Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?

[CB900F]

Fella's;

As Oily Pablo and Pushrod touched upon, polls have problems. If you get the right pollster and pay the fees, the pollster can target the demographic and tailor the questions to assure that the conclusion desired by the organization paying for the poll is achieved.

In other words, you get what you pay for. That's also why it's a good idea to avoid participating in any of the political polls we're about to be inundated with. You may be helping the opposing party to defeat the candidate you want to win. Try asking the pollster who paid for the poll. You won't get a reply directly addressing your question.

900F

 

[DeepSouth]

Bottom line, for a criminal to buy a gun where background checks are required for all sales, the people on both sides of the sale have to be criminals.

How is that a benefit, all that's doing is making the process harder for law abiding citizens, and doing nothing to affect crime or criminals.
I have to be honest, I figured you'd have a better argument than that.

 

[JSH1]

If Washington ballot initiatives cannot be changed for 2 years why did Washington Republican legislators introduce multiple bills 2 months later to completely repeal it?

 

[JSH1]

If you care to spend 5 minutes following the link I posted you can find the actual questions asked in scientific polls.

 

[yugorpk]

Judging by the recent responses to a for pistol sale ad I had placed on one of the local gun forums I'd say there are a whole lot of people who have no problem being criminals. Even my sheriff said he wouldn't devote any county resources to the effort. Is he a criminal too? I support their civil disobedience.

 

[JSH1]

How is that a benefit, all that's doing is making the process harder for law abiding citizens, and doing nothing to affect crime or criminals.
I have to be honest, I figured you'd have a better argument than that.

How are background checks at FFLs a benefit? They prevent the sale of a gun to a prohibited person. Same with checks on individual sales.

That is the point of background checks.

 

[Warp]

How are background checks at FFLs a benefit? They prevent the sale of a gun to a prohibited person. Same with checks on individual sales.

That is the point of background checks.

And this has been shown to reduce violent crime in the states with UBC, right?

Kinda waiting on any evidence to support UBC's doing anything positive whatsoever

 

[OilyPablo]

I think the main point is just how few criminals actually bought guns from FFLs at any given point in time. Very very few. Next up how many criminals actually bought guns from law abiding citizens. Very few again. So now we say those same citizens now need FFL permission to sell.....so now I know it's difficult but are you starting to see the very same criminals just had their already criminal behavior reinforced. Buy guns illegally from a theft or otherwise.

 

[jerkface11]

How are background checks at FFLs a benefit? They prevent the sale of a gun to a prohibited person. Same with checks on individual sales.

Background checks aren't a benefit. They are a feel good measure to make the government look like it's doing something. If they were at all serious about the background checks they would actually prosecute the people who fail them. The fact that they do not proves that the whole thing is meaningless.

 

[Warp]

Background checks aren't a benefit. They are a feel good measure to make the government look like it's doing something. If they were at all serious about the background checks they would actually prosecute the people who fail them. The fact that they do not proves that the whole thing is meaningless.

Some of the people convinced to support them see it as a feel good measure.

The higher ups though...far more insidious than feel-good.

 

[2bfree]

If Washington ballot initiatives cannot be changed for 2 years why did Washington Republican legislators introduce multiple bills 2 months later to completely repeal it?

Please, Bill numbers. As I remember the only bills TALKED about were to ADD exemptions to it, not repeal it.

 

[Deanimator]

Alabama is not representative of the country as a whole.

And Oregon IS??? In what alternate reality?

 

[Deanimator]

Fella's;

As Oily Pablo and Pushrod touched upon, polls have problems. If you get the right pollster and pay the fees, the pollster can target the demographic and tailor the questions to assure that the conclusion desired by the organization paying for the poll is achieved.

In other words, you get what you pay for. That's also why it's a good idea to avoid participating in any of the political polls we're about to be inundated with. You may be helping the opposing party to defeat the candidate you want to win. Try asking the pollster who paid for the poll. You won't get a reply directly addressing your question.

900F

More importantly, polls are not arbiters of right and wrong.

If 51% of the population supported slavery or pedophilia, would that magically transform them into GOOD things?

Of course the OVERWHELMING unpopularity of Obamacare never seems to justify its repeal...

 

[danez71]

Bottom line, for a criminal to buy a gun where background checks are required for all sales, the people on both sides of the sale have to be criminals.

While that might sound strong.... it's hogwash


UBC would discourage 1 thing... and thats a law abiding person selling a gun to a criminal.

To law abiding people, that goes with out saying.


I have yet to hear about a murderer that went out of their way to make sure they aquired a gun legally.

 

[DeepSouth]

How are background checks at FFLs a benefit? They prevent the sale of a gun to a prohibited person. Same with checks on individual sales.

That is the point of background checks.

They're not a benefit that I know of to be honest. They do not prevent the sale of a gun to a prohibited person, they simply make them find another way to get it. Honestly, the argument could be made it makes it easier because "street" guns (for lack of a better word) are almost always cheaper than new guns from a FFL because they're stolen or just sold for the price of a rock.

I've never seen criminals lining up at FFL's to buy guns. They simply find other way to get them, more background checks want change that, they'll just keep doing what they're already doing.

All I'm saying is if your going to try to argue for more gun control to gun owners you should be able to name a real, logical benefit.

 

[Swing]

And this has been shown to reduce violent crime in the states with UBC, right?

Kinda waiting on any evidence to support UBC's doing anything positive whatsoever

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Deanimator]

Don't hold your breath.

It can't and won't.

They're not even pretending that this isn't a stalking horse for registration anymore, since after all they're calling for general CONFISCATION in many cases.

UBCs are merely a lie told in furtherance of a conspiracy.

 

[Red Wind]

He's an ideologue enjoying the debate. Nothing will change. Except to stop the feeding. Just remember the roots of 1791 and disconnect.

10-7.

 

[JSH1]

While that might sound strong.... it's hogwash


UBC would discourage 1 thing... and thats a law abiding person selling a gun to a criminal.

To law abiding people, that goes with out saying.


I have yet to hear about a murderer that went out of their way to make sure they aquired a gun legally.

That is entirely the point of background checks. The law abiding citizen (FFL or individual) will require the check to be done. Therefore they will not sell to a prohibited person.

 

[OilyPablo]

And how often did that happen?

 

[Deanimator]

That is entirely the point of background checks. The law abiding citizen (FFL or individual) will require the check to be done. Therefore they will not sell to a prohibited person.

The ONLY purpose of so-called "UBCs" is to create an opening for REGISTRATION, which has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

 

[JSH1]

The ONLY purpose of so-called "UBCs" is to create an opening for REGISTRATION, which has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

Glad to see you got that in. I guess we have gone full circle on this thread as we have on all the other ones

Should I point out that registration isn't needed for a ban?

I'm not sure where we are in the choreography.

 

[Jlr2267]

That is entirely the point of background checks. The law abiding citizen (FFL or individual) will require the check to be done. Therefore they will not sell to a prohibited person.

But we know this not typically how criminals get guns...they:

1) steal them
2) buy from other criminals
3) have friends/family straw purchase
4) legally buy before becoming a prohibited person

And then we have many cases of prohibited persons actually passing NICS (Dylan Roof as an example)

Not only do BC's not address the primary avenues by which criminals get guns, in cases where they could actually save lives they've failed.

So again, what exactly are the benefits?

 

[Ed Ames]

Bottom line, for a criminal to buy a gun where background checks are required for all sales, the people on both sides of the sale have to be criminals.

Exactly. That is precisely why this is such a bad idea.

Without UBC there is a good chance of tracing the chain of custody. The manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and first purchaser are all known. From there it is in the interests of each subsequent seller to maintain disposition records.

With UBCs, the guns most likely to be used in crime will have that trail broken. A casual seller who chooses to disobey the law will claim the weapon was lost or stolen. A would-be dealer who intends to break the law will procure weapons from off-record sources (stolen weapons, smuggled imports).

While that may not sound so bad, both represent a significant problem for legitimate gun owners.

1) Stolen guns are sourced from current gun owners. By forcing a sub-market to buy stolen guns you create a commercial incentive for theft. You increase the chance that law abiding gun owners will have their weapons stolen.

2) Mistransfered and especially illegally imported guns can re-enter the primary market, exposing law-abiding owners to legal liability.

To make #2 more confusing: When I lived in California a coworker found a gun in his attic. He thought had no idea where it came from...possibly his father had bought it and never told the family. Possibly tenants, from the time when he rented the house, had abandoned it there. In any case, it never "transferred" to him, but it had been in his house for at least a decade. Had anything occurred which caused his house to be searched, my coworker would have been treated as though he was in illegal possession of a firearm that he never knew was there. Beyond that, my coworker wasn't interested in guns and decided to sell the gun. Now this weapon, history unknown, is back in the primary market. I assume it had never been reported stolen or it would have been flagged during the DROS process, but it does have a gap which could potentially cause new owners issues if the background of the weapon was examined closely.

Overall we have some concrete risks associated with UBCs, as in it makes it more likely someone will break into your property and steal from you, creates legal ambiguities which didn't exist before, and it taxes transfers of firearms, but there is no concrete evidence that it does any good.

 

[JSH1]

But we know this not typically how criminals get guns...they:

1) steal them
2) buy from other criminals
3) have friends/family straw purchase
4) legally buy before becoming a prohibited person

And then we have many cases of prohibited persons actually passing NICS (Dylan Roof as an example)

Not only do BC's not address the primary avenues by which criminals get guns, in cases where they could actually save lives they've failed.

So again, what exactly are the benefits?

Why don't criminals buy guns from a FFL?