Why I Support Background Checks

Arkady Kobach said:
A background check would have stopped the sale in its tracks and gotten the perp immediately locked up and facing charges of a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.
.
Click to expand...


The part you mentioned in bold very rarely happens.

The FBI, in reviewing instant background checks for firearm purchases, detected 112,000 lie-and-try crimes in fiscal 2017 alone, and federal investigators had names and addresses on the filled-out forms. How many were prosecuted? Twelve, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-12-prosecuted-editorials-debates/1288699002/
 
And when WILL the OP come back and defend his position?
Click to expand...

Probably when its freezing in a very hot place......

Another of our problems about the whole issue is simply that there is NO push from the top down to enforce the law. During one of the Clinton years they bragged how the law had denied over 80,000 firearms. Best info we got at that time was 44 (or 48) were prosecuted. Never heard how many convicted, if any.

When our current President was Vice President, I saw him asked "why doesn't the Federal Government prosecute more people for illegally trying to buy a gun". His answer was a (dismissive, it seemed to me) hand wave and to say "We don't have time for that..."

Seems to send a message to me, that as long as the firearm was denied, the folks running govt don't care about the crime of prohibited person trying to buy a gun, or the (as I understand it) separate crime of lying on the form.

12 out of 112,000? :eek: wow! Keep at it guys, eventually you'll reach your target goal of ZERO! I feel SO much safer now....:rolleyes:
 
armoredman said:
And when WILL the OP come back and defend his position?
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath.

He has been back, as recently as 4:20 p.m. yesterday (Tuesday, January 17). But he didn't post. My guess is that what's happening is one of the following:

  1. He's basically a troll -- he put up the post and now he just sits back and chuckles while we argue over his so-called position; or ...
  2. He's an anti-gun activist who posted in order to see what our response would be. In this scenario, he's taking notes that he can use to strengthen his arguments against our arguments.
 
Or maybe he figured out quickly he simply was going to be a target and get bombed and strafed by everyone on the forum regardless of his motivations.
 
His answer was a (dismissive, it seemed to me) hand wave and to say "We don't have time for that..."
Click to expand...

There were Senate hearings when they were pushing the 2013 Manchin/Toomey background-check bill. The Baltimore police commissioner was giving testimony on why he thought we needed the bill. One Senator pointed out the fact that people who violated the Brady Law were never prosecuted in his city, and his response was "those are paper crimes. We don't have time to go after paper crimes."

When I was in the industry, we contacted law enforcement several times after denying transactions in which it was glaringly obvious they were straw purchases or attempts at trafficking. It went like this:

  • Call the ATF. Get told it's not really their thing, and I should contact local law enforcement.
  • Call local law enforcement and get told that's the job of the ATF.
  • Call both parties back to confirm. Get names and numbers.
  • Make copies of all the paperwork and camera footage, get written statements from everyone involved, and keep it on file.

That last part was important. I had a county sheriff come in one day and ask me if I'd ever sold a gun to John Doe. I checked records, and nope. Well, did he maybe try to buy a gun? Hold on. Do you have a picture of the guy?

You do? OK. Wait. Yeah, I know that guy. I threw him out for attempting a blatant straw purchase. Then I called you guys. I have all the records here. See? This is where I talked to Sargeant Jones and he blew me off. So...oh. OK. See you later.

I had the same conversation with two ATF agents at one point when they got testy with me.
 
I did years ago, when I actually believed I was dealing with people in good faith. Given my education in how things work in the last 20 years and the total corruption I have seen. Yeah, I don't trust government.
 
I believe dealing with people in good faith is what we all should be doing. Sadly, many people don't.

I also believe that Blind Faith was a British rock band formed in 1969.....:rolleyes:
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Don't hold your breath.

He has been back, as recently as 4:20 p.m. yesterday (Tuesday, January 17). But he didn't post. My guess is that what's happening is one of the following:

  1. He's basically a troll -- he put up the post and now he just sits back and chuckles while we argue over his so-called position; or ...
  2. He's an anti-gun activist who posted in order to see what our response would be. In this scenario, he's taking notes that he can use to strengthen his arguments against our arguments.
Click to expand...

Both. He posted the exact same text on several other gun forums. Moderators on each of the other forums had the wisdom to kill the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top