Why should there be “universal background checks” for firearms sales and transfers?

[woodwork201]

Any dealer at a gun show has to do a background check....every single dealer.

Private sales do not....that includes a private sale at your home, at work, at the Denny's, or even if you are at a gun show selling your private gun......

They are lying to you about the "gun show loophole," which means you shouldn't trust anything they say or anything they want.

I keep saying the same thing as you do but about 20 pages behind you because I'm a few days late to the thread. I think I'm good on this thread until I get mostly caught up because you're handling it quite well on your own.

 

[Rigby5]

You are just completely wrong on this one.

The licensure process in many countries is so arduous and expensive few people are willing to go through it at all unless they are serious hunters/shooters or collectors.

Then they add on onerous storage requirements, insurance and random inspections of your premises to make it even more uncomfortable.

I have relatives and friends in many countries, and they tell me that is not true.
First of all, guns in the rest of the world are local, not by country government.
All you have to do is satisfy a local cop, and its all fine.
In countries like Israel and Switzerland, they even give everyone a gun because they have mandatory, universal military service. When you leave, they convert the rifle to semi auto, and you keep it.
So Switzerland and Israel actually have a higher rate of armed homes than we do.
We own more guns per person, but most of those are collection or storage armories.
To satisfy a local cop, you do have to register or license the person or the firearms, depending on local laws, but they are not difficult. You just have to join a sporting club related to firearms, or explain how you have valuables to protect.
There is no War on Drugs that has made 40 million people unable to possess firearms like the US has.
Storage is not a problem, as all that takes is a safe or cable locks.
Have not heard of a single country that requires insurance, as most countries consider insurance to be a scam, and I agree.
While in theory there can be unannounced inspections, it actually happens right away, and is arranged by a phone called appointment. They do not come in the middle of the night, like they do in the US if you get an FFL.
Look at Australia after they banned assault weapons. Less than 10% were turned in, and no one cares.
No one is being arrested for having assault rifles, and every boat has at least one.

 

[woodwork201]

Yep...they don't do anything...

But....since we are trying to compromise, we will let you have the current background checks.......but no universal background checks so that you can then demand gun registration...

"we" are NOT trying to compromise. The current background checks are unconstitutional and "we" must never stop fighting against them..

 

[task0778]

Just explain how the background check would have altered the outcome of any mass shooting in history.

How can anyone know how many mass shootings would not have happened if the shooter had failed a background check and been denied a gun.

What about every other shooting? Mass shootings are like 1.3% of the total number.

Just explain how many more shootings would happen if background checks were never done at all.

 

[woodwork201]

Okay. A UBC law cannot prevent a private sale outside of a gun show, such a law is only going to cover a gun show where presumably a lot of guns are bought and sold. First of all, if you walk across the street to buy a gun so you can avoid the BC, then you ain't what I'd call a law-abiding citizen. The law-abiding citizens will buy a gun legally and go through the BC process. It's the crooks and crazies who will have to buy a gun on the street, but at least we made it harder on them and just maybe somebody doesn't acquire a gun that they otherwise would have. I dunno, is it all that easy to buy a gun on the street? Maybe it's a small chance to preclude a shooting, but it is not a chance we should pass up, because the rest of us are not denied our 2nd Amendment rights.

Do we have to wait until people are shot and killed by somebody with a gun that was bought at a gun show from a non-FFL seller? I'm not seeing the justification to deny a federal UBC law.

2aguy is right about people just going across the street if one geographic location required the time, expense, and trouble of a background check - even if that person was a completely law-abiding person. But what will happen in reality, that contradicts your quoted post here, is that private sellers simply won't bring their guns to the gun show. Then there's no question of trying to avoid the requirement. A seller might meet up at a gun show or a mall or Walmart or Denney's and talk about the gun, price, etc., and then go to where the gun is, but the gun is never at the gunshow. Such a requirement only changes the location of future sales, not the outcome of future sales.

 

[woodwork201]

No, dumb ass...the freedom to buy or sell your private property without needing government permission.....

Ok, I'm trying to wait until page 20 or so but I have to add: freedom of the gun buyer to exercise his right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

 

[task0778]

It's easier to buy guns illegally than legally which is why so many criminals have them.

I doubt that very much, is that just your opinion or do you have any data? Do you think it's just a matter of looking up illegal guns for sale in the yellow pages? Criminals have illegal guns because they can't legally buy them.

 

[woodwork201]

So.......if you are so big on background checks...

Would you support a free, simple App, that would allow anyone to check the criminal and mental health background of anyone put into it using a birthdate, and name and maybe a social security number without a permanent record....?

You know, if all you care about is just getting background checks done....right?

There's no such thing as without a permanent record. The FBI has been caught multiple times keeping records from NICS checks. You do a pretty good job on the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment but watch out for the incrementalism. No concessions ever. None. Period.

 

[woodwork201]

Irrelevant. Once you've got the gun it's too late. LOL, if you're pointing a gun at me, the last thing I'm going to do is ask you if you went through a BC. And if you ain't pointing a gun at me then I don't give a shit. All I want to do is try to make it harder for you to get that gun in the 1st place if you can't pass a BC. That's it.

Let's try this one more time. We're trying to prevent people who should not have a gun from buying one at a gun show from a seller who doesn't have an FFL. Are we clear about that? Yes, someone who is NOT a law-abiding citizen can go across the street and buy a gun without the BC, assuming you can find such a person who will sell you one. I would imagine that is a pretty risky proposition though, you might get your ass shot and robbed by the people you want to buy the gun from. Or that guy might be an undercover ATF agent or a cop. A law-abiding citizen who wants to buy a gun at a gun show will be inconvenienced for a few minutes to do the BC, but he/she already knows that will be the case before they ever went to a gun show in the 1st place.

So - WTF is the problem here? We made it harder for a crook or a crazy to obtain a gun without going through a BC, why is that a bad thing?

Pure bullshit. This is just incrementalism. You know for certain that your next thread would be about ending the private sales loophole. And the next one after that goes through would be about how do we enforce background checks if we don't know where the guns are now and where they're going to? We need registration.

 

[woodwork201]

Just explain how many more shootings would happen if background checks were never done at all.

Easily answered: Zero increased or additional shootings if background checks were never done.

 

[task0778]

Easily answered: Zero increased or additional shootings if background checks were never done.

You're talking straight out your ass, you don't know that at all.

 

[task0778]

Pure bullshit. This is just incrementalism. You know for certain that your next thread would be about ending the private sales loophole. And the next one after that goes through would be about how do we enforce background checks if we don't know where the guns are now and where they're going to? We need registration.

Yeah, and then we confiscate every gun in America and after that we cut the balls off anybody that still has a gun. Quite the crystal ball you got there. You don't know shit.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes. It would help reduce mundane criminals getting access and straw purchasers..

That's just nuts. The whole idea of a straw purchaser is that they CAN pass the background check. Only with complete and total registration would any background check prevent the transfer of a weapon from a straw purchaser.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes, harder for qualified gun owners who have not done anything wrong

In fact, many legal gun buyers are rejected without a reason provided and the FBI, though required by law to allow appeals, has had it written in their funding law every year since Brady passed that they are not permitted to expend any funding in processing appeals. A person rejected has zero recourse to find out if they're on the list, if so, why, or to get themselves off the list.

 

[woodwork201]

Fuck your gun nut paranoia

I love the way people like you respond when you've been totally beaten in the debate. I need to start watching debate club competitions from liberal (aren't they all) colleges. I wonder if that's the standard response from the losing debate teams since they're all leftists like you.

 

[woodwork201]

The law states that any sale made by a Federal Firearm License holder must include a BG check.

That's easy and I can state that every time I have bought a gun from a licensed dealer that a BG check was done.

Personally I don't buy guns in private sales because I like warranties and I don't sell firearms to anyone I usually trade them in at the dealer's.

BUT

If I was going to sell a firearm to someone I didn't know in a private sale I would want to make sure that the buyer was not prohibited by law from owning a firearm.

Isn't that just common sense?

No; it's not common sense. Background checks and prohibited persons are in violation of "shall not be infringed." If a person was convicted of a crime and was dangerous to society then sentence him to a long-enough sentence that when he comes out he's no longer a threat to anyone. Why not 40 or 50 years for armed robbery. Life - or death - for rape. Life - or death - for child molesting. Life without parole, or death, for murder.

The age of adult accountability for a violent crime should be 14, even younger if the court approves. No 14 year old thinks that gun death only lasts until the next episode on TV.

If children are out at 2:00 AM, especially with a gun but even without a gun, the parents go to jail for child neglect.

Put criminals in prison - isn't that just common sense? Bad law as a response to failure to create and enforce good law is still bad law.

 

[woodwork201]

Universal sounds more robust than the other type.

Anything that keeps guns aways from the mentally ill is a good thing. Your bloodlust doesn't matter to me.

It's premium.

 

[Delldude]

No, they're neither. They're 2nd Amendment issues. A background check assumes a government power to infringe on someone's right to keep and bear arms and neither the Federal nor the State governments have that authority.

Then why haven't they been instituted at the federal level?

 

[woodwork201]

I don't think any case pertaining to background checks has ever made it to the Supreme Court.

Funny thing about gun laws. They hardly ever are ruled upon by the Supreme Court because most cases involve a crime and the Constitutionality of the root law is hardly ever challenged. Heller, McDonald and Miller being exceptions.

In order to get standing to challenge the stupid background checks you would have to commit the crime of circumventing the check. Since most states allow private sales it would be rare for even a case to get to court. In the instances where it happens it is usually because other crimes were committed, like straw purchases.

To me it is a no brainier to say that background checks are a violation of our Constitutional rights for two reasons.

First it is an assumption of guilty until proven innocence, which is against American jurisprudence.

Second is having to get permission from the government to enjoy a right that is specified in the Bill of Rights. One that says "shall not be infringed". If we have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right in the Bill of Rights then it is really not a Bill of Rights, is it?

Background checks are worthless to stop any crime and a gross violation of our fundamental Constitutional rights.

Third, the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed." It does not say, "shall not be infringed except," or "unless". There is no constitutional authority for the government to ever take away someone's constitutional rights, felon or otherwise. It doesn't matter that people don't want felons to have guns, it's not constitutional.

 

[Delldude]

No it's not. The purpose of a background check is to get the name and address of every gun buyer recorded and, ultimately delivered or otherwise available to the government.

If it was about gun safety then felons who try to buy guns would be prosecuted and taken off the streets as dangerous:

Banned gun buyers beat background checks, are rarely prosecuted when caught

Tens of thousands of people banned from buying guns try to buy them each year. Some are successful, and few are prosecuted.

www.washingtontimes.com

No sir, BC shows if the person applying has any legal issues that would prevent them from possessing a firearm.