New Gun thread, for Dox

Post Reply New Topic

Let's say that I agree with you. There's still a giant logistical problem of how you actually make it happen. Our current NICS background check system is woefully inadequate to handle the current level of background checks, nevermind whatever increase in load they get based on the new addition of private sale background checks.

Not only that, but the backend databases that the NICS references aren't complete, nor are they updated in anything resembling a timely manner. There have been reports that the NCIC system that identifies felons (both for the NICS background check system as well as systems that local, state, and federal law enforcement use to run drivers licenses, book people they arrest, etc) take between 3 and 9 *months* to get updated.

The III database is basically useless in a NICS check, and the DHS database (as well as the department as a whole) has an awful reputation for completely failing to keep track of aliens in the country (legal and otherwise).

Then there is the problem that, more than a few times, the NICS system has completely shut down for weeks at a time. Current law holds that after 72 hours without a successful background check result the firearm dealer has a green light to complete the transfer.

And oh, by the way, the form that the person fills out (usually by hand, usually barely legibly), never actually gets transmitted to the people who run the background check - instead, the dealer either re-enters the data into a website form, or (and this is a prime example of how our government is run by effing idiots), the dealer calls a number, is connected with an agent, and reads the fields off the form to the agent, who then types them into something that inputs the fields in the database.

I thought the US military was seeking to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties in the wars it is currently participating? And from what I've heard on the news, drones are already being used for surveillance inside the US, and it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years I heard about someone there getting killed by a drone, and then some mild protesting that will die out as people don't care just as people didn't care about the Edward Snowden leaks. Plus the places more likely to rebel and with the most armed populace tend to have less infraestructure that could be destroyed. You say people wouldn't attack the marines, but what if the marines attack people? Politicians would probably be heavily guarded, even the local ones, so they would also make difficult targets.

As Dox pointed out on the prior thread, there are universal background checks in force in California; as I pointed out, this prevented at least one mass killer from getting a gun in California. If we can do it, the rest of the country can too. Not that there aren't problems with the system, but that's an argument to fix the system, not an argument to kill background checks altogether.

The California background check system, waiting period not withstanding, is designed very smartly - but they also spent tens of millions of dollars on the system, and it didn't make any difference in the violent crime rate, or the murder rate YoY.

And California has a slew of other problems - lack of any legal method of carry, no state preemption of gun laws, and the prohibition of handguns in most populated counties.

So if I go and ask the guy at Gander Mountain for a Mosin Nagant m91-30, a crate of ammo for it, A side by side 12 gauge, 10 boxes of ammo for that, An Ak variant, crate ammo fo that, a BAR Safari edition .270 wsm, crate of ammo for that, and a couple revolvers for Cpl,
I should have to wait because of someone else's mistake?
Say the clerk calls the cops. I tell the cops I don't want to have to buy any other guns for the rest of my life, and I already have the safe bought, a real expensive one, top of the line. They say, well you can't buy that much at once, so I say how long?
They say never and arrest me because of people like you and the criminals responsible for crimes causing the laws to change.
I've done nothing to harm anyone, never had a police record at all, and people like you want to prevent me from doing stuff like suggested above? You have no right to do that, and even though I would never buy that much at once, and pobably never get arrested, there are some old timers and vets who could give a lot less of a hoot whether you think they shouldn't.

Could you provide a list of what conditions, illnesses, or crimes you would brand as, "the wrong people".

I know, endogeneity is a punk. That said, we can test the variable to applying it elsewhere where guns are introduced to a situation. Do gun deaths in wars show that there are more deaths or is it true that those battle deaths would have happened anyway? In other words, on what grounds are you dismissing the efficiency dividend?

What has that done for California to stop violent crime? You will have to provide a link to a story to prove the statement I have in parentheses that you made. If I looked hard enough I know I could find hundreds of stories that show background checks in your state have caused deaths and serious injuries to people.

In the feminism > gun thread, I debunked the myth that California is some horrifically dangerous place because of gun laws. The 10 most dangerous states to live, in terms of violent crime, are all conservative states with lax gun laws.

@Apple: no one has ever been arrested for nothing but a *desire* to buy more guns; your safe will work just as well five days from the time you try your purchases. Don't pretend that having to wait a few days for some guns is some sort of extreme hardship to the average person outside of a war zone.

@Red: no doubt you could find a hundred such anecdotes. California is a very big state, with a lot of people. If background checks prevent, last I checked, 1/100 people from buying a gun, that means that 1% of 750K - 7,500 guns - were kept out of the hands of people with violent criminal records, histories of spousal abuse, etc.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/07/californ ... ms-deaths/
quote:

And that is with, as previously noted, inconsistent enforcement of laws prohibiting violent felons and psychotic persons from owning guns.

People in California are not having a difficult time getting guns, if they're sane and lack criminal records. The things were flying off the shelves after Obama got reelected, and even more after Newtown, thanks the the NRA's scare tactics.

In Michigan, if you are even involved in a DV case, you lose the 2nd amendment. Females keep it.

Unless you want a handgun, then you're f*cked.

It's hard to be pro-gun when most of the ones I come across are paranoid people who think that banning guns is a conspiracy for a military takeover. I have even heard some say that if you're "anti-gun", then you're "anti-children". How in the world am I suppose to take these people seriously when they don't even take themselves seriously?

While you can judge individuals by what they say and do, it is important not to generalize that experience to the whole. Each person should make the attempt to understand their beliefs to the point where they can explain their reasoning in a logical way. If you can't do this, then I believe that such a belief should be revised or even discarded.

http://www.impactguns.com/california-guns.aspx

That's great, unless you live in San Francisco, Los Angeles, or San Diego.

In accordance with the Michigan Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, MCL 28.425b(7)(h), you cannot apply for a Concealed Pistol License for eight (8) years after you have been convicted of Domestic Violence (Domestic Assault) under MCL 750.81(2) or Aggravated Domestic Violence (Aggravated Domestic Assault) under MCL 750.81a(2). By the way, this is also true for regular Assault and Assault and Battery under MCL 750.81 and Aggravated Assault under MCL 750.81a.

There are no exceptions for women.