Universal Background Checks: Senate supposedly near a deal

[CuriousAbootGuns]

I've yet to see a compelling case on why we need any new infringement on our rights.

How about we lock up murderers and not let them out? How about you use a gun in the commission of a crime you get locked up and we don't let you out?
 

I think both of those things should be considered and in fact may be better solutions...after prison reform allows to house prisoners in a way that doesn't cost what $70k/year per inmate!?

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Just a tip from the moderator staff here - don't make a habit of that. 

Loud and Clear

[zxcvbob]

How about we lock up murderers and not let them out? How about you use a gun in the commission of a crime you get locked up and we don't let you out?

You're falling for their trap.  Why is a gun-crime any worse than a hammer-crime? Or a Buick-crime?  Those can be just as deadly.

What if the "use a gun in the commission of a crime" is just possession of that gun incidental to, say, misdemeanor drug possession?  The gun had nothing to do with the drugs, the cops just found it when they ransacked your house or car looking for weed.  What if the possession of an unregistered gun is the ONLY crime? 

[Ron]

I'm just wondering what the opposition to background checks is. I will first freely confess that I do not yet own a firearm, but when I go to buy one I (personally) would not be opposed to having a background check run on me.

Why so much opposition? If I understand them correctly, you will still be able to purchase whatever you can already legally purchase, but you would have to wait for some period of time first. What am I missing?

I reject out of hand the assumptions you are making.

The freedom to purchase a firearm is not the cause of gun crimes.

Violent criminals, generally repeat offenders are the cause of gun crimes.

Address the who is committing the crime and where the vast majority of the crime is taking place and leave flyover country alone.

I take it you didn't watch the video I posted?

 

[Ron]

You're falling for their trap.  Why is a gun-crime any worse than a hammer-crime? Or a Buick-crime?  Those can be just as deadly.

What if the "use a gun in the commission of a crime" is just possession of that gun incidental to, say, misdemeanor drug possession?  The gun had nothing to do with the drugs, the cops just found it when they ransacked your house or car looking for weed.  What if the possession of an unregistered gun is the ONLY crime?  

Fine, use (as in brandishing) of any weapon in the commission of a crime whether it be knife, gun, 2X4 etc. gets you extra luv from the judge at sentencing.

[Gewehr98]

Just for the record, I was stationed in California when they confiscated people's rifles.

They had registered them previously under the DOJ directive, making it easy for them to be taken once AG Dan Lungren changed his mind.

At that moment, with the stroke of a pen, thousands of Californians became criminals, and subject to confiscation.

Not cool.  Not cool at all.  

I applied for, and received a transfer to Florida.  I carried several hundred 30-round AK magazines in my household goods for friends who had yet to escape that horror.

If registration becomes the law, I cannot guarantee much compliance.  

[zxcvbob]

You say gun licensing is not aboot reducing accidents. Does that mean you would support it if it were for that purpose? Instead of saying a magazine can't be larger than XX (which I don't support btw), we instead said: pass a skill and safety test first. Would you support that? Gun accidents may be a small percentage but wouldn't are polite and armed society be safer and more effective at stopping crime if individuals who were carrying were trained to a standard?

That sounds remarkably like a poll tax, or literacy test before you can vote (from the late 1800's, thru the mid-1900's in some places.)  Why do you hate black people? 

[zxcvbob]

Fine, use (as in brandishing) of any weapon in the commission of a crime whether it be knife, gun, 2X4 etc. gets you extra luv from the judge at sentencing.

I have no problem with that, if it's carefully worded.

[Fjolnirsson]

Fine, use (as in brandishing) of any weapon in the commission of a crime whether it be knife, gun, 2X4 etc. gets you extra luv from the judge at sentencing.

How about...commission of a crime gets you extra luv from the judge at sentencing? How about that? Maybe if we focused a bit on actual violent crimes, there would be less crime. Instead of focusing on what tool was used in the crime....

[BlueStarLizzard]

Well, try hanging out with law abiding citizens from time to time.

Well, jeez, that's so sweet.

Since you don't want to spend time actually thinking about the concept presented and would rather insult the people who I've hung out with,

How does requiring a valid drivers licence to opperate a vehical on a public road going to prevent someone without a DL to get in a vehical and mow down a bunch of pedestrians?

As already established, they can easily get access to a vehical. They're already breaking laws. Knowing how to drive the vehical in question is likely only going to make their dastardly plan easier to put into effect. Hell, having a valid DL isn't going to prevent them from doing it, if that's what they want to do.

A license is a peice of paper. It has some purposes for some things. Preventing crime/murder isn't one of them. We have some of those valid purposes when it comes operating vehicals.
So far, we havn't found one for the guns.

[MicroBalrog]

Who is making assumptions now?! I do not believe that more people lawfully owning more guns leads to more murders. I am not full-on anti-gun. Believing that there may be minimally intrusive restrictions and requirements on citizens that could reduce gun violence is not being anti-gun. I think that sort of attitude is the negative stereotype of gun advocates that I was hoping to erase by getting a better idea of pro gun rights positions. The attitude that if someone says "maybe convicted violent offenders with mental disorders owning firearms might be something we should reconsider" is equivalent to "take everyones guns away!" is ridiculous.

You say gun licensing is not aboot reducing accidents. Does that mean you would support it if it were for that purpose? Instead of saying a magazine can't be larger than XX (which I don't support btw), we instead said: pass a skill and safety test first. Would you support that? Gun accidents may be a small percentage but wouldn't are polite and armed society be safer and more effective at stopping crime if individuals who were carrying were trained to a standard?

And one thing I just don't understand about the the laws only target criminals so don't enact them..isn't that what ALL laws do? I mean, it's illegal to drive drunk, but why have that law? It leads to sober drivers being stopped at checkpoints or asked additional questions during a traffic stop so it in fact leads to an inconvenience for law abiding citizens. Besides, people still drive drunk, does that mean drunk driving laws are a complete failure?

1. The point I am seeking to make is this: gun accidents are not a result of people having insufficient skills with guns. There is no need to be skilled with a gun at all to avoid shooting accidents. In this way, gun licensing is different from vehicle licensing. With vehicle licensing, at least we know that knowing how to drive better avoids accidents. There is a specific mechanism by which this works.

Being a very good shot with your gun will not actually make you less likely to have an accident with it. This is why actually requiring a skill test will not reduce gun accidents at all.

Which is why the only thing that gun licensing is useful for anything it is reducing the number of guns.

2. The fact that gun accidents are extremely unlikely mattes for a very simple reason: yes, perhaps it is possible for us to give us some of our freedom in return for more safety. After all, we have agreed to have a state in the first place. But the question is, how much safety would be provided? Let us assume that gun control would save one life a year. I am not willing to give up my right to own a firearm (or the right of my neighbor to own a firearm, to that matter) to save one life a year. It is just not true that we should submit to anything if it just saves one life.

3.  Even if we agreed (which I am willing to agree, in arguendo), that gun laws would affect everyone, this does not mean they would make people safer. If, for example, (and I am not saying this is actually true) gun laws would disarm both me and the criminals, but I am now more likely to be beaten up or hit with a tire iron (because the criminals know I don't have a gun), then I am actually less safe than I was before.

4. Here's something for your stereotype: there really are people who are radical pro-gun advocates. Some of these people are actually well-educated, smart people such as yourself, and they still hold radical views. I am a radical pro-gun advocate.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Violent criminals, generally repeat offenders are the cause of gun crimes.

Address the who is committing the crime and where the vast majority of the crime is taking place and leave flyover country alone.

First point: agreed. The idea behind a background check is that it can act as a screen for those individuals, NOT the weapons, the INDIVIDUALS. And if you are serious about targeting repeat offenders, would a registry aid that cause? If you get arrested, once or multiple times, and you are known to possess firearms, could we take them from the offenders (and ONLY them)?

And yes I know that criminals won't submit to background checks or add themselves to a registry, but isn't that the point? It limits the avenues through which they can obtain firearms.

[zxcvbob]

And yes I know that criminals won't submit to background checks or add themselves to a registry, but isn't that the point? It limits the avenues through which they can obtain firearms.

So instead of buying them at a pawn shop, they steal them.  Or buy them from someone else who steals for a living.  How is that an improvement?    By eliminating a legal market, you just encourage a black market and all the social costs associated with it.

I think I'm done for tonight.  This has been fun.

[BlueStarLizzard]

First point: agreed. The idea behind a background check is that it can act as a screen for those individuals, NOT the weapons, the INDIVIDUALS. And if you are serious about targeting repeat offenders, would a registry aid that cause? If you get arrested, once or multiple times, and you are known to possess firearms, could we take them from the offenders (and ONLY them)?

And yes I know that criminals won't submit to background checks or add themselves to a registry, but isn't that the point? It limits the avenues through which they can obtain firearms.

Go back to good intentions paving the way...

The result is a defacto screen on everyone and the weapons.

Good job. You've prevented a few criminals one why in which to aquire a firearm. Meanwhile, everyone else is screened, documented and we have a registry in 3, 2, ...

[CuriousAbootGuns]

1. The point I am seeking to make is this: gun accidents are not a result of people having insufficient skills with guns. There is no need to be skilled with a gun at all to avoid shooting accidents. In this way, gun licensing is different from vehicle licensing. With vehicle licensing, at least we know that knowing how to drive better avoids accidents. There is a specific mechanism by which this works.

Being a very good shot with your gun will not actually make you less likely to have an accident with it. This is why actually requiring a skill test will not reduce gun accidents at all.

Which is why the only thing that gun licensing is useful for anything it is reducing the number of guns.

I told myself I would log off hours ago and get to work...so I'm picking the first point only, I'll try and remember the others later.

The skill portion of the test is to increase the likelihood that in a "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" situation, that it will be done as effectively as possible and minimize collateral damage. The accidents bit was supposed to be addressed by my addition of the "safety" training.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.

If that is your position, let me ask you and the others on the forum a question:

Premise: If starting today you were required to get a license for purchase, and hell let's add safety/skill training and background checks (no registry).

Questions: Would you refuse to ever buy another gun? Would you buy fewer guns?  

[Ben]

I think that sort of attitude is the negative stereotype of gun advocates that I was hoping to erase by getting a better idea of pro gun rights positions. The attitude that if someone says "maybe convicted violent offenders with mental disorders owning firearms might be something we should reconsider" is equivalent to "take everyones guns away!" is ridiculous.

If you're seeing attitude, it is that of people who are, for lack of a better term, war weary. I've seen over 30 years of gun restrictions happen over my adult life. Each time it's, "We don't want to take away your rights. All we're asking for is 'X'. " Then a few years later, "We don't want to take away your rights. All we're asking for is [new] 'X'."

Each time we get hit with the premise that we have so much freedom regarding firearms, and, "can't we give in just a little bit for the common good?" We're presented with a picture of a whole pie, and why can't we give up this one little slice? None of the people who want to continually pass new restrictions remember the old pie - they present us each time with the old pie, not with a piece missing, but as a smaller whole pie. it is disingenuous. We're down to about the size of half a McDonald's apple pie at this point, and that's why you see the "attitude" of people drawing a line in the sand.

[MicroBalrog]

This is entirely the actual position where I live. Because would be extremely difficult for me to get a gun permit (and perhaps I might be refused outright), I have never bothered to apply, therefore I actually own no firearms.

But more importantly, the people on this forum are not a representation of gun owners overall.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I told myself I would log off hours ago and get to work...so I'm picking the first point only, I'll try and remember the others later.

The skill portion of the test is to increase the likelihood that in a "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" situation, that it will be done as effectively as possible and minimize collateral damage. The accidents bit was supposed to be addressed by my addition of the "safety" training.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.

If that is your position, let me ask you and the others on the forum a question:

Premise: If starting today you were required to get a license for purchase, and hell let's add safety/skill training and background checks (no registry).

Questions: Would you refuse to ever buy another gun? Would you buy fewer guns?  

Probably.

Luckly, I have a pretty good stash of firearms already, so I wouldn't be unarmed.


But I am not the person to be asking.

Ask people who don't already own guns, ask people who've never shot a gun, ask people who arn't already invested in RKBA, self defence, hunting and shooting sports, but would be intrested if given the oppertunity.

As it stands, I can take someone of limited finachial means, teach them to shoot, take them to a gun store, help them find a firearm they want/afford and they can buy it. Bing, bang, boom. They might never buy another, and they might end up as hard core as the people around here. You never know, but they can at least go try it.

But with your process? I can just tell them "hey, you have to go to x government agency, fill out y form, take d class and get u permit, AND then you can get a gun from f dealer."
Are they going to go through that process to buy one firearm because they were mildly intrested? Probably not.

And what happens when it's an issue of SD? I can train someone in a few hours the raw basics. If they are dedicated to their personal safety, they can and will improve on that training. But it does them less then no good if they don't have a firearm.
Are they supposed to hang a sign on their door "Dear Threat, please return in two months after my paperwork to purchase a firearm goes through. Thanks, your victum."

[AZRedhawk44]

Probably.

Luckly, I have a pretty good stash of firearms already, so I wouldn't be unarmed.


But I am not the person to be asking.

Ask people who don't already own guns, ask people who've never shot a gun, ask people who arn't already invested in RKBA, self defence, hunting and shooting sports, but would be intrested if given the oppertunity.

As it stands, I can take someone of limited finachial means, teach them to shoot, take them to a gun store, help them find a firearm they want/afford and they can buy it. Bing, bang, boom. They might never buy another, and they might end up as hard core as the people around here. You never know, but they can at least go try it.

But with your process? I can just tell them "hey, you have to go to x government agency, fill out y form, take d class and get u permit, AND then you can get a gun from f dealer."
Are they going to go through that process to buy one firearm because they were mildly intrested? Probably not.

And what happens when it's an issue of SD? I can train someone in a few hours the raw basics. If they are dedicated to their personal safety, they can and will improve on that training. But it does them less then no good if they don't have a firearm.
Are they supposed to hang a sign on their door "Dear Threat, please return in two months after my paperwork to purchase a firearm goes through. Thanks, your victum."

All this.

Plus... I have loaned guns to friends who felt threatened, in the past, from whatever situation.  An afternoon in the desert, some familiarization with the platform in question, and hand over a pair of magazines and an extra box of ammo for a month.

BS like Feinstein/Schumer's bills would make me a felon rather than a good friend.

I won't live by those rules.

[Monkeyleg]

Licensing and registration always lead to confiscation. Always. We've been fighting this battle since 1968, and with each win, the gun banners have come closer to their goal of complete elimination of private ownership of guns.

It doesn't matter what words--reasonable, compromise, common sense--are used to sell their schemes, they all lead to the same place.

Those of us who've seen through this for decades have fought at each step to keep things from getting worse. Those who are now finally seeing the anti's endgame are joining the fight.

There isn't a gun law on the books or being proposed that would have an effect on crime or gun deaths. Five years after the enactment of the Brady Law, the BATF did a study of criminals, and found that the number of criminals who had gotten guns illegally had increased 16%. Suicides comprise a bit over 50% of all gun deaths. After the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun suicide deaths decreased, but the suicide rate stayed the same. Those who offed themselves found other means.

Before the first real federal gun control law--the Gun Control Act of 1968--the national homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000 population. By 1973 that had increased to 11 per 100,000 population.

Prior to the enactment of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban, the percentage of guns on the banned list comprised .0026% of all guns used in crimes. After enactment of the ban, nothing changed.

As has been mentioned before, criminals can't even be charged with failing to register their guns or submit to background checks, because federal courts have ruled that requiring them to do so is a violation of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

If there's a law out there that does any good, I've certainly never heard of it.

[erictank]

Incorrect. While CA is currently in the news regarding using their firearms registration database to confiscate from convicted criminals, the confiscation most of us are referring to dates back to Roberti-Roos, which was not aimed at convicted criminals. In fact it was specifically aimed at those Californians who followed the law and registered their weapons. They used the registration database to send out confiscation letters after deeming that weapons they originally said were legal were changed to illegal status. See here:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer2.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer3.gif
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer4.gif

Further, regarding confiscation from "only criminals", what is a criminal? This is where confiscation heads towards shaky ground. The photocopied letters above indicate that those who registered their "assault weapons" would not be criminals, but then the specific type of rifle was made illegal and they became criminals. For all I know, tomorrow California could pass a law making it illegal to own a lever action rifle. If I don't turn mine in, I become a criminal. There have also been numerous cases of people being wrongly accused of domestic violence in nasty divorces, etc. that have lead to confiscation.

Additional information for CuriousAbootGuns re: NYC's registration-followed-by-ban: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-34.html (easily available elsewhere, as well - this was just the hit I happened to pick out of the Google search for

NYC registered guns, promising that the registration would never be used for confiscation purposes, then... later turned around and used it to run a confiscation program. Same as Roberti-Roos in CA. After driving up registration prices over the course of the registration period, of course, from $3.00 per firearm at time of enactment (which price "would never be raised", according to the City Council), amended mere months later to $10, and by 1991 escalated to $55.

You ask why we won't get behind a universal registration program? Because WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. It may take time - years, even decades - but the end result seems to be the same everywhere, any time. And that's not acceptable.

[erictank]

You'll fit right in here.

[John McClane]"Welcome to the party, pal!"[/John McClane]

[birdman]

I work in a research lab and we use a number of deadly and explosive reagents, and I can assure you you can't get them easily.

Of course you don't need to have a license to hop in and drive a car, but requiring one to LEGALLY do so no doubt reduces the number of people who do just to avoid the consequences. Laws deter people from doing certain actions. Does it stop all people from doing those actions? Of course not and I never said it did, in fact I have explicitly stated that it doesn't on multiple posts.

And the shoe drops.  Laws are based on preemption are by definition, freedom infringing.

Or by your statement, if laws are intended as deterrent for certain actions, laws restricting firearm purchase or possession, BY DEFINITION are meant to deter PURCHASE AND POSSESSION, not use (as we already have laws that cover that, murder and assault being illegal for instance).  So if you admit that more guns in possession doesn't necessarily correlate with increased crime (of the type that is -already- illegal), the only reason to put in place such laws is to deter people from exercising RKBA -legally-.

Or in another way, if you are using the deterrence argument, given that the penalty for armed assault or murder is significantly greater than violating weapon laws, and yet those crimes occur, logically, what marginal deterrent will more weapon laws be against the commission of those crimes?  Likely minimal.  However, such laws ARE a substantial deterrent to those who AREN'T committing those crimes.  In other words, after the first one, the rest are "free"

There in lies the fundamental fallacy of laws such as gun free school zones--it deters people who DON'T intend to shoot schoolchildren, but has zero effect on those that do. 

As such, it is a pre-emptive law to restrict the freedom of people who want to follow laws, and has no real effect on those who intend to do illegal things.

[makattak]

I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.

Someone has never had an economics class that taught him about marginal cost and marginal consumers...

Let me put it another way. You just said:

"I'm not convinced that raising the price of "X" will decrease the number of units of "X" sold."

Which, unless guns happen to be perfectly inelastic (and they aren't) any marginal increase in the price (and "background checks", registry, and any other government interference increases the price, whether it is actually monetary or "hassle" which is a cost as well) will decrease the number of guns sold.

That's basic economics. And by "basic" I mean the entirety of economics is based on this LAW OF DEMAND.

[birdman]

I told myself I would log off hours ago and get to work...so I'm picking the first point only, I'll try and remember the others later.

The skill portion of the test is to increase the likelihood that in a "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" situation, that it will be done as effectively as possible and minimize collateral damage. The accidents bit was supposed to be addressed by my addition of the "safety" training.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that adding the licensing requirement would reduce the number of guns. If I understand you correctly, and I may not, law abiding citizens would be deterred from purchasing firearms because of the hassle.

If that is your position, let me ask you and the others on the forum a question:

Premise: If starting today you were required to get a license for purchase, and hell let's add safety/skill training and background checks (no registry).

Questions: Would you refuse to ever buy another gun? Would you buy fewer guns?  

The skills test being a way to reduce collateral damage is a false flag.  Police are supposedly well trained on firearm use (more than any CHL requirement) and -yet- the incidence of collateral damage is HIGHER for police than civilians on a per-criminal shot basis.  Civilians injure bystanders 1/5th as many times as police, while shooting 2x as many perps, or a rate difference of 10x.  Given the amount of collateral damage already occurring with legal civilian DGU (which is statistically zero), requiring training is going to have little to no effect, if even measurable, on collateral damage, but have substantial effect on availability.

As for asking if we would purchase firearms if a license to purchase were required, I can give actual comparative examples...I have a large group of friends who are enthusiasts in states that require such a license (MA) and in states that done (VA), with the same level of enthusiasm, financial background, and home life...and the VA enthusiasts buy more firearms, and when they first decide to buy firearms, do so with more rapidity. 

Again, the problem with any federal or even state requirement for licensed PURCHASE or in-home possession or transport deters purchase, and by definition can be changed to a registry without much difficulty. 

FFLs are required to keep 4473's, and while there are laws to prevent "fishing" by LEOs, those laws were tossed quickly in the past (Beltway sniper), and even laws preventing long gun reporting have been executive-branch eviscerted (border state long gun reporting).

The only way to keep a firearm from being incorporated into such a potential registry is a private sale, therefore penalizing or criminalizing such a sale is seen by most (logically, and based on actual past action) as a way of pre-emptively criminalizing non-compliance with such a registry.

We are now sliding on the slippery slope, and thus ANY arguments for new laws MUST be put in the perspective of "does this increase the slipperiness?"