Deepen Gun Ownership

[DMWyatt]

AFMO, explain exactly how is requiring a background check for every transaction really going to help things? When was the last you saw someone walk into a gun shop, try to purchase a gun, and legitimately fail the background check? The original piece referred mainly to illegal arms trafficking. Re-defining and setting new restrictions and protocol to police legal transactions isn't going to help anything no matter how you argue the point. Is it a sensible thing to do? Maybe it is, but the argument as I understand it is based on reason. And in terms of reason, you need to prove that there is a reasonable expectation that what you propose to do is going to actually help solve the problem. Without a reasonable expectation that what you propose to do will help, there is no reason to spend the extra time and money to implement it.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by afmo

I do agree.

But i don't see anything wrong with making sure one doesn't.

Then name one store that does not require these checks or verification via something like a CCW that shows you have already had a check completed.

[afmo]

Originally Posted by AZXD

Nope, it's not state hate ... I like California, but have no intentions to visit the place anytime soon ... You have some crazy laws that are mandated by a few areas and imposed upon the state though ... Don't you agree ??

of course.

I've said quite a few times on this site that 16 of california's 58 counties make the rules for everyone....

its BS, but i'm inclined to stay and fight it out...

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by afmo

of course.

I've said quite a few times on this site that 16 of california's 58 counties make the rules for everyone....

its BS, but i'm inclined to stay and fight it out...

And I commend you for that

[afmo]

Originally Posted by DMWyatt

AFMO, explain exactly how is requiring a background check for every transaction really going to help things? When was the last you saw someone walk into a gun shop, try to purchase a gun, and legitimately fail the background check? The original piece referred mainly to illegal arms trafficking. Re-defining and setting new restrictions and protocol to police legal transactions isn't going to help anything no matter how you argue the point. Is it a sensible thing to do? Maybe it is, but the argument as I understand it is based on reason. And in terms of reason, you need to prove that there is a reasonable expectation that what you propose to do is going to actually help solve the problem. Without a reasonable expectation that what you propose to do will help, there is no reason to spend the extra time and money to implement it.

it ensures that no one does walk into a gun show, or a private seller unknowingly sells to a criminal.

If they were to eliminate the fee for background checks and give everyone access to the NICS....i don't think it would be a big deal.

Would it be a big deal for you to call a phone number and wait 10 or so minutes to get a call back before selling a gun to someone or before walking out of a store with yours? Especially if it didn't cost you anything?

i wouldn't be bothered, i doubt anyone else would be either....

[DMWyatt]

Originally Posted by afmo

it ensures that no one does walk into a gun show, or a private seller unknowingly sells to a criminal.

If they were to eliminate the fee for background checks and give everyone access to the NICS....i don't think it would be a big deal.

Would it be a big deal for you to call a phone number and wait 10 or so minutes to get a call back before selling a gun to someone or before walking out of a store with yours? Especially if it didn't cost you anything?

i wouldn't be bothered, i doubt anyone else would be either....

But the question isn't whether or not we'd be bothered by it, or if it can be done. The question is whether or not that we should have a reasonable expectation that the measure would help solve the problem. With all of the politics surrounding gun control, proposing measures that affect or start on the legal end of a transaction in a gun forum is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The logical thing to do is tackle the problem first from the street level, and then extend the reasoning into the system, rather than change the system and hope that it affects the street level.

[afmo]

Originally Posted by DMWyatt

But the question isn't whether or not we'd be bothered by it, or if it can be done. The question is whether or not that we should have a reasonable expectation that the measure would help solve the problem. With all of the politics surrounding gun control, proposing measures that affect or start on the legal end of a transaction in a gun forum is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The logical thing to do is tackle the problem first from the street level, and then extend the reasoning into the system, rather than change the system and hope that it affects the street level.

I'd agree with this statement

*On a completely unrelated note...DMwyatt all-capsed my screen name (AFMO rather than afmo)...

for whatever reason i see this happening a lot, not just on this board but on several others i frequent too....i wonder why? LOL

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by afmo

I'd agree with this statement

*On a completely unrelated note...DMwyatt all-capsed my screen name (AFMO rather than afmo)...

for whatever reason i see this happening a lot, not just on this board but on several others i frequent too....i wonder why? LOL

We like to YELL your name

[DMWyatt]

I wasn't yelling. Not yet... Just seems odd to see screen names all lower case. I type everyone's name either with a capital first letter or all caps, just how I roll.

[Palmguy]

There are a few problems with all of this. First you've got enforcement. How do you enforce this, especially in states where FTF transactions are already legal and there is no registry? Let's say Joe Schmo has an XD that his name is not attached to in any way, and he decides to sell it to his buddy who he's known his whole life. Is Joe going to say to Bill "Hang on just a sec, I need to call in the BG check real quick before I can give this to you".

Like most gun control laws (I know you said "requiring a background check is not gun control IMO." but this is a law aimed at controlling firearms purchases), this will only affect a certain segment of the population, namely the law-abiding (and at that, I'm not sure what compliance would be like for this, because...)

...I see no way you can keep track of who's complying without a registry. It seems (to me at least) to be inevitable.

"I don't see anything wrong with making sure someone buying a gun is legally able to do so."

Thing is, you can't. And the only way you can put teeth in this thing is to tie people's names to the guns. And history has shown that that often leads to bad things.