America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by teedubbya. 34 replies replies.
Preventing Gun Violence
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Gene363 Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, Jun 2 2018, 12:07 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
A reasonable proposal to reduce gun violence.

JPFO consultant, aka "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan Korwin, on background checks:

BACKGROUND CHECKS -- JUST LIKE "RED FLAG" LAWS

Identify Serious Criminals, Then Turn Them Loose

They're standing in the store, trying to buy guns, FBI's on the phone

Is this what "97% of the public" actually supports? Do they even know?

The lamestream media told you:

Do you support background checks? It's the biggest gun question of the day. Mass media insists virtually everyone does. How could any rational person not support background checks?

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

1. After two decades of background checks, inner city gangs are all thoroughly armed. The checks have failed. Plus, we have 6,000 gangland rubouts every year, maybe you've noticed. And there are no 6,000 murder trials for the 6,000 murderers. Is that what everyone supports?

2. The muslim jihad is pretty much unaffected by the background checks. The jihad mass murder in the Florida gay nightclub, the "workplace violence" (Obama's term for the jihad), no effect from the background checks. Is that what everyone supports?

3. The psychotic children who want to mass murder their class mates, they aren't even addressed by background checks, and we all want to fix that problem. Why are we even talking about background checks when murderous classmates are what we want to fix? Isn't the mass media missing something there? Shouldn't someone ask them about that?

4. The background check collects the names of 10 to 12 million innocent Americans who purchase firearms every year, who didn't do anything. What does that have to do with stopping mass murderers, or any crime? Is that a good use of scarce resources? Does that have a sinister ulterior motive like its critics claim -- a list of gun owners kept by big government? Can we audit that system? (No, government tell us, just trust us, we're honest.)

5. And of course the biggest problem. Murderers, rapists, parolees, escapees, fugitives, kidnappers, arsonists, thieves, even illegal aliens and DACA students who walk into gun stores, cash in hand, seeking to buy guns -- which is at least five years in the federal slammer. They fill out forms with their names and addresses, and with the FBI on the phone, while they're standing there, get turned down. What happens next? They get sent away, with their money. Still eager to buy guns.

Is that what everyone supports?

Is that what the mass media makes clear when they conduct their polls?

The background check plan is a scam.

The only thing the background check does effectively is collect the names of innocent Americans who buy constitutionally protected products, that create a balance of power between the public and the government.

Read more here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm
frankj1 Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, Jun 2 2018, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
re: gang bangers, Jihadis, the assorted bad hombres in #5.
Any stats on how many legally purchased the guns they used vs stats on how many used stolen guns?

Serious question. I don't have any info from which to know how to react to Korwin's article. It would matter.

Should we be talking about the value of background checks or if we should look deeper into enforcing currently unenforced laws in most states designed to punish legal owners who do not properly secure their weapons.

It would help someone like me, a supporter of the right to bear arms (though not an owner), in clarifying an opinion on the posted topic: Preventing Gun Violence.

As of now, I have no answer.
Gene363 Offline
#3 Posted: Sat, Jun 2 2018, 9:56 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
frankj1 wrote:
re: gang bangers, Jihadis, the assorted bad hombres in #5.
Any stats on how many legally purchased the guns they used vs stats on how many used stolen guns?

Serious question. I don't have any info from which to know how to react to Korwin's article. It would matter.

Should we be talking about the value of background checks or if we should look deeper into enforcing currently unenforced laws in most states designed to punish legal owners who do not properly secure their weapons.

It would help someone like me, a supporter of the right to bear arms (though not an owner), in clarifying an opinion on the posted topic: Preventing Gun Violence.

As of now, I have no answer.


Not really, what few stories I've read are either stolen firearms bought out of a trunk or straw man purchases, i.e., a girlfriend with no criminal record buys the firearm for the criminal. They are committing a serious crime, but I suspect they would claim they were coerced into making the purchase and lying on the 4473 firearm purchase form.

I do think it's an interesting POV on background checks, somewhat comparable to the no fly list, but better vetted information.
frankj1 Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, Jun 2 2018, 10:06 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Gene363 wrote:
Not really, what few stories I've read are either stolen firearms bought out of a trunk or straw man purchases, i.e., a girlfriend with no criminal record buys the firearm for the criminal. They are committing a serious crime, but I suspect they would claim they were coerced into making the purchase and lying on the 4473 firearm purchase form.

I do think it's an interesting POV on background checks, somewhat comparable to the no fly list, but better vetted information.

there may be no real way to prevent.
Just might be the downside of the (freedom) deal. Live free, assume the risk?
Maybe.
Gene363 Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, Jun 2 2018, 11:54 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
frankj1 wrote:
there may be no real way to prevent.
Just might be the downside of the (freedom) deal. Live free, assume the risk?
Maybe.


Yes, unfortunately. There is no 100% way short of keeping everyone in individual jail cells. I'll always take risky freedom over surrendering rights.
frankj1 Offline
#6 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
did we bore everyone, or just cover all bases?
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 4:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I think we covered it.. I sent the results to Trump.. Mellow
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#8 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 5:19 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Here's my question. When someone fails the NICS check, why aren't they investigated? If it was a slip up with NICS, then they can go their merry way. If they lied on the form, and are ineligible to purchase, then they should be charged and arrested. This would be a form of "common sense" gun reform that I'd be on board with, i.e. actually enforce existing laws over making additional ones.

David (dpnewell)
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 6:07 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I think it says somethin about that on da form... Mellow
Gene363 Offline
#10 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 6:07 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Here's my question. When someone fails the NICS check, why aren't they investigated? If it was a slip up with NICS, then they can go their merry way. If they lied on the form, and are ineligible to purchase, then they should be charged and arrested. This would be a form of "common sense" gun reform that I'd be on board with, i.e. actually enforce existing laws over making additional ones.

David (dpnewell)


I'm not sure, except criminals are dumb enough to actually try to buy a gun and do get caught. I have heard of a seller being asked to stall a buyer. OTOH, there are people that will fail for old records and other somewhat benign.
banderl Offline
#11 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 6:40 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-paul-bauer-gun-20180228-story.html
Abrignac Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 8:26 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Here's my question. When someone fails the NICS check, why aren't they investigated? If it was a slip up with NICS, then they can go their merry way. If they lied on the form, and are ineligible to purchase, then they should be charged and arrested. This would be a form of "common sense" gun reform that I'd be on board with, i.e. actually enforce existing laws over making additional ones.

David (dpnewell)


Dumb idea. A career criminal won’t attempt something so foolish. So nothing tangible is gained.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#13 Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2018, 9:51 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. The only numbers I could find cover the years 2000 to 2008. In that period 507,495 convicted criminals attempted to purchase firearms through NICS. In addition to that number, there where 90,958 rejections due to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction. 64,626 rejections due to drug addiction. 62,955 rejections due to the applicant being a fugitive from justice. 35,972 due to domestic violence restraining orders. 10,252 where illegal aliens, and the list goes on and on. Everyone of these people lied on their 4473 form and should have been prosecuted.

124 million checks where performed during those 9 years for an average of 1,150,000 per month. An average of 4,700 convicted criminals per month attempted to make an illegal purchase. For the past 3 years, the number of checks have been well over 2,000,000 per month. If the percentages hold true, and we extrapolate the numbers, it could mean that 8,000+ convicted criminals could be attempting to make illegal purchases each and every month. Why aren't these people being arrested and charged?

Seems like a simple solution to me, yet all we hear are demands for more restrictions on the people who are not the problem. Restrictions that will do nothing to reduce crime.

David (dpnewell)
Abrignac Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Jun 4 2018, 9:11 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
I’d be interested in what is considered a convicted criminal in the study you are referring to. IIRC only convictions of certain crimes preclude one from buying a gun. Also, is preventing a shop lifter or a pot smoker from buying a gun going to make the US a safer place?

Speaking with 16 years of LEO experience I’m confident when I say background checks have not and will not stop anyone bent on committing a gun crime from obtaining a firearm. Sure it sounds good, but in reality it’s foolish. No one planning on using a gun to commit a crime wants to use a gun traceable back to them. Hence, the prolific black market where stolen firearms can be had without a background check at a fraction of what a legality purchased firearm can be bought for.
DrafterX Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Jun 4 2018, 11:35 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
That would depend on whether they planned on getting away with the crime or not... Mellow
Abrignac Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Jun 4 2018, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
DrafterX wrote:
That would depend on whether they planned on getting away with the crime or not... Mellow


True
Gene363 Offline
#17 Posted: Mon, Jun 4 2018, 6:44 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
Abrignac wrote:
I’d be interested in what is considered a convicted criminal in the study you are referring to. IIRC only convictions of certain crimes preclude one from buying a gun. Also, is preventing a shop lifter or a pot smoker from buying a gun going to make the US a safer place?

Speaking with 16 years of LEO experience I’m confident when I say background checks have not and will not stop anyone bent on committing a gun crime from obtaining a firearm. Sure it sounds good, but in reality it’s foolish. No one planning on using a gun to commit a crime wants to use a gun traceable back to them. Hence, the prolific black market where stolen firearms can be had without a background check at a fraction of what a legality purchased firearm can be bought for.


I think this makes the point of the OP, better to have a list of known bad guys that doing a useless background of all gun purchasers.
bs_kwaj Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 12:23 AM EST
Joined: 02-13-2006
Posts: 5,214

Fire all of your guns at once
And explode into space

Beer
Abrignac Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
Like a true nature's child
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#20 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 2:17 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Abrignac wrote:
I’d be interested in what is considered a convicted criminal in the study you are referring to. IIRC only convictions of certain crimes preclude one from buying a gun. Also, is preventing a shop lifter or a pot smoker from buying a gun going to make the US a safer place?

Speaking with 16 years of LEO experience I’m confident when I say background checks have not and will not stop anyone bent on committing a gun crime from obtaining a firearm. Sure it sounds good, but in reality it’s foolish. No one planning on using a gun to commit a crime wants to use a gun traceable back to them. Hence, the prolific black market where stolen firearms can be had without a background check at a fraction of what a legality purchased firearm can be bought for.


We totally agree on that point. My question is why aren't those who are inelligable to purchase a firearm, attempt to make a purchase anyway, and lie on the 4470 form prosecuted? I just read that of the 67,000 who failed direct FBI background checks through NICS in '09, less then 70 where ever prosecuted. Why so few?

Let's change the infraction from an attempt to illegally purchase a firearm to drunk driving. 67,000 drivers are caught drunk driving in a year, yet less then 70 are prosecuted. So, instead of asking why 66,930 drunk drivers where not prosecuted, the media and the left's solution is to demand even more restrictive laws on the law abiding drivers. Could you imagine the outrage from drivers? Yet we allow this same scenario to play out when it comes to purchasing firearms, i.e. don't prosecute the offenders, but instead punish the law abiding. Why are not all law abiding gun owners screaming about this injustice?

David (dpnewell)
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#21 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 2:31 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Just to clarify. I'm not a proponent of background checks, nor am I claiming that they would prevent any crime. Every time there is a shooting the media and left start screaming for "universal" background checks. What good would this do when we don't prosecute those who currently violate the existing background check system?

David
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
I'm gonna start driving drunk more often.. Beer
Abrignac Offline
#23 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 3:49 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
We totally agree on that point. My question is why aren't those who are inelligable to purchase a firearm, attempt to make a purchase anyway, and lie on the 4470 form prosecuted? I just read that of the 67,000 who failed direct FBI background checks through NICS in '09, less then 70 where ever prosecuted. Why so few?

Let's change the infraction from an attempt to illegally purchase a firearm to drunk driving. 67,000 drivers are caught drunk driving in a year, yet less then 70 are prosecuted. So, instead of asking why 66,930 drunk drivers where not prosecuted, the media and the left's solution is to demand even more restrictive laws on the law abiding drivers. Could you imagine the outrage from drivers? Yet we allow this same scenario to play out when it comes to purchasing firearms, i.e. don't prosecute the offenders, but instead punish the law abiding. Why are not all law abiding gun owners screaming about this injustice?

David (dpnewell)


Resources and common sense.

There isn't a law that specifically makes it a crime to try to purchase a firearm if one is precluded from doing so. Nor do we want to make it one. Suppose a person gets a speeding ticket and forgets to take care of it. That person tries to buy a firearm, but is prevented from doing because a misdemeanor warrant for Failure to appear has been issued for him in regards to the traffic ticket. Do we really want to put people like this in jail? Do we really want to pay higher taxes to incarcerate them?

My point is we shouldn't invent more laws to convict people of that have no consequence.


Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#24 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^I understand your point, and I whole heartily agree with your last statement. I understand someone making a mistake, or forgetting about a minor offense, but still feel that those who outright lie on the 4473 in order to circumvent the law should be prosecuted.

Oh, and FYI, the "convicted criminals" in my statistics above consisted of those who where convicted of a Felony punishable by a sentence of 1 or more year or a Misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of 2 or more years, so these aren't folks with unpaid parking tickets.

David (dpnewell)
Abrignac Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 8:01 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
^I understand your point, and I whole heartily agree with your last statement. I understand someone making a mistake, or forgetting about a minor offense, but still feel that those who outright lie on the 4473 in order to circumvent the law should be prosecuted.

Oh, and FYI, the "convicted criminals" in my statistics above consisted of those who where convicted of a Felony punishable by a sentence of 1 or more year or a Misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of 2 or more years, so these aren't folks with unpaid parking tickets.

David (dpnewell)



I'd bet about 80% of those convictions are for very, very small amounts of marijuana.

Not sure I think more jail time these "offenders" is really worth the resources. Especially if it doesn't really doesn't do anything to address violence.

We as a nation need to get out of the business of criminalizing non-events and concentrate on the actual problem.
Gene363 Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2018, 9:57 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
Abrignac wrote:
I'd bet about 80% of those convictions are for very, very small amounts of marijuana.

Not sure I think more jail time these "offenders" is really worth the resources. Especially if it doesn't really doesn't do anything to address violence.

We as a nation need to get out of the business of criminalizing non-events and concentrate on the actual problem.


+1
delta1 Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2018, 4:16 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
I agree with de-criminalizing non-violent own use drug consumption...maybe if we did that, we'd free up some LEOs to enforce our gun laws...
Abrignac Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2018, 8:50 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,261
delta1 wrote:
I agree with de-criminalizing non-violent own use drug consumption...maybe if we did that, we'd free up some LEOs to enforce our gun laws...


We would free up even more LEO's if we repealed the plethora of laws that have no rational basis.
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2018, 9:25 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
is it still illegal to fornicate on Sundays?
ZRX1200 Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2018, 9:30 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,580
Uh oh.
Mr. Jones Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Jun 8 2018, 10:50 AM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,410
Is this "THE NEW FRANK & GENE MUTUAL STROKING
500 THREAD"???
delta1 Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Jun 8 2018, 1:28 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
Abrignac wrote:
We would free up even more LEO's if we repealed the plethora of laws that have no rational basis.


you mean like voter ID laws....




























Sarcasm
Beer
frankj1 Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Jun 8 2018, 2:03 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Mr. Jones wrote:
Is this "THE NEW FRANK & GENE MUTUAL STROKING
500 THREAD"???

what did ya expect would happen while you were incommunicado for 15 days?
teedubbya Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Jun 8 2018, 2:55 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
True that boo boo

Or is it Y.O.G.I.?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top