Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88

Thread: Background checks not to become official after all

  1. #1

    Default Background checks not to become official after all

    So the Senate voted on the bill concerning background checks to buy a gun here in America and the Senate said no, while 90% said yes 10% said no (as referred by Obama as the "minority.") And Henry Reid, being the ass that he often has been, actually was part of the veto on this. So is this a good thing in disguise or a terrible, almost sinlike thing Obama has been this out to be?

    While I supported background checks somewhat, I dont sweat over the "what ifs" of there not being strict background checks. So as Obama takes this as a "sad day for Washington" I think its just another day in the hectic universe we know as Washington DC.

  2. #2

    Default

    I like to refer to most gun legislation as "feel good" legislation. While I was uncomfortable with being able to purchase a firearm from a private owner just by paying the price for it I couldn't help but feel that criminals would find ways around such legislation regardless. I'm not a huge fan of firearm regulations simply because I feel it isn't very effective in curtailing what it regulates.

    On a different note, I will say that it would destroy gun shows. And yes, there are more at gun shows than just guns. The military surplus shop I work at attends quite a few of these shows to sell our wares and to spread our name. It is also one of the bigger ways to move some of our more collectible, and expensive, items. The gun show crowd is one of the larger consumer groups we try to advertise to and gun shows are one of the major avenues we utilize to accomplish this.

  3. #3

    Default

    Harry Reid voted No on it in order to speed up the process of getting it back on the senate floor. It will be killed in The House as it currently stood just because it wanted to ban the contuning sale of 40-50 guns My Senator (I don't support her at all, always voted against her.) Senator Boxer was the one to spearhead a gun ban in a bill that was for background checks. Pretty much she's trying to insert in the assault weapons ban she go in during the 90's. Of course this ban wouldn't make owning Bushmaster AR-15's illegal, it will just be illegal to sell them.

    Also Boxer thinks M rated video games marketed to children should be banned or something to that extent. Clearly she's not defending any of my interests. They would be partying in Berkly though if it weren't for her horrible ideas getting shot down over and over.




    Quote Originally Posted by reddawn2988 View Post
    I like to refer to most gun legislation as "feel good" legislation. While I was uncomfortable with being able to purchase a firearm from a private owner just by paying the price for it I couldn't help but feel that criminals would find ways around such legislation regardless. I'm not a huge fan of firearm regulations simply because I feel it isn't very effective in curtailing what it regulates.

    On a different note, I will say that it would destroy gun shows. And yes, there are more at gun shows than just guns. The military surplus shop I work at attends quite a few of these shows to sell our wares and to spread our name. It is also one of the bigger ways to move some of our more collectible, and expensive, items. The gun show crowd is one of the larger consumer groups we try to advertise to and gun shows are one of the major avenues we utilize to accomplish this.
    The only issue with gun shows is people can buy guns at them with 100% less (none) of a background check as they would at a gun store with in a 25 mile radius.

  4. #4

    Default

    I can see why people might be upset at assault weapons bans, but this particular bill seemed pretty straight forward. What *is* the argument for voting no on this?

  5. #5

    Default

    I knew this wasn't going to pass- given how much opposition there was in both the House and Senate. I knew that this was not going to gain enough muster to get passed. Plus, if it had won; I'm very certain the House would have shot it down. The gun lobby is quite powerful here in the States and I've learned over the years that it's the ones with the $$$ that get their voices heard and not the American public.

    I'm rather mixed on how I feel with all this. I hear it from both sides of the proverbial coin and believe me I get tired of it.

    WildThing11675

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyBalto View Post
    So the Senate voted on the bill concerning background checks to buy a gun here in America and the Senate said no, while 90% said yes 10% said no (as referred by Obama as the "minority.") And Henry Reid, being the ass that he often has been, actually was part of the veto on this. So is this a good thing in disguise or a terrible, almost sinlike thing Obama has been this out to be?
    Reid voted "no" due to procedural rules, so he can bring it up again before the next congress. I thought you were going to start getting your news from other sources?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by reddawn2988 View Post
    On a different note, I will say that it would destroy gun shows.
    Poppycock.

    It takes all of five minutes to run a background check on somebody (I know, I've gone through three of them for firearms I've purchased). Gun shows are where a vast majority of convicted felons get their firearms in the first place. It's asinine to exempt gun shows from a background check requirement. Some states already do require this, and it hasn't destroyed gun shows. If you're a private seller with a table, and don't have an FFL license, all the organizers have to do is provide a number of people (relative to the size of the show) to run background checks for private sales. Tables run by FFL holders can handle that themselves.

    And if it is a little more difficult, if it hurts sales a little bit, I honestly don't give a crap. There is absolutely no excuse to have a hole big enough to fly a 787 Dreamliner through, in the background check system. Yes, there are other avenues to get illegal firearms. We don't need a wide open door giving absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to a violent felon seeking his next murder/intimidation weapon.

    People speed, too, where they know cops aren't patrolling. Does that mean we should just abolish all speed limits as well? Because there are ways around it? Because we can only effectively control, say, 60% of the highway system rather than 100%?

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by reddawn2988 View Post
    I like to refer to most gun legislation as "feel good" legislation. While I was uncomfortable with being able to purchase a firearm from a private owner just by paying the price for it I couldn't help but feel that criminals would find ways around such legislation regardless. I'm not a huge fan of firearm regulations simply because I feel it isn't very effective in curtailing what it regulates.
    Ding! A sensible and well-stated response. Well said.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    People speed, too, where they know cops aren't patrolling. Does that mean we should just abolish all speed limits as well? Because there are ways around it? Because we can only effectively control, say, 60% of the highway system rather than 100%?
    Your argument goes directly against itself. Most laws do not hinder the criminally minded. Just because they exist does not mean they are adhered to. Here, even if the strictest of laws were imposed on background checks, does not slow down the purchase of firearms illegally.

    The holes in the system may not be the problem. The ingorance or apprehensiveness may be the root issue. We as a society rely too heavily on the protection of the law and not partaking in an active role in reporting or punishing relevant behavior associated with it. Perhaps if social workers or psychologists hands weren't tied behind their backs by over-prominent laws there could be an improved level of prevention to mass-killings by firearms.

    The size of the hole is irrelevant. A crime must first be commited to be prosecutable. Opportunity to commit a crime does not make a person guilty. We should not bear the burden of proclaiming rational or lawfull intent at every corner. Just the same as having to identify ourselves upon command while walking the neighborhood for instance. In a 'police-state' environment you would have to proclaim your innocence while committing no crime just to avoid suspicion. It requires all individuals to first prove compliance before experiencing their rights. Completely backwards.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    Gun shows are where a vast majority of convicted felons get their firearms in the first place.
    I'm not sure about this statement. My suspicion is a huge variety of sources including: theft of a firearm, local sales, borrowing, and even sales after a background check as well. This does not even expound upon the already existing firearms on the 'black market' ie; previously unregistered firearms or ones that are smuggled across the border in the way of drug-trafficking.

    If the 'real' issue is preventing mass-shootings then it's attention must be directed at mentally disturbed individuals who may have the propensity to carry-out violent crimes.
    Last edited by ilostthesheriff; 18-Apr-2013 at 13:46.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    Your argument goes directly against itself. Most laws do not hinder the criminally minded. Just because they exist does not mean they are adhered to. Here, even if the strictest of laws were imposed on background checks, does not slow down the purchase of firearms illegally.
    And many homicide perpetrators aren't criminally minded, either, at least not with regards to murder. I know that goes against the bizarre "lone gunman hero" masturbatory fantasy the GOP likes to fap to, but like it or not, most homicides aren't planned out and carefully executed by someone with a lifelong desire to kill.

    If they didn't hinder the criminally minded, we wouldn't have half the laws on the books we do today. You need to quit getting your information from Fox & Friends (or where-ever it comes from), and study some basic sociology. Ease of access has a great deal to do with human behavior. Citizens of the United States have the easiest access to firearms anywhere among first-world nations. Our firearm homicide rates, however, mirrors that of Mexico. Don't try and delude me for a minute into believing some nonsense about how ease of access has nothing to do with criminal behavior "because they can just go somewhere else." They are absolutely effective. Even Canada requires universal background checks for all firearm sales, and they, as far as first-world nations go, have the second easiest access to firearms. Yet their firearm homicide rate is five times lower than ours is.

    Perhaps because they don't have idiot/coward politicians holding the door open for violent felons.

    And it isn't just a problem of culture/geography, either. Neighboring border cities show vast schisms in firearms statistics.

    Seattle and Vancouver are neighboring cities with similar population and economic profiles. Seattle has far less restrictions affecting availability of firearms. Assault cases involving firearms occur seven times more often in Seattle. Homicide rates are not only significantly higher in Seattle, homicide rates involving handguns are nearly five hundred percent higher. And before you say it, no, Vancouver residents don't simply find other means to commit murder. Homicides involving items other than guns aren't significantly different between the two cities.

    Gun shows are one of the largest channels for firearms to flow in the hands of the criminals. Leaving that door open is inexcusable, and yesterday over half the Senate showed what cowards they were by refusing to pass the amendment.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    I'm not sure about this statement. My suspicion is a huge variety of sources including: theft of a firearm, local sales, borrowing, and even sales after a background check as well. This does not even expound upon the already existing firearms on the 'black market' ie; previously unregistered firearms or ones that are smuggled across the border in the way of drug-trafficking.
    Straw purchases and theft from family/friends is a pretty big source.

    The ATF, however, after investigating over 3000 FFL holders discovered over 12,000 "missing" firearms. Crooked dealers. Gun shows are one of their major outlets - it's just that much easier to keep things off the books. I don't really care if it turns out that gun show purchases amount to 90%, 51%, 49%, or 5%. It's a gargantuan loophole that effectively castrates the entire NICS system. It's such a stupidly simple hole to patch, one with anywhere from 85-90% public support depending on what poll you are looking at, that it is insulting we haven't done it yet, and absolutely embarrassing we weren't even able to pass a watered-down-to-the-point-of-uselessness bill amendment yesterday.

    There is a good argument, however, for ending the NRA's stranglehold on gun research. The CDC has been unable to do any research on gun violence for a very, very long time, directly due to the NRA. It's hard to design effective policies when we're unable to design research that could help shape policies that might directly affect this problem.

    I am probably wrong about the "vast majority" of guns used in crimes being bought from a gun show. We do know, however, from surveys of convicted violent felons that 80% of the guns used in their crimes were acquired from non-licensed sources. That includes stealing/borrowing from friends & family, gang sources, etc. Not just gun shows. But if you think absolutely none of them came from a gun show, you're living in a strange, strange world.



    If the 'real' issue is preventing mass-shootings then it's attention must be directed at mentally disturbed individuals who may have the propensity to carry-out violent crimes.
    The real issue is keeping people who have no business owning dangerous, lethal weapons, from getting those weapons - whether that be because they are a danger to themselves or because they are a danger to others.

    This is not about preventing one very specific type of firearm violence that accounts for a small portion of shooting deaths in the United States. That kind of narrow scope doesn't help anyone.

    ~

    This isn't just about buyers, either, it's about the sellers, too. The failed amendment would have required online retailers to run prospective buyers through a background check - most of whom, even when directly asked, aren't concerned about a "buyer" who flat out admits he can't pass a background check. They just want a sale, because there is no penalty.

    Even in California, whose firearms laws are stricter in many instances that I'd like to see on a national level, one out of every five brick & mortar dealers were just fine selling to someone who was blatantly purchasing for someone else. Why can they do this, even with existing penalties? Because of an NRA-backed bill that has left the ATF, the agency that is supposed to be enforcing existing gun laws, without a permanent director for over six years. They are underfunded and undermanned. Crooked FFL dealers have no reason to fear repercussion for breaking existing laws. There's a lot that needs to be done; it isn't just any one thing. Universal background checks would have been a great start, given the absolutely overwhelming public support and the loopholes in existing laws it would have plugged.

    Not that long ago the NRA strongly supported universal background checks. A good idea didn't just suddenly turn bad in the last few years. The only difference now is that there's a Black President supporting the idea.
    Last edited by Draugr; 18-Apr-2013 at 14:06.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    If they didn't hinder the criminally minded, we wouldn't have half the laws on the books we do today. You need to quit getting your information from Fox & Friends (or where-ever it comes from), and study some basic sociology. Ease of access has a great deal to do with human behavior. Citizens of the United States have the easiest access to firearms anywhere among first-world nations. Our firearm homicide rates, however, mirrors that of Mexico. Don't try and delude me for a minute into believing some nonsense about how ease of access has nothing to do with criminal behavior "because they can just go somewhere else." They are absolutely effective. Even Canada requires universal background checks for all firearm sales, and they, as far as first-world nations go, have the second easiest access to firearms. Yet their firearm homicide rate is five times lower than ours is.
    I am well versed in sociology. There are other factors to take into consideration when comparng cities of two different countries even though close in proximity. You could also take for instance Toronto which has a higher crime rate than it's neighboring US cities combined, being Buffalo and Niagra Falls. Irrellevant even though the population density and size is about the same. Also the number 5 times lower is subjective. It could mean simply one to five. Again irrellevant.

    Also, I do not hang my hat on "Fox and Friends". My intent on understanding chaos or the lack of it hinges on reality and not sensationalism. i have used even liberal sites such as the VPC (Violence Protection Center) for statistics.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ilostthesheriff View Post
    I am well versed in sociology. There are other factors to take into consideration when comparing cities of two different countries even though close in proximity. You could also take for instance Toronto which has a higher crime rate than it's neighboring US cities combined, being Buffalo and Niagra Falls. Irrellevant even though the population density and size is about the same. Also the number 5 times lower is subjective. It could mean simply one to five. Again irrellevant.
    Other factors, like, say, population, or economic profile? There's a reason Seattle and Vancouver are often compared. They are fairly similar with regards to population and economic activity, Vancouver being marginally less population-dense, since you brought that up.

    Toronto is absolutely gargantuan in comparison to either Buffalo or Niagara Falls. The two cities combined don't even make up half the population of Toronto. Not even close.

    As for density - Niagara Falls sits at 4000/sq mile, Buffalo sits at 6,500/sq mile, and Toronto sits at 10,750/sq mile. Once again, not even remotely comparable.

    Latest statistics I can find for both cities is for 2006 & 2007.

    Buffalo & Niagara Falls (US) together had a rate of 5.3 per 100,000. Buffalo alone had a rate of 16.5 per 100k.

    Toronto in those same two years averaged a firearm homicide rate of about 1.3 per 100,000 (2.85 per 100k when all homicides are taken into account). So, in a city roughly three times the size of Buffalo & Niagara Falls (NY) combined (urbanization being a fairly reliable predictor of violent crime rates), "somehow" they managed to have 400% lower firearm homicide rate. Not only that, you're less likely to be killed, period, in Toronto, than you are to be killed by a firearm alone in Buffalo & Niagara Falls. I wasn't able to find overall homicide rates for Buffalo & Niagara Falls, but given that once specific type of homicide outpaces all homicides in Toronto, that's probably unnecessary.

    And, uh, no, a rate isn't subjective. Seattle's rate (going by memory, the article is closed out now) is about 10.5, Vancouver sits at around 2.1. That's flat out basic mathematics. Entirely objective.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.