Are you for or against them? Please state why.
Universal background checks on guns
Posts
Total:
48
-->
@Alec
Currently, all firearm sales through an FFL dealer (Licensed gun salesman) require background checks. Not all states require background checks for a private sale, just from one person to another. Many states only justify universal background checks for classes of firearms associated with crime. This is reasonable if a shotgun is not any more likely to be used as a murder weapon than a knife or a blunt instrument. I would be reluctantly supportive of universal back ground checks for all sales in my state if it came down to it because my entire family has absolutely no interest in selling their firearms to a criminal. Next to no one does, but you can't expect the general populous to have such an awareness without establishing the means. I say reluctantly, because I think that any decent society because any decent society would have a healthy degree of trust between one another in the absence of reason not to, but I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone who mistakenly thinks otherwise. At least, handguns should have universal background checks though because they are well known to be used by gangs and other deviants. Additionally, I am supportive of a formal record of the sale in which this process takes place to ensure that the firearm is traceable, and that there is proof upon request of a legal transaction. Interstate sales already require universal background checks, and I want those laws that are already on the books at the federal level to have teeth.
-->
@Snoopy
I don't know too much about background checks(UBC), but is a universal background check when the government knows who has a gun and who doesn't?
-->
@Alec
Universal background check means that all transactions require a background check. It does not refer to the quality of the background check itself. Currently, some number surrounding a dozen states have a universal background including private transfers from one individual to another on all firearms, which is not required by federal law unless the recipient or seller crosses state lines.
For government agents to know who has what, there would have to be a registration system.
People generally get a background check through someone who has a Federal Firearms License, a national requirement if you want to be in the business of selling firearms, or their police department. Some states have their own background checks in addition to the federal system. The standard background check entails filling out a short form, and a call to the FBI, where they look your name up in something called the NICS, a national instant criminal background check system, and report back. In my experience it takes less than ten minutes, though I'm not sure if there are delays with complications. Some states have streamlined purchases if you already have some proof of passing, like a permit. If you have no history which would bar you from purchase by federal and state law, and the owners discretion, then you may proceed with purchase. If you lie, you could be charged with a felony.
The FFL dealer (whomever) would keep documentation proving they facilitated a proper transaction, but in most states there is no registration system. Immediately following a background check no one would know you are the rightful owner except the parties which you allow to. Your name could still come up if the firearm ended up in the hands of a police agency, who then sent the serial number to the ATF, where people can begin manually investigating the supply chain from the manufacturer.
-->
@Snoopy
What scares me with the government knowing if you have a gun or not is if they know that you don't, then they can do something tyrannical to you that would not happen if they don't know if you have a gun. An example that might appeal to you is illegal immigration. If an illegal immigrant is armed with an AK 47, do you think the government is going to deport them? If the government requires everyone with a gun to register, then they could deport all the illegal immigrants with no guns, which is probably most of them. If the government has no idea who has the guns, then deportations would decrease because the government doesn't want to take that chance.
Something that would anger the right is jailing someone for willingly misgendering. If I have a scary looking gun, it protects me from jail for doing something small.
I know I'm going off topic, but my point is if the government knows who has guns and who doesn't, then they have the power to do tyrannical things to those without guns since the government knows that they won't face retaliation.
-->
@Alec
While it is possible to stave off a local police department (with consequences) I am not aware of any instances in which the United States government can be deterred by a small band of individuals.
-->
@Snoopy
While it is possible to stave off your local police department (with consequences)
I don't think I mentioned this.
I am not aware of any instances in which the United States government can be deterred by a small band of individuals.
If they invade your house for misgendering someone or from being an illegal immigrant, you can use a gun to defend against a tyrannical government with very few help other then yourself if any outside help is needed at all.
-->
@Alec
If they want to arrest someone, and they can find them, the federal government will rain as much hell as they are willing to endure.
-->
@Alec
Are you for or against them? Please state why.
Check for violent criminal behavior and felonies. Check if a judge has adjudicated someone mentally unstable to own a gun. That's about it. For the criminals however, i think they should have it restored if they prove to be doing better. Mental... i guess if they cure too, let them have guns again. I actually think we should have open/concealed carry and no gun free zones. So, i think background checks are good... but i'd rather have a reality where everyone that wants to... can carry and protect us from those that wish to do harm. If harm reduction is what you are looking for through background checks... that won't (hasn't been) work. I'm a strong believer that only people with the same weapon can stop a person meaning to do harm with said weapon. We need to craft laws for country wide carry.
-->
@Alec
I was in favor of the current system though it needs to be far more efficient. But then I listen to a video and background checks are pretty useless as a deterrent to crime. Straw purchases do happen and I would bet a large number are never found out. Just because a criminal has a gun doesn't necessarily mean they will use it for a future crime. Lets be honest here, someone who really wants a gun will get one easily. The resources used for the system should probably be used for crime prevention in general.
Maryland had their bullet case program that wasted over 5 million tax dollars before they did away with it.
California and New York keep trying to come up with ways to restrict Ar 15 like guns and people keep finding ways around them.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Source of Firearms possessed by State prison inmates at time of offense, 2004
Purchased or Traded From - 11.3%
Retail Store 7.3%
Pawnshop 2.6%
Flea market .6%
Gun Show .8%
Family or Friend - 37.4%
Purchased or traded 12.2%
Rented or Borrowed 14%
other 11.1%
Street/Illegal Source - 40%
Theft/Burglary 7.5%
Drug dealer/off street 25.2%
Fence//black market 7.4%
Other - 11.2%
-->
@Outplayz
Check if a judge has adjudicated someone mentally unstable to own a gun.
I'm worried that I would be too mentally unstable to own a gun. I have autism, but I don't want to murder anybody. I want the gun for protection like many other people. I think I should be allowed to own any currently legal gun I want as long as I don't commit murder with it.
-->
@Alec
More guns { weapons } = more sanity?
More guns { weapons } = more security?
More guns { weapons } = more peace?
More guns { weapons } = less crazy people to abuse them?
More guns { weapons } = closer to God?
More guns { weapons } = intellectually best path forward for humanity?
More guns { weapons } = humanities best short term solutions to violence?
-->
@mustardness
There is no correlation between gun count and sanity. History has shown that more guns tend to lean towards more security and less tyranny from governments. This is why the UK has huge gun restrictions and as a result, they are a police state.
More guns { weapons } = closer to God?
I'm surprised you would even care about god, since I think you insulted him a bunch of time on DART, although I am not sure.
More guns { weapons } = less crazy people to abuse them?
No correlation.
More guns { weapons } = intellectually best path forward for humanity?
Yes. The murder rate has been falling as gun ownership has been increasing.
More guns { weapons } = humanities best short term solutions to violence?
Every society that has banned guns has had their murder rate skyrocketed and their governments become tyrannical. Many societies that I can think of took away, "assault weapons" and their governments are tyrannical now.
-->
@Alec
Well, i don't advocate for the background checks to go through your medical records. I think that's dumb for many reasons. Right now, if you do something that gets you in front of a judge, and they rule that you are a danger to yourself or others bc of your mental condition... then, i would say hold off on getting that gun. But mind you... you probably broke some law bc of your mental condition and that's why the judge would make that ruling... which is logical as far as being an indicator that maybe you shouldn't own a gun bc of your health. That's why i agree with mental checks to that level. It's evidence based off your own actions... vs. if it was through doctors which could be bias or misdiagnoses etc.I'm worried that I would be too mentally unstable to own a gun.
-->
@Outplayz
What if you have a mental condition but haven't done anything to put you in front of a judge? If your Adam Lanza, then of course you shouldn't have a gun, but if your an everyday autistic person, who's high functioning, then you should be allowed a gun for protection.
-->
@Alec
I would like to see a program for people with histories indicative of risk factors where a family member is contacted, respecting their rights, and also those who love them.
-->
@Snoopy
What I'm worried about is since I post a lot of political stuff on DART, people might think I'm motivated to do something that I don't want to do and this could cause me to have my gun taken away.
I think a good idea to prevent mass shootings is to encourage teachers to be armed and to advertise it so shooters are too scared to commit homicide. This way, any teacher who wants a gun and is qualified to have a gun would help save their kids. Guards can help too, but they aren't as effective. They are more expensive then letting a teacher buy a $250 gun and if there is a shooting at the other side of the school, the guard can't get there in time.
-->
@Alec
I agree. You should be able to have a gun. Even Lanza, he has the right too... but of course, not when he snapped, or whenever he snapped. These are people that just snap without breaking any laws in order for a judge to see them... well, now this is a multi-faceted problem. Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, and we should have the right to protect ourselves from people like him. The only way to fight someone evil is to fight them... not hide. People are going to snap, people are going to want chaos, there is nothing we can do about that right now other than protect ourselves against it. But with things like gun free zones and keeping us disarmed... we're sitting targets.What if you have a mental condition but haven't done anything to put you in front of a judge? If your Adam Lanza, then of course you shouldn't have a gun, but if your an everyday autistic person, who's high functioning, then you should be allowed a gun for protection.
But like i said, it's really a multi-problem. Bc, if everyone was armed, if we get rid of gun-free zones... we aren't fixing anything that matters. There will still be people that want to hurt you... and likely, they'll start making bombs in that reality. If you look up death toll from bombs, we're actually pretty lucky these idiots are using AR's. So, the only way we can fix it is by making a world where people don't want to hurt others. The reality we are in right now... i'm not surprised there are people that want death and chaos. I'm truly not surprised.
-->
@Snoopy
thanks for the stats, very interesting, pretty much cements my opinion on background checks now.
-->
@Alec
There is no correlation between gun count and sanity.
At least none that your aware of. Maybe those studies have not been done, as it is very complex process to know how many guns exist and how many sane people there are, within some set, group, city, county, country, culture etc.
History has shown that more guns tend to lean towards more security and less tyranny from governments.
So USSR people had lots of guns and still lived under tyranny of Stalin. I think your comment lacks accuracy.
This is why the UK has huge gun restrictions and as a result, they are a police state.
So Bobbys now carry guns, whereas for years they didnt?
And because Bobbys{?} carry{?} gun{?}s the people dont, theny UK is a police state.
M-Tard...More guns { weapons } = closer to God?
I'm surprised you would even care about god, since I think you insulted him a bunch of time on DART, although I am not sure.
This is evidence you know very little about me despite many many posts at DDO and DArt.
I have no idea what "insulted him a bunch of time on DART" makes no sense for at least 2 reasons;
1} God is not a him despite your false beliefs God is a "him",
2} insults are irrelevant to God.
M-T...More guns { weapons } = less crazy people to abuse them?
No correlation.
Once again, the correct answer is,..... not to your knowledge.
MT.....More guns { weapons } = intellectually best path forward for humanity?
Yes. The murder rate has been falling as gun ownership has been increasing.
Is that US or in every country and globally?
MT....More guns { weapons } = humanities best short term solutions to violence?
Every society that has banned guns has had their murder rate skyrocketed and their governments become tyrannical.
So you mean USSR where Stalin murdered millions? And Germany where Hitler murdered millions? Maybe China during their cultural revolution?
And you already mentioned UK so I guess UK's murder rate or value has risen since when exactly?
Many societies that I can think of took away, "assault weapons" and their governments are tyrannical now.
Does Canada ban assault weapons? When did they start? How has their murder value or rate been since their banning of assault weapons?
Did Mexico ban assault weapons? if so, how has their murder rated been in that period of time? China?
do a quick search on your favorite search engine for something like "diy ar15 lower receiver mold" "casting ar15 lower with resin" then consider once this methods is improved, popular and in demand, handguns would be next, the polymer parts anyway. If you watch any videos on how to assemble an ar15 you will quickly realize how simple it really is. The threat by the gun grabbers may force design changes to the ar15 parts to allow for even more diy for the individual who wishes to assemble one.
when you attempt to assert more control, the less control you will actually have.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The problem with that theory is the rifle barrels are difficult to make properly. You are basically though, in the context of urban combat. I could still make something accurate enough for survival in a garage that I could rely on, but military grade weaponry would be out of reach according to modern standards. For anyone wondering I consider "military grade" as a maintainable standard of reliability and precision. When you consider that the aim is just to lower the supply/demand and make it less practical for kids without father figures then you are giving the theory an honest run for its money.
-->
@Snoopy
shot gun slug barrels aren't rifled, the rifling is in the slug itself, I don't know physics etc but I'm not so sure the same thing couldn't be applied to smaller calibers. It's probably more expensive to make them that way, but if the demand is there.....never under estimate human ingenuity.
(look at the ballistic type tests on shotgun slugs if you haven't)
cnc shops and machines would fill any need, supply and demand.
there was some tv show, red jacket something or other which was a small business that made guns. Kel-Tec is out of Florida for example. Someday there will be alternative materials to steel, polymers and resins will get stronger, kevlar is a pretty good example of ingenuity and a metal alternative. Aluminum changed how and what things are made from. Again there's videos of people casting lowers from aluminum cans. There's no real demand for that ability, we shouldn't create one either.
"When you consider that the aim is just to lower the supply/demand and make it less practical for kids without father figures then you are giving the theory an honest run for its money. "
are you referring to the aim of background checks?
What % of gun crimes are committed by males w/o father figures? I'd bet it's very high.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
shot gun slug barrels aren't rifled, the rifling is in the slug itself, I don't know physics etc but I'm not so sure the same thing couldn't be applied to smaller calibers. It's probably more expensive to make them that way, but if the demand is there.....never under estimate human ingenuity.(look at the ballistic type tests on shotgun slugs if you haven't)cnc shops and machines would fill any need, supply and demand.there was some tv show, red jacket something or other which was a small business that made guns. Kel-Tec is out of Florida for example. Someday there will be alternative materials to steel, polymers and resins will get stronger, kevlar is a pretty good example of ingenuity and a metal alternative. Aluminum changed how and what things are made from. Again there's videos of people casting lowers from aluminum cans. There's no real demand for that ability, we shouldn't create one either."When you consider that the aim is just to lower the supply/demand and make it less practical for kids without father figures then you are giving the theory an honest run for its money. "are you referring to the aim of background checks?What % of gun crimes are committed by males w/o father figures? I'd bet it's very high.
Well, background checks are the particular subject of interest, but more broadly it could be thought as establishing a realistic set of expectations. Since we both know that there is a real world relationship in that respect, and the percentage is significant, I am encouraging consideration on a sociological basis for policy in that statement. A young person who has the skill and direction to make a rifle from scratch is probably fully capable of landing a real job. As they get older, more of the deviant populous will become less naïve, learn from their mistakes, or end up in prison. I don't see the capacity of production as a cause to rule out the potential to effect the market as it caters petty criminal activity.
-->
@Snoopy
I have heard the number of first time gun buyers has been going down. which imo makes sense as the prices are falling pretty fast and low. This seems to happen when people don't feel a threat from proposed bans and laws. Prices and sales rose pretty high during Obama, the numbers sure reflect that fact. I believe people do knee jerk purchase or reactionary purchase because of proposed bans, laws, restrictions etc. Therefore creating more demand.
So would the opposite be true? If restrictions were removed would that decrease the demand? It might. Do background checks really deter gun crime? I don't think so. There's no evidence that N.I.C.S. had any effect on reducing gun crimes, anecdotal evidence at best. When you look at yearly rates, why does the rate go up and down? Perhaps the real answer lies there. The rates rise and fall without any additional laws or bans, how is this explained? can it be explained?
would the lack of laws entice you to commit a gun crime? I wouldn't, and yet even with all the laws etc people still choose to commit gun crimes where a vast majority do not and would not.
this belief if only there were more laws then these things wouldn't happen is laughable.
If life in prison and or a death penalty isn't enough of a deterrent than what more could be?
-->
@Snoopy
What percentage of gun crimes are from people who do not have access to guns?DPirate....What % of gun crimes are committed by males w/o father figures? I'd bet it's very high.
More guns { weapons } is just plain dumb and is takes away from resources that humanity needs for living, not killing.
The easier access to guns is sign of the level of intelligence of humanity.
There was a rational, logical common sense reason for USSR and USA to pull back from Mutuallly Assured Destruction.{ M.A.D}.
There exists rational, logical common sense set of reasons for humanity to put away their desire to have weapons to kill each other.
This is obvious conclusion to mature and mentalitty balanced adult humans. How we get to this on a global scale is a seperate question. First humanity has to unite behind and idea. The idea that we want humanity to survive on Earth for longest time period possible.
-->
@mustardness
If you ban guns, people will get them illegally.
-->
@Alec
You mistated you argument. If 'we' i.e humanity, ban all guns {weapons } by destroyng the ones we have, and no mass-production of guns, then some indivdduals will build them. Why would they build them?If you ban guns, people will get them illegally.
Because they are crazy, or the sane ones know crazy people exist on Earth? Is there an alternative way to deal with these crazy people?
No there is no other ways to deal with crazy people than guns? We dont know which crazy people are crazy until they kill { bite } us?
Do some people go crazy because others intent is to drive.