Universal Background Checks: Senate supposedly near a deal

[Ron]

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.

Once again, 100% of firearm owners are inconvenienced, charged more fees, government grows in size and in ability to disarm the citizenry all for a scheme you readily admit the criminals will ignore. Currently the government pretty much ignores the folks that attempt to buy a gun and get rejected in the background check. Apparently those restricted by law from owning guns attempting to get guns aren't really what the Fed is concerned about, otherwise they would be prosecuting them. They just want the list, they want to know who has guns.

You seem like somebody who has bought into the full government licensing of gun owners and the registering of all firearms. This whole post is filled with you flailing about trying to justify the government intrusion into what we can buy or sell. Before we go down that road government has to prove that it is both necessary and legal.

Real solutions to where the real crime takes place don't seem to be on your radar, you dismiss them saying "OK let's do that" and then you go straight back to advocating the harassment and infringment upon the rights of millions of innocent gun owners.

Guns are not magic talismans. Guns are tools that have no intrinsic good or evil. A free human being should have the same ability to buy a gun just as they have the ability to buy a saw or shovel. It is the common tool of self defense and has been since the dawn of this nation. Our government has been forbidden by law from infringing upon our right to own firearms. The right to self defense is a human right and restricting firearm ownership restricts that right directly. It has been pointed out repeatedly how universal background checks/licensing schemes will do nothing to limit crime but have been shown to be the precursor to confiscation.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis

edited for tone and clarity

[Harold Tuttle]

[AmbulanceDriver]

Curious, I want to ask a couple of questions....

1)  Do you genuinely believe that "universal background checks" will stop, or even slow down a criminal's ability to get his hands on a gun?

2)  How?

[birdman]

@Curious

A random question, If you are curious about guns, why are you only participating in this (very specific topic focused) thread, and veering it to addressing your questions and narrative?  It smacks of a single-issue user, or even, not to put you on the defensive (as you have already done to others' points of view), a troll.  This is a community of folks who participate in many different areas, and so far, the entirety of your participation has been to debate a single issue, where the only "curiosity" that appears to be being satisfied is "what do APS members think of universal background checks and various other gun'control' proposals.

You have YET to ask a single question about firearms that doesn't relate to what WE think or believe, haven't attempted to obtain any information about shooting sports, licensing, defensive use, firearm types, operation, or even safety.

Given the above, your screen name would be better phrased as "curiousabootothersopinionsonsenateproposals" rather than "curiousabootguns", as you haven't shown ANY curiosity about guns.

In other words, to be completely frank, this thread is devolving to a (while well reasoned and civil) debate about specific proposals, and you seem to have joined our open community to in effect debate a single issue, press us as to our opinions, and offer little to no information about yourself (a/s/l or otherwise).  I'm sorry, but the more this interaction goes on, the more it seems like you are researching an article, rather than addressing a personal curiosity.

All of the debate points we have made are widely available in public sources, with even the simplest of google searches, and yet that level of curiosity was not apparent, and rather it seems focused on -our- specific responses to your questions.

Rarely do people join a forum they actually want to be a part of to simply ask current members to justify THEIR positions on a debate topic that seems to be your only interest.

In summary, to paraphrase a meme...not sure if troll.

Apologies to the mods, and to you, CAG, if I am incorrect, but I am simply expressing my personal opinion and concern. 

[White Horseradish]

I'm a little late to this party, but I think this bears mentioning.


Mass killings perpetrated without firearms have far higher casualties than shootings. Daegu subway fire in 2003 killed at least 198 people and injured at least 147. The arsonist used two milk cartons of gasoline. Happy Land arson in 1990 killed 87. The killer used a plastic bottle he found on the street and filled with gasoline.  Both Korea and NYC have stringent gun control.

What do you think the death toll would have been if the killer in Aurora chained the exit doors of the theater and tossed a few bottles of gas inside?

What would you do to prevent this? License gasoline? Register gas cans and bottles?

[AJ Dual]

@Curious

A random question, If you are curious about guns, why are you only participating in this (very specific topic focused) thread, and veering it to addressing your questions and narrative?  It smacks of a single-issue user, or even, not to put you on the defensive (as you have already done to others' points of view), a troll.  This is a community of folks who participate in many different areas, and so far, the entirety of your participation has been to debate a single issue, where the only "curiosity" that appears to be being satisfied is "what do APS members think of universal background checks and various other gun'control' proposals.

You have YET to ask a single question about firearms that doesn't relate to what WE think or believe, haven't attempted to obtain any information about shooting sports, licensing, defensive use, firearm types, operation, or even safety.

Given the above, your screen name would be better phrased as "curiousabootothersopinionsonsenateproposals" rather than "curiousabootguns", as you haven't shown ANY curiosity about guns.

In other words, to be completely frank, this thread is devolving to a (while well reasoned and civil) debate about specific proposals, and you seem to have joined our open community to in effect debate a single issue, press us as to our opinions, and offer little to no information about yourself (a/s/l or otherwise).  I'm sorry, but the more this interaction goes on, the more it seems like you are researching an article, rather than addressing a personal curiosity.

All of the debate points we have made are widely available in public sources, with even the simplest of google searches, and yet that level of curiosity was not apparent, and rather it seems focused on -our- specific responses to your questions.

Rarely do people join a forum they actually want to be a part of to simply ask current members to justify THEIR positions on a debate topic that seems to be your only interest.

In summary, to paraphrase a meme...not sure if troll.

Apologies to the mods, and to you, CAG, if I am incorrect, but I am simply expressing my personal opinion and concern. 

I wouldn't say "troll" so much as "Moby" or "Seminar Caller".

[CuriousAbootGuns]

@Curious

A random question, If you are curious about guns, why are you only participating in this (very specific topic focused) thread, and veering it to addressing your questions and narrative?  It smacks of a single-issue user, or even, not to put you on the defensive (as you have already done to others' points of view), a troll.  This is a community of folks who participate in many different areas, and so far, the entirety of your participation has been to debate a single issue, where the only "curiosity" that appears to be being satisfied is "what do APS members think of universal background checks and various other gun'control' proposals.

You have YET to ask a single question about firearms that doesn't relate to what WE think or believe, haven't attempted to obtain any information about shooting sports, licensing, defensive use, firearm types, operation, or even safety.

Given the above, your screen name would be better phrased as "curiousabootothersopinionsonsenateproposals" rather than "curiousabootguns", as you haven't shown ANY curiosity about guns.

In other words, to be completely frank, this thread is devolving to a (while well reasoned and civil) debate about specific proposals, and you seem to have joined our open community to in effect debate a single issue, press us as to our opinions, and offer little to no information about yourself (a/s/l or otherwise).  I'm sorry, but the more this interaction goes on, the more it seems like you are researching an article, rather than addressing a personal curiosity.

All of the debate points we have made are widely available in public sources, with even the simplest of google searches, and yet that level of curiosity was not apparent, and rather it seems focused on -our- specific responses to your questions.

Rarely do people join a forum they actually want to be a part of to simply ask current members to justify THEIR positions on a debate topic that seems to be your only interest.

In summary, to paraphrase a meme...not sure if troll.

Apologies to the mods, and to you, CAG, if I am incorrect, but I am simply expressing my personal opinion and concern. 

Def not a troll. In order of your points Birdman.

When I chose curiousabootguns, it wasn't because I am only interested in firearms/safety/types/uses and so forth, but ALSO in related issues such as policy. I came here (APS) because an old friend of mine was active here and I don't get to speak to him much anymore so I completely lost out on a source of opinion and information from the pro-gun side of things. The reason I am on THIS thread and no others was, at first, for convenience. It was simply the topic at the top of the list, I read through the post and began asking questions. Since then I have felt obligated to respond to as many posts as possible out of thanks for the honest feedback.

The only reason I am trying to 'veer' the conversation to my questions as you quite rightly pointed out, is to remain focused on one topic. As you know, and as has happened here a couple times, it is VERY easy to let the conversation drift into a million other points making it impossible to respond to any of it. I AM asking for the opinions of APS members on universal background checks, I don't take them to be representative of ALL gun owners.

As to my motivation for all of this I can summarize as follows: I'm here to get out of my bubble.

I, as are most people I suspect, tend to be around other like minded individuals and while this is great for avoiding confrontation, it can lead to a warped or non-existent understanding of other points of view. It is my belief that to intelligently express an opinion you need to do a couple of things. One is to TRY and voice your opinion and as you start to say things out loud you can, if you're honest, admit that you have mistakes in your logic or your facts aren't right. [For instance, I used to think that banning concealed carry was a GREAT idea, now I realize it's ridiculous. Same goes for limits on magazine capacity, after trying to make the case I no longer think it make much sense and shouldn't be pursued.] Discussing issues, no matter what they are with a variety of people is how we refine our understandings and gain respect for those we don't think we agree with, in fact we may find we agree much more than we first thought. It gives us insight into the fact that we don't live in a black and white world and that all important issues carry with them many nuances. Second you need to understand the 'other' points of view well enough that you can argue FOR them. If you can't do that or are unwilling to admit that there are legitimate arguments on the other side, then you probably don't understand the issue as well as you think. That was one of the things that led me to change many of my positions on gun control, I caught myself saying "there is no reason for a person to...." and I thought, that's ridiculous, there may be very good reasons for it and maybe I should consider them.

I thought I had made my positions clear. I'm not only interested in this issue, it's simply where I started. Perhaps it's time for me to move on and meet you on another thread. I'll try and go back and respond to some older stuff, I think I owe some people a response. Getting back to work, I'll be around.

Oh, and no one was interested in the bake sale!?!

[zxcvbob]

What bake sale?  Did I miss something again?

[birdman]

@CAB.

While I recognize that to best argue one side of an argument, you need to adequately understand both sides, usually in this type of debate, or will usually make ABSULTELY clear that one is arguing a devils advocate position so as to avoid confusion, ESPECIALLY when one is new in a discussion or forum.

We all have made introduction posts to this board, to better let others see our points of view, (reveal as much or as little as one wants), but one tries to at least put enough information out there so as to let others see a background to put their points in context.  Yes, you didn't see us do that in this thread, but the VAST majority of regular posters on this forum or in this thread have conversed extensively in the past, and in many cases, know each other IRL.

All we know about you is at you jumped into a thread, and started debating.  You state that an old friend was active here...okay, who?  When I joined here, I was very clear how I was introduced (via fitz), its common courtesy.

In any case, I think we have run to ground most of the things we have been debating in this thread, and your points as well.

I strongly suggest that you also (if your desire is to see some detailed arguments on this topic) read a few well written blogs on the topic area including: (just google)
Larry correia's blog--specifically his BIG essay on gun control
The lawdog files--specifically his "pie" essay
Michael williamson's blog (sacred cow slaughterhouse)
View from the porch
And definitely start following "the truth about guns"

And start participating in threads that aren't debates.  We have had people troll this site before, just to start arguments, and when you jump in as you have, it really puts people on a defensive.  We are all very nice, and polite, but remember, as firearm enthusiasts we get attacked DAILY with flawed logic, passionate (but incorrect) arguments, and get DEMONIZED by those with alternate opinions...so in a new group, its best to not take a devils advocate position until YOUR position is well known.

In any case, my fundamental position on universal background checks is HELL NO, and my position n firearm laws as a whole is while I follow the ones we have, I believe the ones we have are unconstitutional and infringing on my basic rights.  If those laws are pushed further, my response is quite simple.  MOLON LABE.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

What bake sale?  Did I miss something again?

I proposed one to raise funds for an AC-130

[Ron]

Without seeing a persons face or body language it is difficult to discern a persons intentions or authenticity, if you will.

I'm glad you aren't a troll.

Honest debate and the pursuit of truth can only help refine and strengthen the cause of liberty.

 

[dm1333]

Creating more laws that inconvenience and hinder the 90+ percent and fail to address the actual violent crime problem makes no sense. Unless there is a different motive for the restrictions than what is bandied about (saving the children!)

Can't say it much better than this.  If you are worried about the guy walking around listening to the voices in his head that are telling him to hurt people and you want a background check to make sure he can't buy a gun, guess what?  The problem still exists, he still is listening to those voices and he still wants to hurt people.  Fix the problem.  

You've also mentioned a skill test for gun ownership.  Really?  Look at how the LAPD shot up that truck with the two ladies in it, while they were looking for Christopher Dorner.  I'm pretty sure those cops had to qualify at a range before graduating from the academy.  So much for that skill test!

[CuriousAbootGuns]

@CAB.

While I recognize that to best argue one side of an argument, you need to adequately understand both sides, usually in this type of debate, or will usually make ABSULTELY clear that one is arguing a devils advocate position so as to avoid confusion, ESPECIALLY when one is new in a discussion or forum.

We all have made introduction posts to this board, to better let others see our points of view, (reveal as much or as little as one wants), but one tries to at least put enough information out there so as to let others see a background to put their points in context.  Yes, you didn't see us do that in this thread, but the VAST majority of regular posters on this forum or in this thread have conversed extensively in the past, and in many cases, know each other IRL.

All we know about you is at you jumped into a thread, and started debating.  You state that an old friend was active here...okay, who?  When I joined here, I was very clear how I was introduced (via fitz), its common courtesy.

In any case, I think we have run to ground most of the things we have been debating in this thread, and your points as well.

I strongly suggest that you also (if your desire is to see some detailed arguments on this topic) read a few well written blogs on the topic area including: (just google)
Larry correia's blog--specifically his BIG essay on gun control
The lawdog files--specifically his "pie" essay
Michael williamson's blog (sacred cow slaughterhouse)
View from the porch
And definitely start following "the truth about guns"

And start participating in threads that aren't debates.  We have had people troll this site before, just to start arguments, and when you jump in as you have, it really puts people on a defensive.  We are all very nice, and polite, but remember, as firearm enthusiasts we get attacked DAILY with flawed logic, passionate (but incorrect) arguments, and get DEMONIZED by those with alternate opinions...so in a new group, its best to not take a devils advocate position until YOUR position is well known.

In any case, my fundamental position on universal background checks is HELL NO, and my position n firearm laws as a whole is while I follow the ones we have, I believe the ones we have are unconstitutional and infringing on my basic rights.  If those laws are pushed further, my response is quite simple.  MOLON LABE.

Yeah, I was definitely not aware of making introduction posts or that there was such structured etiquette here. I would be happy to give some information. I'll ask my friend if he minds me name dropping...maybe he doesn't want to associate with me :) What type of info would help? Or rather what would you have expected me to post as an introduction?

I totally understand not wanting to be demonized and am well aware of the nasty mis-characterizations of the pro-gun voices as nut jobs or paranoids, or people with no regard for the safety of others as much as I'm aware of gun control advocates being labelled anti-american/freedom haters who want ALL guns confiscated and destroyed.

It was not my intention to put people on the defensive but I see how that was taken. I also, didn't really intend to start a big debate. I can't remember how I phrased my original question but I did intend it to be innocuous.

Also, thanks for the links to those blogs, and thanks to others for providing links as well. I'll check them out.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Without seeing a persons face or body language it is difficult to discern a persons intentions or authenticity, if you will.

Honest debate and the pursuit of truth can only help refine and strengthen the cause of liberty.

 

Agreed. And I'm rather pleased and encouraged by most of the responses I have gotten. Thanks for that.

[CuriousAbootGuns]

You've also mentioned a skill test for gun ownership.  Really?  Look at how the LAPD shot up that truck with the two ladies in it, while they were looking for Christopher Dorner.  I'm pretty sure those cops had to qualify at a range before graduating from the academy.  So much for that skill test!

The point isn't that a skill test would eliminate anything. No action, precaution, training, education, or regulation will ever eliminate 100% of any problem. The idea is to reduce problems, and increase and encourage competence and safety.

[birdman]

Yeah, I was definitely not aware of making introduction posts or that there was such structured etiquette here. I would be happy to give some information. I'll ask my friend if he minds me name dropping...maybe he doesn't want to associate with me :) What type of info would help? Or rather what would you have expected me to post as an introduction?

I totally understand not wanting to be demonized and am well aware of the nasty mis-characterizations of the pro-gun voices as nut jobs or paranoids, or people with no regard for the safety of others as much as I'm aware of gun control advocates being labelled anti-american/freedom haters who want ALL guns confiscated and destroyed.

It was not my intention to put people on the defensive but I see how that was taken. I also, didn't really intend to start a big debate. I can't remember how I phrased my original question but I did intend it to be innocuous.

Also, thanks for the links to those blogs, and thanks to others for providing links as well. I'll check them out.

For an intro, start a thread, and post however much or as little as you like.  If you search for introductions, you can probably find examples.
Geographic area for instance, we are spread all over the country.

[dm1333]

You are assuming a problem exists.  And that this test would fix that problem.  I disagree.  Using a gun safely is a very simple process and guns are simple mechanical devices that aren't hard to master.

[ArfinGreebly]

The point isn't that a skill test would eliminate anything. No action, precaution, training, education, or regulation will ever eliminate 100% of any problem. The idea is to reduce problems, and increase and encourage competence and safety.

Just re-introduce gun familiarity back into the culture.

We have sex education and driver's education in school, it's a simple enough thing to add firearms safety and familiarity into the school curriculum.

When I was a kid, school rifle teams were common enough.

By the time a kid is old enough to own a gun, the familiarity would already be there and gun safety would have been a recurring theme.


You don't need to mandate a skill requirement for firearms ownership -- and to do so abridges an enshrined right -- all you have to do is make it easily available, along with the cultural layer of familiarity.

Pretty much any kid I knew who wanted to had taken hunter's safety by the time they were 13.

Guns were commonplace.  Guns were unremarkable.  A gun was just a piece of gear, and it was treated with appropriate respect.


Educate, don't legislate.

[birdman]

Just re-introduce gun familiarity back into the culture.

We have sex education and driver's education in school, it's a simple enough thing to add firearms safety and familiarity into the school curriculum.

When I was a kid, school rifle teams were common enough.

By the time a kid is old enough to own a gun, the familiarity would already be there and gun safety would have been a recurring theme.


You don't need to mandate a skill requirement for firearms ownership -- and to do so abridges an enshrined right -- all you have to do is make it easily available, along with the cultural layer of familiarity.

Pretty much any kid I knew who wanted to had taken hunter's safety by the time they were 13.

Guns were commonplace.  Guns were unremarkable.  A gun was just a piece of gear, and it was treated with appropriate respect.


Educate, don't legislate.

Hell, I'm 34 and took hunters safety at a local elementary school when I was 13, and the live fire part was in the school basement with single shot bolt 22's (with peep sights even...talk about fun)

[CuriousAbootGuns]

You are assuming a problem exists.  And that this test would fix that problem.  I disagree.  Using a gun safely is a very simple process and guns are simple mechanical devices that aren't hard to master.

Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.

[Ron]

Stipulating there is a problem with violence by some using guns I ask these questions first.

Who is committing the overwhelming majority of crimes using guns?

Where are the overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns taking place.

Once you answer those two questions then solutions to the problem of violence involving guns can be discussed.

Lists, training, wait periods, mag restrictions, model/style restrictions etc do not get to the heart of the who and where.

Who is committing the preponderance of crimes involving firearms and where do we find these guys?

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Just re-introduce gun familiarity back into the culture.

We have sex education and driver's education in school, it's a simple enough thing to add firearms safety and familiarity into the school curriculum.

When I was a kid, school rifle teams were common enough.

By the time a kid is old enough to own a gun, the familiarity would already be there and gun safety would have been a recurring theme.


You don't need to mandate a skill requirement for firearms ownership -- and to do so abridges an enshrined right -- all you have to do is make it easily available, along with the cultural layer of familiarity.

Pretty much any kid I knew who wanted to had taken hunter's safety by the time they were 13.

Guns were commonplace.  Guns were unremarkable.  A gun was just a piece of gear, and it was treated with appropriate respect.


Educate, don't legislate.

I think that is a fine idea sir.

[dm1333]

Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.

I think you are placing way too much faith in the effectiveness of a skill test.  Who would administer this test?  Who would set the standards?  Why do you believe we need this test?  Is the government the answer to all of these?  I would emphatically say no. 

[CuriousAbootGuns]

Stipulating there is a problem with violence by some using guns I ask these questions first.

Who is committing the overwhelming majority of crimes using guns?

Where are the overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns taking place.

Once you answer those two questions then solutions to the problem of violence involving guns can be discussed.

Lists, training, wait periods, mag restrictions, model/style restrictions etc do not get to the heart of the who and where.

Who is committing the preponderance of firearm crimes and where do we find these guys?

Who: Generally by poor, uneducated people, often repeat offenders. Where: Generally in poor communities, often densely populated.

These point to much larger issues than those that would be addressed with the actions you listed (mag restrictions and so on) and need to be addressed as a society. I'm not exactly sure how to get at the heart of the issue. I think some major changes are needed and I'm frankly unsure how to do that..whatever we do it would likely take a long time to change. But it will likely involve many incremental changes.

[birdman]

Maybe not for you, but you are not everybody. For some people it IS hard to master, they may lack physical strength/ability, they may have a fear of guns that prevents them from behaving reasonably with a firearm but for personal protection they NEED one anyway, they may be very young and inexperienced. I think high powered lasers or working with high voltage circuits aren't hard tasks to master, but for many they are.

How high of power lasers? :)