What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

[JonNC]

attn.com/stories/8813/president-obama-addresses-gun-control?utm_source=beingliberal&utm_medium=fbpost&utm_campaign=influencer

Obama said that the U.S. needs “common sense” gun laws that allow citizens to own guns but also prevent the wrong people from getting access to them. He said that the only way to reach that balance is to have better conversations about gun laws that don’t result in arguments about the “destruction of the Second Amendment.”

The fallacy is in the president’s very language. “…‘Common sense’ in laws that allow citizens to own guns…” The constitution does not speak of gun ownership as something the government has the power to “allow”. The constitution protects the right of citizens to own firearms, a right antecedent to government.
So, the goal then is to prevent those who shouldn’t own guns (criminals, non-citizens, etc) and those who lack a mental capacity to own a firearm, from buying one. And great care must be taken regarding the latter because we must have an overwhelming reason to restrict a right the constitution says shall not be infringed.
To the extent that the NICS system can do that in conjunction with adjudication, it is a good idea. Beyond that, it can be used in a subversive way, such as recent attavks through the VA and Social security.

Jon

 

[Bonnie]

How do you classify sporting equipment then? Shooting is an Olympic sport, do not those athletes purchase their guns as tools?

Hunting is a sport, hunters purchase their firearms as tools to harvest game.

So I would say your point is in error, guns can be (and are) classified as tools.

All true. We use guns to put food on the table, tho I don’t consider it a sport. We also know a young woman who got a 4-yr scholarship because of her excellent marksmanship. I except to see her in the Olympics one day. Which would be so cool! :clapping:

 

[jesucated]

You’ve misunderstood the paradox.

Criminals are already breaking other gun laws, the ones proposed will only impact the law abiding in a negative way.

In order to make this claim you would have to demonstrate the laws currently on the books have the necessary reach to be effective and that gun owners would be negatively impacted (and to simply say that there would be background checks is automatically a negative impact would not make your case effectively, as such requirements are not inherently negative). Each of these needs an argument.

 

[JonNC]

In order to make this claim you would have to demonstrate the laws currently on the books have the necessary reach to be effective and that gun owners would be negatively impacted (and to simply say that there would be background checks is automatically a negative impact would not make your case effectively, as such requirements are not inherently negative). Each of these needs an argument.

Actually I think the obligation is on those who want stricter background checks to prove that they will not have a negative effect on the law-abiding, since we are talking about an enumerated right that cannot be infringed.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No background checks should be required for any sort of gun sale for the following reasons.

1. Criminals who are the ostensible targets of this law will not be affected by it.

They will if sellers of guns abide by the law. The criminals who want to buy guns would have no choice but to comply. Sure, they could get guns some other way, but not as easily as just going to the store and buying it. The law need not be perfect to be effective. It just has to deter enough gun sales to criminals to make it worthwhile.

1. The intent of these laws is to harass, intimidate, and inconvenience lawful gun owners.

Pure speculation with no evidence to support that as the intent.

1. Simply transferring a firearm does not create a victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime.

That same argument could be made regarding the simple transfer of a firearm to a criminal. There may not be a victim immediately, but if the criminal uses the gun later in the commission of a crime, the victim of that crime would also be a victim of the transfer of the gun.

1. Selling a firearm to a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm is already a crime. Anyone selling a firearm has enough incentive to ensure that they are not giving weapons to criminals.

Without a background check, the seller has no way of knowing for sure if the buyer is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. So the seller may have the incentive, but not the means to know who should not have a gun.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually I think the obligation is on those who want stricter background checks to prove that they will not have a negative effect on the law-abiding, since we are talking about an enumerated right that cannot be infringed.

Jon

Evidence for that already exists, here, and here, and here. Oh, there is this too.

 

[Brendan]

They will if sellers of guns abide by the law. The criminals who want to buy guns would have no choice but to comply. Sure, they could get guns some other way, but not as easily as just going to the store and buying it. .

Or they can just buy one on the streets, or have a legal friend purchase one for them, which is what they are doing already.

The US Dept of Justice did a study of over 200,000 criminals. What would constitute legal sales only accounted for 14% of the firearms used.

The other 76% came either from black-market street sales, theft or ‘straw purchases’ (where the criminal contracts with a person who is capable of passing a background check make the actual purchase and then transfer the firearm (illegally) to the criminal.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Table 8 has the relevant data

And then, there is also the ‘make your own’ option, sort of like how drug addicts get Meth
, but easier to do, and with cheaper and fully legal raw materials

Here are the plans for a British STEN sub-machine gun.The British designed this to be cheaply built in local garage shops fromthetrenchesworldrepor…structions.pdf

it can be build with equipment from a local hardware store. The skills necessary are commonly taught in US high school ‘shop’ classes. The raw material is steel that you can get an any junk yard

If someone chose to build one (or a dozen or a hundred), how would the police know to confiscate it? Would police simply just conduct regular searches of every house, looking for drills, files and band saws?

The ammo is even easier to put together.

In Palestine under post WW-II British rule, the Zionists had a shop that produced hundreds of Stens and 100’s of thousands rounds of ammo. They did it the basement of a laundry shop that served British officers ( the same officers in charge of keeping the Zionists from getting arms at all). The noise of the clothes dryers covered up the noise of the workers in the basement, with British officers coming and going all day long

Yes, right now it is easier to get them off of street sales, or straw purchases. But even if civilian ownership was 100 prohibited, the criminals would still have them, and with no more difficulty than getting getting some Meth or crack cocaine, probably easier.

 

[RPRPsych]

How do you classify sporting equipment then? Shooting is an Olympic sport, do not those athletes purchase their guns as tools?

Hunting is a sport, hunters purchase their firearms as tools to harvest game.

So I would say your point is in error, guns can be (and are) classified as tools.

Good point. You are right.

 

[JonNC]

Evidence for that already exists, here, and here, and here. Oh, there is this too.

I’ll read through these in time, but with all this "evidence ", it seems no more need be done. I am not opposed to background checks, as long as the law abiding are not inconvenienced, names are not kept in a file as a de facto federal registry, and any denial requires an adjudicated reason, or foreign status. IOW, for American citizens, the burden of proof is on the government if they intend to confiscate an enumerated right.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Or they can just buy one on the streets, or have a legal friend purchase one for them, which is what they are doing already.

The US Dept of Justice did a study of over 200,000 criminals. What would constitute legal sales only accounted for 14% of the firearms used.

14% is not great, but it’s something. Also there is this: Of the 76% that the criminal did not buy legally, how many of those guns were purchased by some other criminal, and then resold? Having good background checks might impact some of the 76% too.

And then, there is also the ‘make your own’ option, sort of like how drug addicts get Meth…

It may be possible to make your own gun. But it certainly would be easier to just buy one, if you can. A very determined criminal may very well undertake that extra effort, but how many criminals are “borderline” without that much determination? If we could prevent those crimes it would be a help to all, even if we could not prevent all gun crimes.

But even if civilian ownership was 100 prohibited, the criminals would still have them, and with no more difficulty than getting getting some Meth or crack cocaine, probably easier.

It is really that easy, compared to making meth? I don’t mean the equivalent of a 17th century rifle, but something that would be like modern firearms.

 

[GEddie]

I think a large number of would-be criminals would forgo the use of guns, or crimes requiring them, if they had to risk blowing their hands off by using a homemade weapon.

No need to risk the hands when you can buy a good weapon in an unsecured sale.

ICXC NIKA

 

[FrDavid96]

Since it has come up again in this thread … The “lawbreakers paradox” (e.g., criminals don’t follow laws, so why have them) is not a real argument. This reasoning could be applied to argue against any law, and to absurd ends.

While it cannot be applied to every law, it does apply to this issue.

The supposed purpose of gun control laws is to keep guns away from criminals. The gun-control folks keep denying that it’s their intention to keep guns from law-abiding citizens.

That’s what makes it a valid argument: because the law does not achieve what the advocates want to pretend it’s going to achieve. Instead, the real result of these laws is to harass and intimidate people who have no intention of becoming violent criminals.

A background check is only effective against those who are already identified as criminals (or at least potential ones, in the case of those who commit other, minor violations).

This is not the same thing as saying “why have speeding laws if we know people are going to violate them.” In that case, we’re only talking about one offense. So yes, if we have speeding laws, only speeders will speed; but that does not mean we should eliminate such laws. In the background check issue, though, we’re talking about people who have already proven themselves to be lawbreakers by committing some other crime first. Expecting such people to abide by one law after they’ve already self-identified as lawbreakers is the real absurdity.

 

[Robert_Sock]

My gripe about guns centers not so much on the risk of homicide, but suicide. Many people feel that they are too strong mentally to become suicidal. But the statistics of self-inflicted gun shot wound to end one’s life is staggering.

My personal with suicidal wishes came suddenly one day when I had a panic attack. During the panic attack my mind narrowed to such a degree that I could not think about anything but wanting to die. People will counter my experience that if I did not have a gun I could kill myself a thousand and one other ways, but I counter this type of thinking by saying that my desire to die not last long at all, and the panic attack relented. If I had a gun handy, I might not be here today, and by the time I planned out another means to kill myself, the panic attack would have subsided and my suicidal wished to boot.

The fact is that anybody can be driven to suicide and having a gun at hand makes things too easy. Very often the urge to commit suicide is short-lived and whether a person has a gun handy makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Brendan]

It is really that easy, compared to making meth? I don’t mean the equivalent of a 17th century rifle, but something that would be like modern firearms.

14% is not great, but it’s something. Also there is this: Of the 76% that the criminal did not buy legally, how many of those guns were purchased by some other criminal, and then resold? Having good background checks might impact some of the 76% too.

By some other criminal, probably none or very, very few. What is done is that you pay someone who CAN pass a background check to buy one for you. That is called a ‘straw purchase’. By definition, in a straw purchase, the background check does matter, as the person actually in the gun store is can pass such a check.

Straw purchases are already illegal, but that doesn’t matter to the end purchaser.

The person that made the purchase simply reports the gun as have been stolen, and the police do not have a case to charge them with.

It is really that easy, compared to making meth? I don’t mean the equivalent of a 17th century rifle, but something that would be like modern firearms

I’ve made 17th century firearms; making a Sten submachine gun would be a LOT easier. Unlike the flintlocks I’ve made, I cannot just go to the store for things like springs. A Sten uses springs that are available in any good hardware store. Likewise for the screws, tube steel is common etc… The plans that I linked to even has suggestions for how to use things like fence post caps as the receiver end. Certainly not pretty, but I don’t think that pretty counts for much for the clientele that we are talking about

Remember that Sten that I linked to was specifically designed to be manufactured in garages.

I could have one built in about 3 days. If I wanted to mass produce them, I could probably get it down to several per week, just by myself in my garage with common tools.

I could not build a flintlock in such short of a time.

And unlike Meth, where the source material is illegal, everything that I am talking about here is readily available in a good hardware store.

 

[FrDavid96]

14% is not great, but it’s something. Also there is this: Of the 76% that the criminal did not buy legally, how many of those guns were purchased by some other criminal, and then resold? Having good background checks might impact some of the 76% too.

Really? Please read what you wrote there.

Your scenario “purchased by some other criminal and then resold” (your words) actually makes me laugh. Do you seriously believe the those people are going to contact the FBI and say “I am a convicted felon who has a gun I don’t need anymore. I am going to sell this gun to my friend, who’s also a convicted felon. We’re going to sit here and wait for you to get back to us with an answer.”

I mean really, do you actually believe that such a thing would happen?

Given the lack of sense by so many criminals, I’ll grant you that it just might happen. Maybe once out of every 10 million times.

It may be possible to make your own gun. But it certainly would be easier to just buy one, if you can. A very determined criminal may very well undertake that extra effort, but how many criminals are “borderline” without that much determination? If we could prevent those crimes it would be a help to all, even if we could not prevent all gun crimes.

I can’t see what point you’re trying to make here.

It is really that easy, compared to making meth? I don’t mean the equivalent of a 17th century rifle, but something that would be like modern firearms.

No, it’s not easy. It requires special stock and special tools to make a modern functioning firearm. It also takes quite a bit of specialized training. Yes, almost anyone can make some “thing” that might (just might) fire one bullet one time. But to make a truly functioning firearm requires too much materials and work to be practical.

On the other hand, most parts can be purchased openly (w/o any background checks and w/o drawing much attention).

The fact that this sort of thing just isn’t happening almost proves that for criminals, it’s just not worth it. Safe to say that if it were easy, they’d be doing it already.

*Edit: * I just saw Brendan’s post. I’m not trying to argue a point. I’m saying that it’s relative. If one is asking about something that could be compared to a good-quality manufactured modern firearm—comparable in quality and reliability, then no. Of course I don’t mean to say that “nothing” could be made, just that it wouldn’t be anywhere near the equivalent.

 

[Brendan]

No, it’s not easy. It requires special stock and special tools to make a modern functioning firearm. It also takes quite a bit of specialized training. Yes, almost anyone can make some “thing” that might (just might) fire one bullet one time. But to make a truly functioning firearm requires too much materials and work to be practical. .

Fr David, see my above link on the Sten. Yes, to make something with a rifled barrel, you need some specialized tools, but a fully automatic submachine gun is actually not all that hard.

It does require some knowledge of machine tools, but no more so than the chem knowledge needed to synth Meth.

A good high school shop class and a bit of experience, and access to a Lowes or Home Depot is all you need.

The advantage is has over a flintlock ( I have made several from scratch), is that most of the hard work is done for you. Outside of the rifling, the spring is the hardest part. Flintlock springs are not something you can purchase in a local hardware store. They are forged, heat treated and them annealed and then case hardended. I always break a few springs before I get it right. For a sub machine gun,… Aisle 4 in my local Lowes

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David, see my above link on the Sten. Yes, to make something with a rifled barrel, you need some specialized tools, but a fully automatic submachine gun is actually not all that hard.

It does require some knowledge of machine tools, but no more so than the chem knowledge needed to synth Meth.

A good high school shop class and a bit of experience, and access to a Lowes or Home Depot is all you need.

The advantage is has over a flintlock ( I have made several from scratch), is that most of the hard work is done for you. Outside of the rifling, the spring is the hardest part. Flintlock springs are not something you can purchase in a local hardware store. They are forged, heat treated and them annealed and then case hardended. I always break a few springs before I get it right. For a sub machine gun,… Aisle 4 in my local Lowes

And as I wrote: one could make a home-made firearm, but it would not be comparable in quality and reliability to a modern manufactured one.

I’m not saying the Sten cannot be made. I am saying that it would not be comparable in quality and reliability.

You just wrote that it would not have a rifled barrel—therefore it would not be comparable in quality because a rifled barrel is better quality than a smooth bore.

I think it’s also safe to say that it would not be as reliable as a manufactured one. Would you disagree there?

 

[Brendan]

Here is another set of plans that even includes a ‘trace and cut’ template for the parts. Sure, a computer aided water cutter would be nice, but a bit of skill with a band saw ( the WW-II method) will certainly do the job.

replicaplans.com/StenSMG.html

 

[mikekle]

The middle ground is to have a background check whether it’s a private transfer or a retail sale. Why should a known felon be allowed to acquire a gun in a private transfer when he couldn’t acquire one in a gun shop?

Thats getting into dangerous territory if they would try to regulate private/ classified ad type sales.

 

[mikekle]

And as I wrote: one could make a home-made firearm, but it would not be comparable in quality and reliability to a modern manufactured one.

I’m not saying the Sten cannot be made. I am saying that it would not be comparable in quality and reliability.

You just wrote that it would not have a rifled barrel—therefore it would not be comparable in quality because a rifled barrel is better quality than a smooth bore.

I think it’s also safe to say that it would not be as reliable as a manufactured one. Would you disagree there?

This is actually a bigger problem that most think, I watched a news piece about ‘ghost guns’. People who are skilled at using machine tools and metal working equipment are making guns. and they have ZERO identification or numbers on them.

The people they interviewed showed how easy it is to make a basic semi auto handgun if you have the right tools/ equipment, these folks said they sell them for $50. and can crank out about 200 per week.

Id imagine this has been going on for years if not decades, hard to imagine how many of these guns are out there!