Summations Only

Is that what it boils down to?I simply cannot agree with that sentiment.

Actually, that's up to the individual States to decide.And if a State wants to keep bad people from getting guns, then a background check at the point of sale could accomplish that.If a State decides to obtain records of all the people who they have allowed to legally purchase guns, then I think we can conclude that keeping bad people from getting guns was not their ultimate goal.

Well, stuff like this isn't helping:

quote:

---

The problem is that the "right" to own guns never should have been declared.

---

Message 2271

That's right.I'm not interested in finding a legal foundation for driving as a privilege. Each State manages their own Department of Motor Vehicles. This, like gun regulations, should be run by state-level government agencies.For the rights that the States can read right out of the constitution, like having guns and free speech, I don't allow for the same kind regulations as for things that aren't mentioned, like driving cars.Mod found some State court cases that say that driving is actually a right, but I think you should still be able to see the distinction that I'm making.

Sure. For example, in addition to being kept from felons, the FOID card is kept from anyone who has been incarcerated in a mental institution. Well, the laws I'm bitching about came before those incidences, so they cannot be a response to them. Laws that are meant to stop crazy people from shooting up schools, I haven't been talking about.But I will, got some examples? What about the D.C. Sniper?

If Illinois has NO HELMET LAW but Missouri does, the guy just goes to Illinois, rides around without his helmet on and returns to Missouri. ZOMG! THE INJUSTICE!Look, maybe you would prefer to live in the Federal State of America, but a lot of us are happy to have the United States of America. Actually, depending on the State laws, that may be a federal crime at that point. I'm not "arguing states rights", as far as I'm aware I simply stated a simple fact. I don't think so. Do you have an argument for that? Awe geez, I don't even wanna see the argument for that one. You really think background checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?If you're a criminal, then why would you bother following the laws on background checks?What about people who just buy them illegally? Or buy them privately? Or steal them? Or make them?You really think background checks are going to help much? Why?

Well yeah, I mean, I've offer the FOID card as an example of a shitty law. Do you really think it'll help much?Of the crazy people who got guns, what percentage of them would have been prevented with a background check?

I disagree. In my opinion, the millions of dollars it would cost to set up a nationwide background check would save more lives if it was spent on the education and mental-healthcare systems.I think that diverting that money away from those systems and into a nationwide background check would end up costing more lives than it would if it was spent on something that would actually help the problem in a significant way.And in that sense, I think your idea actually causes us a net loss. So then, spending a shit-pile of money on nation wide background checks would be wasting those resources, no?

I'm not saying that we cannot afford the cost. I'm saying that spending the money on background checks instead of things like the education and mental healthcare systems is spending it on a less effective solution and therefore yielding a net loss on the prevention of gun homicides.In other words, you'd save more lives from gun homicides if you spent more money on the education and mental healthcare systems than you spent on background checks. That's my opinion on the matter. For background checks in general? We already have it. Its the NICS and FFL's have to check against it before selling a gun.I feel like you're talking about something more, but I'm not sure what else you're proposing beyond that? I'd say hardly any. First one, we already have it and its doesn't seem to be stopping much. Secondly, it can only work on guns that are obtained legally in the first place.Its hard to find any good data, but I saw on some websites that 80% of the guns used in crimes were not obtained legally (based on some survey the FBI did on inmates in 1997, iirc).What makes you think it would be so successful?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

30,000 what?There were less than 9,000 people killed by firearms in the U.S. in 2012.More than three times that many people died from unintentional falling.You want to save lives? How about background checks for leaving the ground

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Ha! And you're gonna talk shit from the sidelines and then bitch a fit if I say anything bad about you. Pathetic.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

We've been talking about homicides. Please do try to keep up.

Like what?