today on MHP

[Duckhunter935]

The panacea of background checks. Overall a good thing, but she brought up the Philadelphia police officer shooting several times. Interesting she never happened to mention where the gun came from. It was a stolen police weapon that was used and once again, a background check would not have done a thing. It is so dishonest to not tell the whole story. Do discuss. I would really love to hear from the pro control side that lurks and follows my postings.

[SecularMotion]

1. What's dishonest is using this one example

to argue against all background checks.

[Duckhunter935]

2. as I have said many times

And I am sure you have read. I am for background checks, I have no issues with UBC. So what you said would be incorrect. I just pointed out the media puts out half truths and makes it seem like background checks will fix most if not all of the gun deaths. I correctly point out it might make some impact but very small.

Here is a challenge for you. Tell me which of the spree shooters got their weapons legally after a background check and how many would have been prevented even under the expanded ones under the presidents executive actions? Tell me if a background check would have prevented the Philadelphia police officer shooting? Why did she use this particular incident in reference to background checks when it was stolen from the police and had nothing to do with background checks. It is done to push the background check panacea to low information people.

[SecularMotion]

3. You just said you supported background checks

and then proceeded to argue against their effectiveness.

[Duckhunter935]

4. yes, because it is true

I am sure background checks are a good thing but I also am not afraid to state that they will not help much more than they are doing now. Every news channel and pro control person seems to think they will stop most if not a majority of the gun violence. Not true and you can not admit that fact.

I see you did not answer any of my questions and turned it to only try to attack me.

Will you please answer my question?
What spree shooting would have been stopped with a background check?
Would the Philadelphia shooting have been stopped by a background check?
How many suicides would be prevented by a background check?

[SecularMotion]

6. Your claims are ridiculous and your questions are irrelevant.

No one thinks that background checks "will stop most if not a majority of the gun violence"

[Duckhunter935]

7. but that how the pundits

On TV pass it off. That is ok, we do not have to agree. And the real reason you refuse to answer those questions posed by me is it would prove that I am correct. We know you are afraid to admit that fact.

[flamin lib]

10. I'll offer a counter question.

How many intersection collisions are prevented by stop signs?

Considering that there are still intersection collisions perhaps we don't need to upgrade some stop signs to stop lights.

That, Ducky, is the essence of your argument.

[Duckhunter935]

11. many collisions are stopped

Not all will ever be stopped. I actually think there are more collisions at stop lights myself. Of course I am not calling for background checks to be removed. I also admit that adding stoplights at intersections will not prevent anyone from running them if they do not obey the law.

[flamin lib]

12. No, Ducky, admit it. Your arguments are specious.

Case in point. Here in my city stoplight cameras were installed and tickets issued based on photo evidence of running stop lights. Collisions at major intersections dropped 30% in a few months. Using the same "logic" of your arguments (won't prevent all collisions and not enforceable because the County would not impound cars with outstanding stoplight tickets) the law was repealed.

Cameras were already paid for and the revenue from enforcement paid for maintenance and added to city coffers. But that didn't make any difference to the batshit crazy teabagger city council. Like you they adhered to their own special kind of "logic".

[Duckhunter935]

13. this is about background checks, nice try at

Trying to thread jack. Why don't you answer my questions to SM'S as he is afraid to answer them. Let's stay on the subject please.

[DonP]

8. Your case could be bolstered by an example or two ...

... that show us how BC have been used to find and arrest criminals trying to buy a gun illegally or a straw purchase that a BC discovered?

You're so "good" at Google, there must be thousands of examples to shut up any one who dares to doubt you, right?

[Duckhunter935]

9. my guess is he will not respond

Or attack you and try and change the subject. I too am waiting for the many Google stories he will post in response to your challenge.

[DonP]

14. He posted more in this thread than in his own group for a month n/t

[Duckhunter935]

15. I know, lol

And when he can not provide any facts that dispute mine, he runs away. Not to mention the other poster tries to change the subject.

[GGJohn]

5. You can support background checks while detailing the reasons why they're ineffetive,

it's done all the time with other issues.

[krispos42]

16. Says the anecdote king.

Oy vey.

[Duckhunter935]

19. yes, indeed so

[branford]

17. I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal.

I support them because most gun sales already have them, they're usually performed within minutes and add no significant administrative burden, time or expense to the transaction, and it mostly eliminates the need to define who is a "dealer" under the BATFE rules.

However, UBC's are still a solution in search of a problem. They would not have stopped any of the mass shooting over the last decade or two, nor the vast majority of all other gun crime, accidents, or suicide. Calls for UBC's in response to such shootings are totally disingenuous, and little more than "not letting a crisis go to waste." That's why proposed UBC legislation is almost always combined with other gun control wish list items like "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits, and similarly the reason why such legislation is rejected out of hand.

Gun rights proponent are not stupid. We recognize a strategy of incrementalism by gun control advocates. Just as abortion rights advocates always (and quite correctly) strenuously oppose all seeming minor and ancillary abortion "safety" regulations because they know the intent of the sponsors and their ultimate goals, it's entirely unsurprising that many gun right advocates react the same way to "gun safety" proposals, particularly when advocated by the same people who routinely and historically have demanded far greater restrictions on firearms, including both President Obama and Secretary Clinton and their support for the Australian system as a model for American gun control, i.e., prohibition and confiscation.

[Duckhunter935]

18. good response, thank you

I agree with what you posted.

[branford]

20. As a purely practical matter, I believe UBC's are chip I could see being bargained away

in any legislative compromise concerning guns.

For instance, I would agree to UBC's, national firearm safety and proficiency standards and training, and even greater national restrictions on open carry outside of situations like hunting. However, in return I would demand concealed carry reciprocity which totally preempts state and local regulation, similar to how a driver's license from any state is good everywhere in the USA.

Simply, I would ensure than any gun "safety" regulations are offset with reasonable and moderate pro-gun rights proposals. Any attempts at incrementalism would be thwarted because the legislative "balance" of gun rights would effectively remain the same.

Unfortunately, this is likely the same reason why gun control advocates would never agree. It's become readily apparent that many gun control advocates have made the perfect the enemy of the good, and don't understand that comprise actually means offering things that your opponent wants and cannot otherwise achieve. When the majority of the gun control camp realizes than wanting severe firearm restrictions, and willing to settle for slightly less severe restrictions, is not compromise, but demands for surrender, and particularly ludicrous when they lack the political capital or judicial strength to pass anything at all, maybe we'll be able to discuss effective means to reduce gun violence. I'm not confident this will occur any time soon.

[beevul]

27. Bargained? Yes.

For instance, I would agree to UBC's, national firearm safety and proficiency standards and training, and even greater national restrictions on open carry outside of situations like hunting. However, in return I would demand concealed carry reciprocity which totally preempts state and local regulation, similar to how a driver's license from any state is good everywhere in the USA.

Bargained? Yes. Bargained away cheaply? Not just no, but HELL NO. Lets not forget, that while we are talking about dickering with a constitutionally protected civil liberty, we are also talking about a huge intrusion into personal private property rights (which could be argued to be another equally important equally fundamental civil liberty). Its easy to lose sight of that, particularly for those who have no interest in the property in question, and especially for those who are against ownership of that sort of property (note: this is not directed at you, and is a just a general statement).

That requires a very large 'counterweight', in my view.

Simply, I would ensure than any gun "safety" regulations are offset with reasonable and moderate pro-gun rights proposals. Any attempts at incrementalism would be thwarted because the legislative "balance" of gun rights would effectively remain the same.

That's what needs to happen, I agree.

Unfortunately, this is likely the same reason why gun control advocates would never agree. It's become readily apparent that many gun control advocates have made the perfect the enemy of the good, and don't understand that comprise actually means offering things that your opponent wants and cannot otherwise achieve. When the majority of the gun control camp realizes than wanting severe firearm restrictions, and willing to settle for slightly less severe restrictions, is not compromise, but demands for surrender, and particularly ludicrous when they lack the political capital or judicial strength to pass anything at all, maybe we'll be able to discuss effective means to reduce gun violence. I'm not confident this will occur any time soon.

Spot on.

[hlthe2b]

21. There is NO logic in the position that no gun measure is worth considering unless 100% effective in

ALL circumstances...

If the extremists among the pro-gun side were anything than disingenuous, they would acknowledge that NO safety intervention ever undertaken is 100% effective in all cases.

Not seat belts
Not infant car seats
Not airbags
Not eye protection
Not bullet-proof vests
Not flotation devices
Not vaccines
Not head phones
Not helmets
Not "fire-proof" clothing
Not bee-sting prophylaxis/anti-anaphylaxis kits
Not condoms
Not CO detectors
Not smoke detectors

and on and on and on and on....

To suggest we should do NOTHING in the face of the daily death toll from guns because no law and no protective intervention could be 100% effective in ALL cases is simply ludicrous (and dishonest).

[Duckhunter935]

22. so who is saying that?

Please post a link to one person here who wants to get rid of background checks. It is logical yo point out they will do very little and have done virtually nothing in all of the major incidents to include the latest Philadelphia police officer shooting. What is disingenuous is you stating that people are against any background checks.

[hlthe2b]

23. I won't give you the time it would take to spew back your gungeon posts... but they are there.

And, yes, by insisting that the PA police shooting must have been prevented by any new measures, YOU INDEED ARE DOING JUST THAT.

[Duckhunter935]

24. typical, just posting insults

You are aware the the police officer in Philadelphia was shot with a stolen police officers weapon right? So just what background check or new law would prevent that. Stop with the insults and try and think about basic facts. Have a great day.

Of course I did not say any new measure has to stop that. I correctly stated the background check panacea that some think they will stop most killings by firearms is wrong.

I also see you refuse to back up your claim that we are for no background checks. That is because it is not true and you can't and really should be embarrassed at making that false claim.

[branford]

25. Nice strawman argument.

No one here has suggested ending background checks or that any law must be 100% effective. Nevertheless, any proposed law, firearm or otherwise, must at least demonstrate a minimum threshold of effectiveness for its intended purpose and not unduly punish or restrict other innocent, law-abiding citizens.

Discussions about firearm regulation require at least a modicum of good faith. If gun control advocates continually suggest certain proposals such as UBC's in response to mass shootings, it hardly surprising that people expect evidence that such proposals will actually reduce or mostly eliminate mass shootings, all before considerations such as constitutionality or practical concerns of how such policies will impact innocent people.

Simply, UBC's would not have prevented ANY mass (and most, if not all, other high profile) shootings in the last few decades. This fact has even been admitted by the White House. If you claim UBC's are justified by mass shootings, such a proposal need not be 100% effective, but it certainly must be better than 0% effective!

If any firearm event simply engenders the same old wish list of gun control advocates, many of whom would prefer an effective civilian ban and confiscation of firearms (such as Obama's and Clinton's praise of the Australian model), regardless of the facts and circumstances of events purportedly underlining the proposals, evidence that the ideas haven't or will not work, and ignoring the needs and interests of tens of millions of their fellow Americans, such ideas will be met in the spirit and seriousness that they were offered, and summarily rejected.

If you want to restrict the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it is you who must demonstrate that your proposals are constitutional, broadly effective and actually address a specific problem, and don't unduly harm or restrict people who pose no thread. Ridiculous strawman arguments, attempts at emotional blackmail, and childish insults will not only lead to no further firearm regulations, but will serve to harden opposition to your ideas.

[beardown]

26. Generally, it's the anti-gunners that expect 100 percent effectiveness

A regular thread posted by anti-gunners is "ccw beat up" or "home owner shot by own gun" as proof guns are not effective for self defense.

Speaking of your 100 percent effective point.

Rough numbers and simple math.

Currently about 300 million guns in the nation.
Currently about 30,000 gun deaths a year, 2/3 or so which are suicides.

Chance a gun will be used to kill someone per year, .0001
Chance a gun will be used to kill someone other than the shooter (suicide), .00003

Gun deaths are trending down since the 1990's by about half.

Side question, how are head phones a safety device or did you mean ear protection devices?

Few here are suggesting to do nothing. Many are suggesting if you are going to do something then try and do something effective and not just for show, keep the solution within the Constitution, and don't make it just another incremental step to ban guns.

[Eleanors38]

28. And if they don't get it, they push another law! Makes perfect sense.