVERY TIME a prohibited person obtains a gun.Are you not reading post 207? Irrefutable proof right there.Demonstrate.Irrelevant. The only thing that could stop Roof is to repeal the Second Amendment, which is not going to happen.
However, background checks do stop 80,000 people a year from getting a gun who shouldn't have one.
Read the topic. You're clearly the moron.Why are you joining a conversation and making the same stupid comments which have already been covered?
Read the topic first so you don't sound like a moron.
