US gun law reforms

I know.....if anyone supports background checks all of a sudden nothing the say makes sense.. and their always wrong.
 
Not at all. I just don't understand the connection you're making between cancer screening and background checks, because you haven't explained it clearly. I have no way to know if you have a valid point if it's not expressed coherently.

"....you just dont do things because once you do it theres no chance of anthing going wrong in the future."

Taken at face value, this seems to mean that one shouldn't do something, because if one does it, future harm will be prevented. That makes no sense, so I'm assuming you expressed yourself badly, and I'm asking for clarification.
 
The overarching problem with more gun laws, including universal background checks, is that nobody on either side of the issue will ever be able to prove to the other side that gun laws were/are responsible for decreasing (or increasing) the crime rate, even the gun crime rate. Sociology is not a simple formula where you can plug in gun laws to get predictions of changes in gun violence. Correlation is not causation. Culture drives crime and gun crime more than gun laws do. Etc.

Since there's no rational statistical argument that background checks impede criminals, and since you can't make a retrospective statistical argument about gun laws affecting crime rates, all that's left is the emotional tact: gun crime is bad, we have to do something, and universal background checks are one available option, and anyone who's legal shouldn't have a problem with it because they'll pass (eventually... though they might get delayed or even rejected until they call up NICS and get it sorted out).

Universal background checks amount to no provable effect on gun availability to criminals. They impose a burden on everyone who wants to transfer guns privately. They impose scheduling and transportation costs to meet at an FFL. They amount to more FFL paperwork, more gun ownership records for the ATF to illegally collect and archive, more NICS check data for the FBI to illegally archive, and more costly "private" firearms transfers, because FFL transfers are not free, even if NICS checks are.

If you want to reduce injury and death, get involved supporting vehicle/traffic safety improvements (real safety, not revenue generation), or improved cost/benefit preventive medical technology. Those kinds of efforts have far more likelihood of benefiting people.

If you want to reduce the risk of getting killed by someone with a firearm, consider carefully the kinds of people you associate with, and the kinds of people they associate with, because that has vastly more impact on your safety. Compare that to the chance that some crackhead or revolving-door ex-con who wants to hold up a store you happen to be shopping in, or picks your home for a hot burglary, is going to be deterred in his plan: because of universal background checks, he couldn't get a gun transfered through a FFL, so he gave up, and now you're facing a robber or a home invader with a knife or pepper spray instead of a gun. I don't think so, but that's me.
 
I could flip out at any point AFTER I pass a background check! Then what?
Click to expand...

This guy claims he could flip out after a background check. Well thats very true but just because you could possibly have a problem in the future doesn't mean you shouldn't have a background check today.

Just like back ground checks cant stop ALL crime in the future which I totaly agree but thats no reason not to have a background check.

Cancer screening cant prevent cancer in the future but it can catch cancer that you have right then.....just like a background check could catch ciminal trying to buy a gun right then.

Understand now?
 
OK. But here are a couple of counter-arguments.

The only person who may benefit from cancer screening is the one being screened. He/she may benefit from early detection if a cancer is detected; if no cancer is detected, that's nice to know.

In the case of background checks, the supposed benefit is to society as a whole, in the form of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. There is no benefit to the average, law-abiding gun buyer; in fact, he/she is harmed by the process, as it increases the cost of the transaction, inconveniences private sellers, and may cause unwarranted delays to people who need a gun immediately for protection form a known threat.

Screening for various cancers is more or less subject to error: sometimes a cancer may be missed, and sometimes the test may return a false positive. Additionally, early treatment of some cancers, in some people, isn't always beneficial; the treatment itself often does both short- and long-term harm. Prostate cancer is a good example of this.

And that's where your analogy breaks down completely: medical science puts a lot of effort into collecting data on the costs and benefits of both screening and treatment, and protocols for both are changed as new information about what is effective becomes available. If a particular kind of screening or treatment turns out to be harmful for some people, it's either stopped or limited.

As tyme has pointed out, there are no data that answer the same questions about gun control laws in general -- and certainly not for background checks.

There's no evidence that they do any good, in terms of reducing crime, and the social costs, which I mentioned above, are quite high: many people would be harmed by universal background checks, and there's no demonstrable benefit. So they amount to nothing more than magical thinking -- superstition, if you will.
 
I was using cancer screening as an example in the context that just because a screening cant prevent cancer in the future isn't a reason not to be screened.

I didn't state what type of cancer. Sure there are exceptions because all cancer is not the same.

The point being just because background checks cant stop a person from committing a crime in the future isn't just cause not to do background checks.

That was the context.

How many times did not being the legal drinking age stop you from drinking if you realy really wanted some alcohol? Sure didn't stop me but it sure didn't make it as easy. It limited me where I could get it and it made it more difficult.

My bckground check took under 4 minutes and I assure you that my Kimber wouldn't have cost one red cent less if checks were not required.

Background checks are not as effective as they could be because they are not required for all sales.....only ones from a dealer.

Thats like putting a lock on the front door and not having a backdoor at all
 
Excellent analysis, Vanya.

Another point is that a cancer screening protocol isn't even adopted and put into routine use until both its safety and efficacy have been thoroughly tested.
 
Having background checks on only new guns or guns from dealers and not a private sell is like doing an oral cancer screening only on the upper part of your mouth and then claiming oral cancer screening is not effective.

You guys say you dont want that march on D.C. to happen because it "makes us gun owners look bad"

What do you think that criminals and nut jobs buying guns without background checks do?

Making it harder for a criminal to get a gun is worth 4 minutes of my time when I buy a gun.
 
Are background checks unconstitutional?

If the 2nd ammendment cant be regulated (background checks) then how can the 1st ammendment be regulated?

I cant yell fire in a movie theater to cause a stampede can I? That free speech is not protected is it?

If I'm in court I cant get up and cuss the judge out can I? That speech is not protected.

I cant make a verbal threat.....that speech is not protected is it?

So if the 1st ammendment can be reulated then why cant the 2nd?

You guys are always asking me to PROVE it......state your sources. Well I'm going to flip the script on you.

You prove that the 2nd ammendment cant be regulated.

My proof is that its the law of the land right now and Frank if your such a good lawyer then why haven't you had it repealed yet if its so cut and dry?
 
Making it harder for a criminal to get a gun is worth 4 minutes of my time when I buy a gun.
Click to expand...

The point Plumbnut, is that background checks do not make it any harder for a criminal to get a firearm, if they are determined to get one. No one, can show that it makes it harder.
 
The point Plumbnut, is that background checks do not make it any harder for a criminal to get a firearm, if they are determined to get one. No one, can show that it makes it harder.
Click to expand...

Sure it does they cant go to a FFl dealer and buy one like I can.

But with the current background checks they really dont need to go to a FFL dealer do they.....they can pick up the newspaper and buy a gun within a few minutes. No check rquired ad it is perfectly legal for the owner of that gun to sell it not knowing the buyer is a felon.

Thts kinda like saying theres no need to lock your car because if they really want it they will break into it.......
 
Last edited:
Plumbnut said:
But with the current background checks they really dont need to go to a FFL dealer do they.....they can pick up the newspaper and buy a gun within a few minutes. No check rquired ad it is perfectly legal for the owner of that gun to sell it not knowing the buyer is a felon.
Click to expand...
In many states such face-to-face sales are NOT legal, especially for handguns. Curiously, it seems to be the large cities in those states that have the biggest problem with criminals carrying handguns.

Secondly, while it is legal (in some places) for someone to sell directly to another person not knowing that person is a felon, it is NOT legal to sell to anyone you know or suspect is a felon. Without having anything other than several years of hanging around gun and RKBA Internet forums, I submit that the vast majority of responsible owners won't sell to a prospective buyer who can't (or won't) provide some sort of assurance that he is not a prohibited person -- such as showing a copy of a carry permit or FOID.
 
So if the 1st ammendment can be reulated then why cant the 2nd?
Click to expand...

In all of the "First Amendment" examples you give, the "speech" amounts to a criminal act. That those acts are prohibited because of the immediate harm they cause; it has nothing to do with regulating the First Amendment. In the case of the First Amendment, one's right to free speech doesn't extend to endangering lives by causing a panic, to threatening someone, or to disrupting a legal proceeding. As to the Second Amendment, your right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that using your gun to threaten your neighbors is protected; neither is sticking up a liquor store.

There's no analogy with background checks, which amount to prior restraint on the right itself, independent of how it's exercised.
 
In all of the "First Amendment" examples you give, the "speech" amounts to a criminal act. That those acts are prohibited because of the immediate harm they cause; it has nothing to do with regulating the First Amendment. In the case of the First Amendment, one's right to free speech doesn't extend to endangering lives by causing a panic, to threatening someone, or to disrupting a legal proceeding. As to the Second Amendment, your right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that using your gun to threaten your neighbors is protected; neither is sticking up a liquor store.
Click to expand...

Just like the 1st can be regulated then so can he 2nd. You dont think a felon that buys a gun is a danger? Thats why background checks are legal but leave it up to the government to write an incomplete law like hey have and then not enforce it. They left a loophole with private transfers.
 
Plumbnut said:
If the 2nd ammendment cant be regulated (background checks) then how can the 1st ammendment be regulated?

I cant yell fire in a movie theater to cause a stampede can I? That free speech is not protected is it?
Click to expand...
You certainly CAN yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. If you do so when there's a fire, you may be called a hero. If you do so when there is NOT a fire, and people are injured or killed as a result of your stunt, you face responsibility for your act but any punishment will be for intentionally causing a panic, not for expressing an opinion.

You are trying hard to remove the law from its context and purpose. The purpose of the 1st Amendment, at the time it was written, was to protect expressions of political opinion that ran counter to the views of the government from repression and punishment. The 1st Amendment was never intended to grant license to incite a riot or generate a stampede.
 
Only one guy answered a question I asked about how far does the 2nd ammendment extends and what kind of "arms" the 2nd ammendment allows him to bear.

He claimed there are no limits and he should be able to own any "arms" he can afford to buy.

That included an F16 fully loaded out.:o

No one ever answered if backgound checks were so unconctitutional then why are they in place if is so clear cut and dry to everyone.

Whats so bad about background checks? You say hey dont work but thats because there not required on all sales. Are you that scared of?

No ones evey tried to take my guns.....never been denied a purchase. Even was caught shooting on private land and cops just ask me nice if I knew it was private land......told me where I could go shoot. They didn't take my guns ....sure could have if they wanted.
 
You are trying hard to remove the law from its context and purpose. The purpose of the 1st Amendment, at the time it was written, was to protect expressions of political opinion that ran counter to the views of the government from repression and punishment. The 1st Amendment was never intended to grant license to incite a riot or generate a stampede.
Click to expand...

And you are trying hard to take out of context the "right to bear arms"

Thats not ABSOLUTE and end of story. "At the time that was written" AS YOU SAID......f16 were not built ......and neither was crack,meth,semi auto weapons,hand granades,stinger missles...etc etc.

Do yu really think those white hairs imagined that one day a guy could draw a weapon and cut down 30 or 40 people in a matter of seconds with a gun rthat could be tucked under a coat? Background checks are a must IMO
I believe it HELPS prevent criminals from getting guns as easy. In the court of public opinion which you are all concerned about considering the responses on the march on D.C. thread it seems you would want these checks instead of accepting "background checks dont work" when if written proprly they would.
 
Last edited:
Plumbnut said:
...If the 2nd ammendment cant be regulated (background checks) ...My proof is that its the law of the land right now and Frank if your such a good lawyer then why haven't you had it repealed yet if its so cut and dry?
Click to expand...
First, just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea or good public policy.

As to the regulation of constitutional protected rights, I've been discussing that topic for a long time. You probably haven't come across any of my comments on the subject since you don't seem to want to do any research, but, for just a taste, see here, here, here, and here.

Of course, whether or not courts would sustain background checks as constitutional in this post Heller and McDonald world remains an open question. If the issue were to now come squarely in front of a court, the court would need to find that background check sufficient serve a compelling or important governmental interest (depending on the applicable level of scrutiny). That might not be a foregone conclusion if it can't be established that background checks actually accomplish anything useful.

Plumbnut said:
...Thats why background checks are legal but leave it up to the government to write an incomplete law like hey have and then not enforce it. They left a loophole with private transfers...
Click to expand...
No actually, federal law is as it is because Congress wanted to make sure it passed muster under the Commerce Clause. So interstate transfers must go through an FFL with a background check, and FFL as federal licensees are required to conduct background checks.

A federal law requiring background checks on purely intrastate, private transfers would be vulnerable to judicial challenge. Of course a number of States require background checks on intrastate, private transactions.
 
Frank looks like you know more about constitutional law than criminal law:D

If the feds cant make private sells do background checks then you will see the feds apply pressure on the states.......they did it with the drinking age and funding the hiways. I know because i was a teenager at the time and made me angry.

The current president was a constitutional law professor........and he is stacking the deck with the supreme court. I say fill the void with the background checks and make that the line in the sand against the 2nd A

The 2n ammendment sure doesn't say you can have hi cap mags......but I dont think they can take what you already have. Thats why the long lines trying to get them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 2nd amendment also doesn't say you can have a Kimber .45. It doesn't say a lot of things. What the constitution does say is that the rights not explicitly held by the government are given to the people and everything that is not explicitly illegal is legal. Background checks included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top