Backround checks for guns..A Question for you

sostoobad

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
155
0
Boston
I have done a little poll locally and I haven't found one person not one who is against background checks for gun purchases.

Then why did our most of our nefarious lawmakers vote NOT to have them.

Could it be they are in the pocket of the NRA:eek:
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
I have done a little poll locally and I haven't found one person not one who is against background checks for gun purchases.

Then why did our most of our nefarious lawmakers vote NOT to have them.

Could it be they are in the pocket of the NRA:eek:
Because we unfortunately have a lobby who believes that the United States Constitution ends at the 2nd Amendment to said Constitution.

BL.
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
709
FL
I have done a little poll locally and I haven't found one person not one who is against background checks for gun purchases.

Then why did our most of our nefarious lawmakers vote NOT to have them.

Could it be they are in the pocket of the NRA:eek:
If you purchase a gun from a licensed firearms dealer either at a gun show or at a store you have to have a background check. So what specifically do you think is lacking in background checks? Are you talking about private sale?

The problem with our politicians is they can't craft a bill just dealing with strengthening background checks. If they did it would of had lot better chance of passing. Instead they throw way to much into the bill like limit cartridge capacity, banning certain firearms and so on which ultimately makes the bill as a whole less appealing to some politicians.

This is the same thing that happened with ACA and even with a democratic majority it took a lot of back room dealing and arm twisting to get it passed. Currently this is the same thing happening with immigration. It has become an all or nothing. Instead of breaking the bill into multiple parts, straightening boarders, streaming/improving immigration to the US and what to do with the current illegals in this country that are trying to put it all into one huge immigration reform bill which looks like currently it is going nowhere.
 

sostoobad

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
155
0
Boston
I may be missing something wasn't there a big vote like 5 months ago and required background checks were denied ?

I do believe private party does not have background checks, which is nuts.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
This is the same thing that happened with ACA and even with a democratic majority it took a lot of back room dealing and arm twisting to get it passed. Currently this is the same thing happening with immigration. It has become an all or nothing. Instead of breaking the bill into multiple parts, straightening boarders, streaming/improving immigration to the US and what to do with the current illegals in this country that are trying to put it all into one huge immigration reform bill which looks like currently it is going nowhere.
On the other side though breaking down immigration reform into separate bills makes it easier for the GOP to get the laws they want passed and stagnating on the bills the Dems want passed.

Then the Dems will stop voting for the GOP backed bills in good faith of the GOP coming to the table for the bills the Dems want passed. And we would be back in stagnation again.

I agree with what you are saying, but it won't change the political climate in dealing with these issues.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
There have been tens of millions of background checks via NICS since it was instituted. I don't know the exact number, but it's well above forty million.

Of those denied, some 350 or so were found to justify criminal charges. But, only some 35 or so were for illegalities with respect to firearms. The others were for other criminal acts.

35/350 out of tens of millions? Not much bang for the buck.

Federal testimony at one time or another has claimed that fewer than 2% of crime guns come from gun shows or other private sales. Some 85% or more were illegally obtained: Burglary, e.g., or borowed from a friend or relative by a prohibited person. The rest, commonly, were originally legally acquired and after some number of years of ownership, used in a crime.

Looks good on paper, sounds good in conversation, accomplishes little or nothing in reality.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,745
There have been tens of millions of background checks via NICS since it was instituted. I don't know the exact number, but it's well above forty million.

Of those denied, some 350 or so were found to justify criminal charges. But, only some 35 or so were for illegalities with respect to firearms. The others were for other criminal acts.

35/350 out of tens of millions? Not much bang for the buck.
Do you recall where you initially read that?
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
At one time I had the BATFE numbers for sales from 1993 to the beginning of NICS, and then the FBI''s NICS numbers to the end of 2012. 190 million total in that 20 years, is all I remember, offhand. Over ten million NICS, last year.

FWIW, in 1967 the estimate was somewhere around 200 million firearms in the US. Guesstimate maybe just three million per year from 1968-1993; that's 75 milllion, anyhow.

So, roughly 475 to 500 million firearms in the US, now.
 

sostoobad

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 5, 2011
155
0
Boston
There have been tens of millions of background checks via NICS since it was instituted. I don't know the exact number, but it's well above forty million.

Of those denied, some 350 or so were found to justify criminal charges. But, only some 35 or so were for illegalities with respect to firearms. The others were for other criminal acts.

35/350 out of tens of millions? Not much bang for the buck.

Federal testimony at one time or another has claimed that fewer than 2% of crime guns come from gun shows or other private sales. Some 85% or more were illegally obtained: Burglary, e.g., or borowed from a friend or relative by a prohibited person. The rest, commonly, were originally legally acquired and after some number of years of ownership, used in a crime.

Looks good on paper, sounds good in conversation, accomplishes little or nothing in reality.
If this is correct, this is why we need MUCH tougher laws for those who deal in illegal firearms or use them in a crime, how about life no parole.
Me thinks that would put a big stop to it, break into someones house with a gun…LIFE behind bars, sell stolen firearms, LIFE behind bars, we are way to soft on crime.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
If the death penalty is no deterrent, or the idea of ten to twenty years before any chance of parole is no deterrent, whatcha really expect?

Armed robbers and murderers generally aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. They don't think "consequences" nor "future". See/want/get.

Another problem: Money. I read an article about the court system in Queens, NY. They could (at that time) handle some 450 felony cases per year. Problem: Grand Jury indictments were over 4,500 per year--which is the reason for all those plea bargains.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,745
If this is correct, this is why we need MUCH tougher laws for those who deal in illegal firearms or use them in a crime, how about life no parole.
Me thinks that would put a big stop to it, break into someones house with a gun…LIFE behind bars, sell stolen firearms, LIFE behind bars, we are way to soft on crime.
Trying to enforce through stricter punishments has a long history of failure and basically misses the entire point of prisons. It's not as much about punishment as it is keeping that individual from affecting the rest of society. On a side note that's why they need better rehabilitation programs, especially for those who aren't serving life sentences.
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,833
Anchorage
I have done a little poll locally and I haven't found one person not one who is against background checks for gun purchases.
As mentioned before, background checks are required for all new firearm sales.

Then why did our most of our nefarious lawmakers vote NOT to have them.

Could it be they are in the pocket of the NRA:eek:
I am not an NRA member and I against background checks on personal sales. Oh no...
That must mean I'm a puppet of the NRA!!! :eek:
 
Last edited:

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,372
UK
As mentioned before, background checks are required for all new firearm sales.



I am not an NRA member and I against background checks on personal sales. Oh no...
That must mean I'm a puppet of the NRA!!! :eek:
Well you do think the NRA is too liberal...
 

EvilQueen

macrumors 6502
Aug 15, 2013
261
21
In my own world
I have done a little poll locally and I haven't found one person not one who is against background checks for gun purchases.

Then why did our most of our nefarious lawmakers vote NOT to have them.

Could it be they are in the pocket of the NRA:eek:
The problem is exactly how you are wording this question and it seems your perception.

The latest bill that failed was NOT simply to have background checks. Any weapon purchased from a dealer requires a background check. Most states require a check for a handgun bought from a private person. Many require checks if it's a shotgun from a private person. Making it all the same would be great.

The bill that failed was to add background checks to private sales. Like I sell my shotgun to my brother, he has to get a background check.

That's fine. Most don't have a problem with that. There were several things wrong with the bill though. One was how the background check was to be performed, who did it and who stored the records.

But the biggest thing wrong with the bill was all the other stuff in the bill. They didn't write a bill to add background checks. It banned some mags, it added other laws, it made a new committee and gave it a budget, it had money for advertising and marketing......tons of special interest crap in it that no one wanted. The background check would have passed. NRA even said they supported it, but not all the other crap in the bill.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's rifle. She had passed a background check.

Charles Whitman would have passed any background check as ever I've seen proposed.

So you pass a background check. Fine. Five years or so later, you go all bonkers. Fat lot of good, eh? Or you somehow raise a teenager who's been all normal, until...

Waste of time and money.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,605
The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's rifle. She had passed a background check.

Charles Whitman would have passed any background check as ever I've seen proposed.

So you pass a background check. Fine. Five years or so later, you go all bonkers. Fat lot of good, eh? Or you somehow raise a teenager who's been all normal, until...

Waste of time and money.
So it's better to just hand guns legally to those 2 million denied in background checks?

Prevention is never a waste of time and money.
 

sjinsjca

macrumors 68020
Oct 30, 2008
2,058
395
I think we should have a background check for internet posters.

Just as Senator DiFi advocated, a Federal license should be required for enjoying a Constitutional right.
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
12,229
2,248
Sunny, Southern California
The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's rifle. She had passed a background check.

Charles Whitman would have passed any background check as ever I've seen proposed.

So you pass a background check. Fine. Five years or so later, you go all bonkers. Fat lot of good, eh? Or you somehow raise a teenager who's been all normal, until...

Waste of time and money.
Maybe like what the DMV does, you have to re-test etc ever "X" years in order to maintain the license?