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

[g5000]

You didn't correct squat. My statement was accurate.

Nope. You quoted the OP, which is an article about police chiefs who want background checks for gun shows. You then said, "There is already a law mandating background checks on gun purchases."

For most states, there are no background checks mandated for gun shows, which I pointed out.

I corrected you, and you've been butt hurt since. You obviously jumped into the conversation without any idea what the subject was: background checks at gun shows and private sales.

 

[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.

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking News: You can't make already law abiding citizens more law abiding with more gun control laws. In related news you can't force criminals who already don't obey existing gun control laws obey new gun control laws.

This is for gun control advocates.../eyeroll

So, should we also abolish all vehicle laws and regulations?

Should I waste my time on such an obviously stupid ass question? That's like asking me if we should ban cars because some loon drover her car into a parade killing a bunch of people recently.

 

[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.

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

80,000 a year turned away is evidence background checks do work. That's 80,000 people who otherwise would have a gun right now who shouldn't.

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

 

[Contumacious]

Should criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers be allowed to own guns?

You ought to change your handle to "running with chickens"


Can you tell when someone will become a criminal?

Is someone who opposes government tyranny and usurpation a "criminal"?

What is "mental illness" - Under the old USSR and Cuba 's policies he/she who opposed communism was considered to be mentally ill. Do you agree?

 

[Lakhota]

Should criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers be allowed to own guns?

Are they allowed to now?

NOPE!

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;

• Fugitives from justice;

• Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;

• Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;

• Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

• Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

• Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;

• Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and

• Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The problem is, sparky, that they all aren't even being fed into the existing background checks system. From the OP:

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.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

The issue is trust, so when we catch gun control advocates on video bragging about how background checks are only the beginning of their gun control agenda, that getting rid of guns altogether is the real goal, naturally we don't trust the lying scum.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You didn't correct squat. My statement was accurate.

Nope. You quoted the OP, which is an article about police chiefs who want background checks for gun shows. You then said, "There is already a law mandating background checks on gun purchases."

For most states, there are no background checks mandated for gun shows, which I pointed out.

I corrected you, and you've been butt hurt since.

Yes, and my statement was accurate.

I must perform a background check on every buyer I sell to from my store.

 

[BluesLegend]

Should criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers be allowed to own guns?

Are they allowed to now?

NOPE!

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;

• Fugitives from justice;

• Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;

• Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;

• Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

• Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

• Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;

• Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and

• Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Wait, how are illegals killing us with guns then?

 

[Lakhota]

You didn't correct squat. My statement was accurate.

Nope. You quoted the OP, which is an article about police chiefs who want background checks for gun shows. You then said, "There is already a law mandating background checks on gun purchases."

For most states, there are no background checks mandated for gun shows, which I pointed out.

I corrected you, and you've been butt hurt since.

Yes, and my statement was accurate.

I must perform a background check on every buyer I sell to from my store.

From your "store"...

 

[Contumacious]

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!

The 40% number is a lie…and that he repeated that lie shows he is an asshole gun grabber…...

All these Police Chiefs are lying and you know better.....Right....

Yep, Jimbo.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/paul-craig-roberts/are-police-more-dangerous-than-criminals/
Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals

 

[kaz]

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!

government wants opponents to government checked out. Wow, news value .. zero ...

 

[g5000]

You didn't correct squat. My statement was accurate.

Nope. You quoted the OP, which is an article about police chiefs who want background checks for gun shows. You then said, "There is already a law mandating background checks on gun purchases."

For most states, there are no background checks mandated for gun shows, which I pointed out.

I corrected you, and you've been butt hurt since.

Yes, and my statement was accurate.

I must perform a background check on every buyer I sell to from my store.

Which is not a gun show or private sale.

Read the OP. Then come back and try again.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So just drop the idea? Anything that comes up that can possible prevent a gun from getting in the hands of a nutcase, is summarily dropped by the RWers. This is an idea that will happen. It will take time and lots of money to stop the GOP from buying off GOP Congressmen, but it will happen.

It wont prevent any guns from getting into the hands of nutcases. This is already proven.

 

[g5000]

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!

The 40% number is a lie…and that he repeated that lie shows he is an asshole gun grabber…...

All these Police Chiefs are lying and you know better.....Right....

Yep, Jimbo.

Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals

Cops kill more people than criminals, eh?

 

[The Rabbi]

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!

I don't oppose it for one. Just don't think it's gonna do anything.

If it saves one kid sitting in a classroom trying to learn, is it worth a try? Of course it is.

It wont save one kid. It costs lives. If it costs one life is it worth it?

 

[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.

So just drop the idea? Anything that comes up that can possible prevent a gun from getting in the hands of a nutcase, is summarily dropped by the RWers. This is an idea that will happen. It will take time and lots of money to stop the GOP from buying off GOP Congressmen, but it will happen.

It wont prevent any guns from getting into the hands of nutcases. This is already proven.

No, this is not proven. You must show all 88,000 people turned away in 2012 got guns.

 

[g5000]

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!

I don't oppose it for one. Just don't think it's gonna do anything.

If it saves one kid sitting in a classroom trying to learn, is it worth a try? Of course it is.

It wont save one kid. It costs lives. If it costs one life is it worth it?

If turning away 88,000 people from getting a gun saves one life, is it worth it?

 

[Contumacious]

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!

The 40% number is a lie…and that he repeated that lie shows he is an asshole gun grabber…...

All these Police Chiefs are lying and you know better.....Right....

Yep, Jimbo.

Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals

Cops kill more people than criminals, eh?

Did the German Gestapo murder 6,000,000 human beings?

How many blacks were murdered by the southern slave states?


Did the Davidians deserve to be terrorized then slaughtered?

Can the cops become criminals?


.

 

[2aguy]

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.

So just drop the idea? Anything that comes up that can possible prevent a gun from getting in the hands of a nutcase, is summarily dropped by the RWers. This is an idea that will happen. It will take time and lots of money to stop the GOP from buying off GOP Congressmen, but it will happen.

It wont prevent any guns from getting into the hands of nutcases. This is already proven.

No, this is not proven. You must show all 88,000 people turned away in 2012 got guns.

show us how the 8,124 gun under shooters were kept from getting guns....since they got a gun they were not stopped.....not to mention all the other criminals with guns......

and there are studies that looked into initial denials of guns due to background checks...