Help me with an argument about background checks.

[GilpinGuy]

A great friend of mine blew me away the other day. He's a gun guy and has had no less than a dozen AKs at one time since I've known him, among other weapons including his fully auto Uzi (yes, legal). He comes up to me the other day and asks me, "I know you're against all of the new gun laws and stuff, and I pretty much am too, and don't freak on my ass when ask you this, but what's so bad about making background checks mandatory?"

I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best. Frankly, I can see how under-informed folks can think this. I mean, it sounds so good and harmless to them. I was a bit surprised that my shooting bud brought this up, but that's really besides the point.

What are the best talking points to combat this question?

[Sharpienads]

Because fuck the man, that's why.

Which points did you already bring up to your buddy?

[XC700116]

First one that comes to my mind is that with the new BGC law there's also the law to pay for them. So it's now a sort of "poll tax" as has been hammered on here over and over.

Second, it establishes a basis for questioning the legality of ownership and leaves the burden of proof to the owner that they aquired the weapon prior to July 1 2013. And although they "say" that's not the case, it will be done at some point when a DA is headhunting simply because there is no burden of proof on the state specifically written in the law. This is the ONLY way it's even remotely enforcable outside of a sting operation or catching them in the act, for guns that are not sold new after 7/1/2013. (ie if someone has a gun that was sold to someone else as new after 7/1/2013 they could find that information via standard trace procedures currently in place)

Third, the loan a gun to your buddy on a 5 day hunting trip, or your spouse for that matter, issue. (basically the poor constructs of the law to begin with ie- the devil in the details)

Fourth, it won't stop a single one of these shootings, and it will only cost tax payer $$$.

[CroiDhubh]

1. As a private citizen who has the right to own a gun, I shouldn't have to get permission from the government to buy, sell, or gift it to another private citizen who also has the right to do so. As provided by the second amendment.

2. Making us pay for it makes it a Poll/Sin tax...this is against the law

3. You are violating people's fifth amendment rights by telling them they MUST incriminate themselves, and by not doing so, you charge them with not incriminating themselves. This is unconstitutional.

4. Why do you have to get permission or tell the government you are exercising a RIGHT, not a privileged? At any point did you have to tell them you are getting Alice in Wonderland or Dante's Inferno?

5. Incremental-ism, my friends, incremental-ism.

[MED]

A great friend of mine blew me away the other day. He's a gun guy and has had no less than a dozen AKs at one time since I've known him, among other weapons including his fully auto Uzi (yes, legal). He comes up to me the other day and asks me, "I know you're against all of the new gun laws and stuff, and I pretty much am too, and don't freak on my ass when ask you this, but what's so bad about making background checks mandatory?"

I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best. Frankly, I can see how under-informed folks can think this. I mean, it sounds so good and harmless to them. I was a bit surprised that my shooting bud brought this up, but that's really besides the point.

What are the best talking points to combat this question?

Is he talking about background checks in concept or the idiotic bill passed by the legislature?

The idiotic bill as passed restricts how and where we can lend our firearms. Secondly, the idiotic bill as passed has no exemption for concealed carry holders. Third, the idiotic bill has no appeals process other than getting your record expunged. Even if a person agrees, with background checks, the idiots in the legislature passed a horrible bill. It is easy to attack the legislation even if you agree with background checks.

[newracer]

Simple, the only way background checks can be enforced is with registration, historically registration has always lead to confiscation.

[thedave1164]

I view it as simply as this.
if you are not trustworthy enough to own a gun, then why are you trustworthy enough to roam free in society?

[davsel]

Simple, the only way background checks can be enforced is with registration, historically registration has always lead to confiscation.


^^^ This

Last weekend I had a similar conversation with a TEU Sergeant at a party. I used this argument, and all he could come back with is that "no one has ever gone door to door in this country and confiscated guns." I brought up Katrina, and he started ranting about special circumstances. He told me he has had this argument with the gun guys in the department, and no one can give him a good reason. He even insisted that gang bangers purchase their guns without background checks from local gunshows - even called it the "gunshow loophold." At that point, I gave up and grabbed another beer.

Some people, you just can't reach.

[TFOGGER]

Simple, the only way background checks can be enforced is with registration, historically registration has always lead to confiscation.

DINGDINGDING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[newracer]

^^^ This

Last weekend I had a similar conversation with a TEU Sergeant at a party. I used this argument, and all he could come back with is that "no one has ever gone door to door in this country and confiscated guns." I brought up Katrina, and he started ranting about special circumstances. He told me he has had this argument with the gun guys in the department, and no one can give him a good reason. He even insisted that gang bangers purchase their guns without background checks from local gunshows - even called it the "gunshow loophold." At that point, I gave up and grabbed another beer.

Some people, you just can't reach.

No one has gone door to door yet but registered guns have been confiscated in CA from individuals and probably other states as well.

[GilpinGuy]

Because fuck the man, that's why.

Which points did you already bring up to your buddy?

I brought up these:
Registration leads to confiscation. He replied that a background check isn't registration. I explained that, yes, the dealer keeps the paperwork and it's not sent to the gov, but what's to prevent the gov from kicking in doors one day and confiscating all of these records?

The "slippery slope" argument. What's next? Fingerprinting or DNA samples in order to buy a gun?

Criminals don't do background checks, so what's the f-ing point?

And like you wrote, "fuck the man, that's why". The gigantic balls required to tell me that I can't give my son a gun....huge f-ing balls.

[davsel]

No one has gone door to door yet but registered guns have been confiscated in CA from individuals and probably other states as well.

Did a quick Google, came up with this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html

[Jumpstart]

Background checks are gun registration by proxy. Gun registration is illegal in Colorado. Why? It's an infringement against the 2nd Amendment.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Why do I NEED to do a background check to lend someone my rifle for a week or two?

Why do I NEED to do a background check to sell or give a firearm to someone I've known for 10+ years and who has to pass rigorous background checks (for other purposes) every 5 years?

Why do you NEED to do a background check to give your mother or sister a pistol to defend herself?

How would universal background checks have helped the situation at Newtown, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, etc.?

Instead of implementing feel good legislation that just makes it harder and more costly for people to defend themselves, why not make it easier to put psychos like Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza in a ward for observation or admit Islamic extremism like Nidal Hassan's is a threat so law enforcement can focus on the people who ARE a problem instead of the ones who aren't?

[Jumpstart]

There is a reason why the Founding Father's were insistent that government keep it's nose out of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Governments kill more civilians/citizens than civilians/citizens do.

[Great-Kazoo]

A great friend of mine blew me away the other day. He's a gun guy and has had no less than a dozen AKs at one time since I've known him, among other weapons including his fully auto Uzi (yes, legal). He comes up to me the other day and asks me, "I know you're against all of the new gun laws and stuff, and I pretty much am too, and don't freak on my ass when ask you this, but what's so bad about making background checks mandatory?"

I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best. Frankly, I can see how under-informed folks can think this. I mean, it sounds so good and harmless to them. I was a bit surprised that my shooting bud brought this up, but that's really besides the point.

What are the best talking points to combat this question?

There are none. If he or anyone else, INCLUDING SOME BOARD MEMBERS, have to ask. They're not worth wasting time on. He should now be classified as YOUR X FRIEND.

[Madeinhb]

I always bring this up- how will you enforce BGC? What's to stop a person from selling it to another without a BGC even if it was the law. There is no way to prove when gun was purchased.

[LippCJ7]

I always bring this up- how will you enforce BGC? What's to stop a person from selling it to another without a BGC even if it was the law. There is no way to prove when gun was purchased.

I agree with this, I am against it because I believe it could lead to registration, and I think I can do a better job at deciding who gets my guns then the Government, but I also do not sell guns, I have sold one gun in my lifetime and have regretted it ever since, never again, my guns will go to my children when I get off this rock.

But to use Katrina as a part of your argument probably wasn't wise, there were circumstances beyond rescuers control in place down there, including rampant local government corruption, gangs and an unprecedented natural disaster. I know it happened and I think it was wrong, but I also think its wrong to build a city below sea level on the shore of the ocean, what part of get out of the city did those people not understand? Katrina/New Orleans was a gigantic Charlie Foxtrot.

I think that you gave your best, let time do the rest, I used to believe that back ground checks were not so bad, but then this law makes it an issue for me to hand my rifle to my best friend of 20 years to go hunting or give my kids hand me downs? GTFO. If I had concerns as to the mental instability of my children I sure as hell wouldn't give them a gun, but maybe that's just me.

I think there are parts of this law that make sense though, I wouldn't give my wife a gun, but shes Spanish....(Sarcasm) for those that don't understand....

[dwalker460]

All background checks are illegal, a violation of the 4th Amendment and an invasion of privacy. Its no ones damned business what I own, have sold, etc. The arguement that BGC's somehow "filter out" those who should not have guns is insane. A felon will fail a BGC, but then again a felon will know where to acquire a gun if one is needed. Its already been proven that it is almost impossible to screen "mentally ill" folks, so that argument is also flawed. ALL BGC's do is to add hassle to purchasing a weapon. And its easy to say well, its only a half hour and no big deal, BUT to many first timers, the BGC is a mystery which is often mis-understood as registration or other nonsense.

[thedave1164]

Background checks are not "gun registration" they are instead gun owner registration.

[Clint45]

I disagree with background checks for private party sales, but I can understand why they appeal to some people . . . especially with how it was widely misrepresented that "anyone" could buy full-auto weapons "at a gun show" or "off the internet" with no background check . . . all of which we know to be FALSE. As the "Universal Background Check" law was presented to the people via the media, it certainly seemed reasonable . . . although most criminals either steal their guns or buy them from other criminals, not via sources like armslist, and most armslist sellers would flat out refuse to sell to someone who obviously looked like a thug or gangbanger.

The main issue I have with the UBC isn't so much that the law would require private party sales to go through a FFL or possible registration, but all the SMALL PRINT hidden in the law, which amounts to a dozen vague and arbitrary "secret laws" that the average person -- and probably many Senators -- don't even know about. Like equating "sale" with "transfer", meaning if you swap shotguns with a neighbor, gift your fiance a gun from your collection, or even store a gun at a relative's house for more than 72 hours, an official background check must be conducted at an FFL or all parties involved are guilty of a felony offense. Felony? Doesn't the law say it's only a misdemeanor? It does, but the SMALL PRINT adds a "prohibited person" clause, thereby making the misdemeanor indistinguishable from a felony as pertains to firearm ownership under federal law . . . so if you are arrested for the misdemeanor crime of loaning a rifle to a coworker during a week long hunting trip, thereby losing your right to possess firearms, and a probation officer searches your home to see if you are in compliance and finds a single .22 LR cartridge forgotten in the back of a closet, you could be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years in federal prison, no parole.

And that is why I'm opposed to UBC. It is all the small print and draconian penalties for things that should not even be prosecuted as crimes in the first place.

[GilpinGuy]

There are none. If he or anyone else, INCLUDING SOME BOARD MEMBERS, have to ask. They're not worth wasting time on. He should now be classified as YOUR X FRIEND.

No. Sorry man. I don't ex-communicate everyone I disagreee with, and he doesn't even disagree - he was just asking a question. Sheesh. And what if I can convince him to be on our side? It's not worth the effort to even try? [facepalm]

[cstone]

Background checks are not, and never will be mandatory for criminals. Laws do not serve to protect people. Laws are enacted to punish behavior that the government (our society) has decided is not in the interest of the greater good.

Victims do not care whether they were killed or assaulted with legally purchased firearms or illegally obtained firearms.

I personally believe society would be better served if the state focused on punishing actions of criminals rather than focusing on the tools they use to commit their crimes.

When will we all need background checks to obtain computers and have limits placed on the high speed capacity of our internet connections? Cyber stalking, computer hackers, child pornography, etc... If it would only save one child...

Be safe.

[Snowman]

Try not applying logic. In a perfect world guns would still exist.

[Goodburbon]

http://www.ar-15.co/threads/99889-My-FACEBOOK-post-to-try-to-educate-my-contacts-about-Universal-BGC

[Byte Stryke]

Oddly enough, I ran into this very same question yesterday, My Response was:
"We wouldn't need a UBC if they politicians would stop letting criminals back out onto the streets."

it was like someone went in at midnight and turned ALL of the Stadium lights on at once.

[Great-Kazoo]

No. Sorry man. I don't ex-communicate everyone I disagreee with, and he doesn't even disagree - he was just asking a question. Sheesh. And what if I can convince him to be on our side? It's not worth the effort to even try? [facepalm]


Your OP sentence says it all regarding your "friend"
I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best.

If you have to TRY and convince him it's not worth the effort. His mind is made up. Prior to the back ground check ballot issue being voted on, like every other ballot a booklet was issues to voters. 98% of voters never read the booklet. EVERY gun owner i talked to were all ?????? Really I never knew that" Trying to get them to read the info was an exercise in futility.
WHY?? BECAUSE IT MADE SENSE [facepalm]

[muddywings]

I thought this would be a good thread to post this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-democrats-still-clueless-gun-control-094000548.html

In their push for broad legislation, liberals are making the perfect the enemy of the good
Apparently, a group of senators is "quietly seeking a new path on gun control." Or at least, they were quietly doing so until The New York Times wrote about the once-covert effort (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/politics/senators-quietly-seek-a-new-path-on-gun-control.html). Now, of course, the efforts are less quiet.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) is reportedly back talking to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) about how they might attract more support for a bill expanding the current background check system. The two senators, it seems, are focused on background checks and background checks alone, a move I think wise given the widespread view that such a measure is entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately, the Times also detailed (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/politics/senators-quietly-seek-a-new-path-on-gun-control.html) a push being lead by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to revise or expand penalties for firearms trafficking offenses. Now, federal prosecutors really do not need more tools to prosecute individuals they catch trafficking in illegal weapons, but of course, no United States senator has ever gone hungry by being "tough on crime." And yet... the mere fact that Gillibrand is pushing for more gun regulations at the same time Toomey and Manchin are trying to revive background checks shows that Senate Democrats learned little from their last gun-control fiasco. Furthermore, Gillibrand's stated reason for pursuing the new law might well be the poster child for the sort of reasoning that keeps gun rights enthusiasts paranoid and the NRA fully funded.

Gillibrand's quote in the Times is simple, and its logic is straightforward. Asked why she we need stricter trafficking laws, the junior Senator from New York (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/politics/senators-quietly-seek-a-new-path-on-gun-control.html) explained that "I think trafficking can be the base of the bill, the rock on which everything else stands. I also think it's complementary to background checks because, let's be honest, criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check. So if you really want to go after criminals, you have to have to do both.

The most ardent gun rights advocates literally stay up at night worrying that each gun regulation they allow to pass could be the one that sets off the avalanche that turns this nation into some sort of gun-outlawing regulatory hell. This group of people is naturally suspicious of arguments for "common sense" gun control, not so much because they really think that their gun rights would be in any sense compromised by the recently defeated revisions to the existing background check regime, but rather because they do not think that the advocates for the aforementioned regime will be content to stop once background checks are in place.

Many of these pro-gun individuals would be fine with background checks. But they fear, with some reason, that if they concede on background checks today, then the next time some madman gets a firearm and kills 30 people, the same proponents of background checks will be harnessing public outrage by turning the families of the victims into lobbyists for what they will undoubtedly label "common sense" reform that decent American couldn't possibly oppose. For that reason, the position of many gun rights advocates is that they prefer to defend their right to "keep and bear arms" from the Rhine (http://theweek.com/article/index/239337/why-gun-owners-should-want-to-amend-the-second-amendment) so they will never be forced to do so from the Rubicon.

Even crazy-sounding theories occasionally appear to have at least a tiny basis in reality. Indeed, from time to time, gun regulation proponents appear to push for stricter gun laws irrespective of whether or not particular proposals actually make anyone safer. The fact that President Obama allowed Sen. Feinstein to push him into calling for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban — despite the fact that virtually every non-partisan group that has studied the AWB found that it had virtually no impact on violent crime rates — suggests that at least a few powerful people are more interested in restricting gun rights than they are with actually curbing violent crime. Indeed, the president dramatically weakened the chances of getting background checks approved (http://theweek.com/article/index/243149/how-obama-could-have-avoided-gun-control-failure) by attaching it to a push for the AWB, thereby allowing group like the NRA to, I think unfairly, imply that the president's motive for pushing reform was more anti-gun than anti-violence.

Which brings us back to Sen. Gillibrand and the renewed push for reform. Consider the New Yorker's stated logic for pursuing tighter gun trafficking laws: Criminals will not buy guns through a complete background check regime, so if we manage to pass that, we also need to pass a another criminal statute relating to the possession, movement, and distribution of firearms. Here's what every gun person wonders when they read Gillibrand's statement: "Wait, I thought the whole point of background checks is to keep guns away from criminals… Is she saying that if it works, then we need another law?"

I want background checks to pass, but I hold out little hope that they will. And if they have any chance at all, it will be as a standalone measure not packaged with any other proposals. Senate Democrats need to wake up and stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Chad4000]

There are none. If he or anyone else, INCLUDING SOME BOARD MEMBERS, have to ask. They're not worth wasting time on. He should now be classified as YOUR X FRIEND.

yeah I disagree here too.... I still think its our responsibility to convince as many people as possible... our numbers are inherantly declining. theres are growing exponentially, even to the point where gun owners are questioning themselves. its hard to fight because the other side is so much more powerful, but if there is somebody that just needs a little push...Im giving it....

[spqrzilla]

We had a discussion on Shall Not Be Questioned (pagunblog.com) about this awhile back, referencing Schumer's language (identical to the original language MAIG gave Colorado Democrats here) and the many ways it sets up criminal traps for law abiding gun owners. Dave Kopel analysed the problems with the Manchin Toomey "compromise" bill and how badly written it was.

The bottom line is that it isn't about background checks, its about making gun ownership more risky for the law abiding to drive people out of it.

[Ronin13]

How would universal background checks have helped the situation at Newtown, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, etc.?
If I recall correctly, VT, Aurora Theater, and Ft. Hood all three had no records to begin with and bought their guns legally with a 4473... so the background checks were in place, the bad guys bought their guns, and STILL committed these horrendous acts. How can that be? Oh yeah, because you can have all the laws you want and it still won't stop every little bad thing from happening. How could one of my good friends in high school get killed by a drunk driver a month after he turned 16? Drunk driving is illegal! [facepalm]

[BlasterBob]

I know that it'd be a giant pain in the ass but it's too bad that the BG checks can't be accomplished by the individual seller directly via CBI if the firearm is being sold to another individual. Damn shame that the BG check HAS to go through dealers and then we pay for those checks. The BG check is NOT a matter of REGISTRATION (yet) but the BATF can still go through the FFL's records (4473's) looking for certain individuals or certain type weapons. This checking of 4473's can be done and HAS been done.[Mad]

[johnyfive]

"The gun show loophole allows criminals to purchase firearms without a background check," and "universal background checks can only be enforced through a gun registration." Both of those statements are false. We know there is no such thing as a gun show loophole (unless you consider the Federal Government's lack of ability to regulate ALL intrastate commerce as an accidental loophole written into the Constitution) and we know that the WAY a universal background check law can be enforced without a registration (as written) is WHY the Colorado law is regarded as so poorly written.

The way to enforce UBC's is similar to other add-on penalties. Seat belt violations are typically no reason to go code 3 and pull someone over, but when there is a reason the seal belt violation is added to the list after you are stopped and the officer sees you aren't wearing a seat belt. Maybe you were wearing your seat belt and, forgetting protocol after a lifetime of never having been pulled over, unbuckle to lean over to your glove compartment for your registration. If you want to fight the charge, you're going to have to prove you were wearing your seat belt.

With a UBC law in place you're going to have to prove the gun in the case in your car which you SAY you purchased prior to 07/01/2013 was indeed purchased prior to the law. Or what if it wasn't, what if it were purchased after the effective date and you dutifully took your best friend to the FFL to purchase his firearm and successfully completely a BGC? In both of those cases you have done nothing wrong (other than, say, changing lanes without using your signal) but you're now facing serious charges because you legally own a firearm but can't prove it. You might not receive the maximum penalty, you might get a slap on the wrist (plus forfeit your rights to self defense for the rest of your life because now you've been convicted and can't pass a BGC). This is a similar outcome to the scenario where you DON'T dutifully have the BGC performed and are stopped under the same circumstances. It's not as if the rate of your perspiration would have been used to exonerate you at one moisture level and convict you at another. This is probably why all those Colorado county sheriffs came to the capitol building testify to the futility of this law.

(Now, what if you purchased your firearm through a friendly FFL dealer at the last gun show, complete with 4473 and get pulled over with it? Gosh, the shop owners were really friendly, one was tall and skinny with gray hair, the other guy worked at the table was fat with jet black hair--what was the name of that shop? How long before Uncle Sam tracks your serial number to that 4473? Well it's after 4:30 on a Friday; think you're sleeping in your own bed at all this weekend? Heck, they can hold you without charging you for how long? If it saves just one child's life, you should be honored to dutifully sit in a cell while they sort this out. Wouldn't you want them to hold a criminal on his way to your daughter's dorm?)

Do we treat citizens as innocent until proven guilty or vice versa? I believe I WOULD be proving that I WAS wearing a seat belt and only took it off after the vehicle was in park. The way the bill was written we have just made criminals out of anyone who isn't willing to destroy all of their firearms, which they purchased in a legal intrastate face to face sale, after June 30th. We all have no way to prove we obtained them in a legal manner.

Stole this idea from a youtube video: If we're not willing to keep people-who-are-so-dangerous-that-they-shouldn't-be-allowed-to-defend-their-own-lives in jail, then give them a red license so FFL's know instantly they can't be served, I'll know instantly if they try to buy a gun from me.

We wouldn't need an extra agency, manpower, or poll/sin tax to be introduced to firearms sales. Obviously this doesn't stop the bulk of the problem (which is to say criminals stealing guns or selling them amongst themselves) but it will help me to not accidentally sell a gun to a criminal. They might make fake IDs, I hear criminals do that sort of thing, but at least I would be able to say in court that the guy showed me an ID and tricked me. Right now I might still be asked how well I played detective if I met a guy in a Wal-Mart parking lot for a sale who then uses the gun he bought to kill someone. Plus I would be able to show an officer my NON-red ID during a traffic stop on the way to the range without becoming a felon or spending a few nights in jail.

(TL;DR) I did a terrible job of laying out bullet points for a debate but here are the themes:
--This bill and the ones proposed at the Federal level expose lawful gun owners to prosecution
--There are better (cheaper and more effective) alternative legislative possibilities that do not infringe on the second amendment but make it harder for criminals to obtain guns (if you believe it is good that someone is somehow fit to be reintroduced into society but still not be trusted with a gun)

[dwalker460]

Years ago in when I was in Tennessee we had the 7 day waiting period, and there was a movement to voluntarily have private firearms transactions go through the Sheriffs Department or local PD if possible. Meaning that if you sold a firearm through the classified section of the paper, and for some reason the purchaser made you a little suspicious, you would simply have them fill out a basic Bill of Sale with their info, which you would check against their ID- usually a drivers license- then drive over to the Sheriffs Department or local PD with the signed paper and they would happily tell you if the buyer was a felon or not. Nothing else, because that was beyond the scope, but enough for peace of mind. They even printed samples of the forms in the local papers and there might even have been radio ads. For certain the local news would occasionally do a short bit about it. Much like other things, the perception became that if you purchased a firearm through a private sale you were breaking the law if you did not go through this voluntary check. It fell out of favor because the next elected Sheriff had better things for his people to be doing, and the COP quickly figured out that if the Sheriff wasnt going to do any, he would get stuck with handling any and all of these voluntary yet time consuming checks. Worse, the program was very ineffectual. Rednecks had no desire to go any closer to the law than necessary, so they ignored it. Hunters and other sportsmen ignored it, and for certian criminals ignored it. My guess is they never found a felon through any of these checks. The program died quietly.
Damage done though, amongst the beliefs held by many of my peers growing up during this time is that:
All guns must be registered, if not then it is at worse illegal, and at best shady, you must have something to hide.
Law enforcement must be involved in a private firearms transaction
Concealed carry permits are for those who have some demonstrated need for them. When I got my first ccp the Sheriff had to sign off on it after your class and after you had given a valid reason for "needing" to carry a weapon concealed. Yeah thats right, he could deny you if he felt your reason was not valid, and there was not crap you could do about it.

Bottom line, perception is very critical and right now the left and anti-gunners are playing a better game than we are.

[GilpinGuy]

Your OP sentence says it all regarding your "friend"
I made a few points and he was marginally convinced at best.

If you have to TRY and convince him it's not worth the effort. His mind is made up. Prior to the back ground check ballot issue being voted on, like every other ballot a booklet was issues to voters. 98% of voters never read the booklet. EVERY gun owner i talked to were all ?????? Really I never knew that" Trying to get them to read the info was an exercise in futility.
WHY?? BECAUSE IT MADE SENSE [facepalm]

Wow. I wonder how many other endeavors would have failed if nobody ever tried to convince someone that it was worth their effort. <sigh>

My bud was looking for answers. I gave him some tonight - some that I hadn't thought of before you guys chimed in. He's swayed in our direction, and it didn't take much really. He was a gun guy to begin with after all. Just a little logic is all it took. [Weight]

[Inspector Fowler]

Laws do not serve to protect people. Laws are enacted to punish behavior that the government (our society) has decided is not in the interest of the greater good.

This. The biggest fault I find in liberal thinking, over and over, is that they think you can regulate behavior with laws. All you can do is punish offenders. It doesn't work with drugs, booze, prescription meds, etc. None of that.

I firmly believe that society is broken. I believe that 90% of these shooters should have been identified long before things went crazy. I believe that in the interest of not making people feel bad, we don't "label" anybody, even when they are clearly upsetting or disturbed. I believe there are not sufficient mechanisms in place to identify, isolate, and treat the mentally ill.

But taking items away from others has no effect on the end behavior of these sick people, it just punishes people who love shooting, for any purpose.

When the next school shooting happens even after all these new laws, these people should be automatically removed from office. Instead, I know that they'll just cry and cry and wish we were more like England.