Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Registration and following of all firearms.

Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

Thrag: Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...

President Reagan was shot at point blank range while surrounded by the Secret Service, but guns will totally protect you from crime!

Saiga410: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Registration and following of all firearms.

Bwahhahahhaa!

FTFA: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.


I think background checks are a good idea but he's right here, there's only so far you can or should go in trying to make society safe for people who care nothing for society. At some point you have to direct your efforts to taking violent people off the streets in the short term, and producing fewer of them in the long term.

While we're ready to participate in a meaningful effort to solve these pressing problems

Bwahhahahhaa!

Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.

I have yet to see clean data on the % of P2P purchases where a weapon is sold to someone that would be stopped (not involving criminal to criminal sales). I am on the fence, I do not think it would be offensive to have universal but I would like to see solid data that a decent amount of sales would stop because of this before I make a call.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F*ck the NRA

/seriously... f*ck these "people"


ThisityThisThis.
It's as though their response to murdered 5 year olds is to actively court criminals / mass murderers.
Fark them right in the ear.

Criminals aren't as stupid as people are want to believe.
The interception rate for the system we have is less than three percent, which means the crooks are going elsewhere and won't stumble into an "improved check" at any meaningful rate.

/currently that elsewhere is private sales.
/when that route is closed, it will be thefts.
/then imports, most likely.
/if you don't do something about the criminals, they'll just improvise.

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.

I don't know where you stand in terms of gun control, but if you are against licensing, registration, etc then it says something when the pro Second Amendment folks are calling you out on your loose positions on gun control.

/if you do support rational controls on firearms, then nevermind, but the point still stands

I'm starting to think these guys house the criminally insane much in the same way the Catholic Church houses child molesters and pedophiles.

So they don't want background checks and their solution is to put armed guards in every school. Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? I see no way that Republicans will get behind an unfunded mandate like that.

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.

I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.

justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.

I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.

Do you believe there should be any restrictions what so ever on who you sell your guns to?

Should you be legally permitted to sell them to felons? Minors?

Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."

I love the term "Law Abiding Gun Owners." If I'm not mistaken the orange haired idiot who shot up the theater in Colorado was a law abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.

It's ingenious to be able, by definition, to exclude any former law abiding gun owners who's actions contradict your claims about gun safety.

Thrag: Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...

Because some of us have junk so small it looks like we just finished taking a dip in the Atlantic ocean in the dead of winter. Because... SHRINKAGE!

The GOP: If it doesn't work perfectly, don't even attempt to do something.
The Democrats: Let's at least try it.

Sorry 'C'-onservatives, you're starting to lose this fight.

Remember, think of the children. Y'know, the ones that are already dead.

rufus-t-firefly: Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."

But my mental health history is.

Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.

Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.

Ow! That was my feelings!

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

In my experience, background checks usually take all of fifteen minutes, max. It would require a little more money, but I imagine we could make that process available to private sellers as well, as you seem to be suggesting.

Do any anti-firearm people here see any huge problem with this idea?

Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?