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 problem is, background checks on gun ownership is not effective at stopping or reducing the level of violence.
An overwhelming percentage of people who commit public mass shootings have no criminal record to begin with, so the BG check would not have worked anyway, besides if someone has it in their mind to do something like this, a BG check for a gun is not going to deter them, there are PLENTY of alternatives, gun shows, go on craigslist, yardsales, etc private gun sales require no paperwork, the buyer pays the seller and thats that, out the door, there is no way to go back and see who purchased it and where.
Plus, BG checks in general kind of expect the criminal will abide by the laws…duh LOL
You seem to be making the President’s case for him in your second paragraph mikekle. As you, I think rightly, note, the current background check system has far too many loopholes. This is precisely why there is a push for more aggressive background check requirements that cover more kinds of sales.
As to your first and third paragraph . . .
In your first paragraph, you make the case that background checks have not proven overly effective. However, as you note in the second paragraph, this may well have something to do with how toothless such legislation has been up until now. Strengthen the laws, and you may well see a corresponding reduction in gun violence. (It’s worth noting more aggressive legislation has worked in places it has been tried: armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/)
In your third paragraph you make the “lawbreaker paradox” argument. This is not an argument against gun control, but an argument against the existence of laws themselves. You can plug almost any legislation / issue into the same argument and end up in absurd positions. Now, you may try to claim that this situation is unique because of the second amendment status of gun ownership. However, then your argument is really not about the fact that “criminals don’t obey the law,” and the “lawbreaker paradox” argument becomes a bit of rhetorical flourish that is ultimately empty.
The problem is that local law enforcement often doesn’t report offenses disqualifying someone from owning a weapon to the NICS, resulting in criminals obtaining guns “legally” and the NRA being blamed for something it didn’t do.
When Socialists speak of “common sense gun laws” they mean we (government and those politically connected) have guns, and you don’t.
The general public has caught onto this and is why restrictive legislation is defeated in all except socialist states.
Using a gun to shoot somebody is one type of target person the government needs to perform background checks on, but equally needed background checks needs to be made to keep these guns from mental patients who at a certain minute would commit suicide. This latter group is far larger than most people thing, and suicides greatly outnumber homicides.
How does one define a socialist state?
That’s a pretty big and unsubstantiated claim ChurchSoldier. Do you really think it’s fair to paint a diverse group of individuals with a wide array of loosely linked beliefs as somehow part of a large conspiracy that targets you?
Do you have any evidence that you can point to to support this kind of claim?
If someone wants to die, the lack of a gun is not going to keep them alive. Yes, guns are the dominant means of self-ending in this country, because there are so insanely many of them, but ropes, heights, train tracks, gas fixtures and poisons will always be abundant even if we became a disarmed society tomorrow.
The problem with background checks is that I want my gun now. I don’t want to wait. If I get my gun immediately, it makes me happy. And that’s what really matters - making me happy.
Nobody does a background check to make sure that car owners and drivers are sane and have no criminal record. You can only lose your license for a tiny list of offenses.
And yet cars kill a lot more people than guns. By an order of magnitude. You will seldom be in danger from a gun, but you are in a car’s strike zone every day. Yet we don’t cower in fear; we just look both ways.
If we treated guns like cars, as useful tools, the laws would make much more sense.
In an armed society, you **are **always in danger from guns. That is the point.
Start at background checks, I own a gun and it doesn’t bother me! Next, make carrying an unregistered gun a mandatory 3 years sentence, using one, 30 years. Then reform prison to remove the country club atmosphere. Make breaking the law HURT! Then the recalcitrants will LEARN, and the world will be better off. Before the bleeding hearts start, this is being Christian, you are saving them from themselves.
Cars kill people more often than guns, but those are usually accidental deaths.
A gun is a weapon. It cannot simply be classified as a tool. No one purchases a gun to use as a tool. (A knife, on the other hand, is more ambiguous; you can use a knife for anything from cooking to violent assault. :D)
That said, background checks are of limited value. Not that it really bothers me, because (a) I live in a country where the most common weapons are blunt implements and knives - only police and the Army regularly carry guns, and (b) following Chesterton, if I owned a weapon, it would be a sword stick.
Methinks the “country club” atmosphere of prisons is overblown by conservatives.
I have never been to prison, however, the expectation at least here in TX is that prison is a living hell.
I assume this is sarcasm at it’s California finest! I’ve always adhered to the idea, “If yoy want it bad, you get it bad.” If you think you gatta have a gun NOW, then you really need to wait a day or two to think about it. If you are that afraid, contact the police with details, take an unannounced vacation to an undisclosed location, or really look at your life and what has led to this situation where needing to kill someone is your ONLY solution!
The background checks we have for gun acquisition in Canada are more then court checks and police checks. The police actually contact people you know and ask them if they think you should be allowed to purchase a gun.
How do I know this? Because the RCMP interviewed us when my husband’s co-worker applied for a firearms acquisition certificate. When they asked me my response was, “Hell, no, you’ll be investigating his wife’s murder if he he gets a gun.” Our daughter walked in while they were there. She had babysat for the family and had heard stuff she wished she hadn’t. They asked her and she replied, “NO! His wife wouldn’t be safe.”
Don’t know if it had any effect on their decision, but at least we got to speak.
For those who maintain the overused cars versus guns fallacy:
Yes, cars are hazardous. For that very reason, they and their users are highly regulated, both on the condition of the car and on the health of the driver. (Here in TX, the duration of a DL has been shortened from ten years to six; due to the increased appearance of health conditions that affect driving ability.)
And yet, cars are not designed as weapons.
It only makes sense that something whose only purpose is to kill should be regulated at least as much. But armed-society proponents fight any regulation of firearms as though it were a threat to their breathing. That’s got to stop.
Are they going to revoke your Texas citizenship??