Background checks (poll)

[XD40sc]

If anything, they are great examples of a background check being ineffective at preventing people with violent (and very illegal) intentions from obtaining a firearm; IIRC, the "mainstream" media reported two of those DID pass background checks (one of the four was too young to have been able to purchase one at the store, the other I don't remember hearing about).

But how many purchases have been stopped by background checks? Nothing is absolute, nothing is infallible.

 

[XD40sc]

But let me repeat if you did not get it the first time. Background checks do not work!

Let me complete the statement for you; Background checks do not work 100% of the time. After all speed limits don't work 100% either, neither do stop signs.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Let me complete the statement for you; Background checks do not work 100% of the time. After all speed limits don't work 100% either, neither do stop signs.

They don't work anytime, other than adding to the cost of firearms.

 

[Beau]

School me, please. Just what good will a poll provide? What good will another poll provide?

Some folks think that checking off a box is the same as actually doing something about the issue identified in the poll. My experience is that elected office holders both pro and con are more impressed by email, phone calls, or actual snail-mail letters (nobody sends telegrams any more since Wester Union started phoning them in). Keep it short (under 50 words?) and sweet (no name calling or threats - except perhaps to not vote for them), and most importantly tell tell them what you want them to do.

stay safe.

In case you have not noticed, individual rights, liberty, freedom or however you want to call it are being placed at the mercy of "public opinion". This is especially prominent with our 2nd Amendment right. The anti-gun political opinion campaigners such as Moms Demand Action, The Brady Campaign and Everytown For Gun Safety (Shannon Watts) are doing a great job. They long ago realized the power of social media and polls/surveys. They have no problem twisting facts or outright lying to get their agenda across. So when they start spouting things like "even 90% of gun owners support universal background checks for every gun sale", people believe it. When they say things like that what do you have to counteract it with? We're not going to change the minds of the organizers themselves but when we can counteract the stuff they are saying the people that follow them see it.

This battle isn't about influencing elected officials. It s about influencing the people that elect those officials.

 

[since9]

I'd be all for a background check that worked perfectly; i.e., identifies people who will end up initiating violence with the gun they are trying to buy, and never has a false positive and never a false negative.

Should 100% clairvoyance ever become reality, I'd be all for it too. Tall order convincing myself or anyone, for that matter, that we'd ever do a crime when we know ourselves as well as we do.

Such a thing cannot exist...

It can, but it's highly and very exceedingly unlikely, as it the technology won't be foreseably possible for at least another 200 years. Trust me, I'm on the leading, bleeding freakin' edge of technology, and we have barely scratched the surface on predicting future behavior, much less to any degree of certainly.

Two hundred years.

...and you'll note I didn't say "felons" since ANY act can conceivably be made a felony.

And many felons may never be any sort of threat to society ever again. While prior criminal behavior does reliably indicate a greater potential for future criminal behavior, that statistic applies to the population as a whole. It can NOT be used to indicate the future behavior of any single individual within the population.

Since every proposed background check involves banning "felons," even if perfect (no false positives or negatives), I have to oppose them.

If the indicators were perfect, why not use them?

Like I said: 200 years. Minimum.

So given all that, I am unalterably opposed to any BG check that is metaphysically possible.

I'm opposed to it on basic 2nd and 4th Amendment principles. That's enough for me. That and the myriad of principles behind our Constitution and its amendments.

I have always been against BC's. It is definitely nothing more than a feel good law. Most people have been brainwashed into thinking that without them we would have mass murder/blood in the streets/children dead everywhere. Kind of like when states consider allowing carry in places that serve alcohol or no permit required for carry. People seem to think that if you allow these things the human race will end. smh.

Kind of like Mothers Demand Action who attempt to tell supermarkets that "allowing" customers to carry will *somehow* cause daily bloodbaths, even thought customers have been carrying all along.

School me, please. Just what good will a poll provide? What good will another poll provide?

It helps educate those who've never encountered it before.

Some folks think that checking off a box is the same as actually doing something about the issue identified in the poll. My experience is that elected office holders both pro and con are more impressed by email, phone calls, or actual snail-mail letters (nobody sends telegrams any more since Wester Union started phoning them in). Keep it short (under 50 words?) and sweet (no name calling or threats - except perhaps to not vote for them), and most importantly tell tell them what you want them to do.

stay safe.

When someone in the know votes in a poll, it reaffirms the issue. It raises the numbers, thereby helping to emphasize what's what to those who aren't in the know. That's the process of education. Yes, it's hugely redundant. It doesn't educate those who are in the know. Only those who aren't. That alone, however, is worth it.

But how many purchases have been stopped by background checks? Nothing is absolute, nothing is infallible.

Doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that those who are in the know have had their strength resolved. Perhaps they'll be more likely to write their Congressman or change their vote. Perhaps those are aren't in the know will wake up.

Statistically speaking, we know for a fact that this is indeed the process. So, please keep up the good work spreading the truth. Thanks.

Let me complete the statement for you; Background checks do not work 100% of the time. After all speed limits don't work 100% either, neither do stop signs.

True. But they do work some of the time.

They don't work anytime.

Not true. Absolutes and a can of beans will give you gas, and little else.

In case you have not noticed, individual rights, liberty, freedom or however you want to call it are being placed at the mercy of "public opinion". This is especially prominent with our 2nd Amendment right. The anti-gun political opinion campaigners such as Moms Demand Action, The Brady Campaign and Everytown For Gun Safety (Shannon Watts) are doing a great job. They long ago realized the power of social media and polls/surveys. They have no problem twisting facts or outright lying to get their agenda across. So when they start spouting things like "even 90% of gun owners support universal background checks for every gun sale", people believe it. When they say things like that what do you have to counteract it with? We're not going to change the minds of the organizers themselves but when we can counteract the stuff they are saying the people that follow them see it.

This battle isn't about influencing elected officials. It s about influencing the people that elect those officials.

BINGO! Sleep well, Beau. You earned it.

 

[OC for ME]

BCs are unconstitutional? Yes. mitigate the unlawful requirement...private sales. Except those states where liberty is heavily regulated...such as WA.