How do background checks and registration work?

[Lutherf]

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?

The gun grabber thought process runs along the lines of "the only reason a private citizen could possibly want a gun is to commit a crime therefore anyone who wants a gun must have criminal intent. Even if we can't prove that intent we are better off removing that right in the interests of public safety." Basically they believe that trust in the good judgement of their fellow man is unreasonable because people ( except for themselves) are inherently evil.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

How about private sales.

 

[chuckiechan]

Here are the Chicago crime stats:

2016 Stats | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass!

Now you geniuses tell me how registration is going to stop this mayhem? You can harass honest gun owners all you want, but it won't change a thing other than take away their right to self defense, and make ownership of a firearm a government "gift" rather than a constitutional right.

We are stuck with the criminals who inhabit this country, swimming like sharks in society. But unlike fish, we don't wish to go down so easy. Survival of the fittest is not the way I chose to live my life.

 

[Crimefree]

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.

OK that sounds like a sensible and good approach.

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.

Let me get this right, the reasons you suggest have been tested and found to be desirable in combating crime and therefore should just be adopted without question? These disqualified people have with due process been disqualified I would hope and shown to be hopeless cases where some form of token denial must be made. There are a number of disturbing qualities to this disqualification and what assurances innocent people will not be impacted?

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.

This is theory of course. What is the practical outcome? Is it possible to dissuade a person from committing a crime by denial of a legal firearm? I think that is the real question that must be asked. There being little point in trying to implement anything that is bound to fail or cannot possibly work due to inefficiency or total control of supply.

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.

Addressed above.

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.

How are illegal sellers monitored?

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.

That surmises that the gun is left at the scene of the crime and the owner was not involved as well as there is no other way of tracking it. As a matter of record the handgun registry in Canada was questioned in Parliament on this exact question. The response was that in 64 years of operation not one crime had been solved by the registry. It would seem that criminals are smart enough.

For the latter section, the reality is that some criminals are stupid and others act on emotion; neither of these things can be disputed.

Absolutely correct however those who act on emotion or crimes of passion don't depend on the evidence of a gun which is often found at the scene.

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.

Said criminals would use a clean gun that cannot be traced back to either the seller or themselves. For all the propaganda generated for registries there is no successful crime fighting gun registry. Not one can be shown to be successful in fighting crime in any way what-so-ever. Registries within a very short time become so error riddled they are often more than useless. The Canadian register in its time of operation was already showing a large rate of errors. A check of the South African registry showed 70% error. ~~ S Duncan report.
INQUIRY INTO CENTRAL FIREARMS REGISTRY

 

[Crimefree]

Continued

--------

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".

Thanks for a well thought out response and I hope I have added some food for thought. Any law that relies on discretion of government officials is wide open to abuse. A law that does not function is always open to the even more ridiculous claim it did not work because it did not go far enough. A favourite of gun controls excuses for non-functionality.

I think often the theory of operation relies on beliefs and not facts. Something to be very aware of with such well intended legislation.

 

[soot]

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.

Are we really concerned about "just anyone", though?

I agree that we would see some difference in the number of people illegally purchasing guns if the "loophole" were closed, but are those really the people we're truly concerned about?

I would think that the reason we'd want to keep guns out of unauthorized hands would be to prevent the many mental-illness-related mass shootings that seem to have become the fashion, and to prevent other firearm shootings and murders, and armed robberies, and firearm-related assaults, and drive-by shootings, and things like that.

And I wonder if the guy who is willing to carry an illegal gun around with him on a somewhat regular basis, and use it to rob, assault, shoot, and kill other people is the kind of guy who would be deterred by an administrative loophole closing when, as we know and as you've suggested, there will still be plenty of illegal guns available for illegal purchase, they'll just be a little bit more illegal and a little bit harder to obtain.

To use your drug example, the guy deterred from purchasing a dime bag of marijuana while on vacation because of the social consequences of getting caught with marijuana in his system isn't the kind of guy who would buy an illegal gun and then use it to go out and commit strong-arm robbery or home invasion.

He might buy an illegal gun if he thought that nobody would be any the wiser but it's unlikely that he'd use it as a tool for mischief, or worse.

If we had to think of a drug use analog for the kind of person who would buy an illegal gun and then use that gun to do still more illegal stuff with it we're looking more at the 10 bag a day heroine addict, and we know that existing draconian drug laws are little deterrent for that kind of person.

To me this whole argument comes reminds me of the old adage that, "locks were made to keep honest people out".

If you're willing to respect a lock, or social pressure to not use drugs, or the closing of an administrative loophole, then you're not really someone to worry about.

But if you'd kick down the door to rob a place, or if you're the kind of guy who smokes crack despite the numerous draconian laws prohibiting the drug, then you're also in the class of people who would use an illegal gun to commit even greater crimes, and if locks and drug laws aren't preventing such people, at all, from doing their thing then what realistic expectation can we have that gun laws would make a difference.

 

[Crimefree]

The gun grabber thought process runs along the lines of "the only reason a private citizen could possibly want a gun is to commit a crime therefore anyone who wants a gun must have criminal intent. Even if we can't prove that intent we are better off removing that right in the interests of public safety." Basically they believe that trust in the good judgement of their fellow man is unreasonable because people ( except for themselves) are inherently evil.

A very logical analysis and one I have to agree on. Making prior assumption of guilt is often the driving factor of gun control legislation. It is thus hardly surprising it fails so abysmally. The problem as I see it we all to often accept such legislation and only later find it useless when it was easy to predict. Removing laws is an order of magnitude more difficult than stopping them.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

How about private sales.

I'm on the fence, to be honest. The private seller is required to ensure the person he or she is selling to is of legal age, right? Why not have them check if the person is legally permitted to own a gun? As long as the system to check is simple and "free".

 

[Crimefree]

Are we really concerned about "just anyone", though?

It seems "just anyone" is very large pool of people disliked for various emotional reason. We here things like the wrong hands, criminals and nuts but fail to define any or suggest a detection method of those who are going to commit a crime with a gun.

I agree that we would see some difference in the number of people illegally purchasing guns if the "loophole" were closed, but are those really the people we're truly concerned about?

Exactly we creating blocks to people who are not going to commit crime is as unconstitutional as one can get and cannot be justified by breech of some useless at detection law. That is no better than all blacks are bad, all Jews are bad, woman cannot vote, all gays..... I thought we had become civilised?

I would think that the reason we'd want to keep guns out of unauthorized hands would be to prevent the many mental-illness-related mass shootings that seem to have become the fashion, and to prevent other firearm shootings and murders, and armed robberies, and firearm-related assaults, and drive-by shootings, and things like that.

I would welcome some way of preventing people from committing tragedies and atrocities they do but will some attempt at closing off legal access to a gun do that? How will it change that persons mind? What worries me is that this is not addressing the problem. An unbalanced person willing to kill remains so gun or not. Is it possible to close off all access that person has to obtaining a gun?

And I wonder if the guy who is willing to carry an illegal gun around with him on a somewhat regular basis, and use it to rob, assault, shoot, and kill other people is the kind of guy who would be deterred by an administrative loophole closing when, as we know and as you've suggested, there will still be plenty of illegal guns available for illegal purchase, they'll just be a little bit more illegal and a little bit harder to obtain.

I think the answer is self evident. No they simply become a bit more expensive as in the case of all prohibited items.

To use your drug example, the guy deterred from purchasing a dime bag of marijuana while on vacation because of the social consequences of getting caught with marijuana in his system isn't the kind of guy who would buy an illegal gun and then use it to go out and commit strong-arm robbery or home invasion.

A person who wants a gun and is denied legal access is not ipso facto going to commit a crime with it. Probably 90%+ if illegal arms are held for the same reason many citizens want arms, self-defence. It takes few firearm to satisfy the criminal arms pool. Probably less than 100,000.

He might buy an illegal gun if he thought that nobody would be any the wiser but it's unlikely that he'd use it as a tool for mischief, or worse.

He might do so if his life was in danger or that of his family by living in a violent neighbourhood.

If we had to think of a drug use analog for the kind of person who would buy an illegal gun and then use that gun to do still more illegal stuff with it we're looking more at the 10 bag a day heroine addict, and we know that existing draconian drug laws are little deterrent for that kind of person.

Exactly, people get what they want.

To me this whole argument comes reminds me of the old adage that, "locks were made to keep honest people out".

Yes or those who have not learnt to pick them.

If you're willing to respect a lock, or social pressure to not use drugs, or the closing of an administrative loophole, then you're not really someone to worry about.

We arrive back at the problem. People fear crime and being hurt or killed so they demand something be done. Gun control is such a lovely scapegoat that all ills can be blamed on. Gun control has no qualms about inciting that fear and inflaming it to pursue its agenda.

But if you'd kick down the door to rob a place, or if you're the kind of guy who smokes crack despite the numerous draconian laws prohibiting the drug, then you're also in the class of people who would use an illegal gun to commit even greater crimes, and if locks and drug laws aren't preventing such people, at all, from doing their thing then what realistic expectation can we have that gun laws would make a difference.

You have missed the vital point and not shown how they will be identified.

 

[Zyphlin]

Let me get this right, the reasons you suggest have been tested and found to be desirable in combating crime and therefore should just be adopted without question?

Strawman

There are a number of disturbing qualities to this disqualification and what assurances innocent people will not be impacted?

Strawman

This is theory of course.

Strawman.

Is it possible to dissuade a person from committing a crime by denial of a legal firearm?

Strawman

I think that is the real question that must be asked.

Then perhaps that is the question you should've asked in your OP, especially if you were planning on ignoring ACTUAL answers to your ACTUAL OP and instead just post strawman after strawman instead of actual legitimate responses.

 

[Crimefree]

I'm on the fence, to be honest. The private seller is required to ensure the person he or she is selling to is of legal age, right? Why not have them check if the person is legally permitted to own a gun? As long as the system to check is simple and "free".

To what aim is this check? When you sell a chainsaw to somebody do you check they know how to operate it and are not going to use it for illegal purposes.

Where does this complicity of selling a gun to somebody who uses it to commit a crime come from? Legal judgements? Firearm organisations? Gun control? Police? If your vehicle is stolen or sold to a guy who uses it in a bank robbery or killing spree is this in anyway the fault of the seller?

We seem to have accepted gun controls narrative and now base our decisions on faulty thinking. As far as I know guns still do not cause crime any more than matches cause arson. We would be insulted by anyone who suggested we were complicit.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

To what aim is this check? When you sell a chainsaw to somebody do you check they know how to operate it and are not going to use it for illegal purposes.

Where does this complicity of selling a gun to somebody who uses it to commit a crime come from? Legal judgements? Firearm organisations? Gun control? Police? If your vehicle is stolen or sold to a guy who uses it in a bank robbery or killing spree is this in anyway the fault of the seller?

We seem to have accepted gun controls narrative and now base our decisions on faulty thinking. As far as I know guns still do not cause crime any more than matches cause arson. We would be insulted by anyone who suggested we were complicit.

I am talking about people on probation and parole. I don't care what the gun will be used for. The attempt to buy a gun by them is a crime in itself and a violation of their parole/probation. I have never heard of a chainsaw being illegal for them to own.

 

[Crimefree]

Strawman

Point out this straw man you claim.

Would you prefer what percentage of denials are a crime prevented as this is the basis of denial. How many are unfairly denied a legal purchase who are never going to commit a crime with a gun. Was due process given in the denial of rights.

Let me get this right, the reasons you suggest have been tested and found to be desirable in combating crime and therefore should just be adopted without question? These disqualified people have with due process been disqualified I would hope and shown to be hopeless cases where some form of token denial must be made. There are a number of disturbing qualities to this disqualification and what assurances innocent people will not be impacted?

You were questioned on the validity of just making a claim people need to be excluded just because a law exists. Either prove they need to be excluded for legal purchases or concede the point I made as valid.

I quote

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.

The rest of your strawman claims are no different, a simple refusal to answer the pertinent questions asked about your post. Either demonstrate your strawman claims of which I have taken the first and shown your glaring error or you have nothing to contribute.

Then perhaps that is the question you should've asked in your OP, especially if you were planning on ignoring ACTUAL answers to your ACTUAL OP and instead just post strawman after strawman instead of actual legitimate responses.

Then maybe you should have read the OP.

Your post was treated with the respect it deserved however that is fast wearing thin. Your claims were examined in FULL leaving nothing unnoted or read and the questions arising were put to you. Now were they shown any disrespect.

Original post

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?

If you find my views not to your liking that is your problem however do be my guest and show why they are either incorrect or not possible as I did to your proposals. I shall not be so rude or crass as to answer the rest as non-sequitur as they are and I see no reason to address your incorrect strawman responses.

 

[Zyphlin]

Point out this straw man you claim.

Let's begin with the first one.

Here's your question from the OP, which I quoted in my first response and to which my post was respond:

How do these work and what will these laws achieve?

Here was my response. For brevity, will focus on the background check section first:

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.

The red describes "how" they work
The blue describes what they potentially "achieve".
The green expands in a broad fashion on how they potentially achieve the result.

Let me get this right, the reasons you suggest have been tested and found to be desirable in combating crime and therefore should just be adopted without question?

This is your strawman.

No where did I indicate the "how" or the results of what I suggested above were "tested". No where did I suggest they were, or were found to be, desirable in combating crime. No where did I suggest they should be "adopted without question".

The entire first sentence of your response to me was filled with three separate strawmen. They were repeated claims and/or rhetorical questions attacking things I never said nor implied.

The rest of your post was more of the same, and I'm not going to waste my time running you through each and every scenario, since this is literally dealing with the first sentence of your post that deal with my actual answer and already proved to be an easy means of illustrating your strawmanning.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm on the fence, to be honest. The private seller is required to ensure the person he or she is selling to is of legal age, right? Why not have them check if the person is legally permitted to own a gun? As long as the system to check is simple and "free".

well here is the problem

1) unless you have complete registration, there is no way to enforce that. it is a feel good proposal that won't do anything positive

2) it may be used to make "felons" out of people who don't comply even if they don't have any criminal or other disqualifying features

3) since private citizens are limited to INTRASTATE sales, federal laws requiring this are just another intrusion into the tenth amendment

 

[Skeptic Bob]

well here is the problem

1) unless you have complete registration, there is no way to enforce that. it is a feel good proposal that won't do anything positive

2) it may be used to make "felons" out of people who don't comply even if they don't have any criminal or other disqualifying features

3) since private citizens are limited to INTRASTATE sales, federal laws requiring this are just another intrusion into the tenth amendment

2 and 3 are good points. But why would registration be required for universal background checks? If the database contains everyone not legally eligible to purchase a gun and doesn't log searches for people not on the list, why does it necessitate a registry?

 

[TurtleDude]

2 and 3 are good points. But why would registration be required for universal background checks? If the database contains everyone not legally eligible to purchase a gun and doesn't log searches for people not on the list, why does it necessitate a registry?

well if I have sold you a gun and you are on the banned list how does the government prove that the sale took place after the law was passed.

 

[beerftw]

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

It's got what plants crave!

 

[Crimefree]

I'm on the fence, to be honest. The private seller is required to ensure the person he or she is selling to is of legal age, right? Why not have them check if the person is legally permitted to own a gun? As long as the system to check is simple and "free".

I'm still trying to figure what anyone is trying to prevent with restrictions registration and what have you for guns and gun owners. I sincerely hope it is not crime because that would imply nobody knows guns do not cause crime.

Nobody says why they want this or that. What is the reason? Do laws not have to have a reason?

I've seen some references to "the wrong hands". Who has a wrong hands detector? We appear to be in serious danger of buying into gun controls ideology and thinking gun control serves some useful purpose for citizens.

Take a look at this graph in particular the beginning.

 

[Crimefree]

Let's begin with the first one.

Let me say you have no idea of what a strawman is. All you had to do is quote my response and show WHY it was a straw-man response.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

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.

Let me get this right, the reasons you suggest have been tested and found to be desirable in combating crime and therefore should just be adopted without question? These disqualified people have with due process been disqualified I would hope and shown to be hopeless cases where some form of token denial must be made. There are a number of disturbing qualities to this disqualification and what assurances innocent people will not be impacted?

This is your strawman.

No where did I indicate the "how" or the results of what I suggested above were "tested". No where did I suggest they were, or were found to be, desirable in combating crime. No where did I suggest they should be "adopted without question".

Your statement starts there are a variety of reasons..... and you list legislative selection criteria. Nowhere do you ever suggest that these criteria or selection are valid. A selection criteria is not a reason. You then describe the mechanics of this check allowing the selected to be denied a sale.

I point out weakness that one cannot just assume legislation works by questioning the reasons you neglected to give. The very core of legislation must be for what reason and for what is hoped to be achieved. There is a total neglect of objectivity of your entire post which makes the assumption your points have validly which you have not established. You make an appeal to authority "under the law" and then when questioned about adoption without question you deny this. Here is what Federal LAW says.
“has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” As an example of just one of them.

The core of your statements rests on the validity of the measures. There is no point in discussing that which has no validity unless you expect me to buy into the falsity presented. It is not a strawman to point out the falsity of statements or that which supports the validity of our statements. You cannot seriously expect a discussion when you neglected to state HOW or WHY THEY WORK and then deflect when questioned on it.

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.

This is theory of course. What is the practical outcome? Is it possible to dissuade a person from committing a crime by denial of a legal firearm? I think that is the real question that must be asked. There being little point in trying to implement anything that is bound to fail or cannot possibly work due to inefficiency or total control of supply.


Are the individuals denied the individuals who commit crime or it just a theory. You neglect to state this by make the assumption it is. Once again a neglect of objectivity and validity. It most certainly is not a strawman argument but a failing to substantiate REASON for the law.

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.

See above This is theory....

Once again an entirely false assumption that was questioned. How many denied would have committed crimes with a gun? Validity is just assumed when it is not in evidence. It is not a strawman to question that validity stated or not. Any validity is with current technology IMPOSSIBLE

At what point does this sickness stop? How big is this pool of "criminals" When 10,000 are denied to get 1, when 100,000 to get 1, when 1,000,000 to get 1. What figure is agreeable to the proponents of this idiocy of predicting who will use a gun to commit a crime in the future?

I think I have done enough to show your claims of strawman were no more that deflection and avoidance. I do not have time to explain errors and falsity more than I have now.

 

[Crimefree]

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.

Since the beginning of the war on drugs or the banning of all these substances the consumption has gone up or down? Is that not a test on the efficacy of drug laws?

I guess the same could be asked about the prohibition of alcohol. How well do these denial laws work? From the way we keep implementing them it must be fantastic or there is a major problem with thinking.

 

[Crimefree]

well if I have sold you a gun and you are on the banned list how does the government prove that the sale took place after the law was passed.

And that banned list must now be made public. Can you count the number of law suits?

 

[Crimefree]

2 and 3 are good points. But why would registration be required for universal background checks? If the database contains everyone not legally eligible to purchase a gun and doesn't log searches for people not on the list, why does it necessitate a registry?

You have governments word a record is not kept. How do you ensure a record is not kept? What prevents government from keeping a record?

Why are universal back ground checks needed? Should one not discuss that first?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

That is what watchdog groups and the FOIA are for.

 

[TurtleDude]

the attempt to impose background checks on private sellers is a waste of time. As I have been saying for months, most criminals get guns from people who ALREADY know they are mopes

Survey: Crooks get guns from pals, don’t keep them long | Chicago Sun-Times