Came across this study with some interesting takeaways.

The study found states with "universal background checks" had lower homicide rates than states without.

They also found no empirical evidence that banning assault rifles made a significant impact on homicide rates.
"These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality."

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

While "mass shooter incidents" gain a lot of press and cause a lot of ruckus, disgusting and tragic as it is, the majority of gun crimes and homicides are caused by inner city gangs and drug issues.

The problem has always been the persons responsible for the actual crimes.
And most don't go through background checks not proper channels to acquire their firearms. 

I'd be in favor of universal background checks with 3-year renewals as long as EVERYBODY has to get one.  I mean EVERYONE 16 and older.

Everyone -- gun buyer/owner or not -- must submit to the same privacy-invasive system as gun buyers.  Then, each person gets a gov't picture ID that states what the results were which are based on some code -- to protect their privacy while still letting others know their fitness to be trusted.

Next time you want a gun, just show the seller your "I'm a trusted person" card, and there will be no need for another NICS check.  Maybe a quick check to see if anything changed since the last issue.renewal.  That takes no time at all if they do it right.  Set a flag in a database if there's a change.  No flag?  Approved!

So, if you're a felon, sex offender, wife beater, drug addict, habitual alcohol abuser, medical marijuana card-carrying patient, on the no-fly list, and so on, you are given codes for specific types of uses:

One code for buying guns: Yes or No

Another for being around kids, like working as a teacher or baby sitter:  Yes or no

etc.
etc.

The issue is not the implement (guns), but rather it's the tendency of some in society to exhibit certain behaviors -- behaviors that represent a clear and present danger/risk in EVERYTHING they do, not just possessing firearms.  Driving, buying large quantities of gasoline in portable containers, ordering their 8th cocktail at Happy Hour, taking pictures of other people's kids in a park, .... We need to know if we can trust people.  PERIOD.

When the gov't stops treating all gun owners as potential criminals by treating us ALL that way, then I'll agree to these universal background checks.  If it's not for everyone in the country 16 years old and up, then it's not UNIVERSAL.

"Can I help you officer?"

"Yes, we received a report you were watching the kids at the park while apparently there alone.  Can we check your ID and Trust Data Card?"

"Sure."

"Great.  I see you're not coded to stay away from minors.  Sorry to bother you.  Have a good evening, sir!"   

Came across this study with some interesting takeaways.

The study found states with "universal background checks" had lower homicide rates than states without.

They also found no empirical evidence that banning assault rifles made a significant impact on homicide rates.
"These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality."

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

I'm all for background checks.  Contact NICS and if they give the green, then all good.  That is all that should be needed to purchase a gun.  We can spend $7 billion on the Obamacare website, but can't find funds to have a better, faster NICS system.  There is a reason for that.

I'm all for background checks.  Contact NICS and if they give the green, then all good.  That is all that should be needed to purchase a gun.  We can spend $7 billion on the Obamacare website, but can't find funds to have a better, faster NICS system.  There is a reason for that.

The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime.

Criminals don't participate in those systems.  The system is only as good as the data it can access and the competence of the people responsible for managing and running it day-to-day.

We've had at least half a dozen high profile murders/mass shootings committed by people who passed the NICS background check -- some did even though the system should have denied them.

There are a variety of reasons why each specific shooter was able to get their weapons in spite of being prohibited or a high risk individual.  The SC church shooting, the Texas church shooting and the Parkland HS shooting are all examples of how the existing system is a failure.  Does the system catch more than it misses?  The only way to tell is to find out if a person denied on their BG check went on to find the weapon another way and commit the crime.  But then, that would show that the system is a failure even when it works as designed.

The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime.

Criminals don't participate in those systems.  The system is only as good as the data it can access and the competence of the people responsible for managing and running it day-to-day.

We've had at least half a dozen high profile murders/mass shootings committed by people who passed the NICS background check -- some did even though the system should have denied them.

There are a variety of reasons why each specific shooter was able to get their weapons in spite of being prohibited or a high risk individual.  The SC church shooting, the Texas church shooting and the Parkland HS shooting are all examples of how the existing system is a failure.  Does the system catch more than it misses?  The only way to tell is to find out if a person denied on their BG check went on to find the weapon another way and commit the crime.  But then, that would show that the system is a failure even when it works as designed.

"The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime."
Democrats don't seem to understand that.  I bought my first .22 rifle through the mail. I still have that rifle.  People like us aren't the problem.
People that can't exercise self control are the problem.  They drive cars, trucks, boats, shoot guns, and even fly airplanes
into things like crowds,  buildings, oceans,  and mountains.
Democrat/Socialists  will never deal with sick people as that as it is some weird form of discrimination to them.
The problem is people and Democrat/Socialists inability to call sick people out for what they are and deal with it.
Perhaps because percentage wise,  most sick people are Democrats/Socialists.
They don't call our Senator "Crazy Mazie" for lack of reason.
That would be my bet.

"The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime."
Democrats don't seem to understand that.  I bought my first .22 rifle through the mail. I still have that rifle.  People like us aren't the problem.
People that can't exercise self control are the problem.  They drive cars, trucks, boats, shoot guns, and even fly airplanes
into things like crowds,  buildings, oceans,  and mountains.
Democrat/Socialists  will never deal with sick people as that as it is some weird form of discrimination to them.
The problem is people and Democrat/Socialists inability to call sick people out for what they are and deal with it.
Perhaps because percentage wise,  most sick people are Democrats/Socialists.
They don't call our Senator "Crazy Mazie" for lack of reason.
That would be my bet.

I've seen opinions from psychiatrists and have tended to agree more and more over time:  that most people who want to ban guns out of fear of what people with them might do are basing that fear on PROJECTION of their own lack of responsibility, mental health and discipline.  They think, "If I'm not able to be trusted to own a gun, then nobody other than police should be trusted."

If Liberals like something, it should be paid for by tax payers for everyone.

If Liberals dislike something, it should be banned.

Pretty much their SOP.

I'm all for background checks.  Contact NICS and if they give the green, then all good.  That is all that should be needed to purchase a gun.  We can spend $7 billion on the Obamacare website, but can't find funds to have a better, faster NICS system.  There is a reason for that.

I think one of the problems with the system is that a lot of jurisdictions don't enter in records from their area. So a background check might be done but it never catches the person because some police department didn't report properly. As I understand it there is no mandatory reporting, only incentivized reporting.

So I agree that we don't need some new system or 50 individual systems, we just need a system that contains the information it should contain. It is hard to justify a failure of the government when two agencies that should be communicating aren't and something bad happens because they didn't talk.

And with modern computers it shouldn't take two weeks, it should take 2 minutes then you walk out with your permit.

The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime.

Where is the evidence of that?

Where is the evidence of that?

Common sense freedoms.
All the laws and all the cops and your "men", can't keep the murder rates in
Chicago, Baltimore, Texas,
Florida, Colorado,  et al, DOWN!
With all due respect, your and I emphasize your,
gun laws don't do squat to solve the problem.
They merely enslave a law abiding people, that
would never commit the crimes you are trying to prevent.
People are the problem, not a stupid tool.

Where is the evidence of that?

CDC and other more independent studies looking into the impact of a 10-year "Assault Weapons" Ban found NO IMPACT on crime.  TEN ....... YEARS .....  But, we hear calls for a renewed AWB/Buy-Back daily.

The fact that some places have significantly more violent crime than others, even though many high crime states & cities have extremely strict gun laws, while states and cities with almost no gun laws outside the Constitution and the ATF rules have almost no violent crimes -- particularly gun crime.  It only takes one contrasting example to disprove the hypothesis, in this case that guns are the primary cause of violence, and that stricter gun laws stop gun violence.

The fact that any laws enacted will have to grandfathered in for existing owners' guns and accessories (as opposed to outright confiscation), which does nothing about the existence of guns already in the hands of private owners.

The fact that guns are not the last resort for murder.  Boston brags about their tough gun laws and low gun crime rates, but couldn't figure out how to stop actual terrorists from using pressure cookers as bombs even though they were already identified and placed on a watch list.  Maybe need a red flag law for OTHER THAN GUN threats?

I could go on.  All of this is evidence that proves you can keep passing laws, but the ones intent on violence won't care and won't be deterred.  Violence is a part of life.  Guns are the best defense against violence.  Expecting less violence by having fewer guns, rather than allowing more people to be prepared by having a gun if they choose is illogical.  Mathematically, more DGU than gun crimes occur every year.  You are proposing reducing the "good" gun numbers in favor of only trying to reduce "bad" gun numbers.  The side effect will always be the disarming of law abiding people to some degree, which disproportionally affects those in areas that most need that protection.

Terrorists, radical political extremists wanting power, white nationalists, ANTIFA or just the average nut case is more than capable of causing violence.

We already had two attacks on ICE facilities with Molotov cocktails.  When you're the target of violence,

I doubt you'll be lying in a puddle off your own blood missing a limb while saying with relief, "I'm glad I wasn't shot!"

I think one of the problems with the system is that a lot of jurisdictions don't enter in records from their area. So a background check might be done but it never catches the person because some police department didn't report properly. As I understand it there is no mandatory reporting, only incentivized reporting.

So I agree that we don't need some new system or 50 individual systems, we just need a system that contains the information it should contain. It is hard to justify a failure of the government when two agencies that should be communicating aren't and something bad happens because they didn't talk.

And with modern computers it shouldn't take two weeks, it should take 2 minutes then you walk out with your permit.

You obviously know nothing about computers, databases, and privacy.

"Should" is not part of the design process.  Either you can, or you can't -- technically or according to law, policy or resource availability.  Sitting around saying "should" doesn't solve any real problems.

The Dept of Education SHOULD be able to match a student loan applicant's name and the Social Security Number they listed as the bare minimum level of security against identity theft.

Government laws require they only keep information on file for a few years before deleting (no access to previous records to do a confirmation match), and they are not allowed to ask the Social Security Administration to give a thumbs up or down as to whether the name matches the number provided.

The simplest thing that could stop identity theft and save tax payers millions in fraudulent student loans, not to mention years of headaches for their victims, is prevented by the bureaucracy in the name of privacy.

So, before making a layman's statement such as "we should be able to do this," do some research into all the different constraints that make what you just said 100% wrong.

CDC and other more independent studies looking into the impact of a 10-year "Assault Weapons" Ban found NO IMPACT on crime.  TEN ....... YEARS .....  But, we hear calls for a renewed AWB/Buy-Back daily.

The fact that some places have significantly more violent crime than others, even though many high crime states & cities have extremely strict gun laws, while states and cities with almost no gun laws outside the Constitution and the ATF rules have almost no violent crimes -- particularly gun crime.  It only takes one contrasting example to disprove the hypothesis, in this case that guns are the primary cause of violence, and that stricter gun laws stop gun violence.

The fact that any laws enacted will have to grandfathered in for existing owners' guns and accessories (as opposed to outright confiscation), which does nothing about the existence of guns already in the hands of private owners.

The fact that guns are not the last resort for murder.  Boston brags about their tough gun laws and low gun crime rates, but couldn't figure out how to stop actual terrorists from using pressure cookers as bombs even though they were already identified and placed on a watch list.  Maybe need a red flag law for OTHER THAN GUN threats?

I could go on.  All of this is evidence that proves you can keep passing laws, but the ones intent on violence won't care and won't be deterred.  Violence is a part of life.  Guns are the best defense against violence.  Expecting less violence by having fewer guns, rather than allowing more people to be prepared by having a gun if they choose is illogical.  Mathematically, more DGU than gun crimes occur every year.  You are proposing reducing the "good" gun numbers in favor of only trying to reduce "bad" gun numbers.  The side effect will always be the disarming of law abiding people to some degree, which disproportionally affects those in areas that most need that protection.

Terrorists, radical political extremists wanting power, white nationalists, ANTIFA or just the average nut case is more than capable of causing violence.

We already had two attacks on ICE facilities with Molotov cocktails.  When you're the target of violence,

I doubt you'll be lying in a puddle off your own blood missing a limb while saying with relief, "I'm glad I wasn't shot!"

The assault weapon ban didn't have anything to do with screening people though.

Yes, some cities have very strict gun laws but very high gun crime. Obviously though when all you have to do is drive across a state line, a state law restricting guns is going to be of limited effectiveness in some ways. When you look at states as a whole though, states with more restrictive gun laws have lower gun death rates. Is that merely a coincidence? So while the numbers swing in our favor in one direction when we look at certain cities, they kind of swing away from out favor when looking at most states.

Since you are against universal background checks, why not just do away with all checks, even ones from firearms dealers? The same arguments apply either way so if we aren't going to have universal checks then there isn't an argument to have gun dealer background checks. And the opposite remains true.

You obviously know nothing about computers, databases, and privacy.

"Should" is not part of the design process.  Either you can, or you can't -- technically or according to law, policy or resource availability.  Sitting around saying "should" doesn't solve any real problems.

The Dept of Education SHOULD be able to match a student loan applicant's name and the Social Security Number they listed as the bare minimum level of security against identity theft.

Government laws require they only keep information on file for a few years before deleting (no access to previous records to do a confirmation match), and they are not allowed to ask the Social Security Administration to give a thumbs up or down as to whether the name matches the number provided.

The simplest thing that could stop identity theft and save tax payers millions in fraudulent student loans, not to mention years of headaches for their victims, is prevented by the bureaucracy in the name of privacy.

So, before making a layman's statement such as "we should be able to do this," do some research into all the different constraints that make what you just said 100% wrong.

Are you going to tell me that if the CIA knew of a terror attack but didn't tell the FBI, or local police then we just shrug and say "our computers can't do that" and act as if that is acceptable?

I have used enough databases to know that what I am suggesting is not that difficult. It already exists in the NCIC system which many agencies can access but is hampered but he fact some agencies don't bother to report.

"Should" is part of the design process, it is the end goal, what drives what the system should be capable of. Law enforcement should be able to access necessary information, you start with that and design a system to achieve that goal. And when I say should here I am not speaking of some future technology, like we should be able to cure cancer. I am talking about things that are already within our abilities. So when I say should I mean it is something we can do and don't have a good excuse not to. Like I should excercise more. Can you see the difference or does your condescention cloud your view?

The assault weapon ban didn't have anything to do with screening people though.

Yes, some cities have very strict gun laws but very high gun crime. Obviously though when all you have to do is drive across a state line, a state law restricting guns is going to be of limited effectiveness in some ways. When you look at states as a whole though, states with more restrictive gun laws have lower gun death rates. Is that merely a coincidence? So while the numbers swing in our favor in one direction when we look at certain cities, they kind of swing away from out favor when looking at most states.

Since you are against universal background checks, why not just do away with all checks, even ones from firearms dealers? The same arguments apply either way so if we aren't going to have universal checks then there isn't an argument to have gun dealer background checks. And the opposite remains true.

 

Are you going to tell me that if the CIA knew of a terror attack but didn't tell the FBI, or local police then we just shrug and say "our computers can't do that" and act as if that is acceptable?

More like involved...#falseflag #operationmockingbird

Are you going to tell me that if the CIA knew of a terror attack but didn't tell the FBI, or local police then we just shrug and say "our computers can't do that" and act as if that is acceptable?

I have used enough databases to know that what I am suggesting is not that difficult. It already exists in the NCIC system which many agencies can access but is hampered but he fact some agencies don't bother to report.

"Should" is part of the design process, it is the end goal, what drives what the system should be capable of. Law enforcement should be able to access necessary information, you start with that and design a system to achieve that goal. And when I say should here I am not speaking of some future technology, like we should be able to cure cancer. I am talking about things that are already within our abilities. So when I say should I mean it is something we can do and don't have a good excuse not to. Like I should excercise more. Can you see the difference or does your condescention cloud your view?

I'm an IT professional.  "Should" is what the arrogant, uneducated, inexperienced idiots say when they don't understand the reality of what's possible in the context of existing technology, state and federal statutes and resources required.

I'm of the mindset that we can do anything with computers given enough time, money and resources.  That's not what happens with government programs.  They put out an RFP, accept proposals for a length of time, award the project to the district of whichever Congressman heads up the committee making the decision, budget the funds they were told the proposal needed, and eventually take delivery of something that meets the stated RFP's requirements -- requirements that are never written by anyone capable of designing that system.  So, we wind up with a broken system, over budget, and well beyond the projected deadline.

You have but to look at H-3, the Rail, and the Obamacare website launch to understand that is the norm.  Many more examples other than those 3.

You expect a computer to do the job when people can't do the job themselves even if given unlimited time.  The privacy and funding issues alone prevent it.

So you don't have an answer to the question or you don't want to admit the logic you use against universal background checks also apply to FFL dealer background checks?

I'm an IT professional.  "Should" is what the arrogant, uneducated, inexperienced idiots say when they don't understand the reality of what's possible in the context of existing technology, state and federal statutes and resources required.

I'm of the mindset that we can do anything with computers given enough time, money and resources.  That's not what happens with government programs.  They put out an RFP, accept proposals for a length of time, award the project to the district of whichever Congressman heads up the committee making the decision, budget the funds they were told the proposal needed, and eventually take delivery of something that meets the stated RFP's requirements -- requirements that are never written by anyone capable of designing that system.  So, we wind up with a broken system, over budget, and well beyond the projected deadline.

You have but to look at H-3, the Rail, and the Obamacare website launch to understand that is the norm.  Many more examples other than those 3.

You expect a computer to do the job when people can't do the job themselves even if given unlimited time.  The privacy and funding issues alone prevent it.

And should is also what people who know what can be done also say. Should is not exclusive to the ignorant.

We already have the NCIC system so its not like I am asking them to design some new system or one that cannot exist.

One of the big holes is that some agencies don't report information to the NCIC database. That is a participation issue not some unrealistic request of IT workers.

It is like casting a net with a bunch of big holes in it.

And should is also what people who know what can be done also say. Should is not exclusive to the ignorant.

We already have the NCIC system so its not like I am asking them to design some new system or one that cannot exist.

One of the big holes is that some agencies don't report information to the NCIC database. That is a participation issue not some unrealistic request of IT workers.

It is like casting a net with a bunch of big holes in it.

Arrogant and ignorant.

You ask of people you don't know to do something that you can't do nor explain how it needs to be done.

This is the problem.  People like you believe they can have an opinion based on "should", but have no clue about "is".

You're no different on this issue than a college kid holding a rally to "Ban Weapons of War from US Streets."

You don't understand the actual problem, so any solution you call for will be up to someone else to create -- even though your solution solves nothing and costs us more than any benefit it may provide.