[Alabama Shooter]

If further gun control will not make any difference, why should we consider more of it?

I think you have already shown that does make a difference with the limited study you posted.

Except that the above two statements overlook a whole host of reasons to object to universal background checks: further expansion of federal power, changing the nature of RKBA from Right to privilege; the prospect of full registration being necessary to make UBCs effective; the fact that the federal gov't likely will not be able to prosecute felons for failing to comply with the UBC law. . .

It is still a right. You can the lose right. Having a background check will not prevent you from getting a gun unless you have lost that right.

I still don't understand the registration argument. Here is the perfect chance to crush registration.

If we start from the idea that what's being pushed is a package of "common sense solutions," we're already starting from a losing position.

I must agree with you there. Everything else they proposed is a non starter and moronic.

I maintain that UBCs are a rotten idea. One that will be utterly ineffective without full registration, which will be the next call. Obviously, you're free to go the appeasement route if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up some of my rights in order to be permitted" to keep others.

This is not about appeasement. I thought it was a good idea to institute when the IBC system came on line.

I am curious. Have you bought many guns in private party sales?

Quote: Spats

I don't think there's much to support this claim

I would say there is no little or no evidence of that whatsoever. The mass shooters who buy in private party sales make straw purchases mostly where the seller knows that the person is prohibited but breaks the law anyway.


The reason there is little support is because there has been no valid impartial research. One of the dumbest (among many dumb things) the NRA did was assist in cutting off funding for research and then not do any "impartial" research on their own. This left a huge vacuum to be filled by the Bloombergers.

While they were busy patting themselves on the back Bloomberg was funding anti gun research at John Hopkins and other places with tens of millions of dollars over many years. This gives them the cover of authority and a huge head start. Foolish to let the adversary to get a head of you like that.

All it will do is reduce the supply of guns that are available with a background check, provided that people mostly comply with the law.