NRA Tells Doctors to Shut up and Dribble

calamity said:

Pretty much all one needs as proof that the term "gun nut" is a perfectly justifiable term.

"Oh Noes...30 children were shot. Quick! Lets go out and buy some more guns."

Click to expand...

Or "it's Christmas time - let's get that CZ .270 I've had my I on".

calamity said:

Pretty much all one needs as proof that the term "gun nut" is a perfectly justifiable term.

"Oh Noes...30 children were shot. Quick! Lets go out and buy some more guns."

Click to expand...

When Obama sought to ban guns and impose other restrictions with his 2013 gun control bill, that's exactly what I did. I spent a few years acquiring both firearms and ammunition to the point that I now have enough for a lifetime.

...still, recently I became interested in the Russian SVD Dragunov sniper rifle, but it was too costly to justify the expense and then the Romanian PSL, considerably cheaper albeit no interchangeable parts. In the end, since I already have a couple Mosin Nagants and an DPMS AR-10, I decided against pursuing the purchase of those rifles.

SVD


PSL


AR-10


Mosin-Nagant

RaleBulgarian said:

Interesting. Maybe there’s something in your record that causes the hold up. Fact is that NICS checks are quick and efficient overall.
In calendar year 2015, the NICS Contracted Call Centers (NCCC) handled calls an average of 141 seconds. After transferring the calls to the NICS Section, the wait and processing time averaged 446.3 seconds. When firearm background checks were conducted via the NICS E-Check, the wait and processing time averaged 107.5 seconds.
Longest average wait time was just 7.43 minutes.
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics
Additionally, FFL’s can continue with a sale if NICS has not responded within 3 days.
“If the FFL has not received from the NICS a final determination after three business days have elapsed since the delay response, it is within the FFL’s discretion whether or not to transfer the firearm (if state law permits the transfer). If the FFL transfers the firearm, the FFL must mark “No resolution was provided within three business days” on line 21d of the ATF Form 4473.”
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

Unfortunate, but not a government fault. You have to take that up with your FFL.

Use of illegal firearms by persons not legally allowed to have them is curbed by background checks.
“States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and a 31 percent lower overall suicide rate than states without these laws”
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/effectiveness-brady-actbackground-checks/
There is no one size fits all solution, but background checks do factually help to keep guns out of bad guy’s hands.


Maybe you’re confused or maybe you’re being deliberately misleading. I’ll give you benefit of the doubt and go with confused. Failed/refused background checks are not generally charged or prosecuted. When a potential buyer is denied, it is up to the FFL to decide to contact authorities. Your own statement of the 112,000 denied firearms supports my position that background checks are a good tool. That’s 112,000 fewer firearms in the hands of those who legally should not have them than if there were no law.
“We are asking you to alert ATF when you observe suspicious activities so that ATF can determine whether the activity warrants the attention of law enforcement.”
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/n...s-licensees-newsletter-november-2009/download

Click to expand...

liberals pass laws to hassle the law abiding but don't want to enforce laws that punish real criminals. Every time someone is properly denied a purchase, they have committed federal felony perjury. Those are almost strict liability offenses that require almost no law enforcement investigation or work by the Asst US Attorney.

the background check is designed to make the public think something is being done. Period

calamity said:

Pretty much all one needs as proof that the term "gun nut" is a perfectly justifiable term.

"Oh Noes...30 children were shot. Quick! Lets go out and buy some more guns."

Click to expand...

you missed the most important thing

DEMOCRATS CALL FOR MORE GUN BANNINGS

TurtleDude said:

you missed the most important thing

DEMOCRATS CALL FOR MORE GUN BANNINGS

Click to expand...

Gun owner purchases guns legally, passing NICS and state level background checks; obtains permission from the state to purchase handguns; registers handguns with the state; is fingerprinted; takes possession of handguns after waiting period; stores guns in approved security containers; passes mandatory firearm training; registers "assault weapon" in the state of Connecticut; gun owner is murdered and weapons stolen, used in crime.

"We need universal background checks!"

Rucker61 said:

In heavy traffic times, such as the period after Sandy Hook, I had a NICS background check take 10 days.

Click to expand...

An anomaly. Not the norm.

Rucker61 said:

This is to prevent governmental agencies from creating a de facto ban on background check approvals.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation.

Rucker61 said:

Except when it is a government fault. In Colorado, the Democrats passed HB 13-1228 in 2013 which charges a state fee for background checks for firearm purchases. The amount of the fee is set by the head of CBI with no checks and balances on the amount of the fee.

Click to expand...

I was referring to Federal government. There should at least be an explanation of why the state charges X amount.

Rucker61 said:

Not that Giffords is an unbiased site, but the information under your first sentence doesn't support your first sentence. UBCs do nothing to stop straw purchases, nor can they be enforced after the fact. That's why the vast majority of sheriffs in Colorado joined together to sue the state in an effort to overturn the UBC.

Click to expand...

The site is biased. That doesn’t mean the info is wrong. Our legal system is full of laws that do impact issues, while at the same time not being a one size fits all solution. So, yes, the first and last sentence do support each other. No, UBC’s often don’t stop straw purchases. No law ever has that I’m aware of. Straw purchasers do, however, face severe penalties if caught.

Rucker61 said:

No, the FBI already has that information. They sent it to the FFL. The decision not to prosecute is an ATF decision.

In 2010, 34,000 felons and 21,000 other prohibited persons were identified as having committed a felony trying to buy a gun, getting caught via a NICS background check. The FBI referred a total of 76,000 denied persons to ATF. ATF referred 4,700 of those 76,000 names to ATF field divisions for further investigation. Of that 4,700, ATF prosecuted 62. They convicted ten (10). They even retrieved 1,100 firearms in the possession of prohibited persons, but even with open/shut cases like those they only prosecuted 62 out of 76,000 names.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

Click to expand...

Yes, the ATF determines if a person is charged based on input from the FBI and it’s up to FFL dealers to decide if they contact the FBI if they believe it’s warranted.
Many aren’t charged because the ATF, based on the circumstances, determines that it isn’t worth the time/resources.

Rucker61 said:

Your presumption is that none of those 112,000 criminals looking for a gun continued to look for a gun and acquired one through straw purchases, FFL diversions, illegal street sales or theft. That's a naive presumption.

Click to expand...

Fair response, and I would reply that presuming all 112,000 would move on to buy a firearm using another illegal avenue is a bit paranoid. For one thing, not everyone rejected knows that something in their history disqualifies them (juvenile felony record, mental health reports from many years earlier, etc.).

Rucker61 said:

If they won't even act upon the information of the FBI with access to a signed legal document implicating the prohibited person trying to buy a gun, do you really think they're going to act on a report of suspicious activities from a citizen?

Click to expand...

The reporting that I, and the bulletin cited, am referring to is the reporting of a person who has been denied the purchase and was acting strangely (talking themself, angry outburst, says he/she wants to “get” someone, etc.).

TurtleDude said:

liberals pass laws to hassle the law abiding but don't want to enforce laws that punish real criminals. .....
the background check is designed to make the public think something is being done. Period

Click to expand...

Absurd notions based on bias.

RaleBulgarian said:

An anomaly. Not the norm.

Your interpretation.

I was referring to Federal government. There should at least be an explanation of why the state charges X amount.

The site is biased. That doesn’t mean the info is wrong. Our legal system is full of laws that do impact issues, while at the same time not being a one size fits all solution. So, yes, the first and last sentence do support each other. No, UBC’s often don’t stop straw purchases. No law ever has that I’m aware of. Straw purchasers do, however, face severe penalties if caught.

Yes, the ATF determines if a person is charged based on input from the FBI and it’s up to FFL dealers to decide if they contact the FBI if they believe it’s warranted.
Many aren’t charged because the ATF, based on the circumstances, determines that it isn’t worth the time/resources.

Fair response, and I would reply that presuming all 112,000 would move on to buy a firearm using another illegal avenue is a bit paranoid. For one thing, not everyone rejected knows that something in their history disqualifies them (juvenile felony record, mental health reports from many years earlier, etc.).

The reporting that I, and the bulletin cited, am referring to is the reporting of a person who has been denied the purchase and was acting strangely (talking themself, angry outburst, says he/she wants to “get” someone, etc.).



Absurd notions based on bias.

Click to expand...

your comment is rejected as being contrary to reality. Liberals don't want to enforce the law-they just want to pass it so they can say something was done. Clinton was the president to sign the Brady background check into law-and his DOJ (which I was part of for his entire 8 years in office) only prosecuted 12 people who committed perjury on the form-even though Clinton brayed that the background check stopped "Hundreds of thousands of criminals from buying guns"/.

TurtleDude said:

your comment is rejected as being contrary to reality. Liberals don't want to enforce the law-they just want to pass it so they can say something was done. Clinton was the president to sign the Brady background check into law-and his DOJ (which I was part of for his entire 8 years in office) only prosecuted 12 people who committed perjury on the form-even though Clinton brayed that the background check stopped "Hundreds of thousands of criminals from buying guns"/.

Click to expand...

With due respect to your experience, saying that liberals (Implying all liberals) don’t want laws enforced is something you cannot possibly know.

RaleBulgarian said:

With due respect to your experience, saying that liberals (Implying all liberals) don’t want laws enforced is something you cannot possibly know.

Click to expand...

true, I concur with your claim. but I also note that while not all liberals/left wingers are gun banners or gun restrictionists almost all gun restrictionists or banners are left-wingers /liberals. and their normal response to a criminal attack is to demand more laws that only restrict the rights of lawful gun owners.

TurtleDude said:

true, I concur with your claim. but I also note that while not all liberals/left wingers are gun banners or gun restrictionists almost all gun restrictionists or banners are left-wingers /liberals. and their normal response to a criminal attack is to demand more laws that only restrict the rights of lawful gun owners.

Click to expand...

100% agree. Whether any new laws should be enacted is debatable, but I consider enforcement of existing laws and/or modifications to flawed laws the first priority.

I just purchased a Sig P365 the other day online and had to submit another form similar to the 4473 before it can be shipped to my local FFL.

RaleBulgarian said:

100% agree. Whether any new laws should be enacted is debatable, but I consider enforcement of existing laws and/or modifications to flawed laws the first priority.

I just purchased a Sig P365 the other day online and had to submit another form similar to the 4473 before it can be shipped to my local FFL.

Click to expand...

good choice and that shows the claim people can buy a gun through the net across state lines without a BGC is just plain silly

TurtleDude said:

good choice and that shows the claim people can buy a gun through the net across state lines without a BGC is just plain silly

Click to expand...

Thanks. I was considering a Glock 43 (which I’ve shot and do like), but the Sig is a 10+1 in a smaller package and gets great reviews.

Even if they could order online, it still has to be shipped to an FFL who is required to run the background check. No way around it. Someone looking to buy a handgun illegally could find an easier way.

RaleBulgarian said:

Thanks. I was considering a Glock 43 (which I’ve shot and do like), but the Sig is a 10+1 in a smaller package and gets great reviews.

Even if they could order online, it still has to be shipped to an FFL who is required to run the background check. No way around it. Someone looking to buy a handgun illegally could find an easier way.

Click to expand...

I have yet to shoot the 365. I have handled one and Like what I felt in terms of its profile. I often carry a 938 or a SW Shield or a Beretta 84. I might switch to the SIG when one comes out with a manual safety. I have shot the GLOCK a fair amount but haven't bought one of the small ones. I own a 26 but I use it as a range gun, not a carry piece.

TurtleDude said:

I have yet to shoot the 365. I have handled one and Like what I felt in terms of its profile. I often carry a 938 or a SW Shield or a Beretta 84. I might switch to the SIG when one comes out with a manual safety. I have shot the GLOCK a fair amount but haven't bought one of the small ones. I own a 26 but I use it as a range gun, not a carry piece.

Click to expand...

You have good taste. I also have a Shield (no safety) as my daily carry. Really like that gun, it’s proof that a great gun can be had for not a lot of money. I’ve probably put over 500 rounds through it and never a problem, even with cheap steel case ammo. The shield replaced an XDS 45. A great gun (still have it), but a bit heavy to carry all day IMO.

RaleBulgarian said:

You have good taste. I also have a Shield (no safety) as my daily carry. Really like that gun, it’s proof that a great gun can be had for not a lot of money. I’ve probably put over 500 rounds through it and never a problem, even with cheap steel case ammo. The shield replaced an XDS 45. A great gun (still have it), but a bit heavy to carry all day IMO.

Click to expand...

I had a couple XDs one in 40 and one in 9. sold them both. Didn't like the way they fit my hand. Nothing wrong with them but I just didn't shoot them as well as say the MP or the Glocks

TurtleDude said:

I had a couple XDs one in 40 and one in 9. sold them both. Didn't like the way they fit my hand. Nothing wrong with them but I just didn't shoot them as well as say the MP or the Glocks

Click to expand...

Haven’t shot the XDS in anything but in 45. Snappy as expected, but it shoots well. The shield is more comfortable ergonomically though and I like the trigger more. This’ll be my first Sig and I have high expectations based on what I’ve seen and read.

RaleBulgarian said:

Interesting. Maybe there’s something in your record that causes the hold up. ]

Click to expand...

Well...you have to question any system that thinks I "have something in my record"...when I am a former reserve police officer.

Besides..that number is only when the Call to the NICS is received. There have been many times where people have to wait because they NICS system is overloaded or is unavailable.

Fact is that NICS checks are quick and efficient overall.

Click to expand...

The fact that it can take days.. sort of belies that. AS to "efficiency".. certainly not. 25 million checks... only 112000 denials.


That's a lot of wasted effort and work.

unfortunate, but not a government fault. You have to take that up with your FFL

Click to expand...

OF course it is. If not for the extra time and effort for store employees there would be no reason for an extra charge. And some states mandate a state fee. So yes.. governments fault.

States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and a 31 percent lower overall suicide rate than states without these laws”

Click to expand...

Well..the problem here is that's a correlation and not causation. IF you actually look at suicide rates.. you will see that they vary much more due to actual factors like mental health access etc. And interestingly.. states that tend to be more liberal.. and have universal background checks.. also have larger safety nets when it comes to mental health.

IF gun ownership was causational.. then Japan.. with almost no access to firearms... should have a dramatically lower rate of suicide than the us. BUT IT DOESN"T...in fact Japans suicide rate is tremendously higher than the us. Which means that other factors and not firearms are the cause.

Failed/refused background checks are not generally charged or prosecuted. When a potential buyer is denied, it is up to the FFL to decide to contact authorities.

Click to expand...

No.. its sent to the FBI.. and the ATF decides whether to prosecute.

our own statement of the 112,000 denied firearms supports my position that background checks are a good tool. That’s 112,000 fewer firearms in the hands of those who legally should not have them than if there were no law.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. First..with so few prosecuted.. it blatantly shows that there either one..there is no threat that these folks actually represent meaning that its basically useless
and the failure to prosecute means that anyone who is a threat.. is now able to find and purchase a firearm outside legal means... which as my prior study shows..is the vast majority of the way that criminals purchase their firearms.

(which I noticed you ignored by the way..the fact that studies show that the vast majority of firearms obtained by criminals are done so through means that avoid the nics check anyway)

RaleBulgarian said:

Haven’t shot the XDS in anything but in 45. Snappy as expected, but it shoots well. The shield is more comfortable ergonomically though and I like the trigger more. This’ll be my first Sig and I have high expectations based on what I’ve seen and read.

Click to expand...

The first handgun I ever had was a SS P220 in .45 Hell, it was the first handgun I ever shot, waaay back in 2001 at police academy. Built like a tank, easy to take apart and shot well.

I've since gone to H&K for the ergos, but you can't go wrong with a Sig.

Tanngrisnir said:

The first handgun I ever had was a SS P220 in .45 Hell, it was the first handgun I ever shot, waaay back in 2001 at police academy. Built like a tank, easy to take apart and shot well.

I've since gone to H&K for the ergos, but you can't go wrong with a Sig.

Click to expand...

I have a couple longslide P30s and I had two of the USPs-one I sold. One of the top plastic frame smiths in the country (David Bowie-Bowie Tactical Concepts) constantly bashes HKs but the P30 has one of the best feeling grips in the world. I also have taken them to training facilities where we run 500-800 rounds a day through them with nary a failure

TurtleDude said:

I have a couple longslide P30s and I had two of the USPs-one I sold. One of the top plastic frame smiths in the country (David Bowie-Bowie Tactical Concepts) constantly bashes HKs but the P30 has one of the best feeling grips in the world. I also have taken them to training facilities where we run 500-800 rounds a day through them with nary a failure

Click to expand...

I don't know why it is, but the HK45 is simply the best feeling/most comfortable handgun I've ever handled, and that leads to better placement. At least, in my case.

Their entire family of handguns all look substantially similar, so I'm guessing jumping from one model to the next would offer substantially similar experiences.

Tanngrisnir said:

I don't know why it is, but the HK45 is simply the best feeling/most comfortable handgun I've ever handled, and that leads to better placement. At least, in my case.

Their entire family of handguns all look substantially similar, so I'm guessing jumping from one model to the next would offer substantially similar experiences.

Click to expand...

I don' have one in 45. save the USP carbine which is a 45. I also have the SL-8 in 223 (its marked 223 on the barrel but its really mil spec 556-I asked HK about that and it was something about "military calibers cannot be sold in some countries) The SL-8, which my wife gave me for my 50th Birthday has a Kahles 8X56 illuminated aiming point scope on it. Shoots under a half inch at 100 yards with match ammo.

TurtleDude said:

I don' have one in 45. save the USP carbine which is a 45. I also have the SL-8 in 223 (its marked 223 on the barrel but its really mil spec 556-I asked HK about that and it was something about "military calibers cannot be sold in some countries) The SL-8, which my wife gave me for my 50th Birthday has a Kahles 8X56 illuminated aiming point scope on it. Shoots under a half inch at 100 yards with match ammo.

Click to expand...

The only thing I have in that category is my ancient Marlin 'camp carbine' 45. Super simple, accurate as necessary to a reasonable distance and takes pretty much any 1911 mag.

I remember when I was a young teen back in the 80s when people first started modding out their Mini 14s to look like SF weapons (Hell, even with bipods and muzzle breaks), swapping out stocks, the whole 9 yards. I just have never understood the inclination to to that, and there's something that speaks to me about a simple, plain as day and effective firearm.

jaeger19 said:

Well...you have to question any system that thinks I "have something in my record"...when I am a former reserve police officer.

Besides..that number is only when the Call to the NICS is received. There have been many times where people have to wait because they NICS system is overloaded or is unavailable.

Click to expand...

I was kidding about there possibly being something in your record. The instances of delays in completing your background checks were anomalies, not the norm. Same for when the system is overloaded with requests following another mass shooting, or when a Democratic President has just been elected and people fear that he will abolish the 2nd Amendment.
The FBI’s own data (cited earlier in this thread) indicates the longest average wait time to complete a NICS check is 7.43 minutes. That is not a hassle.

jaeger19 said:

AS to "efficiency".. certainly not. 25 million checks... only 112000 denials.

That's a lot of wasted effort and work.

Click to expand...

How does the number of denials indicate inefficiency? Whether the number denied is 1 or 1,000,000 is irrelevant. The system properly reviews 25,000,000 a year. That is efficient.

jaeger19 said:

OF course it is. If not for the extra time and effort for store employees there would be no reason for an extra charge. And some states mandate a state fee. So yes.. governments fault.

Click to expand...

I was referring to state government.

jaeger19 said:

Well..the problem here is that's a correlation and not causation. IF you actually look at suicide rates.. you will see that they vary much more due to actual factors like mental health access etc. And interestingly.. states that tend to be more liberal ... and have universal background checks.. also have larger safety nets when it comes to mental health.

IF gun ownership was causational.. then Japan.. with almost no access to firearms... should have a dramatically lower rate of suicide than the us. BUT IT DOESN"T...in fact Japans suicide rate is tremendously higher than the us. Which means that other factors and not firearms are the cause.

Click to expand...

Actually, to an extent, it’s both. The fewer number of firearms in the hands of suicidal people means fewer suicides by gun, and for those who are averse to other methods of suicide, not having access to a firearm can give them more time to reconsider getting help through their state’s safety net. The numbers don’t lie.

And yes,of course there are numerous factors involved in suicides.

jaeger19 said:

No.. its sent to the FBI.. and the ATF decides whether to prosecute.

Click to expand...

The FBI already has the information to share with the ATF to determine if prosecution is called for. FFL’s are encouraged to share any concerns they might have with a denied applicant based on their observations of the persons behavior.

jaeger19 said:

Absolutely not. First..with so few prosecuted.. it blatantly shows that there either one..there is no threat that these folks actually represent meaning that its basically useless
and the failure to prosecute means that anyone who is a threat.. is now able to find and purchase a firearm outside legal means... which as my prior study shows..is the vast majority of the way that criminals purchase their firearms.

(which I noticed you ignored by the way..the fact that studies show that the vast majority of firearms obtained by criminals are done so through means that avoid the nics check anyway)

Click to expand...

Weak argument. Whether or not the person applying possibly presents a current threat is not the sole determiner of approval or disapproval (I believe you already know this), and because someone is denied does not assure their ability to obtain a firearm elsewhere, outside the law. That is a nonsensical assumption.

The fact that people who are already disqualified from purchasing firearms often acquire a firearm by illegal means falls under the “no duh” category. No response was called for IMO.

Rucker61 said:

Or "it's Christmas time - let's get that CZ .270 I've had my I on".

Click to expand...

Isn't it "eye on"?

calamity said:

Pretty much all one needs as proof that the term "gun nut" is a perfectly justifiable term.

"Oh Noes...30 children were shot. Quick! Lets go out and buy some more guns."

Click to expand...

That wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't threaten more gun control. That's the main source of scare buying. The shooting in it of itself doesn't cause most people to buy firearms unless they're buying one with the mindset of "hey, this shooting happened at a place that I could've been in. I think I better start seriously reconsider my security plan."