Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Jaxi]

Of course they do. You apply for one. You get denied. That's how background checks work.

That you can get one illegally has no bearing on the effectiveness of background checks.

You're blaming the seat belt for someones death when they didn't even buckle up. It's mind boggling.

You two are going in circles.

-Yes, background checks prevent criminals and the coo-coo-for-cocoa-puffs crowd from obtaining gun legally.
-No, they don't prevent them from obtaining them illegally.

The question you should be asking is whether or not background checks deter enough criminal activity with guns to validate their necessity. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's probably pretty difficult to measure the amount of applicants that were denied a gun via background check, and decided to quit looking for one, versus the people that managed to get one elsewhere.

Then again, I haven't been paying too much attention your conversation, so maybe you already covered that.

[Deadvolcanoes]

So if the background check stopped him from getting a gun then what did he use to kill all of those kids?

A laser beam?

It's not what did he use, it's how did he get it. Did he get it by passing or failing a background check? Nope. He didn't. He got it through a means that didn't require a background check.

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 04:46 PM ----------

The question you should be asking is whether or not background checks deter enough criminal activity with guns to validate their necessity.

Of course they do. Whenever they're applied, they stop criminals. Literally every single time. Make them universal already.

[Beazy]

A laser beam?

It's not what did he use, it's how did he get it. Did he get it by passing or failing a background check? Nope. He didn't. He got it through a means that didn't require a background check.

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 04:46 PM ----------



Of course they do. Whenever they're applied, they stop criminals. Literally every single time. Make them universal already.

Ok wait, let me get this straight. . . your saying that if the sandy hook shooter waited 14 days and was denied because "who cares why", that he would have just stopped and said to himself "Maybe killing 20 kids isnt the right thing to do"?

Wow, what the FUCK are you smoking, and where can I get some?

[Svifnymr]

You two are going in circles.

-Yes, background checks prevent criminals and the coo-coo-for-cocoa-puffs crowd from obtaining gun legally.
-No, they don't prevent them from obtaining them illegally.

The question you should be asking is whether or not background checks deter enough criminal activity with guns to validate their necessity. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's probably pretty difficult to measure the amount of applicants that were denied a gun via background check, and decided to quit looking for one, versus the people that managed to get one elsewhere.

Then again, I haven't been paying too much attention your conversation, so maybe you already covered that.

Yeah, no way to really know a few factors which would determine effectiveness;
1) How many criminals didn't try to buy a gun because they knew they couldn't pass a background check?
2) How many criminals tried to buy one, were refused, then went another route to secure a firearm?
3) In sample year 2009, of 6million background checks run, 71,000 were denied. Of the 71k, 4700 were investigate, 77 of them prosecuted. How many of those 71k were getting a gun to commit a crime?

We don't have answers to any of that, so there's not a lot to discuss about effectiveness.

As far as I know, they haven't and never will since it's cost-prohibitive, but it'd be interesting if they ran all the forms done before background checks to see how many of those would have been denied.

[Jaxi]

Of course they do. Whenever they're applied, they stop criminals. Literally every single time. Make them universal already.

So you don't understand my point, just say that next time rather than repeating the circular argument again.

Background checks stop criminals from getting guns legally.
True.
However, if they make no impact on criminals obtaining guns in general, because there are too many substitute methods for buying weapons elsewhere, then they do not serve a purpose of reducing gun violence in total, and therefore are not a necessary level of control.
That's IF they don't, which I'm like to see a reputable study on before getting behind more legislation.

[Tinykong]

Ok wait, let me get this straight. . . your saying that if the sandy hook shooter waited 14 days and was denied because "who cares why", that he would have just stopped and said to himself "Maybe killing 20 kids isnt the right thing to do"?

Wow, what the FUCK are you smoking, and where can I get some?

He's saying that universal background checks will keep guns away from criminals, and is one part of a comprehensive approach to reducing firearm proliferation amongst criminals.

[Prime017]

Of course they do. Whenever they're applied, they stop criminals. Literally every single time. Make them universal already.

They don't stop criminals, they stop purchases at that point of sale. We have no data on the specifics of those denials. We don't know the circumstances of their previous convictions or whether or not the initial denial was over turned based on a glitch or mistake, which is a common occurrence (similar to when people are put on no fly lists for having the same name as someone else). Like I said in my last post, it would be fascinating to see if there is any data showing criminal convictions for those who voluntarily submitted to a background check AFTER the denial of a legal firearm purchase.

[Grizzly Willy]

But if they end up getting a gun, it isn't the fault of the background check. They completely bypassed the background checks, so how can we blame it?

Background checks did their job. Their job just isn't straight up stopping criminals from getting guns, their job is to stop them from getting guns legally.

[Jaxi]

We don't have answers to any of that, so there's not a lot to discuss about effectiveness.

That's my whole point. If they actually have an impact on reducing the amount of guns in criminals hands, then I'd gladly get behind them. However, saying that "well they prevent criminals from buying them from dealers themselves" does not mean that criminals have a harder time obtaining weapons. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but until I see proof one way or the other I'm not going to get behind any bill requiring them.

[smelltheglove]

Sure, require gun safes, but make them come from your tax dollars then.

sooo, you are saying if we want gun owners to be responsible we should subsidize gun ownership, instead of, say, expecting them to be responsible?

[Svifnymr]

Background checks did their job. Their job just isn't straight up stopping criminals from getting guns, their job is to stop them from getting guns legally.

There are other effects too, when you fill out that form, it is a felony to lie, so if someone that is a criminal lies on the form (if you truthfully say "yes I'm a felon" they won't even bother running the check, so you'd have to lie) and gets denied, he has committed a felony. Investigation doesn't take much (they come get the form, dust it for prints to ensure the perp is the perp), but they don't prosecute many at all. It'd be nice if there was a local/state law to mirror the federal one, so the case could be refered to them rather than letting the fed's ignore it.

In the same fashion, it is illegal for a felon or other disqualified person to POSSESS a firearm, so if they are found to have one (no matter how they got it), they can also be charged. This law is more enforced since it is a local enforcement thing, afaik.

[Svifnymr]

That's my whole point. If they actually have an impact on reducing the amount of guns in criminals hands, then I'd gladly get behind them. However, saying that "well they prevent criminals from buying them from dealers themselves" does not mean that criminals have a harder time obtaining weapons. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but until I see proof one way or the other I'm not going to get behind any bill requiring them.

As I've said before, it's a matter of measuring the impact of the law on innocent folks vs the impact on criminals. How much does a background check inconvenience a buyer? Not a whole lot in most cases, though the system could/ should be improved upon. How many criminals are inconvenienced and possibly give up on the purchase entirely? (Or provide law enforcement with a paper trail warning to show they're trying to get something)

[Roxinius]

For each gun related case causing accident or death by a civilian should be donated 10 million dollars (or some other high sum) to the states / citys security development / maintenance by the gun industry. Maybe that way they might start to care more? And ofc. the security / weapon industry should be far separately from each others profits. Meaning heavy control and surveillance to their incomings etc.

this is asinine it really is yes its the people manufacturing the guns are telling people to go out and kill others oh wait no its not its the criminals who are more often then not illegally acquiring the weapons and then killing

[Cthulhu 2020]

Actually you can get one legally by simply buying if from a 3rd party. No crime needed.

So youre still wrong.

You've been proven wrong numerous times in this thread via actual sources and coherent arguments. Background checks stop a lot of gun sales. Just because some people circumvent legal gun sales doesn't mean a large number do. If you can find evidence to the contrary, we'd love to see it for your hilariously untrue claims, but until then, you are the one making false claims with no supporting evidence.

You are the wrong one.


Universal background checks would also close a lot of loopholes that allow people who are denied guns via background check, but then go through private sales to get one. Background checks already stop people from getting guns, so universal background checks would stop even more people from illegally obtaining guns. The evidence is there.

[smelltheglove]

im not really understanding the anti-background check argument here. are there actually people advocating doing away with them, and just allowing criminals to buy guns legally?

[Cthulhu 2020]

im not really understanding the anti-background check argument here. are there actually people advocating doing away with them, and just allowing criminals to buy guns legally?

Yes. Their argument is that background checks apparently aren't effective, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They believe that because some people go around background checks and attain firearms illegally or through loop holes (that we should be closing) then we may as well abolish background checks because apparently not stopping 100% of criminals getting guns means it's ineffective.

Also, we should probably abolish murder laws, since those murder laws don't 100% stop people from killing others.

[smelltheglove]

Also, we should probably abolish murder laws, since those murder laws don't 100% stop people from killing others.

to be fair, that was most likely me being facetious, lol

[Beazy]

You've been proven wrong numerous times in this thread via actual sources and coherent arguments. Background checks stop a lot of gun sales. Just because some people circumvent legal gun sales doesn't mean a large number do. If you can find evidence to the contrary, we'd love to see it for your hilariously untrue claims, but until then, you are the one making false claims with no supporting evidence.

You are the wrong one.


Universal background checks would also close a lot of loopholes that allow people who are denied guns via background check, but then go through private sales to get one. Background checks already stop people from getting guns, so universal background checks would stop even more people from illegally obtaining guns. The evidence is there.

First of all, you dont have to circumvent ANYTHING to buy a gun from a 3rd party, or a gunshow. Its perfectly legal. Wake up.

And, you have NO proof that a small or a large amount of people buy guns after being denied at a background check. So quit blowing smoke out of your ass. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that people go around the background check to get a fire arm. What we dont know is how many. Period. Your argument is invalid.

The fact is, the sandy hook shooter could not buy a gun at the store, so he took one from his mother and used it. The Sandy hook shooting is proof that background checks mean NOTHING to someone intent on killing others. All the background checks in the world would not have saved the children at sandy hook.

[smelltheglove]

The fact is, the sandy hook shooter could not buy a gun at the store, so he took one from his mother and used it. The Sandy hook shooting is proof that background checks mean NOTHING to someone intent on killing others. All the background checks in the world would not have saved the children at sandy hook.

the ones stored in the closet?

[Beazy]

Yes. Their argument is that background checks apparently aren't effective, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They believe that because some people go around background checks and attain firearms illegally or through loop holes (that we should be closing) then we may as well abolish background checks because apparently not stopping 100% of criminals getting guns means it's ineffective.

Also, we should probably abolish murder laws, since those murder laws don't 100% stop people from killing others.

No one said that stupid shit, so quit acting like people are moving to get rid of background checks and murder laws. Really, is that all you have?!