Background checks - controversy

Road blocks, or check points? Closing the road is not equivalent to a slowdown for a BG Check. Closing all but one lane, and checking the ID of every driver is closer
Click to expand...
It's unclear to me what distinction you are drawing here. Check points/road blocks, everywhere I've seen them, are basically the same thing. Police officers identify a section of road, then stop every driver who comes along (though this is frequently only drivers going in one particular direction - in other words, they might stop all southbound drivers but allow all northbound traffic through). Whether you call it a road block or a check point, the driver is still stopped and the police officer free to question you at his leisure.
 
Jim, you haven't responded to my primary objection, which is the source data of this study - it's self-reported behavior to the DOJ from convicted felons! What part of that screams "trustworthy" to you?
 
Did you not consider that the "friends and family" of inmates are highly likely to also be criminals
Click to expand...

No I can't say that I did. Aside from not visiting the crimes of the father on th son, and vice versa, that could/would be a street buy- one of the options.

And the question I asked you that you didn't understand was- If the guy you're selling your firearm to, that you have no reason to believe is a prohibited person, actually turns out to be one- does he suddenly deserve to have that firearm?
 
No I can't say that I did. Aside from not visiting the crimes of the father on th son, and vice versa, that could/would be a street buy- one of the options.
Click to expand...
Well, then you're being naive - though whether intentionally or not, I do not know. You do know, do you not, that a vast amount of crime is committed by gang members, right? Vast amounts of it - and where do you think those gang members obtain their guns? From their gang member buddies, of course. I can't seriously believe you didn't consider that criminals would likely associate with other criminals.

And you STILL haven't addressed how you can think a study based on self-reported felon behavior is trustworthy.

And the question I asked you that you didn't understand was- If the guy you're selling your firearm to, that you have no reason to believe is a prohibited person, actually turns out to be one- does he suddenly deserve to have that firearm?
Click to expand...
No, of course that's illogical. But it does NOT make a convincing case for intruding upon my property rights nor does it make a convincing case for treating every potential transferee as a likely criminal.
 
And you STILL haven't addressed how you can think a study based on self-reported felon behavior is trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Well I started with the fact they probably didn't have anything to lose by participating.

Then I followed that up with the idea that when one talks about crime guns, one pretty much has to, by definition, get the information from criminals.

And I finished with the decision that this was suggestive but not enough to be proof positive.
 
Well I started with the fact they probably didn't have anything to lose by participating.
Click to expand...
Convicts spend their days dreaming up ways to mess with "the man" - they also have no reason to care whether they tell you the truth or not. Is that really a trustworthy subject in an environment conducive to truth-telling?

Then I followed that up with the idea that when one talks about crime guns, one pretty much has to, by definition, get the information from criminals.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's the worst way to approach it in my opinion. If you want to know about guns used in a crime, you do it the same way LEO's and ATF do - you start at the manufacturer, go to the FFL, and then go down the chain to the last 4473. If that isn't the person who committed the crime, then you find out what happened to the last 4473'r. And so on, until you either learn the ultimate disposition of the firearm. But that requires legwork and no one wants to do that.

And I finished with the decision that this was suggestive but not enough to be proof positive.
Click to expand...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but MY opinion is that the methodology and assumptions of this study are so flawed and untrustworthy that it should not be used to draw any conclusions other than a PhD probably made a ton of money from the DoJ.
 
I had put in a reply that said I agree with Kochman. Spats wanted to hear more from me so here it goes. I live in NJ. If you know what that means then you know that I have a problem whenever I purchase a hand gun. Right now I'm waiting for a purchase permit for about 6 weeks and I'm not happy. But I'm sure that it will come through since, like you, I am a law abiding citizen. For guns in NJ you must have a Firearms Purchaser Card. So that is what I live with, I don't like it but I can't change it, so I live with it. We all live with things we don't like. I really don't mind the background check but I do mind even with the card, and still must go through another check and that it takes so long. I guess my point is that I would not fight against background checks, in fact I think that it is a necessary evil. But I want it done efficiently. And I particularly do not want persons who fail it, to get a gun.

Richard L.
 
You're certainly entitled to your opinion,
Click to expand...

Which also had me using the ridiculously miniscule numbers for gun show and flea market purchases when talking to non-gun people about the issue. That the Gun Show "loophole" is a product of hype, not problems.
 
fshfindr said:
I had put in a reply that said I agree with Kochman. Spats wanted to hear more from me so here it goes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did, and thanks for joining in the fun!

fshfindr said:
. . . . I live in NJ. . . . . For guns in NJ you must have a Firearms Purchaser Card. So that is what I live with, I don't like it but I can't change it, so I live with it. We all live with things we don't like. I really don't mind the background check but I do mind even with the card, and still must go through another check and that it takes so long. I guess my point is that I would not fight against background checks, in fact I think that it is a necessary evil. But I want it done efficiently. And I particularly do not want persons who fail it, to get a gun.
Click to expand...
While I understand that you must deal with the Firearms Purchaser Card, and I understand that you don't like it, I don't see that as a reason to extend NJ's procedures (or NY's, or CA's or IL's . . . ) to the rest of the country.

I don't think any responsible gun owner wants firearms to fall into the hands of violent felons or the mentally ill. However, this whole universal background check idea just seems to be more hassle for folks that weren't going to be problems to begin with, without any appreciable benefit.
 
There is a right to travel, and a right to travel abroad. You still have to wait in line at customs when you re-enter the country. And show a photo-ID passport.
 
But you do NOT have to show an ID to travel within the US, JimDandy, so what is your point?

Why do people refuse to grasp that every new regulation we create, every new license we require, every new hurdle to the exercise of a right that we allow to be placed, brings us that much closer to a police state way of life?

This country was founded on the principle of keeping Big Brother in check, not on the principle of justifying his methodology.

A lot of people like to quote Benjamin Franklin about those who sacrifice liberty for security. Personally, I like an older source, one who predates the US by millenia, but who exemplifies what used to be the Western standard of enlightened individualism: Aesop.

Check out the Aesop's fable about the dog who invites the wolf to the farmhouse. Seems like we have members here who think the wolf foolish for refusing the collar...
 
From MLeake:
"As Biden said, they just don't have time to prosecute that paperwork stuff."

Before any new laws are enacted, they need to make the time and enforce the current laws instead of creating more "paperwork stuff" that can't be enforced. The anti's have made perfectly clear what their ultimate intentions are. Registration when the new law(s) don't work, then confiscation. And when that doesn't reduce violent crime, what's their next step?
 
The point is those are rights, and an ID check is required. You have a right to re-entry into the United States, and that passport is your "background check" Showing a passport does not infringe your right to travel, even though it does add a delay.
 
From MLeake:
"As Biden said, they just don't have time to prosecute that paperwork stuff."

Before any new laws are enacted, they need to make the time and enforce the current laws instead of creating more "paperwork stuff" that can't be enforced. The anti's have made perfectly clear what their ultimate intentions are. Registration when the new law(s) don't work, then confiscation. And when that doesn't reduce violent crime, what's their next step?
Click to expand...

Ok, but listen...
Until we do, why not have a system in place to stop them from getting the guns while we work on how to get around to prosecuting them better?
The 4473 stopped 120k in two years, who knows how many now, but likely many more.
Some of them were not stopped permanently, some were though... something is better than nothing, isn't it?
 
Kochman said:
Ok, but listen...
Until we do, why not have a system in place to stop them from getting the guns while we work on how to get around to prosecuting them better?
The 4473 stopped 120k in two years, who knows how many now, but likely many more.
Some of them were not stopped permanently, some were though... something is better than nothing, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Umm, how 'bout no?

How about we start prosecuting the laws on the books, rather than just setting up unnecessary and ineffective hurdles in an attempt to discourage lawful gun ownership?
 
Kochman, how many of those who were stopped should NOT have been stopped?

You assume that all who are stopped were violators. I don't assume that at all. We constantly hear from people who are on hold because of bizarre reasons, such as a traffic case being dropped without adjudication, yet flagging the system; wrong names; wrong DOB; wrong SSN. We routinely hear of people who have to get a UPIN because of problems they repeatedly have with the system.

I'd say a significant percentage of those whose transactions are disrupted are having their rights trampled on. You see the large numbers of stops as a good thing; please prove that they are.

If this were a red-light camera system, that were sending fines out to thousands of drivers every year, but the system were out of calibration and the vast majority of its fines were questionable, nobody would defend it. Well, not true, some people would, saying - But it stops people from running red lights! When in fact it may, to a small extent, but what it really does is generate revenue for the municipality that has the light and camera, and the company that holds the contract.
 
There is an appeals process for when mistakes are made.
If you were stopped falsely, you'll get your ability back. There were false negatives, as with anything... I've already addressed this.
Not a big deal, better to err temporarily on the side of caution than forever on the side of danger.

@Spats...
So, basically, until we can get it perfect, you want no effort.
I don't think that provides for tranquility or welfare of the citizens in the meanwhile.
 
Kochman said:
Not a big deal, better to err temporarily on the side of caution than forever on the side of danger.
Click to expand...
It's not a big deal to you. Somewhere out there, there's a woman being stalked by an angry ex-husband. Being falsely denied could cost her life. To her, it's a very big deal.

When you're talking about making adjustments to my Constitutional rights, it's a very big deal to me.
 
Kochman said:
@Spats...
So, basically, until we can get it perfect, you want no effort.
I don't think that provides for tranquility or welfare of the citizens in the meanwhile.
Click to expand...
I think you and I get our welfare and tranquility from entirely different sources. I also think you're mischaracterizing my position.

Do I want to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill? Sure. Do I think UBCs stand a snowball's chance of getting that done? Absolutely not. Do I really want to sacrifice the Constitutional rights of all Americans' for feel-good legislation that will do nothing to deter criminals? I think not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top