Universal Background Checks for all new purchases?

[iofthetaiga]

No not exactly now you've cancelled his vote with yours.....I'm going to vote against UBC and any other anti gun bills also. So unless somebody comes to cancel my vote .........well then we are 1 up

I'll cancel your hypothetical vote on this hypothetical issue. As I've stated, I don't have any issue with submitting to a NICS check, and don't see the logic to it necessarily being limited to FFL sales only. If I had the ability to conveniently perform a background check before making a private sale, I would take advantage of it.

 

[iofthetaiga]

I was strongly and proudly raised the same. However, "manipulation of data" to support one's position is done every minute of every day by a vast majority of entities...from informal (such as this forum) to formal (virtually every politician that I have heard in my adult life)...and good, well intentioned people "manipulate the data" to support their point of view all the time. Therefore, if we apply the criterion of manipulation of data ("twisting the truth" as you describe it) as a "deal breaker", then we are painting ourselves into a very small corner indeed.

P.S. I don't fully agree with any organized entity...including the NRA.

In the strictest sense, you're absolutely correct, but when you compare how some organizations / people conduct themselves compared to some others, night and day distinctions can be made. Compare for example SAF vs NRA vs <shudder> GOA, and you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Tearbear]

I'll cancel your hypothetical vote on this hypothetical issue. As I've stated, I don't have any issue with submitting to a NICS check, and don't see the logic to it necessarily being limited to FFL sales only. If I had the ability to conveniently perform a background check before making a private sale, I would take advantage of it.

And I'll cancel your vote and raise you five...hypothetically...would you have an issue with the ability to perform a convenient background check before making a private sale...if it cost you a couple hundred bucks? Would you take advantage of that?

 

[iofthetaiga]

And I'll cancel your vote and raise you five...hypothetically...would you have an issue with the ability to perform a convenient background check before making a private sale...if it cost you a couple hundred bucks? Would you take advantage of that?

Thank you for your vote.:topjob: No, a couple hundred bucks might not be convenient.... And in anticipation of your next statement/question regarding who should bear the cost, let me just say I pay a significant amount of taxes so other peoples kids can go to public schools, etc... It's part of being a member of a society.

 

[Tearbear]

Yes, I'm a member of society also...and bear the burden of paying taxes for other peoples kids going to school, even though I have no children in school...never did and most likely never will.

 

[iofthetaiga]

Yes, I'm a member of society also...and bear the burden of paying taxes for kids going to school, even though I have no children in school.

Good on ya.:topjob:

 

[ADfields]

Well Mike, we'll have to agree to disagree on this above. My view is that responsible gun ownership includes all those things you mention, but also an awareness that I should not sell any of my weapons to someone I don't really know/trust. I could never forgive myself if, for example, I sold a handgun to someone who then used it in a crime, and turns out that person should have never been able to purchase a gun in the first place.

So can I assume then when you sell a car, boat, or sled to someone you check to assure they are allowed to operate them . . . Hasn’t left a trail of drunken death and destruction in their wake operating motor vehicles? Seems the responsible thing right?

How many here have said or implied the whole "cold dead hands" thing? Let the govt try to take my guns away, I won't go down without a fight etc. Now whether that is more hyperbole than reality, I don't know, but if it really was the case, why would you fear a real registration program? Which I don't believe we really have right now under the current 4473 and NICS check with FFL dealers.

I mean, if you think about it, it's kind of a strange argument. "The govt will never get my guns without a fight!" "I oppose registration cuz it means the govt will come after my guns!"

The fight starts with opposition to the stupid laws that lead to the point where they are taking away our guns bullets first. The political battle comes first, we don’t sit quietly back then suddenly and unexpectedly spring into all out bloody warfare . . . The war is underway, what you are talking about is the war, its first political then if we muse escalate we do so, incremental, however far we must!!

 

[Tearbear]

...let me just say I pay a significant amount of taxes so other peoples kids can go to public schools, etc... It's part of being a member of a society.

And "Good on Ya" in return...:topjob:

 

[Michael Strahan]

I was strongly and proudly raised the same. However, "manipulation of data" to support one's position is done every minute of every day by a vast majority of entities...from informal (such as this forum) to formal (virtually every politician that I have heard in my adult life)...and good, well intentioned people "manipulate the data" to support their point of view all the time. Therefore, if we apply the criterion of manipulation of data ("twisting the truth" as you describe it) as a "deal breaker", then we are painting ourselves into a very small corner indeed.

P.S. I don't fully agree with any organized entity...including the NRA.

Ah well... you know, you are probably right. But it still feels wrong. I know that people are not objective, and they are likely to see through their own lenses. But to me it's different when information is deliberately twisted. A line gets crossed. I guess that's what I'm talking about.

-Mike

 

[Tearbear]

...who should bear the cost...

I think the one bearing the cost, should be the one who wants it.

 

[iofthetaiga]

I think the one bearing the cost, should be the one who wants it.

Back to my previous point; I don't have any direct need or "want" of public education, nor trash collection, nor a host of other services that benefit our society as a whole, but I pay the cost without whining about it because it's part of being a member of a society; sometimes we pay for things we don't necessarily "want" as individuals.

 

[Tearbear]

Nor did I do any whining...just agreed that we both paid taxes and were a part of society.

 

[bushrat]

Originally Posted by bushrat Well Mike, we'll have to agree to disagree on this above. My view is that responsible gun ownership includes all those things you mention, but also an awareness that I should not sell any of my weapons to someone I don't really know/trust. I could never forgive myself if, for example, I sold a handgun to someone who then used it in a crime, and turns out that person should have never been able to purchase a gun in the first place."



So can I assume then when you sell a car, boat, or sled to someone you check to assure they are allowed to operate them . . . Hasn’t left a trail of drunken death and destruction in their wake operating motor vehicles? Seems the responsible thing right?

Andy,

Gotta say I'm surprised to see this response from you, above, considering you said this:

Okay, no I don’t support “universal background checks” the way they are going about it. I do however support opening NICS so that anyone can call for a check before they sell a gun. As part of that there should be a simple bill of sale form printable from the web with a spot for the NICS info that the seller can fill out and hold. I’m wishy washy on making the call and/or the form mandatory but in no case should the form be sent to or be available to the government except under court order for use in a criminal case just like a 4473. They can find out easy enough who has guns but we shouldn’t be making it any easier or letting them make any databases.

That part bolded and underlined is what I had said earlier I agreed with, which led to my reply to Mike quoted above. And you want to call me out on that, and compare it to selling a boat or a car or a sled? C'mon Andy.

 

[ADfields]

I'll cancel your hypothetical vote on this hypothetical issue. As I've stated, I don't have any issue with submitting to a NICS check, and don't see the logic to it necessarily being limited to FFL sales only. If I had the ability to conveniently perform a background check before making a private sale, I would take advantage of it.

+ 1 No UBC vote here.
　
　
I agree that NICS should be available to all on a voluntary basis, voluntary being key to me. Why I can call GEICO and check the insurance of the guy that just bought my truck before he drives away but need to be an FFL to call NICS is baffling. But there are so many privacy laws regarding government data on us mudding up the matter, just where is the “right to privacy” in the constitution anyway? Funny I can find the info myself, it is almost all public but still only an FFL can run a NICS????
　

But Mike makes a good point about what happens when your in Wal-Mart parking lot and NICS says no-go. I tell ya nobody likes to hear that word and most folks get mad, some tell the messenger just how mad they are about the message, and, a select few get frightening kill the messenger mad! Ever wonder why everyone working the counter in a gun shop is packing? Well, NICS said no is a big reason!

 

[ADfields]

Andy,

Gotta say I'm surprised to see this response from you, above, considering you said this:


That part bolded and underlined is what I had said earlier I agreed with, which led to my reply to Mike quoted above. And you want to call me out on that, and compare it to selling a boat or a car or a sled? C'mon Andy.


[/COLOR]

It’s the same thing Mark just you think of one as a killing tool and not the other. The one that seems benign to us is acutely the bigger killer by far but we are conditioned all our lives to think of one tool as bad/evil/dangerous and the other just benign and ordinary. It’s largely just a product of familiarity, everyone is used to cars and excepts the carnage they cause because of that yet fear the gun to irrational levels because it’s not an everyday tool for many.


I do agree NICS should be open for anyone to use but its use should be voluntary not mandatory. But my purpose was to make you think rationally and logically about your position . . . So if being “responsible” in who you sell a gun to is important to you why doesn’t the same hold true of a more deadly killing machine?

 

[Marcus]

We're all in the same boat . .

We're all in the same boat . .

. . "manipulation of data" to support one's position is done every minute of every day by a vast majority of entities...from informal (such as this forum) to formal (virtually every politician that I have heard in my adult life)...and good, well intentioned people "manipulate the data" to support their point of view all the time. Therefore, if we apply the criterion of manipulation of data ("twisting the truth" as you describe it) as a "deal breaker", then we are painting ourselves into a very small corner indeed. . .

Doc, while I quite agree with the above, it is equally if not more true that the data are what we perceive them to be. Data, to, say, an Atheist is not data to a Theist, and so on.


It isn't so much that our presuppositions defining our facts paints us into a very small corner, but rather that we, like they, are all doing the same thing. Whether our point of view or theirs, it's all a matter of belief.


Perception is reality. It isn't that real, objective truth doesn't exist outside our perceptions, it's that we all perceive that truth in a glass darkly and by belief/faith.


Time will tell . .

 

[Doc]

Ah well... you know, you are probably right. But it still feels wrong. I know that people are not objective, and they are likely to see through their own lenses. But to me it's different when information is deliberately twisted. A line gets crossed. I guess that's what I'm talking about.

Well said Mike and you are right that it still feels wrong (and it is)...that's why we call BS on the person/entity when we see or hear it, and then we usually quote back contrary data supporting our view. It's just not a deal killer with the NRA (for me).

In the strictest sense, you're absolutely correct, but when you compare how some organizations / people conduct themselves compared to some others, night and day distinctions can be made. Compare for example SAF vs NRA vs <shudder> GOA, and you're comparing apples to oranges.

A Venn diagram of those three entities would be interesting to plot wouldn't it IOTT? (I'm laughing with you on that sir)

Doc, while I quite agree with the above, it is equally if not more true that the data are what we perceive them to be. Data, to, say, an Atheist is not data to a Theist, and so on.

Marcus, your premise that everything is reduced to individual perception is inarguable, and I of course agree with you completely... it is a given, an axiom, a truth. Some would enjoy discussing it further with you on a philosophy forum because you are well read and philosophical sir, but that is not here.

Sorry BR for taking this diversion within your thread and I will cease at this point...

 

[Marcus]

I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all there is to it . . .

I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all there is to it . . .

Marcus, your premise that everything is reduced to individual perception is inarguable, and I of course agree with you completely... it is a given, an axiom, a truth. Some would enjoy discussing it further with you on a philosophy forum because you are well read and philosophical sir, but that is not here.

Thanks, Doc, and just in case anyone does care to pursue such subject matter: http://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=5


I wanted to make that point because it's too easy, especially in discussions such as this, to think we are the sole possessors of truth, that our way is the "right" way, and that only we apprehend reality correctly.


None of us here would fall prey to such foolish notions, but you never know who might drop in, and we wouldn't want them to get the wrong impression of us.


Carry on . .

 

[bushrat]

It’s the same thing Mark just you think of one as a killing tool and not the other. The one that seems benign to us is acutely the bigger killer by far but we are conditioned all our lives to think of one tool as bad/evil/dangerous and the other just benign and ordinary. It’s largely just a product of familiarity, everyone is used to cars and excepts the carnage they cause because of that yet fear the gun to irrational levels because it’s not an everyday tool for many.


I do agree NICS should be open for anyone to use but its use should be voluntary not mandatory. But my purpose was to make you think rationally and logically about your position . . . So if being “responsible” in who you sell a gun to is important to you why doesn’t the same hold true of a more deadly killing machine?

Andy,

The reason guns like handguns and ARs are thought of as human-killing tools is because that is primarily their purpose. Cars...that is not at all their primary purpose. They are not "killing machines" in that sense, even though, yes, a whole lot of people die each year in car accidents. So, when selling a car there isn't the same kind of concerns that the buyer may go out and commit a crime/murder with it, intentionally.

Having said that though, I'd go to the DMV with buyer to file the paperwork, if the buyer checks out legal to operate a motor vehicle, transfers insurance, good to go. Bottom line, it just isn't comparable to selling a gun.

Regarding NICS-says-no scenarios, I don't think the fact that some potential buyers may (may being the operative word) get mad would be any kind of rationale to not run a NICS check for private sales. The gun biz, selling guns privately...there are plenty of crazies out there. I ran into my share of them when I worked at a gun shop. Probably not a good idea to meet someone alone in a dark parking lot when selling a gun.

 

[ADfields]

Andy,

The reason guns like handguns and ARs are thought of as human-killing tools is because that is primarily their purpose. Cars...that is not at all their primary purpose. They are not "killing machines" in that sense, even though, yes, a whole lot of people die each year in car accidents. So, when selling a car there isn't the same kind of concerns that the buyer may go out and commit a crime/murder with it, intentionally.

Having said that though, I'd go to the DMV with buyer to file the paperwork, if the buyer checks out legal to operate a motor vehicle, transfers insurance, good to go. Bottom line, it just isn't comparable to selling a gun.

Regarding NICS-says-no scenarios, I don't think the fact that some potential buyers may (may being the operative word) get mad would be any kind of rationale to not run a NICS check for private sales. The gun biz, selling guns privately...there are plenty of crazies out there. I ran into my share of them when I worked at a gun shop. Probably not a good idea to meet someone alone in a dark parking lot when selling a gun.

Regardless of how you perceive them motor vehicles are far more deadly and there are far more folks wondering around with DUI records. You think it matters to the dead or their families whether the killer was drunk driving for the umpteenth time or robbing another gas station. Well I can tell you first hand it doesn’t, dead is dead! But what you are not recognizing is that to fear one tool and not fear another far more deadly tool defines irrational thinking! It matters not what the tools are intended to do if thinking rationally, it’s the body count that matters. And getting all irrationally worked up and trying to trample a “right” does nothing but allow the stack of bodies from an abused “privilege” to keep right on piling up.
　
So tell me how it’s rational that the relatively small pile of bodies with bullet holes is a more urgent issue than the huge mountain of DUI mangled bodies? Why does addressing one crime mean we must restrict the law abiding and the other crime is just a sad statistic that isn’t the tools fault?