Thank you Dems

[stoner01]

http://kdvr.com/2013/12/11/dems-background-checks-stopped-72-gun-sales-to-convicted-criminals/

Without you we would all be dead. /sarcasm

[Zundfolge]

What they don't tell you is that 70 (if not all 72) of those 72 are false positives.

[Dave_L]

^Yup. Any known criminal with bad intentions won't willingly walk into a shop and have a BGC done.

[Zundfolge]

^Yup. Any known criminal with bad intentions won't willingly walk into a shop and have a BGC done.
Well the argument for the UBCG law was that since criminals don't go to gun shops to buy their guns because of the BGC they instead buy guns from law abiding citizens because they can do so without a BGC ... I guess these same idiots believe that criminals have just given up on buying guns at all now and are busy getting jobs and bettering themselves.

[merl]

Well it did make it more difficult for felons to obtain guns. Not impossible by any means and probably not even what would qualify as "very difficult" (having no first hand knowledge I cannot say concretely) but absolutely harder. It also made it more difficult and expensive for everyone else to buy a used gun.

Is that added difficulty for felons worth the damage to the used market? Not to me but I do think it would be a tough sell to repeal that one.

[generalmeow]

I'm a firm believer in that if I sell a firearm to someone, it's no longer my responsibility or problem. They can do whatever they want with it, even if that's committing crimes. They are responsible for their actions. The firearm has nothing to do with it. Ergo, if they have money, and I have a firearm, I don't mind selling it to them. I don't want to know who they are.

Isn't requiring background checks to purchase a firearm an admission by the government that they are failing at keeping known, dangerous people off of the streets? There shouldn't be anyone on the streets that we should be worried about owning a firearm.

Why the fuck are there people out there, that the government already knows about, that I need to be worried about getting their hands on a firearm?

ETA: not only is the government failing at keeping these people off the streets, they are intentionally putting them there by releasing them. I don't get it.

[newracer]

What they don't tell you is that 70 (if not all 72) of those 72 are false positives.

Actually the table linked in the article states that the numbers for July -Oct held up after appeal.

http://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/instacheck-private-sales-july-through-november-1.pdf

[KS63]

I feel so much safer now. Thanks!........

[Rucker61]

Half the denials were for "other" reasons. I wonder what those are.

[cofi]

Half the denials were for "other" reasons. I wonder what those are.
Wrong address put stuff in the wrong place etc

[spideyar]

Article is specific to private sales, but here is what I am unclear on. Specific example is Von Miller: he's arrested on an outstanding warrant which was found during the BGC at CGC. Had that been a private sale with a BCG, would that have been included in that 72 "stopped gun purchases"?

Further to that, the spokesman said the crimes the person(s) were convicted of OR charged with INCLUDED "assault, dangerous drugs and larceny/theft". What else were they denied for, bench warrants for speeding like Miller? The PDF lists 35 of the denials (out of 72, so very nearly 50%) at "All Other" so what are those denials? And WTF is a 'dangerous drug' exactly? Even a conviction for larceny/theft would not necessarily prevent one from legally owning a firearm, would it?

The stats seem.... unconvincing, to say the least. By the logic of the sponsors of the bills, the criminals who were denied would have otherwise gotten their murderous hands on a firearm and gone on a rampage, right?

[clublights]

Actually the table linked in the article states that the numbers for July -Oct held up after appeal.

http://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/instacheck-private-sales-july-through-november-1.pdf


Wow ... better then I thought ...


So there were 90 denials ( at end of months ) only 8 cleared after that so 72 true denials ... interesting.

Other " fun fact"

there have been ~ 126,000 checks since july 1 .... only 4700 are for private...

So where is this 40% number they paraded about ? or are so so so many of them now happening illegal?

[crays]

I'm a firm believer in that if I sell a firearm to someone, it's no longer my responsibility or problem. They can do whatever they want with it, even if that's committing crimes. They are responsible for their actions. The firearm has nothing to do with it. Ergo, if they have money, and I have a firearm, I don't mind selling it to them. I don't want to know who they are.


Don't feel like you have even a slight responsibility to vet the buyer, huh?

[generalmeow]

Don't feel like you have even a slight responsibility to vet the buyer, huh?

Why would I? Guns don't commit crimes. The person I sell the gun to could do far more damage with a match and a can of gas.

[Irving]

Isn't requiring background checks to purchase a firearm an admission by the government that they are failing at keeping known, dangerous people off of the streets? There shouldn't be anyone on the streets that we should be worried about owning a firearm.

Why the fuck are there people out there, that the government already knows about, that I need to be worried about getting their hands on a firearm?

ETA: not only is the government failing at keeping these people off the streets, they are intentionally putting them there by releasing them. I don't get it.

Ignoring the rest of your post, this part doesn't hold water.

[generalmeow]

Ignoring the rest of your post, this part doesn't hold water.

Why not?

If someone is too dangerous to be on the streets (but only if they can somehow get their hands on a gun, which they definitely can), then they shouldn't be on the streets. The only other option is that they're not too dangerous, even if they own a gun, in which case they should be allowed to own a gun.

of course there are dangerous people with no criminal history, but no background check will catch them, so nobody can.

[Mazin]

[pileoshit]

[generalmeow]

If I sell a car to someone, I don't wonder how many dui's or speeding tickets they have. It's not my job to decide if they're too dangerous to own it.

[UrbanWolf]

I've been falsely denied by BGC once, I appealed and it turned out to be a error. I'm sure their are others who experienced the same.

[Irving]

Why not?

If someone is too dangerous to be on the streets (but only if they can somehow get their hands on a gun, which they definitely can), then they shouldn't be on the streets. The only other option is that they're not too dangerous, even if they own a gun, in which case they should be allowed to own a gun.

of course there are dangerous people with no criminal history, but no background check will catch them, so nobody can.

You did a better job explaining your position this time. You should still feel an obligation to act responsibly toward society though.

[kidicarus13]

"went through without a hitch." +$35


Don't feel like you have even a slight responsibility to vet the buyer, huh?

Nope, not my problem anymore.

[Zundfolge]

Freedom cannot exist without risk. You can't eliminate risk without also eliminating freedom.

I would rather live in a world where everyone (violent felons included) were given the absolute right to buy HK MP5Ks from vending machines and CCW them onto commercial airliners then to hand over my liberty to the state for the empty promise that they'll protect me from the boogieman. Because in the end all you lose is your liberty AND your freedom.

I certainly wouldn't sell a gun to some baggy pants wearing ghetto rat, but forcing me to go through a BGC if I buy or sell from one of you gentlemen here is not going to make the world even a modicum safer.

Hell, I remember meeting kidicarus13 in a dark parking lot at night and buying a Steyr M9A1 ... a gun that I turned around a few weeks later and sold to the bookkeeper at my office so she could give it to her son for his 21st Birthday. Nobody would have been made any safer had I, the bookkeeper or her son gone through a BGC.

[UrbanWolf]

Hell, if BCG's are the answer to prevent criminals from getting dangerous material then we should start at gas station and anywhere that sells glass bottles.

[brutal]

Originally Posted by generalmeow https://www.ar-15.co/images/tf_ideal/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.ar-15.co/showthread.php?p=1437157#post1437157) I'm a firm believer in that if I sell a firearm to someone, it's no longer my responsibility or problem. They can do whatever they want with it, even if that's committing crimes. They are responsible for their actions. The firearm has nothing to do with it. Ergo, if they have money, and I have a firearm, I don't mind selling it to them. I don't want to know who they are.


Don't feel like you have even a slight responsibility to vet the buyer, huh?

This is just one more reason to put (keep) this dumbfuck on the ignore list. I only saw his dumbfuck remark because you quoted the dumbfuck.

[buffalobo]

Freedom cannot exist without risk. You can't eliminate risk without also eliminating freedom.

I would rather live in a world where everyone (violent felons included) were given the absolute right to buy HK MP5Ks from vending machines and CCW them onto commercial airliners then to hand over my liberty to the state for the empty promise that they'll protect me from the boogieman. Because in the end all you lose is your liberty AND your freedom.

I certainly wouldn't sell a gun to some baggy pants wearing ghetto rat, but forcing me to go through a BGC if I buy or sell from one of you gentlemen here is not going to make the world even a modicum safer.

Hell, I remember meeting kidicarus13 in a dark parking lot at night and buying a Steyr M9A1 ... a gun that I turned around a few weeks later and sold to the bookkeeper at my office so she could give it to her son for his 21st Birthday. Nobody would have been made any safer had I, the bookkeeper or her son gone through a BGC.

^^^This. :thumbup:

[kawiracer14]

The real success for the D's here is that there are significantly less private party sales now. Look at how long guns sit on our Private Party section now, even at a ridiculously low price, because it's too much of a pain in the ass to find an FFL somewhere in the middle ground, find a time they're open that works for both people and be willing to provide, yet again, your information to the state.

[UrbanWolf]

The real success for the D's here is that there are significantly less private party sales now. Look at how long guns sit on our Private Party section now, even at a ridiculously low price, because it's too much of a pain in the ass to find an FFL somewhere in the middle ground, find a time they're open that works for both people and be willing to provide, yet again, your information to the state.

Their ultimate goal, reduce gun enthusiasts.

[Ronin13]

Unless they actually did their homework on this- I could have contributed to this- when I bought my newest Sig, the guy entered my SSN wrong and it came back denied- I looked at it and said "uh, that's not me, that's not my address." It was fixed with a quick call to CBI, but I wonder if that SSN got marked at as a legit denial, further boosting their numbers.

[generalmeow]

This is just one more reason to put (keep) this dumbfuck on the ignore list. I only saw his dumbfuck remark because you quoted the dumbfuck.

The only reason you would put me on your ignore list would be that you think you're an alpha male, and you don't want to listen to anyone that disagrees with you, and especially anyone that can make you feel dumb and bad about yourself.

But guess what? That makes you a beta male.

My points of view may not be flawless (we all think our points of view are flawless, but I recognize that other people have different ideas), but my logic in arguing them is very good. I make good points to back up everything I say. If you can't stand to hear different points of view, with good points to back them up, that makes me a dumb fuck?

This place is a debate, not an echo chamber. Seems like you want an echo chamber.

1. (http://beta-male.urbanup.com/1689630) beta male
An unremarkable, careful man who avoids risk and confrontation. Beta males lack the physical presence, charisma and confidence of the Alpha male.

[Skip]

So... Where are the 72 prosecutions? Lying on 4473 is a felony.


The real success for the D's here is that there are significantly less private party sales now. Look at how long guns sit on our Private Party section now, even at a ridiculously low price, because it's too much of a pain in the ass to find an FFL somewhere in the middle ground, find a time they're open that works for both people and be willing to provide, yet again, your information to the state.


Their ultimate goal, reduce gun enthusiasts.

I agree. Since prohibited persons were already unable to legally purchase/possess, this is likely their goal. It is now illegal for me to take a friend/acquaintance shooting.

Technically, if I help my brother in law build an AR, I have probably broken this law. If he passes the lower to me for help we're now criminals. But that we never happen because everyone I know obeys the law all the time.

[Aloha_Shooter]

my logic in arguing them is very good. I make good points to back up everything I say.

No, it's not and no, you don't. Having said that, I don't bother with ignore lists because even a broken clock is right twice a day ...

[Zundfolge]

Their ultimate goal, reduce gun enthusiasts.

And additionally one of their goals is to undermine the respect for the law thus to eliminate the rule of law and facilitate institution of the "rule of men".

[UrbanWolf]

So... Where are the 72 prosecutions? Lying on 4473 is a felony.

I agree. Since prohibited persons were already unable to legally purchase/possess, this is likely their goal. It is now illegal for me to take a friend/acquaintance shooting.

Technically, if I help my brother in law build an AR, I have probably broken this law. If he passes the lower to me for help we're now criminals. But that we never happen because everyone I know obeys the law all the time.

Some say the laws are poorly worded. I think they put careful thoughts into wording the law the way it was written, in case they run into a law suit they can win by simply manipulate their "meaning" of the law.

[Danimal]

So... Where are the 72 prosecutions? Lying on 4473 is a felony.

This should be pushed; also it was brought up that there were 35 "All Other" out of the 72 listed on the study. What the hell are they, and why would it have been so difficult to account for the other 35 even of there is only one denial for each individual reason? Another page on the report was too difficult? Also I found multiple articles that state that CBI dose not return a reason for denial. The system returns a "denial flag" and then sends it out without a reason attached. I don't know whether or not that is true, but that is what all the liberal post articles said after the first 10 came back for the month of July because they did not want to show how many were false positives. Also why is it that the "new state figures released" are not on a state page anywhere that I can find? They are a page owned by KDVR and there is no cite for the information.

Either way, the main thing that I see in this is that there is no real accountability or fact check that can be run on the data other than denial. I am assuming that some of them were for residency issues as that is the most common one that I have seen. Someone has not lived in the state long enough to establish residency and it counts as a hard denial. If we are paying for these checks out of pocket, there better be a way to audit what we are paying for that is verifiable. If the data is correct, great 72 dickbags that gave up their right to own firearms did not get them. But why in the hell is it so hard to find real viable information that shows without a shadow of a doubt that it is working? Individual convictions for violation of lying on a 4473 would settle this issue for me.

[generalmeow]

No, it's not and no, you don't.

How was my logic on that group buy?

It's not often that there are real winners and losers in an arguement, because most of what we talk about is theoretical, but the 1% of the time that there is some tangible or determinable outcome to an arguement, I will almost always be on the right side of it. And I've noticed that it's especially true when the number of people arguing against me is much greater than the number of people arguing with me.

My secret is that I instinctively look for any good reason to take a different position than the herd. I automatically jump to a position outside the box, and people hate me for that. But if I can find any good reason the herd might be wrong, the herd is almost always wrong. 99% of the time you're sitting in a field having a great time, in good company. Then 1% of the time they're taking you to the slaughterhouse and one of them jumps through a fence and gets away. I'm the one that gets away, because I'm always trying not to be in the herd.

But because 99% of the time there are no real winners and losers in an argument, the herd continues to think that they're right 99% of the time because they live in an echo chamber and tell themselves that. And they say I'm just lucky the 1% of the time that it matters.

And if you think you're right 99% of the time, and I'm constantly taking a different position, I don't blame you for thinking I'm an idiot. But that's not what's happening.

[<MADDOG>]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/pperron/6a00d83451eb0069e2011570ea5170970c-800wi_zps51981cbb.png (http://s34.photobucket.com/user/pperron/media/6a00d83451eb0069e2011570ea5170970c-800wi_zps51981cbb.png.html)

[crays]

How was my logic on that group buy?



Pretty sure all anyone remembers is that you advocated profiteering, then took a buyout to "stand your ground".

Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device

[jerrymrc]

Half the denials were for "other" reasons. I wonder what those are.

I can tell you how a couple were. 1. 13 years ago a member and his wife were arrested for domestic violence and all charges were dropped. Last year one tried to buy a gun and was denied. After filing the appeal no problems since.

2. A solider back when he was 17 was in a car with his uncle that got busted for drugs. the solider was charged along with the uncle but later determined that he knew nothing and was not involved. He was denied until he appealed and has since purchased a gun.

Just two real life denials that later turned out to be false.