• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104
Requiring background checks by private sellers at gun shows and online is doable and would go a long way in reducing that invisible firearms market.

You keep spewing this idiocy without ever establishing any factual support

do you think your pathetically weak arguments actually helps your cause of disarming the public?
 
So. What you are saying is that there is no definitive proof about private checks? Or about the enforcement of them?

Are you even aware of what it would take to enforce private sale background checks? Law enforcement would have to start buying guns privately...stings. How does that work for drugs?



No, what I am saying is what the new report that you ignored, stated:

"The report "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers" by Garen Wintemute, who also serves as a professor of emergency medicine, notes that 40 percent of U.S. gun transactions occur between unlicensed private parties, such as people buying and selling at gun shows. That figure doubles, to more than 80 percent, for firearm sales that involve criminal intent."

"By creating a single, equitable structure governing all retail commerce in firearms, Congress could make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, substantially reduce firearm-related violence, and curb the large-volume gun purchases that result in firearm trafficking, Wintemute said."
 
LOL generals and admirals know squat when it comes to civilian firearms use. these appear to be a bunch of leftwing has beens.


Let's see, that's generals, admirals, 80% of Republicans, and 85% of independents, all further to the left than you. Big surprise there! :cool:
 
Let's see, that's generals, admirals, 80% of Republicans, and 85% of independents, all further to the left than you. Big surprise there! :cool:

you have never come close to explaining why that matters
 
No, what I am saying is what the new report that you ignored, stated:

"The report "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers" by Garen Wintemute, who also serves as a professor of emergency medicine, notes that 40 percent of U.S. gun transactions occur between unlicensed private parties, such as people buying and selling at gun shows. That figure doubles, to more than 80 percent, for firearm sales that involve criminal intent."

"By creating a single, equitable structure governing all retail commerce in firearms, Congress could make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, substantially reduce firearm-related violence, and curb the large-volume gun purchases that result in firearm trafficking, Wintemute said."

Unfortunately you neglected to quote this:

In addition to background checks to identify prohibited persons and deter those with criminal intent, Wintemute recommends establishing a permanent record for each firearm transferred between private parties, thus creating a chain of ownership. Such records have proven to be of great help to law enforcement agencies as they investigate individual crimes and seek to disrupt firearm trafficking networks.

This sure sounds like a registry. You know the kind of registry that was proclaimed a non-starter in the MANY links you have provided optimistically promoting the 'closeness' of Senate legislation...
 
Unfortunately you neglected to quote this:



This sure sounds like a registry. You know the kind of registry that was proclaimed a non-starter in the MANY links you have provided optimistically promoting the 'closeness' of Senate legislation...

catawba has already admitted he wants a complete ban on guns and hopes for that to happen
 
No, what I am saying is what the new report that you ignored, stated:

"The report "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers" by Garen Wintemute, who also serves as a professor of emergency medicine, notes that 40 percent of U.S. gun transactions occur between unlicensed private parties, such as people buying and selling at gun shows. That figure doubles, to more than 80 percent, for firearm sales that involve criminal intent."

"By creating a single, equitable structure governing all retail commerce in firearms, Congress could make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, substantially reduce firearm-related violence, and curb the large-volume gun purchases that result in firearm trafficking, Wintemute said."

So what you are saying is that criminals who purchase through private sale would somehow magically be stopped? They wouldn't try to avoid the system?

So basically the ONLY people that would be involved in the background checks would be those that CHOOSE to be. Not anyone else. Lol.
 
So what you are saying is that criminals who purchase through private sale would somehow magically be stopped? They wouldn't try to avoid the system?

So basically the ONLY people that would be involved in the background checks would be those that CHOOSE to be. Not anyone else. Lol.

they won't discuss the facts

unless there is complete registration and laws forcing private citizens to keep the same records FFLs keep, the UBC law is doomed to fail

and that of course is what gun banners like Catawba want. A feel good law that many low wattage individuals will support as an opening to force registration.
 
you have never come close to explaining why that matters

90% of the country understands why it matters and my guess is the remaining 10% will never get it!
 
Unfortunately you neglected to quote this:



This sure sounds like a registry. You know the kind of registry that was proclaimed a non-starter in the MANY links you have provided optimistically promoting the 'closeness' of Senate legislation...

I don't think that part will be included in the bipartisan bill. Its a damn shame, but such is the state of GOP politics, at least until the next couple of elections!
 
So what you are saying is that criminals who purchase through private sale would somehow magically be stopped? They wouldn't try to avoid the system?

So basically the ONLY people that would be involved in the background checks would be those that CHOOSE to be. Not anyone else. Lol.

The easiest and cheapest place right now for a criminal to buy a gun without a background check is through a gun show in 40 states or responding to private sellers online. By removing those sources, it makes it more difficult and more expensive for criminals to buy guns. That is the goal.

Background checks do not prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns. That is why a majority of gun owners and 90% of voters support background checks. I can't think of another issue in the last 10 years that has seen that kind of support from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents!
 
90% of the country understands why it matters and my guess is the remaining 10% will never get it!

The repeatedly squawked appeal to mediocrity
 
I don't think that part will be included in the bipartisan bill. Its a damn shame, but such is the state of GOP politics, at least until the next couple of elections!

You dream! Judging future elections based on the current political climate is foolish regardless of the daily rhetoric of the 'talking heads'. Just look at what happened in '97, 2001, 2004, 2006 or 2010. Very little changed in last year's election from the prior year and this somehow is evidence of a 'shift'...really?
 
90% of the country understands why it matters and my guess is the remaining 10% will never get it!

How can '90% of the country understands why it matters' when the specifics of UBC's are not defined?
 
90% of the country understands why it matters and my guess is the remaining 10% will never get it!

No. 90% believe in background checks. Not universal checks. And not to mention the stats you have quotes have been very skewed tests based on 1-2k people. Not millions. As I have said...that is called a poor sample size in statistics.
 
Requiring background checks by private sellers at gun shows and online is doable and would go a long way in reducing that invisible firearms market.

But it's not going to stop a damn person from selling a gun to their neighbor out of their home.
 
I seriously question that figure. I don't consider a CBS poll to necessarily be unbiased and credible either.

Did you notice it said on POTENTIAL gun buyers? You know how many that could be?
 
But it's not going to stop a damn person from selling a gun to their neighbor out of their home.

Exemptions are already being discussed as part of the bipartisan bill. Reductions in sales to criminals by expanding background checks are better than continuing to allow criminals to buy guns online and at gun shows in 40 states without a background check.
 
How can '90% of the country understands why it matters' when the specifics of UBC's are not defined?

What the 90% supported was background checks for all gun sales. Any legislation that gets passed will be less restrictive that what there is already 90% support for.
 
I don't know why those who are knowledgeable on this subject, keep responding and egging people on... they will never listen to reality... let them start their threads and let them go dormant...
 
Exemptions are already being discussed as part of the bipartisan bill. Reductions in sales to criminals by expanding background checks are better than continuing to allow criminals to buy guns online and at gun shows in 40 states without a background check.

Criminals aren't buying guns legally now, what difference is it going to make if you make law-abiding citizens to through background checks? It won't stop the criminals from getting guns. Or didn't you think about that?
 
Exemptions are already being discussed as part of the bipartisan bill. Reductions in sales to criminals by expanding background checks are better than continuing to allow criminals to buy guns online and at gun shows in 40 states without a background check.

you continue to ignore the obvious. we oppose laws that have no chance of really working but rather, are designed to justify further encroachments on our rights
 
Criminals aren't buying guns legally now, what difference is it going to make if you make law-abiding citizens to through background checks? It won't stop the criminals from getting guns. Or didn't you think about that?

I don't think any of us believe that crime control is what motivates Catawba. he has already admitted he wants a complete gun ban but he concedes "society is not ready for that". Thus he pushes for laws that help pave the way for complete gun bans

If you want to keep your guns, oppose any law people like him try to enact
 
Criminals aren't buying guns legally now, what difference is it going to make if you make law-abiding citizens to through background checks? It won't stop the criminals from getting guns. Or didn't you think about that?

What makes you possibly think that criminals are not taking advantage of the cheap and easy gun purchases at gun shows and online? Our goal is to make it more difficult and expensive for criminals to get guns than merely strolling into a gun show, plopping down some cash, and walking out with a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom