Universal Background Checks....

I don't know if this sentiment has been expressed yet on this thread, but here is my thought on universal background checks:

As an IT professional with several years of experience with many different database applications, I have seen many customers purchase database applications for their companies for tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars. What typically happens is that the company manages the data fairly well at the start, but as time goes on, the data becomes stale or invalid. Then the company tries to use the data to look up customers or prospects and the information they get out is so bad they begin to hate the database application itself. They say things like "this is useless" and "I can't believe we spent all this money on this piece of junk program" when, all along, it wasn't the application but the data integrity that was the problem. They end up trashing the application and going with another product, sometimes even spending more money thinking that will solve their "problems". However, the data remains bad so they end up right where they left off with the last application. If a company goes through the process to clean up the data, they find that their experience with the database application is much better and their company is much better off. Input - Output. What goes in is what comes out.

I see glaring similarities with universal background checks and the scenario above. Forcing more people to get background checks on a system that doesn't contain complete or correct information won't make a lick of difference. What will happen is that even more people who should fail the background check will not. Then the politicians will say "How can it be that we passed all this legislation for Universal Background Checks and 'Johnny Mass Murderer' was still able to pass the NICS and buy a firearm at a gun store?" Then, as we've seen before when similar measures have failed, they will attempt to enact MORE gun control legislation, when all along in this case, it was the data that was causing their system to fail. Of course, the investigation(or lack thereof) of failed background checks is another matter.

Many politicians see that the data available to the NICS needs to be cleaned up and more complete, but they seem to think they can enforce universal background checks WHILE trying to get the NICS in order. What I have suggested to all politicians I have written to is that they get the data in the NICS cleaned up and stabilized first and then see how much that alone affects gun crime before they even consider forcing people through an already broken system.

-Bryan
 
Last edited:
Apparently even CNN is becoming willing to report more about Biden's gaff that the new laws won't help curb violence.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...w-laws-wont-end-gun-massacres/comment-page-2/

True, this is a blog posting, not a report. But I'm sure many have seen the video clip. If not just search around a little.

Well, if the "law won't reduce violence" what the devil is it for? If the press corps can get it through their heads that they've been played like a fiddle for the past four years we might get a little bit of accurate reporting on this administration.

They need to have a tingle running up their leg. It just needs to be a redirected tingle.
 
Last edited:
Yes -- universal background checks will prevent felons and mentally ill from purchasing firearms legally. That is the point I believe. No -- It may not prevent them from purchasing them in all cases, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against it with stiff penalties.

Following the logic of some folks, maybe we should do away with laws against murder and stealing, because the people who really want to still do it anyway. :rolleyes:
 
Following the logic of some folks, maybe we should do away with laws against murder and stealing, because the people who really want to still do it anyway.
Click to expand...

No, we still need laws against murder and stealing, if for no other reason than to provide a legal basis for prosecuting and jailing those who murder and steal. But anyone who actually thinks that those laws proactively *prevent* murders and thefts is misguided, at best.

Felons are already prohibited from even possessing guns legally, much less buying them legally. So in those cases, how will the universal background checks be more effective than the laws already in place?
 
But anyone who actually thinks that those laws proactively *prevent* murders and thefts is misguided, at best.
Click to expand...

Yes Laws and and the penalties for braking them do stop some people from certin behaviour. I would probably park my car illegally on occasions what stops me is the fine for doing so. And what makes me pay the fine is the prospect of going to jail if i don't. Same goes for some thief's etc. Because some people don't obey laws is not a good reason for not having them.
 
President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, etc are fond of saying that "if one life is saved" banning assualt weapons, high capacity mags, etc is worth it. I disagree.

If a background check stopped one Cho though, which it would have, if the mental health records were correlated with identity. I think that would be worth it.

Could he have maybe then got a firearm on the black market? Sure...maybe, but he wouldn't have got one legally.
 
Anyone have an clue what would happen in the case of Conceal Handgun License holders doing a transaction if universal background checks were implemented? In Arkansas, as a CHCL holder purchasing from an FFL, I fill out a 4473 for records purposes but no background check is required. No clue how that would change if this actually gets up and running. Personally, I would be against the "public" being able to run a check on me based simply on principle. Who knows how many crazy people would pay the fee required to run a check on someone that isn't even purchasing a gun from them just to "better know their neighbors."
 
Felons are already prohibited from even possessing guns legally, much less buying them legally. So in those cases, how will the universal background checks be more effective than the laws already in place?
Click to expand...

First there isn't a law against mentally ill owning guns, and there really needs to be. These are the people committing a lot of the high profile crimes that make people want to put restrictions on all guns for all people

Secondly existing laws aren't enforced and they do not sufficiently enable enforcement. Saying a felon can't own a gun, but not making sure a check is done when one is sold is exactly like not doing ID checks when selling alcohol. If people aren't checked out by those selling, a kid who should never have alcohol in the first place might become an alcoholic by the time he's twelve. ID checks when selling alcohol or tobacco is common sense, and so is background checks when selling guns. Sell responsibly. Know who you are selling to, or you are part of the problem. The law against minors possessing and consuming alcohol probably doesn't do as much as the law that says stores must check IDs before selling alcohol to minors. It's this second law that makes it less readily available to them. We need another law too to make guns less readily available to the mentally ill and felons. We need to close the gun show loop hole too.

Do you not think if an alcohol show came to town where IDs weren't checked by some vendors at all, that any kid who wanted to stock up on alcohol wouldn't be there?

Hee Haw... We need the law!
 
Who knows how many crazy people would pay the fee required to run a check on someone that isn't even purchasing a gun from them just to "better know their neighbors."
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this argument, and it doesn't make sense to me.

We're not talking about a system designed to do mental health or history checks. We're talking about NICS, which is specifically designed to give a "proceed", "delay" or "deny" response. They also ask you for information about the gun in question.

You're not going to learn specifics about your neighbors- nothing you couldn't learn by checking public records, if you really want to know.
 
Last edited:
Because some people don't obey laws is not a good reason for not having them.
Click to expand...

Manta, you keep saying this. I don't see it as the best logic.

Let's flip it around.

"Because some people obey laws is a good reason for having them."

I don't see this as the best logic either. Laws are supposed to tell us what we can't do, not what we can do.
 
AH.74 said:
Laws are supposed to tell us what we can't do, not what we can do.
Click to expand...

But this is exactly the Hobbes "Leviathan" social contract renegotiation that the elitists want us to accept. This is only about gun control on its surface.

The nameless "they" want to abandon the Lockean concept of individual responsibility and self governance to be replaced by the state.

In this model everything is forbidden, and laws grant permission.

I had an acquaintance from the USSR studying at our local university many years ago who was astonished that at an intersection which had a traffic signal with a left arrow as well as a solid green light you did not have to wait for the left arrow if there was no oncoming traffic.

He explained that in Russia the left turn would be automatically forbidden until the arrow grants permission. Everything is automatically forbidden until permission is granted.

Prior to the 2008 election I tried to explain to my brother that what we were really voting on was whether America was going to remain a free country or not. It will take 30-40 years, but it won't even be recognizable. However, as an example of how well the centralist play the media for fools, he honestly and truly believes that the gun control laws have gotten so lax over the last 50 years things are getting out of hand.

He truly has put it out of his mind that the Sears and Montgomery Wards catalog had pages of guns that as mere teenage boys with our tobacco money we could order through the mail. It's all the NRA's fault.
 
Last edited:
j3ffr0 said:
First there isn't a law against mentally ill owning guns, and there really needs to be.
Click to expand...
Why? I don't much care if the mentally ill own guns. I am very concerned about them possessing firearms. Oh, and there most certainly is a law against both selling to those who have been adjudicated mentally ill, and against possession by those who have been adjudicated mentally ill. See 18 U.S.C 922

j3ffr0 said:
Secondly existing laws aren't enforced and they do not sufficiently enable enforcement.
Click to expand...
So adding more laws that cannot or will not be enforced seems like the right answer?

j3ffr0 said:
Saying a felon can't own a gun, but not making sure a check is done when one is sold is exactly like not doing ID checks when selling alcohol. If people aren't checked out by those selling, a kid who should never have alcohol in the first place might become an alcoholic by the time he's twelve. ID checks when selling alcohol or tobacco is common sense, and so is background checks when selling guns.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. Universal background checks on private sales serve no purpose. Common sense says that felons and the mentally ill will not abide by the law, and will not or cannot be prosecuted for failing to do so.

j3ffr0 said:
Sell responsibly. Know who you are selling to, or you are part of the problem. The law against minors possessing and consuming alcohol probably doesn't do as much as the law that says stores must check IDs before selling alcohol to minors. It's this second law that makes it less readily available to them. We need another law too to make guns less readily available to the mentally ill and felons. We need to close the gun show loop hole too.
Click to expand...
There is no gun show loophole. The laws on sales apply regardless of location.

j3ffr0 said:
Do you not think if an alcohol show came to town where IDs weren't checked by some vendors at all, that any kid who wanted to stock up on alcohol wouldn't be there?
Click to expand...
If you want to make that comparison, please go read some of the statistics on how many guns used in crimes can actually be traced to gun shows.
 
Given that between 1 and 2 percent of guns used by criminals were originally sold at gun shows and a similar amount in private sales. And given that many states do not report felony conviction data to the national database and even more do not report mental health information.

Given that federal gun prosecutions have dropped substantially, and that prosecutions of individuals who illegally attempt to buy a firearm and are stopped by NICs is vanishingly small.

Given that the only way to even theoretically make a universal background check work that includes person to person sales is to require registration. And given that even in Canada the long gun registration resulted in only 30 percent of long gun owners registering their guns. And that such a system in Canada cost billions of dollars, didn't solve one crime and took untold man hours of police time in addition to payroll.

Pursuing a Universal Background Check is a fools errand that will only succeed in making millions of Americans criminals, by definition of law, as polls estimate the overwhelming majority of Americans will not register their guns.

Maybe they could focus on more productive matters, like getting states to report felony convictions and those adjudicated mentally ill in a court of law, and funding mental health treatment to get people help so they don't reach the point of hurting others, and prosecuting federal gun crimes, and getting rid of gun free zones unless there is armed security provided.
 
We're not talking about a system designed to do mental health or history checks. We're talking about NICS, which is specifically designed to give a "proceed", "delay" or "deny" response. They also ask you for information about the gun in question.
Click to expand...
That is CERTAINLY a valid point. I feel silly for having KNOWN that but not taking the time to think before I speak.
 
Hogwash. Universal background checks on private sales serve no purpose. Common sense says that felons and the mentally ill will not abide by the law, and will not or cannot be prosecuted for failing to do so
Click to expand...

No point in having driving laws then as some do not abide by the law.
 
"No point in having driving laws then as some do not abide by the law. "

Oh, c'mon manta. No one is saying that except you.

There's no sense piling on more laws that won't work for obvious reasons when no effort is made to enforce existing laws or plug the holes in the existing system so the supposed safeguards already in place have a chance of working.
 
manta49 said:
No point in having driving laws then as some do not abide by the law.
Click to expand...

Poor logic. Driving is a behavior and that is exactly what laws should be directed toward. Do not speed, do not murder.

Gun laws on the other hand are purely based in possession, not behavior with the object.

The correct correlation should be, we do not restrict possession of cars that can obviously exceed the speed limit, so likewise we should not restrict guns that can be used to kill. This isn't even considering the difference between the two as privilege versus a fundamental right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top