Background checks

[lyman]

Are you ignoring the loopholes? I bring this point up from time to time, but no one seems to want to consider it. We have a system of half-measures. If the argument is that "half-measures won't work", well the counter-argument is "stop only using half-measures".

A rough analogy would be: complaint about the poor quality of the motor oil, how it fails to protect engines, only to discover on closer scrutiny that the user is only putting in 1/2 of the recommended amount, because of another complaint: the high price of motor oil. If at some point the choice is between stringent background checks or no guns at all, is it really a hard choice? Not for me. As others have said, lots of other activities require such checks. They are part of life now.

tell me what you know about background checks....


as in , what do you consider Stringent,, vs today's level

[Clark Howard]

The proposed background checks will not affect those who intend to commit crimes. Only those who obey the law will be importuned with the background check. Once the check is law, the dems will commence their efforts to expand the disqualifying item list to make gun ownership more and more difficult, unless you are a prominent dem.

[Allen]

The proposed background checks will not affect those who intend to commit crimes. Only those who obey the law will be importuned with the background check. Once the check is law, the dems will commence their efforts to expand the disqualifying item list to make gun ownership more and more difficult, unless you are a prominent dem.

Yep, as restrictions are added more of us will fit the bill or be determined by "others" that we are not qualified to own or buy guns and ammo due to the "red flag laws", too old, too violent, failing eyesight, arthritis and anything else they can make up as a reason.

Mentally disturbed people should be in institutions or watched by family members (like the olden days) and be accountable for them. Likewise if a judge lets a criminal loose that has a record and he continues to commit crimes the judge should be personally accountable.

[togor]

tell me what you know about background checks....


as in , what do you consider Stringent,, vs today's level

We've already covered that ground. As a dealer you know how many ways, legal or illegal, that a gun falls off the radar, which is a component of the transaction. An illegal gun buy has three components: a buyer, a seller, and a gun. Focus on one to the exclusion of the others, and stuff gets through.

[m1ashooter]

Are you ignoring the loopholes? I bring this point up from time to time, but no one seems to want to consider it. We have a system of half-measures. If the argument is that "half-measures won't work", well the counter-argument is "stop only using half-measures".

A rough analogy would be: complaint about the poor quality of the motor oil, how it fails to protect engines, only to discover on closer scrutiny that the user is only putting in 1/2 of the recommended amount, because of another complaint: the high price of motor oil. If at some point the choice is between stringent background checks or no guns at all, is it really a hard choice? Not for me. As others have said, lots of other activities require such checks. They are part of life now.

Nope not ignoring anything. In my educated opinion the current background check system is full of holes and ignoring these facts and hoping that the gov't can invent something to fix it is a complete waste of time. As I have said numerous times lets release to the public what drugs are in these young men's systems at time of capture. If there aren't any then I'll support a more robust NIC's system but until that happens I will not.

[togor]

Nope not ignoring anything. In my educated opinion the current background check system is full of holes and ignoring these facts and hoping that the gov't can invent something to fix it is a complete waste of time. As I have said numerous times lets release to the public what drugs are in these young men's systems at time of capture. If there aren't any then I'll support a more robust NIC's system but until that happens I will not.

What's changed is Big Data. If Amazon has every purchase someone made since 2003 or whatever, getting every gun transaction into the system going forward would not be beyond reach of modern tech. So it's not a question if drawing a fairly bright line between legal and illegal guns is possible or practical. From an informatics perspective, it surely is.

[RED]

So now, which of the last 10 mass shootings woulfd have been avoided if these new laws were in force? I don't know but I would wager, if known, it would be none.

[free1954]

here in Pennsylvania everything is a phone in instant background check. if you pass you take the gun with you.

[lyman]

We've already covered that ground. As a dealer you know how many ways, legal or illegal, that a gun falls off the radar, which is a component of the transaction. An illegal gun buy has three components: a buyer, a seller, and a gun. Focus on one to the exclusion of the others, and stuff gets through.

so why punish the folks that are legit by having more restrictions and while we are at it , prosecute the buyer and seller if the transaction is illegal,,


novel concept?

- - - Updated - - -

What's changed is Big Data. If Amazon has every purchase someone made since 2003 or whatever, getting every gun transaction into the system going forward would not be beyond reach of modern tech. So it's not a question if drawing a fairly bright line between legal and illegal guns is possible or practical. From an informatics perspective, it surely is.

you are focusing on the firearm,

not the reason why someone would be denied a firearm,


think about that for a moment,


if we used Big Data,, and if stuff were input correctly, and timely,, then the back ground checks would be more '''stringent''' correct?


IIRC, we had one shooter that got thru because one branch of the govt did not communicate his issues to another,

those are the issues that need to be addressed,,

- - - Updated - - -

What's changed is Big Data. If Amazon has every purchase someone made since 2003 or whatever, getting every gun transaction into the system going forward would not be beyond reach of modern tech. So it's not a question if drawing a fairly bright line between legal and illegal guns is possible or practical. From an informatics perspective, it surely is.

you are focusing on the firearm,

not the reason why someone would be denied a firearm,


think about that for a moment,


if we used Big Data,, and if stuff were input correctly, and timely,, then the back ground checks would be more '''stringent''' correct?


IIRC, we had one shooter that got thru because one branch of the govt did not communicate his issues to another,

those are the issues that need to be addressed,,

[togor]

so why punish the folks that are legit by having more restrictions and while we are at it , prosecute the buyer and seller if the transaction is illegal,,


novel concept?

- - - Updated - - -



you are focusing on the firearm,

not the reason why someone would be denied a firearm,


think about that for a moment,


if we used Big Data,, and if stuff were input correctly, and timely,, then the back ground checks would be more '''stringent''' correct?


IIRC, we had one shooter that got thru because one branch of the govt did not communicate his issues to another,

those are the issues that need to be addressed,,

- - - Updated - - -



you are focusing on the firearm,

not the reason why someone would be denied a firearm,


think about that for a moment,


if we used Big Data,, and if stuff were input correctly, and timely,, then the back ground checks would be more '''stringent''' correct?


IIRC, we had one shooter that got thru because one branch of the govt did not communicate his issues to another,

those are the issues that need to be addressed,,

Lyman,

I know what I'm doing. Ask yourself: what's the legitimate societal objective? What tools are available to achieve it? And also: what are the real costs?

People will inject their worst fears into this topic, but if one thinks about it from a business perspective, it looks different. I have some collectible guns, and if it's a choice between regulated ownership of them, allowing me to recoup my investment at a later time, and a termination of that market, well it's an easy choice. We all know what the sticking point is to fully regulated gun transactions, this idea that if the government has to validate every transaction, then out of that they can develop a database of who owns what. But let's get real. The next generation lets everything in their lives get logged anyways. They have no fear of a totalitarian state using all of this data. Maybe they should, but they don't. That's something the old people talk about in their eyes. Give every gun a 15 digit code of letters and numbers, randomized and with integrity digits in them so that a single missed digit maps to an invalid code. Everytime that gun changes hands, the buyer gets a background check, and the ID of the gun is logged. Lost or stolen? File a report online. If anything, such a system would be a boon to FFLs, who act as service providers on every transaction.

[Johnny P]

3691 homicides in Chicago during Obama's 2 terms as President. Other than a weekend body count was this ever even a concern? You can well imagine how effective background checks would have been there.

[blackhawknj]

I ask what are the safeguards against false and malicious information being put into the database ? An arrest with charges dismissed-or an acquittal. People with common or similar names ? Somebody entering bad data?

[Vern Humphrey]

I ask what are the safeguards against false and malicious information being put into the database ? An arrest with charges dismissed-or an acquittal. People with common or similar names ? Somebody entering bad data?

There are no safeguards. The aim is to do away with safeguards and civil rights.

[togor]

I ask what are the safeguards against false and malicious information being put into the database ? An arrest with charges dismissed-or an acquittal. People with common or similar names ? Somebody entering bad data?

Let me say I'm not endorsing this database, just pointing out that such a thing is now easily technically feasible. I'm one of those old guys who doesn't trust the totalitarian state! The questions you're asking today currently apply to anyone filling out a 4473. The database I describe is focused more on the guns themselves, but with entries made only by authorized and licensed personnel. If that helps.

[RED]

So nobody has stepped forward to tell us how many past mass shootings would be avoided with the new laws....

The answer is NONE.