Back ground checks
Is back ground checks liberal speak for universal registration?
0
-
Would all the illegal immigrants oops I mean undocumented workers be included in this list? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
Regarding the auto breath analyzer. The fringe didn't want air bags either yet the majority do and gladly pay for them. Perhaps I spoke too soon as cost could become a factor. Let me revise my opinion that I would like to see them on any car in which the driver was convicted of DUI. The fault of your logic IMO is that the middle accepts the risk of a drunk driver because acholol consumption is a common experience for them. They mostly all have an occasional drink and are comfortable with it. On the other hand most of the middle does not own and have never handled a firearm and are extremely uncomfortable with them.
quote:Firearms deaths can be only be completely stopped by preventing every American from owning a firearm
Agree but that was and never has been my position Again I advocate methods to reduce gun crime on law abiding citizen.
OK, progress.
1. Breathalyzer. You want them on all cars for people convicted of a DUI. This is a targeted solution that targeted only those that have been convicted of wrong doing. Those that are not targeted can get in any car and start that car without restraint. It is being implemented in various forms throughout the country today, and, because emphasis is needed here, only restricts the cars of those who have proven themselves irresponsible. Any person (those convicted of DUI included) can get into any car without a breathalyser falling down drunk and start that car.
Every car has a paper trail. Everyone convicted of drunk driving has a paper trail, yet the drunk driver can get in his buddy's car and go and create mayhem any time he wants.
In short, the system works when those ensnared within it choose to follow the law. When they do not, the system crashes. It more-than-likely prevents the deaths of some innocents, but only by those who have had a awakening and are inclined to attempt to re-enter society.
Those that indiscriminately shoot innocent people are not so inclined.
2. (Aside) I can't locate it at the moment, but a study released some 20 years after the introduction of airbag revealed that there was a very real possibility that they killed more children than they saved. Airbags were/are designed to save the lives of unbuckled average-sized adults. When blasted into the face of a buckled-in child, they wreaked havoc. Overall they have saved lives, it is true, but the lives they have saved are those of the irresponsible unbuckled driver and the lives that were lost were of those innocent children whose parents were being as responsible as possible.
Unintended consequences must always be considered.
3. (Back to topic) You advocate to reduce gun violence against the law abiding, but have previously stated that you do not advocate eliminating it. We need then, to know what level of reduction you advocate. Do you want to cut it by 10% to satisfy the middle? Do you want to cut it by 50%? Or, perhaps, do you want to cut it down to 121 innocent deaths per year? In short, you have recognized that there will be innocent deaths, and that you accept some as a necessary evil so as to preserve on some level the freedoms of the majority. It is a numbers game, apparently, one I will not pretend to understand or one in which I will engage.
Do you wish, then, to prevent the evil that was perpetrated upon those innocent lives at Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora CO, and Sandy Hook? It has already been established that universal background checks would have changed nothing in these four events, as all weapons were purchased using the background checks in place at the time, and none of the purchasers would have been disabled even with the implementation of the background check you advocate. How then does the implementation of universal background checks move us towards your goal of reduction of gun violence against the law-abiding?
The paper trail for all weapons used in these events was found and reported. Those that perpetrated the evil are either dead, were prosecuted, or will be prosecuted. This is exactly the result of your proposed intrusions into the lives of those innocents who simply wish to retain the right of anonymous firearms ownership.
Again; a solution without a problem, and an intrusion upon those that have never and will never be irresponsible with a firearm. It is simply a panacea to win the emotions of the ignorant, and by playing into it we not only give it credence, we will allow it to happen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
Would all the illegal immigrants oops I mean undocumented workers be included in this list?
Well it really makes you wonder doesn't it? If they are "undocumented" then how would you document them? But if they are getting food stamps or other services, then they ought to be documented and thus no longer "undocumented".
Of course, if you're illegal, then what are you doing in this country is what I've thought for many years.
Good question.
COB0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
...The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock. ...
Tavern parking lots would be full of professional 'blowers' who would start cars for $5 or $10 a pop. [:p][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by machine gun moran
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
...The best way to prevent innocent deaths in America today would be to mandate that every car be equipped with an blow to start alcohol lock. ...
Tavern parking lots would be full of professional 'blowers' who would start cars for $5 or $10 a pop. [:p][:D]
I am of the understanding that the professional blowers at truck stop parking lots charge more than that. Why would the price go down at taverns?[:I]0 -
airbags and breathalizers: no system is perfect Less harm is always better. Kids killed mostly in front seat when warned against that. I know for sure the airbag saved my life.
back to the real topic.I won't bite on the numbers /reduction.
The massacres drove the current discussion. I agree they would likely not been prevented. That has never really been my focus as I agree you can't stop whackos.
The simpler question is this
Do you believe criminals have to many guns and have far too easy access? If you don't we will never agree. If you do how do you change that?
Over time being able to trace back a gun and prosecute wuould have to have a positive effect.IMO0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
airbags and breathalizers: no system is perfect Less harm is always better. Kids killed mostly in front seat when warned against that. I know for sure the airbag saved my life.
back to the real topic.I won't bite on the numbers /reduction.
The massacres drove the current discussion. I agree they would likely not been prevented. That has never really been my focus as I agree you can't stop whackos.
The simpler question is this
Do you believe criminals have to many guns and have far too easy access? If you don't we will never agree. If you do how do you change that?
Over time being able to trace back a gun and prosecute wuould have to have a positive effect.IMO
I am unsure that I can buy into the concept that released convicts have too many guns. Obviously they do because of the current laws we have in place, but I question those laws every bit as much as I question whether ex-criminals have too many firearms.
Any man who commits a crime with a firearm has at least one too many firearms. Obvious of course, but a necessary statement. We release 10s of thousands of people each day back into society and hope that they re-integrate and become one of us. As a society, however, we brand these people for life and withhold from them the basic human right of self-defense and, in most cases, the basic human right of self-determination via the ballot box. If you have ever worked with or around this population, you will realize that in most cases they are sent to the most vile and violent neighborhoods, and withholding that basic right of self-defense is, IMO, cruel and unusual punishment.
I also cannot buy into your wishful 'Over time being able to trace back a gun and prosecute would have to have a positive effect.'. I guess there is a possibility of something if there is a crime committed and a firearm is left at the scene. That firearm could be traced back to the last documented owner and the search for the criminal could begin from there.
That system is in place today. The only difference today is that in some states there could possibly be one or more legal and undocumented transfers between the last documented owner and the perpetrator of the crime. This is not the case in Chicago, East LA, Washington D.C., and Harlem, yet the problem is arguably worse in these places than in places where there is no universal background check. I simply cannot square the solution to the problem, even if I were to accept that criminals have too many firearms.0 -
It seems we have some sort of agreement. My premise demands enforcement and punishment of violators.I'm not sure the good guys are willing to pay that price. BTW the reason it doesn't work in the areas you mentioned is that the vast majority of their guns come from places that have no traceability requirement. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
It seems we have some sort of agreement. My premise demands enforcement and punishment of violators.I'm not sure the good guys are willing to pay that price. BTW the reason it doesn't work in the areas you mentioned is that the vast majority of their guns come from places that have no traceability requirement.
But all are traceable to the manufacturer and at least the first sale since at least 1984.
The primary reason they come in from elsewhere is that they are, at least in DC, Chicago, and for the part in New York, banned. The traceability program exists also throughout Illinois, and yet a large number of the weapons use in Chicago come in from the suburbs where traceability exists. Obviously it has not had the positive effect you wish for at least in the Land of Lincoln, yet you remain hopeful that it will have the opposit effect if employed on a large scale.0 -
quote:
The primary reason they come in from elsewhere is that they are, at least in DC, Chicago, and for the part in New York. The traceability program is in place also throught Illinois, and yet a large number the weapons use in Chicago come in from the suburbs where traceability exists
You statement is a little unclear I think you may need to re-read it and edit. If they truly come in from the suburbs where traceability exist it should be very easy to prosecute the first illegal transaction. Why aren't they?0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
quote:
The primary reason they come in from elsewhere is that they are, at least in DC, Chicago, and for the part in New York. The traceability program is in place also throught Illinois, and yet a large number the weapons use in Chicago come in from the suburbs where traceability exists
You statement is a little unclear I think you may need to re-read it and edit. If they truly come in from the suburbs where traceability exist it should be very easy to prosecute the first illegal transaction. Why aren't they?
My apologies, I'm typing on my phone, and have cleaned up, I think, my post.
I haven't specifically followed the prosecutions of sellers in Greater Chicago. Daley made hay out of a number of them a few years back, but I am unaware of the results.
If there were not successful prosecutions, my guess would be that there was no compelling evidence that the sellers knowingly broke the law. Every gang member and every gang members girl is clean up until their first conviction, are they not?0 -
should be pretty easy to prove a sale to an illegal buyer, no permit, lives in chicago etc 0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
should be pretty easy to prove a sale to an illegal buyer, no permit, lives in chicago etc
I feel I am at a disadvantage here not living in Chicago.
In Illinois is it illegal to sell a firearm to a resident of Chicago?
Is, say, a seller in Alton required to verify that a buyer that lives in Chicago is permitted by the city to possess a firearm?
Are non-FFL's permitted to sell a firearm?
One problem here is the term "Illegal". There are firearm laws in all 50 states (or 57 depending on which side you are on) and they all differ.0 -
As far as I know the only thing you need in Illiois to buy a firearm from an individual is a valid FOID card unless it is at a gun show and then the seller must run a backkground check and hold a long gun for 24 hours and a handgun for 48 hours. The background check can be done by the seller making the call to the Illinois State Police or running it through an FFL. 0 -
Back ground checks are BS. I have been an FFL holder for 20+ years and the only refusals I, and the other dealers I know, have had were the results of improper records keeping by the police and courts. This resulted in those 'wronged' by this spending A LOT of time and money, not to mention the stress, to get their records corrected before the 'government' would allow them to exercise their RIGHT!!!![:(!] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
As far as I know the only thing you need in Illiois to buy a firearm from an individual is a valid FOID card unless it is at a gun show and then the seller must run a backkground check and hold a long gun for 24 hours and a handgun for 48 hours. The background check can be done by the seller making the call to the Illinois State Police or running it through an FFL.
WOW, Thanks.
This is just 1 of 50. FOID, CFP well if it works for them then who am I to judge.
My Texas colored glasses tints my view of this discussion. I would view FOID and CFP as infringing.
I don't think a citizen should be criminalized or a weapon considered illegal just because one lost their papers or the State failed to provide renewal in a timely manner.
Of course there would never be any bootlegging of firearms in Chicago, everyone knows that.
I guess I need to limit my discussion to BATF process which is common for all states.0 -
I think I am beginning to follow Golferboy's logic. The only way we can enforce the thousands of gun laws currently on the books is to make more laws. I think you may have a future in politics Golfer! How many times must we compromise our freedoms to ineffective legislation before we admit the folly? Your willingness to subject your most fundamental freedom to the whim of transient government is naive at best. I challenge you to consider the violence problem absent the crutch gun restriction. When we have addressed all of the other social ills that are the real cause of violent crime then we might have this discussion again. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by golferboy426
should be pretty easy to prove a sale to an illegal buyer, no permit, lives in chicago etc
You don't get it. The FED's don't care. On two different occasions I made case (open and shut) where a gang banger from CA came to CO and bought 30+ hand guns with fake ID's and used stolen credit cards and the US Attorney refused to prosecute. The FED's (progressives) want this to continue so they can blame it on guns, not people. That way they can eventually get there agenda forwarded. They MUST disarm us to control us!!! They don't care about the criminals, only those of us who are informed about what is going on and care about what is going on in 'their' government!!![:(!]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
48 comments