How do background checks and registration work? (1 Viewer)

[Crimefree]

Gaining popularity is the support for gun controls proposals of background checks and registration.

How do these work and what will these laws achieve?

Many people support background checks and/or registration thus they obviously must have some idea of what is hoped to be achieved and how that will come about. I would hope that people proposing laws were responsible enough to find out or know how their choice will work and how it will impact citizens. Is that not the least we should be sure of? Nobody wants to help create bad laws.

What are your views and expectations from background checks and registration?

 

[Lutherf]

It's common sense. Background checks and registrations save lives because criminals will no longer be able to get guns. Everyone knows that but the NRA and Conservatives keep lying to people and pressuring congress to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns and nukes.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Both already exist, even if there is more standard in background checks than registration. My expectations are that no amount of changes to background checks or registration efforts will curb the violence in certain cities and locations that inflate our national numbers. Chicago or Detroit for instance is not going to all of a sudden become much safer because of expansions to background checks, or registration efforts, or restrictions, or confiscation efforts, or whatever else.

 

[Southern Dad]

There are already background checks. Criminals aren't going to obey registration laws.

 

[fmw]

It's common sense. Background checks and registrations save lives because criminals will no longer be able to get guns..

Nothing could be further from the truth. Federal law prohibits felons from having guns but they still have them. Laws don't prevent gun ownership. Also everyone who buys a gun from a dealer undergoes a quick background check by ATF. The issue is about background checks for private sales (those not involving a dealer.) How would that prevent criminals from buying guns? Criminals don't follow the law. It is about government power and control, not about saving lives.

 

[Lutherf]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Federal law prohibits felons from having guns but they still have them. Laws don't prevent gun ownership. Also everyone who buys a gun from a dealer undergoes a quick background check by ATF. The issue is about background checks for private sales (those not involving a dealer.) How would that prevent criminals from buying guns? Criminals don't follow the law. It is about government power and control, not about saving lives.

It's only untrue when you look at your version of the truth which is actually a lie but you don't know it because you have been brainwashed by the NRA. The truth is whatever Mike Bloomberg says it is because he's rich and only speaks the truth.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Target the people who have broken the law. No need for everyone else to be hassled. I do not agree with check points either. I do not and will never support targeting the law abiding people to stop the criminals. This Nazi thinking "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" I will never support. Joseph Goebbels propaganda has no place in American law.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I support background checks. They help gun stores ensure they aren't selling guns to people on probation/parole. I am against registration.

 

[longview]

It's common sense. Background checks and registrations save lives because criminals will no longer be able to get guns. Everyone knows that but the NRA and Conservatives keep lying to people and pressuring congress to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns and nukes.

What law will stop an outlaw from obtaining a gun?
I am not a member of the NRA, we are just talking raw logic.
If a person in is a criminal with criminal intentions, we must conclude that they
are not concerned with breaking the law.
If said person wants to get a gun, what paths could they take to their goal,
considering the only limit placed on them is the legal path?

 

[ttwtt78640]

What is hoped is to prevent those known to be very dangerous folks, (career)? crminals allowed to roam freely among us, from legally buying or "borrowing'' guns. BGCs are now limited to only gun sales/transfers done via FFL dealers - the expansion of these BGCs (closing the "gun show" loopphole) would force all legal gun sales/transfers to go through a FFL dealer (for a "reasonable" fee, of course).

Registration is desired to ensure that each gun (legally possessed) can be tracked (to a FFL?). It would then be a crime (felony?) to simply possess a gun that is not properly (currently?) registered. Registration is deemed necessary because folks will otherwise "cheat" and stlll sell/transfer their (300 million?) existing guns without paying a FFL nanny to "help" them do so thus avoiding a BGC and paying the "reasonable" transfer fee.

The obvious legal problem is that anyone prevented from legally owning a gun or not willing (or able?) to pay a FFL nanny to track each of their guns, wiil simply ignore the registration requirement. Thus street gun dealers would become as rare as street drug dealers but many folks would be paying much more to help keep things that way.

 

[American]

It's common sense. Background checks and registrations save lives because criminals will no longer be able to get guns. Everyone knows that but the NRA and Conservatives keep lying to people and pressuring congress to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns and nukes.

:lamo

 

[Zyphlin]

How do these work and what will these laws achieve?

Let me try this crazy thing called being "open minded" and "objective", and see if I can look at this despite tending towards the other side.

Background Checks

There are a variety of reasons under the law that individuals are not allowed to purchase a weapon, such as having certain mental illnesses or felonies on their record. Background checks allow for a seller to identify these disqualifying factors through a verifiable system, allowing them to deny a sale. This makes it more difficult for these individuals to obtain a firearm, increasing the likelihood that they do not purchase a firearm OR that they are apprehended upon attempting to make such a purchase. The first portion of that occurs because as you make it more difficult to do something you decrease the pool of people who will do it, as there are those who will stop due to laziness/frustration/lack of knowledge with the process. The second portion of that occurs because there is a greater likelihood that illegal sellers of guns would be monitored and tracked by law enforcement than legal sellers.

Registration

The way registration would "work" as it relates to gun crime is by providing an initial track to begin a search for evidence and potentially to help identify a criminal. For the latter section, the reality is that some criminals are stupid and others act on emotion; neither of these things can be disputed. While a smart criminal would use a firearm that is not registered to him, a smart criminal wouldn't do many of the things you find them doing in police blotters every day. Many of those who engage in crime are far from "masterminds", and those who act in a suddenly emotional or chaotic fashion are prone to poor reasoning due to panic. Where it'd potentially be more valuable though, is tracking how and where a gun came from that is found at a scene. If the gun was not used by it's register owner, then it at least leads the cops to said owner and can then begin the process of finding how the gun went from there to the crime scene, potentially uncovering who took it in the first place which may provide an indication of who used it for the crime.

--------

Now, are these two things also very open to abuse? Absolutely. Do they work in terms of stopping or deterring crime? I think the first likely does to an extent, the latter less so. Are they constitutional? The first moreso than the second I think. How do the possible abuses and the potential benefits balance out, that's the big question that has to be asked.

But it's really not hard looking at either things and understanding how, in theory, they're meant to "work".

 

[Lutherf]

What law will stop an outlaw from obtaining a gun?
I am not a member of the NRA, we are just talking raw logic.
If a person in is a criminal with criminal intentions, we must conclude that they
are not concerned with breaking the law.
If said person wants to get a gun, what paths could they take to their goal,
considering the only limit placed on them is the legal path?

Duh, it's a law and people are prohibited from breaking laws. Besides, Brawndo has electrolytes.

 

[Zyphlin]

The obvious legal problem is that anyone prevented from legally owning a gun or not willing (or able?) to pay a FFL nanny to track each of their guns, wiil simply ignore the registration requirement. Thus street gun dealers would become as rare as street drug dealers but many folks would be paying much more to help keep things that way.

Well, not "anyone". Your drug thing is actually a great example of this.

Do you deny that there are those who may want or desire something, but would be deterred if it is more difficult to do?

Marijuana use would cost me my career, so even in a place where it's legal at the state level like Colorado, I wouldn't use it. But if my career did not stand to be ruined by such use, I'd absolutely go out and try some weed or a pot brownie if I was out in Colorado, despite it's illegality federally. Why? Because it would be a simple and easy process. I'd be able to go online and quickly and easily find a storefront where I could purchase and partake in such things. I could easily find reviews for reputable places. I could easily talk with friends about their own experiences with a variety of locations. And I could travel to those locations without any sense of nervousness or apprehension.

However, if my career did not stand to be ruined by such use, but I was in a state where it was still illegal, the chances of me actually going out and trying to figure out 1) how to find a drug dealer and 2) actually finding said drug dealer and then 3) actually going to meet and purchase from said drug dealer would be next to nothing. I wouldn't even know exactly how to start the process of figuring that out, and then even once I did the entire process would make me extremely uneasy and problematic. Even though I would theoretically want the weed, the difficulty in procuring it in such a situation would be a deterrent.

Unquesionably, MANY people who are prevent from legally owning a gun or purchasing a gun would and could end up going the nefarious route to purchase one; but I think the notion that just anyone would, as if there would be 0 difference between the number of people wrongfully obtaining a firearm if there wasn't background checks and if there are, is a flawed one.

 

[Crimefree]

It's common sense. Background checks and registrations save lives because criminals will no longer be able to get guns. Everyone knows that but the NRA and Conservatives keep lying to people and pressuring congress to allow homicidal maniacs to have guns and nukes.

I assume you mean in gun controls theory "criminals" cannot buy legal guns. How will that save lives?

Can you define what is a criminal to you?

Can you define what common sense means in this case?

I am not sure how registration is going to save lives, could you explain please.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, not "anyone". Your drug thing is actually a great example of this.

Do you deny that there are those who may want or desire something, but would be deterred if it is more difficult to do?

Marijuana use would cost me my career, so even in a place where it's legal at the state level like Colorado, I wouldn't use it. But if my career did not stand to be ruined by such use, I'd absolutely go out and try some weed or a pot brownie if I was out in Colorado, despite it's illegality federally. Why? Because it would be a simple and easy process. I'd be able to go online and quickly and easily find a storefront where I could purchase and partake in such things. I could easily find reviews for reputable places. I could easily talk with friends about their own experiences with a variety of locations. And I could travel to those locations without any sense of nervousness or apprehension.

However, if my career did not stand to be ruined by such use, but I was in a state where it was still illegal, the chances of me actually going out and trying to figure out 1) how to find a drug dealer and 2) actually finding said drug dealer and then 3) actually going to meet and purchase from said drug dealer would be next to nothing. I wouldn't even know exactly how to start the process of figuring that out, and then even once I did the entire process would make me extremely uneasy and problematic. Even though I would theoretically want the weed, the difficulty in procuring it in such a situation would be a deterrent.

Unquesionably, MANY people who are prevent from legally owning a gun or purchasing a gun would and could end up going the nefarious route to purchase one; but I think the notion that just anyone would, as if there would be 0 difference between the number of people wrongfully obtaining a firearm if there wasn't background checks and if there are, is a flawed one.

The bottom line is that many do not wish for their individual constitutional rights (freedom?) to become mere state issued privileges subject to "reasonable" fees and government monitoring. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to commit a crime with them - trying to assert that those intent on committing crime (whether that be getting "illegal" drugs or guns) will suddenly decide it is just too risky or difficult fails. Do we, as a society, really wish to make simply having an unregistered gun (legally purchased in the past) into a felony? Would we be willing to lock up folks whose only crime was simply possessing an unregistered gun?

 

[Crimefree]

There are already background checks. Criminals aren't going to obey registration laws.

Are you saying background checks do or don't work if we have them already?

Having them is no reason to keep or expand them, functionality is.

 

[Crimefree]

It's only untrue when you look at your version of the truth which is actually a lie but you don't know it because you have been brainwashed by the NRA. The truth is whatever Mike Bloomberg says it is because he's rich and only speaks the truth.

There are no versions of the truth. The truth is what you can prove true.

 

[Southern Dad]

Are you saying background checks do or don't work if we have them already?

Having them is no reason to keep or expand them, functionality is.

Background checks work for law abiding citizens. They don't work for criminals. Here's another question for you, we alway see these stats from the left of how many people were stopped from buying a gun because of background checks... How many of them are arrested? Trying to purchase a gun as a convicted felon is a crime.

 

[Crimefree]

I support background checks. They help gun stores ensure they aren't selling guns to people on probation/parole. I am against registration.

That seems to be an interesting view in that a person who sells to somebody on probation/parole is aiding/committing a crime. I assume this is some effort to prevent either the parolee or dealer from commiting an administrative crime.

Would that apply to motor vehicles as well? Would it not make sense for criminals to be made to walk to commit crime?

I'm trying to figure out if this form of denial will in fact reduce crime for all the administrative costs it will be.

 

[Zyphlin]

The bottom line

Yes, but that's where I think threads like this miss the point...they want to ask one thing but then want to jump to the "bottom line".

One can identify the REASONS or something, can even identify that some of those reasons may be legitimate, while at the same time not necessarily agreeing that they should be done or that those reasons outweigh the positives. But it seems to routinely get presented as if "There's no reason for this!" because of the "bottom line" you stated; and that's just wrong.

Some people do not wish their individual constitutional rights to become mere state issued privileges. That's true. And that has DICK to do with whether or not it's accurate to say that background checks would make it less likely for someone who can not legally obtain a gun to obtain one. Throwing that out there doesn't actually counter or change anything I said, but rather it just hand waves it away and instead beats up on a straw man.

Your point isn't a bad one in a generalized, overall, broad sense of the notion....it's just a bad one in relation to what I ACTUALLY SAID. And my frustration here isn't really with you specifically, but rather this is a broad frustration I have within the scope of the gun control / 2nd amendment rights debate overall.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

That seems to be an interesting view in that a person who sells to somebody on probation/parole is aiding/committing a crime. I assume this is some effort to prevent either the parolee or dealer from commiting an administrative crime.

Would that apply to motor vehicles as well? Would it not make sense for criminals to be made to walk to commit crime?

I'm trying to figure out if this form of denial will in fact reduce crime for all the administrative costs it will be.

I don't know if it will reduce crime or not. But someone on parole or probation is still serving their sentence and hence should not, and do not, have the right to bear arms back. And it is unlawful for such a person to posses a firearm, regardless of whether or not they intend to use that gun to commit another crime. There is no such blanket prohibition against people on parole or probation from owning a car.

The cost benefit question is a good one. I wouldn't mind all laws being subjected to that sort of evaluation, though I am not certain how to monetize violent crime.

 

[Crimefree]

Background checks work for law abiding citizens. They don't work for criminals. Here's another question for you, we alway see these stats from the left of how many people were stopped from buying a gun because of background checks... How many of them are arrested? Trying to purchase a gun as a convicted felon is a crime.

Government does not normally release figures on gun control measures functionality for very good reason.

However we do know from the 32 Brady states that background checks never prevented one single crime while harassing millions. The record of homicides shows no lives were saved between Brady states and non-Brady states

P Cook must be one of the most vehement researchers supporting gun control.
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

 

[Crimefree]

The bottom line is that many do not wish for their individual constitutional rights (freedom?) to become mere state issued privileges subject to "reasonable" fees and government monitoring. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to commit a crime with them - trying to assert that those intent on committing crime (whether that be getting "illegal" drugs or guns) will suddenly decide it is just too risky or difficult fails. Do we, as a society, really wish to make simply having an unregistered gun (legally purchased in the past) into a felony? **Would we be willing to lock up folks whose only crime was simply possessing an unregistered gun?**

The answer to that is a resounding YES we would be willing to do that if we are wiling to disarm the victims of crime in order to punish gun owners or would be gun owners. It is simply ludicrous to suggest owning a gun is an indication of wanting to commit a crime. Since vehicles are equally if not more used in major crime nobody is suggesting making "so called criminals" walk will reduce crime for obvious reasons. Why are these self same reasons not seen when it comes to guns?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The answer to that is a resounding YES we would be willing to do that if we are wiling to disarm the victims of crime in order to punish gun owners or would be gun owners. It is simply ludicrous to suggest owning a gun is an indication of wanting to commit a crime. Since vehicles are equally if not more used in major crime nobody is suggesting making "so called criminals" walk will reduce crime for obvious reasons. Why are these self same reasons not seen when it comes to guns?

If we are willing to lock potentially dangerous folks up then why ever let folks loose that we wish to prevent from ever getting access to a gun?