Thank you Dems

[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.c...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]

[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.