Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
22.9% 1. Yes. They would help to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.
15.2% 2. Yes. It’s an imperfect measure, but something must be done to curb gun deaths.
38.1% 3. No. The checks would be both costly and ineffective in curbing illegal access to guns.
19.0% 4. No. Universal checks would only serve to punish those to obtain guns legally.
4.8% 5. Unsure. It’s hard to say whether it’s a good idea without knowing all the details.
http://kdhnews.com/
You voted: 3. No. The checks would be both costly and ineffective in curbing illegal access to guns.
The UBC calls for a background check for ALL gun purchases, including private sales. Some people even want background checks if you loan a gun to a friend at a gun range.LDP wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:25 pm I might be misunderstanding the meaning and intent of the poll.
We already have a MANDATORY universal background check for purchasing firearms. It goes through the FBI.
In which case, the poll makes 0 sense to me. And it seems a little biased with not exactly an exhaustive list of options for answers.
Not true of private sales (conducted by NON-FFL dealers).LDP wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:25 pm I might be misunderstanding the meaning and intent of the poll.
We already have a MANDATORY universal background check for purchasing firearms. It goes through the FBI.
In which case, the poll makes 0 sense to me. And it seems a little biased with not exactly an exhaustive list of options for answers.
^^^^ Correct.TxRVer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:29 pmThe UBC calls for a background check for ALL gun purchases, including private sales. Some people even want background checks if you loan a gun to a friend at a gun range.LDP wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:25 pm I might be misunderstanding the meaning and intent of the poll.
We already have a MANDATORY universal background check for purchasing firearms. It goes through the FBI.
In which case, the poll makes 0 sense to me. And it seems a little biased with not exactly an exhaustive list of options for answers.
I've given 'waiting periods' considerable thought over the years and can only come up with a single situation where it 'might' be beneficial and that is in cases where a person is distraught and wants to end their life (suicide) that very day.
My niece shot herself in an Academy parking lot after buying a gun. I don't blame the gun, the law, or the government. A waiting period might have delayed the suicide but probably not prevented it. On the other hand, a woman who is threatened by an ex, may be killed while waiting for the gun.flintknapper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:56 pmI've given 'waiting periods' considerable thought over the years and can only come up with a single situation where it 'might' be beneficial and that is in cases where a person is distraught and wants to end their life (suicide) that very day.
It is possible that with the passage of time (3 days) a person could reconsider. But it remains a Mental Health issue really.
The same person could go buy a car and drive it into an overpass abutment, a firearm is just more affordable. Do we want waiting periods for car purchases because some folks use them to kill themselves?
I suppose a few crimes of passion (anger) are carried out infrequently by folks who purchase (legally) a firearm the same day and then use it ILLEGALLY in a crime. But these instances are fairly rare and do not constitute a reason to punish/impede you average law abiding citizen.
Anyone determined to commit a crime with a firearm will find a way to get one. The tool is not the problem, it's the evil inside of some people or their mental health that is the trouble.
Considering there is no constitutional protected right to own a vehicle, it makes even more sense.Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:51 pm Many more people are killed by drunk drivers than by criminals using guns. Unlike guns, vehicles cannot be used to defend yourself from a drunk driver (the fact that you are in a vehicle actually makes it MORE likely that you will be killed by such a criminal).
So lets drop the bull about gun background checks and focus on vehicle background checks. There is no reason why a person who has a history of drug / alcohol abuse should be able to own a vehicle. Not to mention folks who have proven that they cannot control their anger. And let's also deny vehicles to anyone behind on their child support payments. It makes as much sense as denying them ownership of a gun.
If you want to loan your car to someone, just go to a licensed dealer and have them run a background check first. Should only take a few days at most.
I think people are far more afraid of a random shooter than they are of being an innocent victim of a drive by shooting, a rape, mugging or assault. Most people feel they can avoid these things if they just stay in the right neighborhood. This makes them feel in control and that these things won't happen to them. But being shot by a random person while walking around walmart scares them into complete stupidity. They feel the random shooter is out of their control and might happen to them. People want to feel safe. Making all the big bad guns go away is an easy tonic for them. Like turning the light in the closet on at night so your child will see their is no monster in there.Grayling813 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:12 am If the so called “loophole” is closed, the result will be that the likely minuscule number of criminals obtaining firearms at gun shows or from law abiding strangers would become even less. Criminals who are already selling firearms to other criminals are not going to start obeying another law.
It’s almost as if 40-50% of people have no ability to perform critical thinking anymore. Or are just too lazy and let politicians, the media, indoctrinators aka “educators” and activists do their thinking for them.
Just keep dolling out my free stuff and I’ll believe whatever you say.