Revolvers for Everyone!

[HelenaMT]

The question concerned whether or not background checks are useful. I say that they are.

They are useful for real dealers who account for the majority of gun sales in the country, unnecessarily cumbersome and restrictive for people who want to leave guns to their children, or spouses, friends, etc.

Do you really think a shady person who wants to make a buck and sell to a criminal would abide by the extra law? Why wouldn’t he just do it anyway, since there are no records on the black market ?

 

[royal_archer]

But according to the gun owners here, it is not just at the gun shows where this loophole of no id, no background check and no registration exists. It also exists at Dunkin Donuts. And if this loophole exists at Dunkin Donuts, it also exists at many other places, such as Church halls for example.

It isn’t a loop hole it is a deliberate exemption.

 

[royal_archer]

I disagree. If you see that a person is a criminal and has killed several people already, then I would not want him to be able to buy more guns. According to the Dunkin Donut loophole, he would be able to do just that either at Dunkin Donut or at a gunshow, with not id, and no background check.

If someone is a serial killer the government should be throwing them in jail, not harrassing law abiding citizens who are exchanging tools with other law abiding citizens.

 

[royal_archer]

The question concerned whether or not background checks are useful. I say that they are.

What would be more useful would be to allow gun shops and dealers to profile and discriminate against those who they believe to be engaged in criminal activity with out fear of a lawsuit.

It would also help to link background checks to drivers licenses and not license people to opperate a deadly weapon such as a car or truck if they can not be trusted with other weapons.

 

[Zatzat]

It would be very difficult for me to carry a rifle or a shotgun around as a self defense weapon. They’re not exactly easily portable, unless I slung it over my shoulder, which might look a little odd away from the gun range (not to mention, an obvious target for a mugger). A handgun is easily concealable, and harder for an assailant to take away. It’s also faster to access and fire. These things are vital for self defense in an outside- of- the- home setting.

Where ever you live, the fact that you have to think about this kind of thing, it sounds really, really, really dangerous.

 

[chriso]

I disagree. If you see that a person is a criminal and has killed several people already, then I would not want him to be able to buy more guns. According to the Dunkin Donut loophole, he would be able to do just that either at Dunkin Donut or at a gunshow, with not id, and no background check.

Whoa there Sid, now you took another hard left and skipped over several traffic lanes to get to this topic! Its already illegal for convicted criminals to own or possess firearms. What about ENFORCING the EXISTING laws banning felons from owning firearms? What about ENFORCING EXISTING laws regarding friends and family doing “straw purchases” for their convicted families? (I assume when you say “has killed several people already” you mean “convicted” right?) What about enforcing existing laws multiplying penalties for criminals convicted of second or third armed offenses? No, the “gun-o-phobics” want to take away my rights, but dont want to dirty themselves with the task of enforcing existing laws as a deterent for those of the criminal mindset.

Do you really think any lawful gun owner wants to get roped into a criminal investigation resulting from their purchase or sale of a firearm? No way… everyone I know who buys or sells guns privately takes pains to ensure that they have proof of when they bought and sold, and to whom… its just plain old “cover your backside” common sense. Most of these instances you’re talking about arent because of “loopholes” they’re because of illegal activities, which in many gun owners common opinions, are not even marginally enforced due to a “bleeding heart liberal mentality” but which seem to sound so well when stirring folks up to take away my rights to own and carry firearms.

 

[chriso]

Where ever you live, the fact that you have to think about this kind of thing, it sounds really, really, really dangerous.

Its a really, really, really dangerous world out there! Last month I left the local mall after having dinner with my family, only 15 minutes prior to a "gangland’ type execution took place within 30 yards of where we were eating with the kids. Illegally obtained guns, mutliple previous convictions, minimal penalties on all occurences, both individuals back on the streets again with little or no follow up to confirm they were truly re-habilitated.

I happen to resent having to think these kind of “dangerous” thoughts as you mention, all the while knowing that vast amounts of criminals are getting of with nothing more than a slap on the wrist due to lack of enforcement of existing laws. And the tender souled gunophobics, rather than address that, want to take away the few tools I have available to me to defend myself and my family should we ever linger 15 minutes too long over dinner…

 

[sidbrown]

It isn’t a loop hole it is a deliberate exemption.

You can call it whatever you want. It is deterimental to the safety and well being of the average law abinding civilian not to require an id or background check when a gun or assault weapon is purchased.

 

[royal_archer]

You can call it whatever you want. It is deterimental to the safety and well being of the average law abinding civilian not to require an id or background check when a gun or assault weapon is purchased.

It is detrimental to society when someone who would fail a background check is let loose on the public by a flawed legal system.

Your trying to fix the wrong problem.

 

[Lycorth]

It is detrimental to society when someone who would fail a background check is let loose on the public by a flawed legal system.

Your trying to fix the wrong problem.

Indeed. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to all the anti-gun fanatics of why do they oppose cracking down on criminals and criminal culture?

I live in a quiet little town of 1300. It’s a place where you can leave things unlocked and no one bothers them. Recently, a fourth-grader had his skull caved in by a gang of punks who held him down at the throat with a pipe and used a brick and fists on him. The police, of course, are doing nothing, though they know precisely who is guilty. The police even mentioned in the local paper that they are not on duty during certain hours, meaning that now the local drug dealers know when to open up shop.

This is why we need our firearms rights and why we need handguns.

 

[sidbrown]

Indeed. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to all the anti-gun fanatics of why do they oppose cracking down on criminals and criminal culture?.

Where is the verification that all anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals or are you full of codswallop?

 

[chriso]

Where is the verification that all anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals or are you full of codswallop?

Where is the willingness on the parts of folks like yourself, to join with us first in ensuring the existing laws are enforced and see if we are correct in our theory that this will have such an efect on crime that you wont feel the need to lock away our guns?

 

[Shin]

Yes…

Turning to more and more laws that can only restrain the lawabiding in an attempt to fix problems that are rooted in other sources is a grave error of worship of government…

Criminals yes… do not obey laws. Laws that are not enforced strictly and thoroughly do not affect criminals. But they do affect the law abiding.

When the law abiding have all their freedom taken by many many laws, so that police can pick and choose who to arrest and who to allow to continue to be a criminal, then the criminals are truly in charge of the government.

And of course these criminals will wish to perpetuate their power by propagandizing the people to create more and more laws as the solutions to their problems.

 

[sidbrown]

Where is the willingness on the parts of folks like yourself, to join with us first in ensuring the existing laws are enforced and see if we are correct in our theory that this will have such an efect on crime that you wont feel the need to lock away our guns?

I see that you do not want to answer the question or give any support to your assertion that all anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals. Unless you can support this, it is seen as another false claim by the gun lobby.

 

[chriso]

I see that you do not want to answer the question or give any support to your assertion that all anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals. Unless you can support this, it is seen as another false claim by the gun lobby.

I actually dont recall making that assertation you credit me with (though it wouldnt surprise me to find it was true that ALL anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals) I merely proposed the solution that if you and others who feel so strongly as you do, were to join first in fixing and enforcing whats already in place maybe you’d find my guns arent so scary afterall. I made no false claim.

 

[royal_archer]

I see that you do not want to answer the question or give any support to your assertion that all anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals. Unless you can support this, it is seen as another false claim by the gun lobby.

Your posting here is evidence. If you really want to keep criminals from getting weapons, go advocate for keeping criminals in jail and not for the disarmament of innocent civilians.

 

[sidbrown]

I actually dont recall making that assertation you credit me with (though it wouldnt surprise me to find it was true that ALL anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals) I merely proposed the solution that if you and others who feel so strongly as you do, were to join first in fixing and enforcing whats already in place maybe you’d find my guns arent so scary afterall. I made no false claim.

You are right and I was wrong on this. It was Lycorth in post number 688 who made the statement. I noticed though that you had commented on my remarks to Lycorth on this.
Anyway, I have to apologise to you personally as the statement did come from someone else and not you.

 

[Lycorth]

Where is the verification that all anti-gun fanatics are opposed to cracking down on criminals or are you full of codswallop?

Your posts on this thread, for one. That, and no one who support gun control also supports criminal control and criminal culture control. It’s all about disarming the law-abiding and banning inanimate objects instead of having the guts to say that people and the culture they create that are the problems.

So, why do you not support cracking down on criminals and criminal culture?

 

[sidbrown]

Your posts on this thread, for one. That, and no one who support gun control also supports criminal control and criminal culture control. It’s all about disarming the law-abiding and banning inanimate objects instead of having the guts to say that people and the culture they create that are the problems.

So, why do you not support cracking down on criminals and criminal culture?

Your question and comment is ridiculous.

 

[chriso]

You are right and I was wrong on this. It was Lycorth in post number 688 who made the statement. I noticed though that you had commented on my remarks to Lycorth on this.
Anyway, I have to apologise to you personally as the statement did come from someone else and not you.

I hate like crazy to let you off any kind of hook I gan get on you in this discourse! But, thanks for straightening that out, no apology necessary!