I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks

[rbernie]

Last I checked DoJ statistics, almost half of Federal felons convicted of gun-related crimes obtained their gun legally. In other words, they passed (or would have passed) a NICS check without issue, and yet they would go on to be Convicted Bad People.

Background checks make the presumption that past performance is an indicator of future returns - a presumption that even my 401(k) won't provide.

 

[ShaiVong]

Saw a MSM segment talking about where criminals get their guns. They reported a survey of people in jail for crimes involving guns that asked how they acquired the gun they used in their crimes (can't remember the state). 40% got their guns on the street, 40% from friends and families, 4% in pawn shops, 1% at gun shows or flea markets.

Expanding NICS checks to include private transfers wouldn't do diddly squat to effect gun crime. Even a nut case can pass a NICS check, and if he fails can find street corner sales just like criminals do.

Drug sales are completely outlawed, and that trade is rampant. Your suggestion is as absurd as suggesting a background check for buying illegal drugs.

In reality, the NICS check required for FFL transfers just creates the illusion of safety for people who need something to reinforce their fear driven delusion that guns are the cause of crime. I suppose you endorse punishing your own child if your neighbor's child misuses his toys.

I just don't understand your thinking.

You're committing the bifurcation fallacy - no one initiative can stop all gun violence. Gun violence will stop when all violence stops, which will never happen.

Criminals get their firearms from a variety of sources, and personal transfers are one of the sources. There's a reason why NFA firearms are very rarely used for crimes, and the difficulty in manufacture of NFA firearms is not a major reason.

Drug sales are completely outlawed (though not in my state), but gun sales are not. I bought all of my guns legally. If I were to sell to a private individual, and I had to go through a transfer fee, then I would.

Criminals aren't manufacturing their own guns. If you make it harder for them to acquire weapons from people who legally purchased them through FFLs, then fewer criminals will be able to afford illegal guns.

 

[ShaiVong]

Last I checked DoJ statistics, almost half of Federal felons convicted of gun-related crimes obtained their gun legally. In other words, they passed (or would have passed) a NICS check without issue, and yet they would go on to be Convicted Bad People.

Background checks make the presumption that past performance is an indicator of future returns - a presumption that even my 401(k) won't provide.

They passed it once.

 

[bayesian]

Ok, folks, flame on. I agree and have no problem with universal NICS checks.

OMG, plus I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more states contribute relevant information to NICS.

Who shall I present my membership card to?

Seriously folks, get some perspective.

 

[ShaiVong]

So you think it will limit a criminal's ability to sell the gun to someone?

Answer this, will your universal background check apply to gifts? Will I have to use this check to give a firearm to a family member?

Yes. Does your family member have to register a car once you give it to them?

 

[meanmrmustard]

They passed it once.

Wasn't that enough?

 

[splattergun]

Just more ineffective gun laws to punish the millions of responsible, law abiding gun owners for the reprehensible actions fo the criminally insane few.

 

[jungle]

Bushmaster, can you tell us the difference between the data base of the NICS system and the instant check system?

I think you have fallen for the hysteria, many Federal and State data bases share as do many Federal organizations. They also share with Canada and and many other countries.

In effect, you are already getting a NICS check anytime you buy a gun from a dealer.

Getting everyone to play is going to apply only to the law abiding.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Yes. Does your family member have to register a car once you give it to them?

No, they don't. If they want to drive it the road, its inescapable. If they're going to sell it, or use it on a farm...no, they don't. They have a choice in the matter.

 

[ShaiVong]

No, they don't. If they want to drive it the road, its inescapable. If they're going to sell it, or use it on a farm...no, they don't. They have a choice in the matter.

It's a distinction without a difference. Societal structures are in place. Some of them are inane, and some are reasonable.

Licencing and regulating automobiles and the operators of them is reasonable, so is regulating firearms. We disagree about this, but that's fine.

 

[DHJenkins]

This isn't exacly a brain-teaser. You can't enforce mandatory background checks on private sales of unregistered firearms because you can't prove who the current owner is, so you can't prove a crime has been committed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is forgetting the 300 million + firearms in private (and sometimes unscrupulous) hands.

 

[ShaiVong]

Just more ineffective gun laws to punish the millions of responsible, law abiding gun owners for the reprehensible actions fo the criminally insane few.

I don't see how a background check is punishment. I would make the bar for owning firearms much higher than they are now; a background check seems like a sane basic step.

 

[ShaiVong]

This isn't exacly a brain-teaser. You can't enforce mandatory background checks on private sales of unregistered firearms because you can't prove who the current owner is, so you can't prove a crime has been committed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is forgetting the 300 million + firearms in private (and sometimes unscrupulous) hands.

Right, that's why automatic weapons are used so thoroughly in crimes, because the NFA was completely ineffective.

 

[Trent]

No, I don't agree with universal background checks.

It is *my* discretion who I will sell to. It is *their* responsibility to not buy a firearm if they are a prohibited person.

I should have to run a background check on my wife or 15 year old son to gift them a handgun or rifle?


I should have to run a background check on a friend who I've known for 20 years and go shooting with every weekend who owns two dozen firearms already?

I should have to run a background check on a person who shows me an IL FOID card who already has had a background check to get one? (Substitute for CCW in another state)

I should have to run a background check on my neighbor who owns firearms and I go shooting with?

I should have to run a background check on the State Trooper that's over at my house buying an AR15 from my private collection as an individual?

And on.. and on.

"Oh excuse me, {insert name}, I know I've known you for 20 years and we just got back from the shooting range, but I have to do a background check on you before I hand you this firearm."

What's next? Do a background check on everyone I teach to shoot?

That'll turn off a lot of new shooters. I can just see it now - "Sure Ms. Doe, I can take your boy out and teach him to shoot, but first I'll need to do a background check on you, and him."

Sigh.

 

[meanmrmustard]

It's a distinction without a difference.

Licencing and regulating automobiles and the operators of them is reasonable, so is regulating firearms.

You're about half right.
Cars don't start themselves, drive to a school, and plow into a bus on their own...no more so than a rifle walks itself into a school and slays children. People are the catalyst.

Now, take that scenario and add a person.

"Well, how could we know he'd drive into that bus? He passed the vision test!"

As for licensing (proper spelling), all I can say is this; Department of Revenue. :banghead:

 

[ShaiVong]

You're about half right.
Cars don't start themselves, drive to a school, and plow into a bus on their own...no more so than a rifle walks itself into a school and slays children. People are the catalyst.

Now, take that scenario and add a person.

"Well, how could we know he'd drive into that bus? He passed the vision test!"

As for licensing (proper spelling), all I can say is this; Department of Revenue. :banghead:

You're making a false equivocation - vision tests and background tests are different things.

But since you're talking about cars, I'm open to restricting the operator license of anyone who has threatened another person with a vehicle, or used it recklessly. That's more in line with the matter at hand.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Check out item 9 on the New Jersey Certificate of Eligibility:

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sp-634.pdf

9. Are you presently, or have you ever been a member of any organization which advocates or approves the commission of acts of violence, either to overthrow the government of the United States or of this State, or to deny others of their rights under the Constitution of either the United States or the State of New Jersey?

Answering yes to this question means you will not be approved.

Many have wondered if this means that Democrats who answer truthfully are not allowed to buy guns in New Jersey

 

[jim243]

This is a stupid comparison and has nothing to do with background checks.

Actually it does, that is how it started in Germany and then they started shipping people off to reloacation camps. Our generals in Washington, D.C. are sitting with plans in their desks right now to ship us off to re-education camps here in the US. The army has already run exercises in US towns to see how it would work.

All POTUS has to do is declare marshal law and you are on your way to a rail car.

Jim

 

[ShaiVong]

It certainly bars republicans:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Summary=Y&Text=Y

 

[meanmrmustard]

You're making a false equivocation - vision tests and background tests are different things.

But since you're talking about cars, I'm open to restricting the operator license of anyone who has threatened another person with a vehicle, or used it recklessly. That's more in line with the matter at hand.

But the end result is the same. People die.

When I got my license renewed a few months ago and got new truck plates, I was never asked if I'd ever threatened someone with my truck.

If I were going to, or had before, wouldn't I just lie? Like someone trying to get a gun for criminal action would?

You say restrictions for drivers who've done bad things with cars. That's punishment, after the deeds been done, not a method of stopping the deed from ever happening...just not happening again.

 

[ShaiVong]

Actually it does, that is how it started in Germany and then they started shipping people off to reloacation camps. Our generals in Washington, D.C. are sitting with plans in their desks right now to ship us off to re-education camps here is the US. The army has already run exercises in US towns to see how it would work.

All POTUS has to do is declare marshal law and you are on your way to a rail car.

Jim

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[ShaiVong]

But the end result is the same. People die.

When I got my license renewed a few months ago and got new truck plates, I was never asked if I'd ever threatened someone with my truck.

If I were going to, or had before, wouldn't I just lie? Like someone trying to get a gun for criminal action would?

You say restrictions for drivers who've done bad things with cars. That's punishment, after the deeds been done, not a method of stopping the deed from ever happening...just not happening again.
__________________

So you're arguing that it should be allowed to happen again?

I keep seeing the bifurcation fallacy here - either something is 100% effective, or it's useless.

 

[ShaiVong]

I'm off to play some Planetside 2, where I get rocket launchers without even a background check.

 

[mavracer]

I actually wouldn't mind it if I could call NICS and get a check run on somebody I don't know, IMHO it would be a responsible thing to do. I of course realize this would have a extremely low chance of stopping any illegal gun sales.

 

[meanmrmustard]

So you're arguing that it should be allowed to happen again?

I keep seeing the bifurcation fallacy here - either something is 100% effective, or it's useless.

Where on Earth did you learn reading comprehension?

I'm saying your restrictions AFTER a threat or deed has been committed is punishment, NOT A MEANS OF STOPPING A CRIME. Which, unless I'm a fool, is the point of the background check; to stop a criminal from buying a gun, essentially stopping a possible future gun related crime.

If it isn't effective at all (as in, criminals are still getting guns), how is that bifurcation? I'd call it useless, yes. I adhere to my state laws, not everyone does. Guns are still going to be straw bought, stolen, and/or sold illegally. Your check is an obstacle easily cleared by folks that've been doing it already for years.