The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 25, 2013, 05:19 PM   #51
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,152
No.

It might do a better job of segmenting gun sales to lawful and unlawful purchasers between the strictly-legal market and the black market, respectively, but I have trouble imagining how it would prevent anyone who wants a gun for evil purposes from acquiring a gun.

Another recent thread about background checks here: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ght=background
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...”
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...”
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.”
tyme is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 05:23 PM   #52
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.
That's nice....
I'm glad you're fine with it in your country.

This is my country though and I'm not fine with it.

Matter of fact, it ticks me off quite a bit...
Hal is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 05:51 PM   #53
Revoliver
Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2012
Location: USofA
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.
I don't think you understand.

That's a dare.

That tells the government to look harder until they find whatever justification they feel they need.
Revoliver is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:10 PM   #54
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,250
That's fine. Probaly just me i would not want a violent criminal rapist etc being able to legally purchased firearms. If the people in America are happy with that fair enough.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:15 PM   #55
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
In America, a person is only a criminal after they get convicted. If we pass universal background checks, those punks want a gun will just get their buddies with clean records to buy one for them.

Many people in FTF states already think they're breaking the law when they sell face to face. They're completely ignorant of the law, so changing wouldn't affect them as they would never know and carry on as usual.

I had a guy I worked with offer me a ruger SP101 one day. When I asked him why he wanted so much for it he said "because it's off the books", like he was being sneaky about it. I gave him a puzzled look because I live in Virginia and asked what books he was talking about. He was also offering it to another guy I work with, who was thinking about buying it for that ridiculous price. When I explained how there was no crime being committed and there is no gun registration in VA they were both dumbfounded. People like that are how these punks in the cities are getting guns.

PS Before the hall monitors get on me for not ratting on them as far as I know neither of those guys were felons or otherwise prevented from owning guns, just idiots

Last edited by hardworker; January 25, 2013 at 06:21 PM.
hardworker is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:15 PM   #56
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
MLeak;
Quote:
Why would you have any buyer unknown to you come to your home, to look at a weapon?

Even without mandatory background checks, I think this is a particularly bad idea.
because I have done so.

because he was a service member.

because it is no one's business.

it's a free country (I still have hope).

You have foibles about it, but it isn't up to me to play "Minority Report, Future Crimes Prevention" and frankly I find the idea that you can prevent a crime is simply unrealistic.

Don't think so, name a crime you can prevent with a law. I am only asking for one.

Many people don't think this way. Some people do think this way. Some people look to laws and the government for guarantees in a world that doesn't do guarantees. Some people have this unrealistic need for security and will insist on the craziest things to "feel" secure. Some people now play a major role in all politics.

Feel free to substitute whoever and whatever you wish for Some people.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:34 PM   #57
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
In America, a person is only a criminal after they get convicted. If we pass universal background checks, those punks want a gun will just get their buddies with clean records to buy one for them.
I know what you are saying. The can be got illegally and if they are caught they would have to face the courts.
That's like saying there is no point in being required to have a driving licence or insurance because some people drive without a licence or don't know the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defence in the courts.

Quote:
America, a person is only a criminal after they get convicted.
That's the same in most countries innocent until proven guilty.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:35 PM   #58
Revoliver
Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2012
Location: USofA
Posts: 80
Nvm
Revoliver is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:36 PM   #59
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
lcpiper, I didn't say it should be illegal to have strangers come to your home to view and possibly purchase weapons, nor do I think it should be illegal.

I just think it is stupid, because you don't know who you are inviting to your home; you are telling that person "This is where I keep guns."

As you implied (correction, as you explicitly posited) earlier, what if you abort the sale, and he now decides to burglarize your home for your firearms? It was you who suggested the possibility, after all, so I don't see why you are now saying it is no big deal simply because you wouldn't abort the sale.

Whether you meet at an FFL, or just some convenient neutral ground, I really don't care. For that matter, I really don't care if you invite potential burglars and assailants into your home. It's your home, your stuff, your risk.

But I think it is unwise. I would opt for an FFL's location, if concerned about the buyer; I would opt for a gun shop parking lot or similar, if I weren't concerned but did not know the guy. (And I have done exactly that with a guy who worked for another department within a large command; I didn't know the guy, but I did know from the method through which he contacted me that he held at least a Secret clearance, so I was comfortable that he was not prohibited. Still, why invite an unknown to my home? We met in a gun shop parking lot.)
MLeake is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:39 PM   #60
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Therefore, why should the burden of even more restrictive/new laws be carried and observed solely by law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong morally or legally?
If that's the case and they did nothing wrong then they wouldn't have a problem.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:43 PM   #61
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
manta49, for one thing, driving is considered a privilege here; gun ownership is a right. Those are very different. I realize this is outside your comprehension, despite our best efforts, but the difference is still valid even if you refuse to accept it.

For another thing, the felon who doesn't get a gun will get a knife, or a club, or an improvised garrotte. Rapists here frequently kill their victims by strangulation with their bare hands, or a phone cord, or the victim's bra or pantyhose, if they decide to kill the victim and depending on where the rape occurs.

Do you have suggestions for knife, club, rope, phone cord, or undergarment control because of what evil people might do?

Instead, we should put some of these people away for much longer periods. We have too many people serving mandatory sentences for stupid reasons, such as marijuana possession, while rapists and even killers get early releases in many cases.

That, plus a broken mental health care system, is the root cause. Legal access to firearms is not, in the vast majority of cases.

You should really read the David Mamet editorial on gun control, that just came out recently.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:49 PM   #62
Revoliver
Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2012
Location: USofA
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
Quote:
Therefore, why should the burden of even more restrictive/new laws be carried and observed solely by law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong morally or legally?
If that's the case and they did nothing wrong then they wouldn't have a problem.
.....

I think you should reread the above a few times.
Revoliver is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 06:58 PM   #63
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Tread carefully with that word "absolutely", there are certainly things that prevent or hinder law abiding citizens from owning a firearm due to background checks. Identity theft, similar/same name as a felon, etc. Something that prevents or hinders...sounds awfully similar to restriction.
Certainly. Whenever you introduce a complication into a process errors result. I hate defects myself. There is a system for dealing with them too. Does the system result in an undue or impossible burden to overcome? No.

Quote:
If this is so, being as how it says right on the 4473 that providing false information or buying for another person is punishable as a felony, right above the signature and date lines, why are there not "tens of thousands" of people prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm? Seems to me that if a felon or other prohibited person puts down false info, signs the form and the check comes back denying him a firearm because he is a felon, that'd be a slam dunk case, right?
[and others]

While a good question that is not really the point of the discussion. I will say the government does not prosecute a whole bunch of crimes. I am still waiting to see prosecutions of border intrusions, fraud in relation to financial collapse, Fast and the Furious and a few other things that will never see the light of day just to provide some examples. I say if you want to see prosecutions happen contact your government. If you don't want prosecutions to happen then your argument is without merit.

Quote:
Where we disagree is whether such a check should be mandatory for private citizens to use a background check for private transfers. I am of the opinion that it is the government's job to prove.....
There is some merit to the "no background check at all" argument. However that would presuppose that there were no prohibited people. If there are prohibited people there must be a way to distinguish them.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 07:04 PM   #64
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
win-lose, when they are released from jail, what's to stop them from abducting a schoolkid or raping a woman at knife point?
Perhaps the woman, when she draws her firearm and changes the course of rape attempt... an armed guard/armed citizen intervening in the abduction attempt.

A convicted criminal should not be able to acquire a firearm from a legal seller. Yes they can/will go to the black market to acquire a firearm, where hopefully they will be met by feds who have chosen to focus their resources on tackling this market.
win-lose is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 07:09 PM   #65
sirdiealot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2012
Location: kansas
Posts: 180
That's fine. Probaly just me i would not want a violent criminal rapist etc being able to legally purchased firearms. If the people in America are happy with that fair enough.

manta they cannot legally buy a gun here....we already have laws against that
__________________
9mm Luger:

...Wildly popular all over the world, mostly in countries where people don’t carry guns, and cops don’t have to actually shoot people with theirs.
sirdiealot is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 07:26 PM   #66
reticle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2002
Location: ut.
Posts: 307
I oppose universal background checks because it is a defacto registration. Historically what do tyrannical govts do with gun registrations?
reticle is online now  
Old January 25, 2013, 08:28 PM   #67
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,130
Just what IS in the background check?

I don't think it is what most people seem to think it is. Federal data, yep. Records of convictions, and open wants & warrants ought to be in there. What else could there be? Records of ajudication of mental incompetence? Ought to be there, right?

But how often does that happen on a Federal level? very rare. State data ought to be in there, right? Some is. Everything that has been reported by the states. But that is far, far from everything the states have. Also, states often only report records of arrests to the Fed database, they aren't nearly so good about getting case results (especially dismissals) into the Fed's system.

The big buzz right now about mental health, and how we should have state/local data on the "crazies" in the database, to keep them from getting guns runs smack head on up against legally defined privacy rights. Sure, it sounds like a fine idea, BUT it is not simply a question of where do you draw the line on privacy, that line has already been drawn, in existing law. NOW, is it right and proper to bend, break, or just ignore that line (and those laws?)? How is now different from when the law was made, and is the difference enough to warrant a diminishment of everyone's rights?

Quote:
Every year it prevents tens of thousands of felons from getting firearms.

-AlabamaShooter

If this is so, being as how it says right on the 4473 that providing false information or buying for another person is punishable as a felony, right above the sgnature aand date lines, why are there not "tens of thousands" of people prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm? Seems to me that if a felon or other prohibited person puts down false info, signs the form and the check comes back denying him a firearm because he is a felon, that'd be a slam dunk case, right?

That does not seem to happen, though, and when Joe Biden was asked about it, he said "We don't have time for all that."
during the Clinton years, a couple years after they got the instant check up and running, the administration bragged about how they kept "thousands" of criminals from getting guns. Now, being that a prohibited person trying to buy a gun from an FFL dealer is in itself a crime, got any idea how many of those "criminals" went to jail for breaking that particular law?

I don't know. But I do know that at the same time the administration was claiming "thousands" prevented from getting a gun the number of people they charged with that crime was 40. And we never did hear how many, if any of them were convicted.

As to the idea that a mandatory background check would have stopped the Shandy Hook shooter, it didn't. According to what I hear, the shooter did try to buy a gun from a shop the week before, and was denied by the background check. That didn't stop the shooting. He just KILLED HIS MOTHER and took the guns.

Patrick Purdy, the nut case that shot up the schoolyard in Stockton CA back in 89, which really touched off the "assault weapon" issue, (because he used a semi auto AK47) went through CA's 14 day waiting period and background check, twice. He bought a pistol, and later another one. Passed the check with flying colors, both times.

It seems that while Mr Prudy was recieving a disability check, because he was mentally unbalanced and unable to work,that little fact was not reported to the folks doing the background checks. In fact, BY LAW, it COULD NOT BE!

In order for any background check system to work it has to have the data, and for it to work properly, the data has to be accurate. AND, it has to be constantly managed. Only the Fed has the capability to even begin to collect and manage the data from all the states, let alone begin to handle it well enough to be somewhat reliable.

I know one fellow who gets delayed by the instant check. Seems his file is flagged. Turns out it is flagged because he has a security clearance.
You might be surprised about what is, and what isn't in their database.

I would say the Fed has a reasonable argument for having and maintaining such a database, since you are buying a gun from a Federally licensed gun dealer. But, to require it from a private citizen is wrong. Guns are not just guns, they are private property as well.

Our government has a proven history of regulating the ownership and sale of some private property, why encourage them to regulate even more?

There are people still alive who can remember when it was a crime in this country to own gold. (there were certain exceptions, jelwelry, coin dealers, etc..) But ordinary citizens could neither buy, nor own gold metal. Yesterday it was gold. Today it's guns. What will it be tomorrow?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old January 25, 2013, 09:32 PM   #68
RockSmoot
Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
I'm in the computer industry and I have to tell you, data quality is a major issue with every single database in existence no matter who owns it, operates it or maintains it. I can't even begin to guess how many dollars are spent every year by businesses and governments grappling with incorrect, missing and stale data, and I have zero faith in the Federal or any other government's ability to insure a quality background check service.

I used to travel extensively for business, lived on airplanes and hotels more than my own home. One morning as I was checking in for a flight at a kiosk I was surprised to see a message on the screen telling me that I could not use the kiosk, but to see a gate agent. I went to the gate agent, showed my ID and had to wait while she made a phone call.

She chatted for a bit, hung up and told me to stand aside to let the other passengers check in. No explanations and no response when I asked for her supervisor. Only a terse warning to stand aside or security would be called. I stood aside and after everybody was checked in, another mysterious phone call was made and I was finally allowed through.

Thus began several years of frustration, delays, constant body searches and missed flights because my name was placed on the so-called no-fly list. There was no way to discover why my name was on the list. There was no process defined that would allow me to work with TSA to investigate and have my name removed from the list. None of the gate agents even told me that I was on this list for the first several months. It wasn't until one of them took me aside and at told me what was up that I finally understood what was going on.

Finally, after years of this kind of harassment, my name magically dropped off the list and I can now fly hassle free, but I still have no idea how I ended up there or indeed why my name was removed.

So no, I have no faith in a fair, just universal background check, and no, I have no faith that our great, unfeeling, uncaring federal government will even give a crap about implementing one.

But that's just me, and I'm just some guy on the internet.
RockSmoot is offline  
Old January 25, 2013, 10:53 PM   #69
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
I don't think it is what most people seem to think it is. Federal data, yep. Records of convictions, and open wants & warrants ought to be in there. What else could there be? Records of adjudication of mental incompetence? Ought to be there, right?

But how often does that happen on a Federal level? very rare. State data ought to be in there, right? Some is. Everything that has been reported by the states. But that is far, far from everything the states have. Also, states often only report records of arrests to the Fed database, they aren't nearly so good about getting case results (especially dismissals) into the Fed's system.

The big buzz right now about mental health, and how we should have state/local data on the "crazies" in the database, to keep them from getting guns runs smack head on up against legally defined privacy rights. Sure, it sounds like a fine idea, BUT it is not simply a question of where do you draw the line on privacy, that line has already been drawn, in existing law. NOW, is it right and proper to bend, break, or just ignore that line (and those laws?)? How is now different from when the law was made, and is the difference enough to warrant a diminish of everyone's rights?
The argument that people want to get rid of the system because it does not stop enough people is spurious at best.

Quote:
As to the idea that a mandatory background check would have stopped the Shandy Hook shooter, it didn't. According to what I hear, the shooter did try to buy a gun from a shop the week before, and was denied by the background check. That didn't stop the shooting.
I heard he did not use a Bushmaster, then he did, then didn't, then he did. Right now the police are saying he was not denied a background check. I wasn't there. Neither were you. It does not matter.

The idea here is not to stop Adam Lanza. He is already dead.

Quote:
He just KILLED HIS MOTHER and took the guns.
No, he took the guns then killed his mother. You understand the difference?

Quote:
Patrick Purdy....
Same argument as above.

Quote:
I know one fellow who gets delayed by the instant check. Seems his file is flagged. Turns out it is flagged because he has a security clearance.
You might be surprised about what is, and what isn't in their database.
Just about everyone I know and work with has a security clearance of some kind. A whole bunch of us own guns. I have never heard a complaint. Heck I even bought a gun today. The background check took approximately 75 seconds.

Like I said there will be defects. These are unavoidable. But not insurmountable.

Quote:
I would say the Fed has a reasonable argument for having and maintaining such a database, since you are buying a gun from a Federally licensed gun dealer. But, to require it from a private citizen is wrong. Guns are not just guns, they are private property as well.

Our government has a proven history of regulating the ownership and sale of some private property, why encourage them to regulate even more?
When I sell my car, house, land, boat, cow or a host of other things there is all kinds of government involvement. If I publish a book, talk on the phone, march on City Hall or give money to my church the government is there. This has been going on long before either one of us one born. It is annoying as hell but it is all part of how the world works.

Quote:
There are people still alive who can remember when it was a crime in this country to own gold. (there were certain exceptions, jewelry, coin dealers, etc..) But ordinary citizens could neither buy, nor own gold metal. Yesterday it was gold. Today it's guns. What will it be tomorrow?
Actually yesterday it was guns too, until it wasn't anymore.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:44 AM   #70
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
manta49, for one thing, driving is considered a privilege here; gun ownership is a right
Do you not have a right to drive if you have passed your test.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:02 AM   #71
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Do you not have a right to drive if you have passed your test.
You can drive all day on your own property without passing any test at all. The government grants you the freedom to travel on public roadways if you comply with the applicable laws.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:12 AM   #72
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
i'm not opposed to an enhancement of the current NICS background check, but it has to be done through an authorized FFL dealer. I'll be damned if i'm gonna have a perfect stranger come to my house to buy a gun.

with regard to the good guy vs bad guy debate that's being bandied about, how the heck do I know you're not the bad guy? everyone likes to claim moral superiority over others but the truth is, every single one of us is capable of committing a criminal act.
gaseousclay is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:23 AM   #73
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
I wish people would stop bringing up driving tests as proof of the eorth of mandatory testing. How many people do you know that were denied the right to drive because they weren't any good at it? Driving tests are rubber stamps at best. They screen nobody and therefore we have so many God awful drivers
hardworker is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:36 AM   #74
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
I wish people would stop bringing up driving tests as proof of the eorth of mandatory testing.
It was brought up to a response that there is no point in doing checks as some would just ignore it.
Follow that logic and there is no point in doing a driving test as some will ignore it and drive anyway. Or any law as there will always be some ignore the law.

Quote:
They screen nobody and therefore we have so many God awful drivers
They are not really designed to screen only to see that people have a basic knowledge of the rules when driving and a basic skill level.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:53 AM   #75
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 12,995
Once and for all, it is a poor comparison. We don't have a renewable license good for five years that shows we passed a background check. The closest thing is a security clearance for gov't employees.

Some companies are requiring a background check, but I never heard of a handy little card to prove it. Your driving license must be surrendered to the law for inspection on demand.

As has been stated here, driving is a privilege and every American should know that since it is probably on every driving license test in the Union.

The difference between a privilege vs. a right negates the similarities that invite the comparison.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995

Last edited by Bud Helms; January 26, 2013 at 10:01 AM.
Bud Helms is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18141 seconds with 8 queries