Gun Control

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I hear conservatives often say "there is no gun show loophole"...

Loophole or not, that [a felon can buy a gun and nobody knows it happened] seems like an issue worth addressing.

The problem is you use imprecise language like "loophole". There is no loophole...

That made me laugh.

SB Shock, I'll respond to your list from further down in your post once I recompose myself.

[SB Shock]

That made me laugh.

SB Shock, I'll respond to your list from further down in your post once I recompose myself.

I'm sure we are all intrigued and are sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for you to ramble. Not sure why you feel the need to respond since you just wanted to hear some reasons why universal background checks are fought against. Personally, I would never go the private seller route because of the potential liability, but I can see the other side also.

[Kung Wu]

I once owned the DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince CD titled "He's the DJ, I'm the Rapper"

I think I was going through a rebellious phase.

Yup, you're gansta! So now we have an unregistered, strawman purchased firearm belonging to a gang member. Niiiiice.

[MoValley John]

Yup, you're gansta! So now we have an unregistered, strawman purchased firearm belonging to a gang member. Niiiiice.

I'm just a walking loophole.

[WstateU]

Not @Aargh:, but...

[MoValley John]

FB_IMG_1446211099505.jpg

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You haven't necessarily convinced me, but I appreciate the insight into the thought process.

1. Some people want the ability to be able to hand down their weapons to their children/relatives without government interference.

I believe universal background checks would make a small, but non-negligible reduction, in gun crime. I can respect the person who argues point #1, but I personally feel that the small inconvienence of a background check would be worth the public benefit. I think the difficulty of precisely quantifying the benefit leads many people to (mistakenly) discount it entirely.

2. Some fear that universal background checks will become a national gun registry and the government will show up at your doorstep someday.

I rarely support the slippery slope arguments, and this is no exception. If universal background checks are an improvement, lets implement them and then fight to stop any of the "next steps" that might go too far.

3. There are those who believe it none of the government business.

This is an easy one for me to disagree with. Start at the extreme as an example. Nobody in their right mind would say ownership of nuclear weapons is "none of the government’s business.” If Bill Gates wants to build a nuclear bomb, even if on his own property, sorry Bill, you just can’t do that. Now how about grenade launchers? Less obvious, but I would argue that the government is right to restrict these and know exactly who has them. Obviously guns are much further down the list, and much less obvious, but my opinion is that it is fully within the government’s realm to oversee guns. I respect those who are concerned about the government going too far, but once again, I don't want the slippery slope argument to stop us from going "far enough".

4. There is fear of some that their personal information will be compromised.

If background checks are already so common, then the personal information of most gun owners is already out there in government hands. I don't understand why expanding background checks to private sales would cause a significant increase to the overall level of compromise of folks personal information.

5. There is a belief that further restriction will be punitive to honest people, but ultimately doesn't affect the criminals because they will get weapons regardless

This point actually resonates with me. I agree we need to always balance the punitive effects of laws on good people vs the benefits. For example, if a new traffic law led to one less road fatality each year, but also caused average commute times for all Americans to double, I would argue the cost was simply too great relative to the benefit.

However, in the case of back ground checks, I guess my judgment is that the scale of "punitive effects on honest people" vs "positive restrictions on some criminals" leans toward the benefits being worth the costs. I just simply disagree that criminals will just get their guns regardless. Many will, but some won't. Any time you make something harder to obtain, some people just don't feel like jumping the extra hurdle, and that something becomes a little less common.

6. There is realization by those who believe in the 2nd amendment, that those who push these new restrictions real agenda is no guns and they are working to incrementally to reduce 2nd amendment rights because they can not hit the homerun of a complete ban - and therefore pro-2a will fight them at every turn because there will always be another "common sense" restriction that needs to be added.

This seems like the same argument as #2. Not all who push these new restrictions share that "real agenda" of no guns. Many truly just want to continue to tweak our system for the better, but in fairly small ways. If on a scale of 1 to 10, 5 is ideal, I'd hate to think we would argue that we should stay at a 3 so as to avoid getting any closer to the desires of those who want a 10.



Thanks again for the list.

[MoValley John]

What will the backgtound checks accomplish? What criteria will the government use to prohibit gun ownership? What type of due process will an individual have should he be unfairly deemed unfit to own a gun?

Until these questions are answered completely, we are at an impasse. So far, all I hear is the word reasonable gun control. I think just about everyone would agree with that, but those proposing "reasonable" gun control have not defined what is reasonable and they haven't expressed the scope in which background checks well be conducted.

[MoValley John]

In other words, they want to ban high capacity "clips" but don't agree on how many rounds is high capacity. They want to ban assault rifles, yet my neighbor's deer rifle wiuld be included in the ban.

In the end, they say nothing about shotguns, but I could do more damage in close confinement with a shotgun than any firearm currently being targeted.

[MoValley John]

https://youtu.be/E8niD-n0lHk

[MoValley John]

https://youtu.be/VAejH9wnhzA

[MoValley John]

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/3-rounds-firequest-exploder-12-gauge-2-3-4-shotshells?a=680539

Here's some more wild stuff.

[pinstripers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKpfD_MECgE

[WstateU]

http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/187318-1/50cal_rifle_shot.gif

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In other words, they want to ban high capacity "clips" but don't agree on how many rounds is high capacity. They want to ban assault rifles, yet my neighbor's deer rifle wiuld be included in the ban.

In the end, they say nothing about shotguns, but I could do more damage in close confinement with a shotgun than any firearm currently being targeted.

I completely agree about the bans of X while allowing Y and Z. Most of those proposed laws make no sense and I'm not arguing for any of that in this thread.