Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "Universal Backgound Checks".

Those weren't cases of murder.

You bet. Don't let the government take away the people's weapons, because the government is about a thousand times more likely to kill you than the people--even the crazy people--are.

During the 20th century, the death toll from private murderers, including serial killers, all around the world totaled probably somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000; the death toll from governments killing their own subjects was in the neighborhood of 200,000,000. There's your factor of 1000.


Probably governments didn't start them, but they may have made them worse than the needed to be. For example, Alexander Yersin was persecuted by the British government when he did the research that resulted in the discovery of the bacterium that caused the Black Death, and if it hadn't been for the overcrowded conditions in the various World War I militaries, the influenza epidemic might not have spread so widely.

That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about whether governments with weapons are more dangerous than crazy people with weapons, and the answer to that is an unqualified Hell Yes.

You are a moron. You state that he waited the three days, picked up the gun and still killed himself. How did a background check help. He was determined to off himself. If he hasn't bought the gun he would have hung himself. OD'd on pills or a choice of a multitude of other ways. Again idiot you just can't wrap yourself around the fact that it is the mental intent of these people to kill themselves or others. The tool has absolutely nothing to do with causation

I oppose all background checks. They should abolish what we have.


Travis

They overrode his veto yesterday. We now have voter ID that will go into law Jan. 2014. miles

I just noticed this mistake. He did veto it but was overridden yesterday. miles

Neither were those KIA during wars. As to Bark's statement, it's obvious a government has the means to kill than ordinary citizens, but apparently that's a revelation to you..

No need to even BUY a gun to off one's self.
Our range has had a suicide a year with folks ( men and women ) RENTing a gun.
The new shop will only rent to people who are accompanied by another ( unless a member and well know by the owners )

It is such a mess to clean up after a gun shot suicide in a business!

Here in Commirado, as if it's not bad enough that the reigning Commies passed the Universal Background Check and magazine bans, now they're working on passing a $1B tax increase and they've given a bill to the Guv which gives full police powers to the Secret Service in the state. We are so [bleep] up here.

cheap bastards!

I am totally against background checks that involve telling the government what kind of gun I'm purchasing. That is none of their damn business.

However I'm OK with a binary background check as long as I could do it without someone profiting from it. For example, if I want to sell a gun to person X, then I go to a website , type in the persons name and it comes back saying they can purchase a gun.

I could do that at my house, public library, any place with wifi. They could require every gun show setup a booth with a few computers to do checks for private sales.

I print that out or store it online, and if person x were to take the gun I sold him and shoot up a post office, then even if he talks to the cops, I'm covered.

But I'd only be willing to do that if they also dropped the rules about me buying/selling a gun online or in a different state. That is just a tax via FFL owners.

If I'm going to give up something I have to get something in return. It would also make my local gunshops more competitively priced.

I got an Email from Senator Pryor, Democrat, Arkansas, today and he stated that they are working on some bill to keep the crazy people from buying guns. This is a Slippery slope and most likely morph into something dangerous for us legal gun owners. miles

Background checks are unenforceable without a registry.

So that's it....well damn

If you were to be required to check the background of all to whom you sell a firearm, the government will require that you maintain a record of the sale to protect yourself from later prosecution on the charge of not doing the background check. Do you want that legal obligation under pain of criminal prosecution for the remainder of your life?

Exactly, even if the registry is to be kept with each private seller under pain of prosecution for failure to do so.

more than I want to pay a dealer $30 to do it for me. Assuming I do the check, you know our government is going to store it online with a timestamp anyway. My legal obligation would be no more than to say on this date I sold a gun to person X and your system said he was a "yes, OK to purchase". It wouldn't be any more complicated than how Amazon tracks my order history.

Like I said, if its easy to do where its not like registering a car, I can live with it....if it means I can go to a gun show , store or individual in any state and buy whatever gun I want (thats deemed legal) I'll gladly make that trade off.

Its all just fantasy on my part though because 1. there is no way the government is going to just settle for a binary approval process and not take the gun information 2. The government is going to make sure whoever has the best lobbyists is going to profit from the new law.

but that would address what everyone is clamoring for background checks in the first place - keeping guns out of the hands of felons. (not that I'm saying it would work, just that it addresses that issue to their current concerns)

Gun registration is a different ball game.

You and I could undoubtedly argue about that, in a number of the cases, but that's not what I'm talking about.

When I say that in the 20th century governments killed in the neighborhood of 200 million people, I'm not talking about wars, I'm talking about mass murder of their own frequently-unarmed civilian subjects. The Branch Davidian massacre would count. The MOVE debacle would count. The Holocaust would count. The Great Leap Forward would count. People killed because of their skin color or because of their ancestry or because of their religion or because of their political affiliation or just because they're too alive.

The only differences between the reasons crazy people kill people and the reasons governments kill people is that governments have more and more highly-paid propagandists to come up with apologetics for them.

He knows what you meant. He's just playing stupid ... or at least I hope he's just playing.

Bad. What about the person who you are selling to? You've just [bleep] him. There is no way you are "covered" unless you are keeping a record of the guy's info. If you bought the gun new or if some guy did the same to you, all ATF has to do is come down on you after they see the record at the initial FFL. Then you give up the guy you sold it to in order to "cover" yourself. This certainly isn't civil disobedience. Maybe somebody says, "but I'd never rat anybody out,". Maybe they wouldn't or maybe they wouldn't until the Feds came knocking. In the first place, I know of nobody who will trade their own freedom just to keep somebody they sold a gun to out of jail, on principle. Nobody. Secondly, who would want their own freedom to hinge upon the willingness of some virtual stranger to go to jail for them?

Looks like you already posted most of what I said. Sorry for the double-coverage. I will add one thing though. Whether the record-keeping is required or not the seller will not be "covered" if there is some requirement and everybody is following it, unless he keeps a record. Otherwise the Feds looking for say, assault weapons, will just assume you still have yours and are lying about the sale and prosecute you anyway.