I'll Defend a Lonely Position on Guns

Well, lonely on ATS. Universal background checks.

A majority of gun owners support strengthening background checks. Pew Research Center

What's the point in making sure someone on the terrorist watch list or a violent felon can't pass a background check at a licensed firearm dealer, if they can find a private seller online and purchase a gun without one?

Here's what I'd like to see done. Currently if you buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, you are required to submit to a background check. The record of the sale is maintained by the dealer, (not the Government, for those who would float the idea of a national gun registry)

Why not expand this system to private sales? If a neighbor or someone online wants to buy my gun, they would just need to stop at a local dealer and get an NICS background check. I don't trust someone selling their gun to make rent to self police.

Since the enactment of the Brady Bill in 1994, more than 2 million gun sales have been denied to domestic abusers, convicted felons, and the mentally ill. How many of those just walked down the street to a private seller?

Sounds reasonable and responsible to this gun owner. Am I missing something?

a reply to: HighFive

I believe the private seller is required to collect information on the buyer, too.

Out of state sales have to go through a FFL holder, theres a commission, generally.

Still doesn't stop crime. A criminal mind will find a way, or be given one…

The fact is that ignorance and irrational behavior drive this nation. Polute,lie,steal and allow the masses to victimize and murder each other then make excuses for why we cant or should do anything about it. Sad state of affairs........

a reply to: HighFive

Why not expand this system to private sales? If a neighbor or someone online wants to buy my gun, they would just need to stop at a local dealer and get an NICS background check.

Sounds good on paper but, I am not sure how you could enforce this unless private owners "police" themselves. Unless I am missing something.
On these local websites like FB there are a LOT of gun sales...

I'm a little concerned with the amount of weapons some folks think they need. Now before I get screamed at, let me explain. The old man has a lot of weapons (to me). How many does one really need? I mean I understand collectors but, just random rifles and pistols?
I have a brother in Florida who has I don't know now but, maybe 100? pistols and rifles. No kidding...
He has them all over the house.
He has them under things like the couch and taped under tables. He says, if he is home invaded what do they usually say?
Get on the ground!

He wants to have one at his disposal wherever he is. He has them in his kitchen cabinets.
He has hunted all of his life and been in the military so I am confident he can handle them but still...

The old man wants me to go and start buying guns and have my own cache.
Is it paranoia? Is it smart planning?
He says after San Bernardino and more acts like it gun sales will go through the roof and the government will put a stop to it somehow eventually and if one doesn't already have the weapons, one won't be getting any...

I don't know...

a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, a criminal could break into a house and steal a gun without a background check, but that is not a good reason to block this obvious way to bypass a background check. Most estimates assume around 40% of gun sales are private sales without background checks.

Wouldn't stop all shootings is also not a good reason to stop some.

originally posted by: HighFive
Well, lonely on ATS. Universal background checks.

A majority of gun owners support strengthening background checks. Pew Research Center

What's the point in making sure someone on the terrorist watch list or a violent felon can't pass a background check at a licensed firearm dealer, if they can find a private seller online and purchase a gun without one?

Here's what I'd like to see done. Currently if you buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, you are required to submit to a background check. The record of the sale is maintained by the dealer, (not the Government, for those who would float the idea of a national gun registry)

Why not expand this system to private sales? If a neighbor or someone online wants to buy my gun, they would just need to stop at a local dealer and get an NICS background check. I don't trust someone selling their gun to make rent to self police.

Since the enactment of the Brady Bill in 1994, more than 2 million gun sales have been denied to domestic abusers, convicted felons, and the mentally ill. How many of those just walked down the street to a private seller?

Sounds reasonable and responsible to this gun owner. Am I missing something?


Yes, you are. The guns that are in the hands of those that are already restricted from owning. A boost to black-market sales. The regulations already in place cannot and do not stop gun possession. Your solution is already in place for some and is a failure.


There is no evidence this one won't be either.

a reply to: HighFive

I've sold firearms privately. The only thing I have ever required is a copy of a drivers license. And I do that for my own protection.

Where I live, there is a community of vets who buy/sell/trade amongst each other. We met regularly at different ranges and compare weapons and just have fun.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: HighFive

I've sold firearms privately. The only thing I have ever required is a copy of a drivers license. And I do that for my own protection.
.

Scenario for you: A guy threatens to kill his ex wife. She gets a restraining order. He can't buy a gun from the store so he comes to you. He probably still has a drivers license...

I hear this argument all the time and it isn't a real argument against increased legal regulation of gun sales.

Yes, I agree that you will always have illegal gun sales; HOWEVER, with more regulations (I know that is a dirty word for some) you will have less 'guns' fall into the illegal stream of guns.''

Fewer and more restricted gun sales equals less guns liable to fall into criminal hands. What would help even further would be to severely regulate gun manufacturing and advertising but that would cut into someones bottom line.

a reply to: HighFive

If a NIC can be done by anyone from their phone and cost next too nothing, then I would agree that requirement is not too much to ask. A seller can call in a buyer's driver license to perform a background check and keep that information as part of his sales record .. no national registry.

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: HighFive

I've sold firearms privately. The only thing I have ever required is a copy of a drivers license. And I do that for my own protection.
.

Scenario for you: A guy threatens to kill his ex wife. She gets a restraining order. He can't buy a gun from the store so he comes to you. He probably still has a drivers license...

I know the people I sell to. I don't sell to strangers and anyone in our circle has been vetted by everyone else in our circle. We're responsible people without the need for government oversight.

Your scenario? I's possible, I suppose. But by that same thinking, I probably shouldn't lend out my power tools either.

a reply to: HighFive

It's not a bad idea, and is a place to start, but it is missing the point. The problem is in the culture, where people think it's OK to shoot somebody for non-life-threatening reasons, for instance getting cut off in traffic. Or to put "them" in their place, whoever "they" might be at the moment.

We as a culture need to face and address the fact that violence is accepted as the best means to resolve a conflict. We see this at all levels of the culture, from a parent who enforces rules on their children via violence, through both cops and gang-bangers who use violence and the threat of it to get what they want, and on up to the presidential level where wars have been started by the US for VERY sketchy reasons.

Our culture is swimming in this occipital-based approach to resolving conflict. And until that is recognized (the first step to solving any problem is to recognize it is one) and dealt with in an effective (i.e. not political) way, here we'll be.

This is the point that is being ignored in the public debate at the moment. Instead, we have both political sides shouting largely made-up nonsense at each other about the tools used to express this sick approach to conflict resolution. We as a culture are bleeding from a severed femoral artery, and people are arguing over what color the band-aid should be.

Someone with criminal intent will not go through "legal" channels to buy firearms in the first place.

How does the disarmament crowd fail to understand this?

Unless they do understand it, and have no real intention of disarming only criminals. They want to disarm peaceful, law-abiding citizens so they will have no choice but to crawl to the state for "protection".

The jihadists are now being used to advance the disarmament agenda in the United States. And I think the gun control crowd is both fully aware and supportive of this strategy.

I see a truth in this debate........it's metro thinkers... opposite of country, spread out land thinkers.

Those two have have been dividing for ages, huh!!!!!

America is so spread out, it takes three days to drive across this state....quoting " The Toadies " from that place...oh you know that friendly and free speaking state....oh yea....TEXAS.

I'm telling you there is nothing out there for countless kilometers as we say here in Texas.....I'm lying.....and up there in Colorado or where I was in the air force.....Idaho....there isn't anything but sagebrush and rattlesnakes sunning themselves on the road for 20,000 leagues, or more. When exploring up there you travel the forest roads for a dad gum week without seeing another truck....

that's another point....what other metro country has it's entire population driving pick ups....for the metro men....that's pick up trucks.

that's why we carry rifles and shotguns in the gun rack....in the back window of the truck. In Wyoming, notice the girl getting out at the gas pump to fuel up......right there sticking out of her front pocket....which seems to be form fitted to a .25 automatic...because it's been there for years.....resides the same......try to wrestle that from her ...you'll get your pecker in your hand.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: HighFive

I've sold firearms privately. The only thing I have ever required is a copy of a drivers license. And I do that for my own protection.
.

Scenario for you: A guy threatens to kill his ex wife. She gets a restraining order. He can't buy a gun from the store so he comes to you. He probably still has a drivers license...

Your scenario? I's possible, I suppose. But by that same thinking, I probably shouldn't lend out my power tools either.

By that same thinking, why have any laws? Why set an age to get your drivers license, if you can't stop 14 yrs olds from driving a car? It's not a good argument against expanding BC's to private sales.

By that logic you should be arguing to remove all background checks. Since they don't work. " Criminals can buy a gun at Walmart because they would break into your house and steal a gun anyway."

a reply to: HighFive

I can answer that, I had a hot head friend who was a vet ,he also unfortunately was convicted as a felon.
If you know about it ,you don't sell.
If you don't know the guy,don't sell
If the guy has a rep you just use judgement.
NOBODY wants to arm a criminal ,they pretty much ,already have a pipeline anyway and if you do sell to one ,you might end up as a loose end.
To a seasoned gun owner the above is essentially common sense.
They will take your guns away.

a reply to: HighFive

I don't like giving government the authority to determine what I can and cannot do. It's turning gun rights into gun privileges, based on a determination by government.

But that's just my opinion.

a reply to: HighFive
War on drugs.
War on terrorism.
Now...
War on guns.
I'm sure it will go just as smooth as the first two have.

Criminalizing gun owners(which is what you're doing) with draconian gun laws won't solve the problem. As long as guns exist, those who want them will find a way to get them. And those want to murder others, will always find a way to do it.
The crux of the problem is not with guns and laws. It is with those administrating this country.

I don't have a gigantic issue with it, HighFive, but I have two major caveats:

1) It should not apply to transfers between close family members, nor should it apply to temporary transfers, for example, letting a friend in your presence borrow a firearm for hunting or range use (including the backyard plinking sessions common all over the rural areas of this country).

2) Its completely unenforceable, and therefore, completely worthless. Criminals/terrorists, etc, will still buy, sell and trade weapons amongst themselves with total disregard of that law, because there's absolutely no way that law enforcement can detect that type of activity.

But as long as the first point is addressed, I'm not opposed to it, just to make the antis shut up about it. I just think its completely useless and a waste of time.

a reply to: HighFive

That's all fine and dandy, but if we are talking mass shootings which seem to be the new cause celebrity, almost all of those guns are found to be legally purchased. None of any proposed added regulations would have stopped them. Hell even with background checks many crazy and bad people still pass them.

I'd be very curious to see if background checks have really made any impact on reducing overall violence comitted with a gun. It's not that I'm against background checks, I just have a feeling that they give a very false sense of security. Many mass shootings have happened in States with restrictive gun control laws. To be perfectly honest, those additional laws have seemed to have failed miserably in preventing/reducing gun violence.