You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Universal Background Checks....
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
manta49, if done voluntarily, it's "responsible ownership."
If mandated by the government, it is gun control.
If government can dictate that guns must be stored, then government can dictate:
1) a minimum thickness, weight, and other specifications for a storage device - this could potentially be cost-prohibitive for many people, and an anti jurisdiction could deliberately set standards that typical citizens could not afford;
2) that ALL guns must be stored - there is a lawsuit going on in California, IIRC, about a city requiring gun owners to lock up all guns at night, and the plaintiff arguing that he might not have time to unlock and load his nightstand gun in the event of a break-in;
3) criminal penalties for failure to meet arbitrary standards.
That's all gun control, by any other name.
If mandated by the government, it is gun control.
If government can dictate that guns must be stored, then government can dictate:
1) a minimum thickness, weight, and other specifications for a storage device - this could potentially be cost-prohibitive for many people, and an anti jurisdiction could deliberately set standards that typical citizens could not afford;
2) that ALL guns must be stored - there is a lawsuit going on in California, IIRC, about a city requiring gun owners to lock up all guns at night, and the plaintiff arguing that he might not have time to unlock and load his nightstand gun in the event of a break-in;
3) criminal penalties for failure to meet arbitrary standards.
That's all gun control, by any other name.
I never want to sell to the wrong buyer and have that on my conscience.
This is what I fail to understand. What does it matter?
I get the sentiment, the "Oh my, If I hadn't sold him that gun" thing.
But it's an object, you didn't provide motivation and if he is motivated he will find a way with or without your gun. I simply do not understand this idea that you can prevent these things without foreknowledge of his intentions.
That study I did of the 16 mass shooting that occurred in 2012, did anyone fail to get the idea that almost every one was completely unavoidable by background check. In at least 10 cases the criminal/madman wasn't a criminal or a madman until he started shooting people. Sometimes times it was with stolen firearms. Usually it was legally owned weapons from people who had no reason to be listed as prohibited possessors at all.
manta49, if done voluntarily, it's "responsible ownership."
The problem is that not all firearms owners are responsible.
I see firearms control as the baning or limiting in some way firearms ownership and use.
I found this after a quick Internet search. I am sure there are thousands like it.
A 4-year-old boy in Houston accidental shot himself in the head and a 5-year-old girl in Philadelphia shot herself in the foot after both children got a hold of their parents' guns Tuesday night while playing at home.
The unidentified 4-year-old boy climbed onto a tall furniture chest and found a hidden handgun around 11:40 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Houston Police Department.
If the the parents were required to store firearms safely similar could be prevented.
Last edited:
I'd submit that anyone foolish enough to leave loaded firearms poorly stored around children isn't likely to follow a law mandating minimum storage requirements.If the the parents were required to store firearms safely similar could be prevented.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I'd submit that anyone foolish enough to leave loaded firearms poorly stored around children isn't likely to follow a law mandating minimum storage requirements.
And therein lies the crux of the issue.
First, accidental deaths by firearms are so rare that most studies don't even list them separately, instead lumping them in with all statistically minor causes, under "Other". "Other" combined together add to small percentages, firearms alone are not a blip on the radar.
Second, responsible persons already prevent unauthorized access in some reasonable way.
Third, unreasonable persons will not comply with any such safe storage laws. Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law.
Third, unreasonable persons will not comply with any such safe storage laws. Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law.
Not sure how great of an analogy this is... I know lots of people who wear seat belts because they got ticketed for not wearing them. Yes it makes them mad, but it is better than a ticket.
I think publishing reasonable guidelines on storage and aggressively prosecuting those who are found grossly negligent (not through inspection, but rather from "after the fact" investigation) might be a good way to handle the storage issue.
This is still very different from ubc's....
Last edited by a moderator:
Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law.
Yes and there are consequences if they are caught. I don't think because some people don't obey laws that's a good reasons for not having them.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
It's a secondary point.
1) The law is unnecessary.
2) The law will be ineffective.
Why then?
1) The law is unnecessary.
2) The law will be ineffective.
Why then?
In a free society, there is never a good reason for having a law. Laws are a necessary evil to place checks on certain behaviors deemed offensive or harmful by society.I don't think because some people don't obey laws that's a good reasons for not having them.
Passing laws to fix a virtually nonexistent problem might feel like a good idea, but the net effect is a loss of liberty to folks who didn't need the law to be responsible in the first place.
Bottom line is such a law will not and has not been shown to reduce crime here or anywhere else. It will be disobeyed by millions of otherwise lawful citizens, fostering more contempt for the law. If it has a registration requirement, which is the only way to even theoretically monitor compliance with a requirement that bans private sales and is universal, then 60 some million of your fellow citizens will become criminals, as 65 percent of gun owners have self identified in polls that they would not comply with registration and that is probably low as in Canada non-registration of long guns was estimated to be at 70 percent. Such a law would be not even be a minor inconvenience or hindrance to criminals as straw buying acquaintances or third parties will merely claim the guns were stolen as would family members and it doesn't cover theft or illegally imported firearms.
Do people really believe that such a law would prevent those with evil intent from getting guns anymore than drug laws or prohibition have stopped people from getting drugs and alcohol? Drugs are totally illegal and it's easier for young kids to get them than alcohol, though neither are that hard to obtain.
The downside is that we have seen examples of registration leading to confiscation down the road in many countries. Feinstein's original legislation even had a destruction or turn in requirement for grandfathered so called "assault weapons." Gun owners in NY and CA would could also attest to registration and requirements to turn in or get rid of firearms and magazines.
There is no rational reason to pass such legislation. The motives of those who push hardest for it are from a desire for control. Heinlein was right, there are two kinds of people in this world, those that want to control others and those that don't. Gun Control laws don't work.
If it makes someone feel better to conduct all their gun transfers though an FFL then have at it - transfer that rifle to your son or daughter and pay for it and make a paper trail. Pay an FFL to transfer that shotgun to your uncle who is borrowing for hunting season and then pay for a transfer back. Just don't pass a law that makes 70 percent of your peers criminals and will do nothing to prevent crime and just create more criminals and more crime when the majority of otherwise lawful gun owners ignore it.
I have an FFL, I follow the law, and I don't want the business, even though it would bring in thousands of dollars a year. We have too many useless laws and regulations as it is. In my NSHO the gun control - Gun Free zone laws and regulations have directly contributed to these mass shootings. We need to be getting rid of restrictions not adding more.
Do people really believe that such a law would prevent those with evil intent from getting guns anymore than drug laws or prohibition have stopped people from getting drugs and alcohol? Drugs are totally illegal and it's easier for young kids to get them than alcohol, though neither are that hard to obtain.
The downside is that we have seen examples of registration leading to confiscation down the road in many countries. Feinstein's original legislation even had a destruction or turn in requirement for grandfathered so called "assault weapons." Gun owners in NY and CA would could also attest to registration and requirements to turn in or get rid of firearms and magazines.
There is no rational reason to pass such legislation. The motives of those who push hardest for it are from a desire for control. Heinlein was right, there are two kinds of people in this world, those that want to control others and those that don't. Gun Control laws don't work.
If it makes someone feel better to conduct all their gun transfers though an FFL then have at it - transfer that rifle to your son or daughter and pay for it and make a paper trail. Pay an FFL to transfer that shotgun to your uncle who is borrowing for hunting season and then pay for a transfer back. Just don't pass a law that makes 70 percent of your peers criminals and will do nothing to prevent crime and just create more criminals and more crime when the majority of otherwise lawful gun owners ignore it.
I have an FFL, I follow the law, and I don't want the business, even though it would bring in thousands of dollars a year. We have too many useless laws and regulations as it is. In my NSHO the gun control - Gun Free zone laws and regulations have directly contributed to these mass shootings. We need to be getting rid of restrictions not adding more.
Come and take it.
New member
This article from gun owners of america kind of points toward my beliefs on background checks.
http://gunowners.org/news02042013c.htm
The government knows a lot more of what we own than we think. If you go with a universal background check, with the current software they are running. they will know basically everything. It is de facto gun registration.
It seems on this very site several members recollected gun dealers being visited by ATF who went through their records over the last several months.
Were they making digital copies of the form 4473s?
http://gunowners.org/news02042013c.htm
The government knows a lot more of what we own than we think. If you go with a universal background check, with the current software they are running. they will know basically everything. It is de facto gun registration.
It seems on this very site several members recollected gun dealers being visited by ATF who went through their records over the last several months.
Were they making digital copies of the form 4473s?
Manta I could answer your question but it would break forum rules... Probably the best thing I could say is people have just gotten too comfortable here, if it requires critical thinking skills, that's just too much effort for a wide swath of our citizens...
We are the new Roman empire, same problems, same solutions and one day the same result...
We are the new Roman empire, same problems, same solutions and one day the same result...
BGutzman, your thoughts echo a conversation a friend and I had just last night, with regard to Rome, the mob, the dole, and the fall.
Then again, mainstream America isn't known for its strong grasp of history... or foreign languages... or math...
It's very interesting, traveling abroad, and learning the stereotypes different cultures have about us... and not being able to refute a good many of them.
Edit: The flip-side is, many of the stereotypes we hold about various cultures are also grounded in reality. While we have our flaws, and plenty of them, I am always happy to get back home - even if I am disgusted with our state of affairs in education, personal responsibility, ceding of more and more power to the feds, etc.
Then again, mainstream America isn't known for its strong grasp of history... or foreign languages... or math...
It's very interesting, traveling abroad, and learning the stereotypes different cultures have about us... and not being able to refute a good many of them.
Edit: The flip-side is, many of the stereotypes we hold about various cultures are also grounded in reality. While we have our flaws, and plenty of them, I am always happy to get back home - even if I am disgusted with our state of affairs in education, personal responsibility, ceding of more and more power to the feds, etc.
Last edited:
What a pile of crap. So, it cost $25.00 for a tranfer. This is less than a box of ammo.
Yeah... So when my oldest son moves out I have to pay to transfer him his 22, his 243, his 12 gauge, his 38... And the cheapest place around here does it for $40. So $160 just for him. I have 3 more kids. Why would I care? Because it's going to cost me a fortune, and won't make anyone safer.
Lets face it, the truth is there is a group of business folks out there making a side living off buying and selling guns. They don't mean to sell to the wrong person but for a few bucks they might or might not care less. They will never know. They also want to limit their cost of business and do not want a record of transfer for tax reasons. Not to mention the cost of an FFL permit. They do not want to account for their total income. Tell me if I am wrong on this point.
Secondary gun sells are not the only type of business not wanting to report income.
There is already a mechanism out there to deal with people like this. Of you're selling guns as a business, you have to be licensed. They need to set a number or amount of profit or something. And they need to make it easier for people to get licensed- for example, let people get a license at home without getting occupational licenses from the municipalities. It's not the fed's job to enforce local zoning laws anyway.
Universal background checks where mental illness is reportable would have stopped this woman who was in and out of mental hospitals all her life from purchasing a 22 rifle and going on a shooting spree at a mall. I just saw a piece on her on the ID channel. The woman is even on record saying that she should have never been allowed to buy a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
As I've said before, I also believe they would have stopped the Virgina Tech shooter and many others I have never even heard of.
The more crazy people the buy guns and do stupid, crazy stuff with them -- the more the government really will want to start taking away guns. If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place.
This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
As I've said before, I also believe they would have stopped the Virgina Tech shooter and many others I have never even heard of.
The more crazy people the buy guns and do stupid, crazy stuff with them -- the more the government really will want to start taking away guns. If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place.
This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple.
Liberty is not about maximizing safety at all costs. Especially when such associated events are so rare and cause a minuscule percent of all homicide deaths.
Just because an infringement may have saved a handful of lives over the last 30 years is not a sound reason to negotiate away an essential liberty.
We all know the quagmire "mental health" exclusion can lead to. You want to own a gun? Well, that indicates pathological paranoia, you are mentally unfit, so may say the state paid psychologist, or will it just need the child welfare clerk to deem it so?
Just because an infringement may have saved a handful of lives over the last 30 years is not a sound reason to negotiate away an essential liberty.
We all know the quagmire "mental health" exclusion can lead to. You want to own a gun? Well, that indicates pathological paranoia, you are mentally unfit, so may say the state paid psychologist, or will it just need the child welfare clerk to deem it so?
2ndsojourn
New member
j3ffr0
"Universal background checks where mental illness is reportable would have stopped this woman who was in and out of mental hospitals all her life from purchasing a 22 rifle and going on a shooting spree at a mall. I just saw a piece on her on the ID channel. The woman is even on record saying that she should have never been allowed to buy a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
As I've said before, I also believe they would have stopped the Virgina Tech shooter and many others I have never even heard of.
The more crazy people the buy guns and do stupid, crazy stuff with them -- the more the government really will want to start taking away guns. If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place.
This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple. "
Correction: It would have prevented them from purchasing a weapon legally.
"Universal background checks where mental illness is reportable would have stopped this woman who was in and out of mental hospitals all her life from purchasing a 22 rifle and going on a shooting spree at a mall. I just saw a piece on her on the ID channel. The woman is even on record saying that she should have never been allowed to buy a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
As I've said before, I also believe they would have stopped the Virgina Tech shooter and many others I have never even heard of.
The more crazy people the buy guns and do stupid, crazy stuff with them -- the more the government really will want to start taking away guns. If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place.
This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple. "
Correction: It would have prevented them from purchasing a weapon legally.
Spats McGee
Administrator
It might have stopped her from buying the 22 where she did, if NICS had been in place, if she had been involuntarily committed &/or adjudicated, if PA had reported the information correctly . . . While I agree that she shouldn't have been allowed to possess a firearm, there are a lot of "ifs" that go into that. What's more is that it might have simply turned her into a bomber.j3ffr0 said:Universal background checks where mental illness is reportable would have stopped this woman who was in and out of mental hospitals all her life from purchasing a 22 rifle and going on a shooting spree at a mall.
No, it's not "common sense." What the antis are doing is an all-out attack on our 2A rights. What you're doing is an attempt at appeasement.j3ffr0 said:If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place.
This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple.