|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,527
Posts545,849
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
Why do they NEED every gun registered?
We don't....but I believe we do need private gun sales to go through the back ground checks in place now. It's ok to feel that way, but I don't think you explained what that would fix. There's no cure if it's needed to make you feel better, but why ignore a fact that Dave K. brought up. Fourteen and a half odd million background checks resulted in sixty-two prosecutions. Does that make you feel safer, or point out that there were only sixty-two dummies. How many out of sixty-two criminals do you figure are going to submit to your nonregistered, if it's possible, background check. How many jOe averages are gonna wait for delays and eat the cost of background checks. What if you get a clear background check and your buddy shoots his wife with one of your previous turkey guns, you off the hook or on the record.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
Craig, see your point but what interests me is not the gnat's eyelash of prosecutions, it's the number of refusals as a result of background checks.
Also, the background check has nothing to do with who's on the hook for murder with a previously owned gun. That's registration, passing from owner to owner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 839
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 839 |
Let's see here...
Adam Lanza's mom passed ALL of CT's gun checks and laws. Then her kid went out and massacred a school.
Was there a check box she missed?
Like "My son is a homicidal maniac who's been on drugs since he was 2"
Check "yes" here.
Check "no" here.
Check "DNA" here.
Well now. That would have made everything different wouldn't it?
(Check here if you're an idiot parent)
Friendly reminder: The Second Amendment says NOTHING about background checks. Because bureaucrats can't stop crime!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,202
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,202 |
Craig, see your point but what interests me is not the gnat's eyelash of prosecutions, it's the number of refusals as a result of background checks.
Also, the background check has nothing to do with who's on the hook for murder with a previously owned gun. That's registration, passing from owner to owner.
What good is running checks if they prosecute almost NO ONE that gets rejected trying to buy a gun now AT DEALERS? And they go after so few...they essentially go after no one.
Last edited by boneheaddoctor; 02/22/13 07:13 PM.
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
We agree, and think 25 to life would be Appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,464 Likes: 212 |
Craig, see your point but what interests me is not the gnat's eyelash of prosecutions, it's the number of refusals as a result of background checks.
Also, the background check has nothing to do with who's on the hook for murder with a previously owned gun. That's registration, passing from owner to owner. I'd think your two point are somewhat related King. If an individual is known to have sold a firearm that was later used in a crime, there could be a better than fair chance that a refusal, at least delay, comes up the next time they want to buy a gun. I'd tend to suspect that background checks for private sales is a paper trail or a form of defacto registration. I'm not thinking criminals should have guns, only that the facts and the strong encouragement to compromise do not address the criminals or safety interest of the public. It seems to have an ideological purpose though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
You raise interesting points. I'm opening my yap here because Canada went through registration. Since it's gone, we still must pass a safety course and background check to get a license to possess and acquire a gun and ammunition. I mention it because of the possibility of US looking here for something less onerous and restrictive than registration. So, I can buy and sell any of my guns at any time to anyone as long as I buy from a person with a Possession and Acquisition license and sell to one who has the same license. There is no registry but I know that some gunshops keep records in case guns turn up in the wrong hands and wrong places. Perhaps Canadian members will provide additional information of how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 839
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 839 |
Oh, Canada!
Oh, NO!
If The Great White North thinks these "sensible regulations" are good deal, God save the USA!
And you can keep the Molson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 390 Likes: 11
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 390 Likes: 11 |
Oh, Canada!
Oh, NO!
If The Great White North thinks these "sensible regulations" are good deal, God save the USA!
And you can keep the Molson. I don't buy Molson, only locally made stuff. 99.9% of us DO NOT think Cdn regs are "sensible". Only some weirdos perhaps.
Dumb, but learning...Prof Em, BSc(ME), CAE (FYI)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 34 |
Originally Posted By: Replacement
[Well, put up or shut up. Post something definitive about mandatory "confiscation" in CA. If you follow the rules, nothing gets confiscated. Your agenda is out in front of your brain, but that's not much of a stretch. I don't really want to get in the middle of a personal conflict anymore than I care to have anyone criticizing my personal conflicts... even though that happens quite often. But I will point out some glaring problems with what has been going on in California. You say that "If you follow the rules, nothing gets confiscated." Well, the RULES are "...the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed." This is a Constitutional Right that they're chipping away upon. This is a Civil Rights violation as much as discrimination because of race or skin color. If we're foolish enough to let them incrementally take it away or dilute it, shame on us. We already own these rights. The government does not give them to us. It's up to us to stick together as women and minorities have done, and fight to keep them. I don't know personally if anyone has actually had the police knocking on or breaking down doors in California to confiscate firearms. There probably are isolated incidents that can be documented. But just the fact that we apparently have the scenario where folks and firearms dealers must either sell or transfer firearms to another state, or relocate their businesses to another state is frightening. These are law abiding people we're talking about. California is not doing things to force out drug dealers and gang-bangers. What happens when other states pass the same kind of draconian laws that do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime? Where do we move or sell our Constitutionally permitted property then? Do we sell our guns for pennies on the dollar to dealers who can export them to some country where firearm ownership is still legal as happened in Great Britain? This whole scenario has been played out before. The camel must get his nose under the tent before he can upend the whole thing. What starts out as a "reasonable" inconvenience leads to outright bans and confiscation. Why is that so hard to see? The issue is not whether California is completely fucked up on its gun regs. Those of us who live here all agree on that point. The issue is that ISS is bloviating about California's confiscation of guns, and he is simply wrong, as usual. He spouted off with some incorrect info, and I called him on it. We don't like the CA regs, but we have learned to live with them until we can vote the bastards out of office. ISS is an idiot and needs to get his facts straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,345 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,345 Likes: 391 |
Craig, see your point but what interests me is not the gnat's eyelash of prosecutions, it's the number of refusals as a result of background checks. See Dave K's post on page 3 of this thread for the facts and figures which show that 94.2% of the refusals in 2009 were false positives. He elaborates further on the number of refusals that resulted in actual convictions, and the extremely miniscule conviction rate over time. Not discussed in the data is why it was necessary to collect information on the make, model, and serial numbers of guns that were sold to law abiding folks who passed the backround check. Unless the dealer is selling grenades, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, or other prohibited weapons, this is none of Barack Obama's business.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
