• 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!

From my research, it looks like New York state has a background check law similar to ours here in CA.

mrjurrs said:
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Do you want criminals to continue to have access to guns so that they can continue being criminals?
Click to expand...
Isn't that what background checks prevent in your mind?
 
Rucker61 said:
Isn't that what background checks prevent in your mind?
Click to expand...
Actual background checks that would effectively limit would, I would suggest that current BC's do very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.
 
mrjurrs said:
So the gun is registered and licensed, correct? Are you registered and licensed as well? I'm next to positive that no insurance requirements are tied to the gun right?
Click to expand...

No, the gun isn't registered and licensed. The user is. I wouldn't necessarily be averse to a registration requirement for the gun being publicly used. Nor to a liability insurance requirement for public use, equivalent to the minimum requirement for motor vehicles.

It's moot though, because so few will agree to limiting possession for motor vehicles equivalent to the limitations for guns.
 
mrjurrs said:
Actual background checks that would effectively limit would, I would suggest that current BC's do very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.
Click to expand...
But if background checks were developed that could limit criminal access to guns would you support using the same background checks to limit criminal access to cars.
 
Rucker61 said:
But if background checks were developed that could limit criminal access to guns would you support using the same background checks to limit criminal access to cars.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that impeding criminals or reducing violent crime, is what motivates the persistent anti gun posters on this board?
 
Rucker61 said:
But if background checks were developed that could limit criminal access to guns would you support using the same background checks to limit criminal access to cars.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure all 50 states share DMV data already.
 
mrjurrs said:
I'm pretty sure all 50 states share DMV data already.
Click to expand...
Felons can still buy and sell cars. @RF667799 wants to ban the ownership and use of cars by felons in order to reduce crime.
 
RF667799 said:
That isn't what criminal background checks are.
Click to expand...
It is however, a way that the 50 states share current info, a way deemed inappropriate for gun purchases.
 
Rucker61 said:
Felons can still buy and sell cars. @RF667799 wants to ban the ownership and use of cars by felons in order to reduce crime.
Click to expand...
No, I believe he is just talking about drunk drivers. Not all felons are drunk drivers and not all drunk drivers are felons.
 
mrjurrs said:
It is however, a way that the 50 states share current info, a way deemed inappropriate for gun purchases.
Click to expand...

The background checks for guns are overseen by the FBI. The data is supposed to be shared by the states.
 
mrjurrs said:
No, I believe he is just talking about drunk drivers. Not all felons are drunk drivers and not all drunk drivers are felons.
Click to expand...
No, not just drunk drivers.
 
mrjurrs said:
All felons?
Click to expand...
That's the standard for guns. Serious misdemeanors as well. People subject to orders of protection. Dishonorably discharged from the Armed Services. Addicted to illegal drugs.

All considered "Prohibited Persons".
 
RF667799 said:
That's the standard for guns. Serious misdemeanors as well. People subject to orders of protection. Dishonorably discharged from the Armed Services. Addicted to illegal drugs.

All considered "Prohibited Persons".
Click to expand...
In that case, no I don't support your idea.
 
RF667799 said:
That isn't the fault of the states, is it? That's the fault of the FBI not completing their duties in a timely manner.
Click to expand...
Really? Not states failing to provide prompt and accurate info?
 
mrjurrs said:
In that case, no I don't support your idea.
Click to expand...
So you are in favor of allowing criminals to have access to cars to help them commit crimes.
 
mrjurrs said:
Really? Not states failing to provide prompt and accurate info?
Click to expand...

Why would that slow down the process? If the state hasn't provided the info to the data base, it doesn't affect the process of the check itself, so far as I know.
 
RF667799 said:
Why would that slow down the process? If the state hasn't provided the info to the data base, it doesn't affect the process of the check itself, so far as I know.
Click to expand...
If the check can't be completed in 3 days the transaction continues as I understand it.
 
Rucker61 said:
So you are in favor of allowing criminals to have access to cars to help them commit crimes.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said. Imo, crimes should be punished, not the possibility that a crime will take place.
 
mrjurrs said:
If the check can't be completed in 3 days the transaction continues as I understand it.
Click to expand...
Right. The states have nothing to do with that. The FBI conducts the check.
 
mrjurrs said:
That's not what I said. Imo, crimes should be punished, not the possibility that a crime will take place.
Click to expand...

Is prohibiting criminals from having guns just a punishment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom