Summations Only

I don't think you fully understand the relationship of the redneck with their hunting rifles. I am told is it similar to the relationship that some shepards have with their sheep.

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?

Good point

Fail.
Virginia Tech shooting was in 2007 and DC sniper was in 2002.You had to go back over 11 years to find an example and you still think you have a point?

That would still not help in cases where the person is quite ill but hasn't been incarcerated. Like for example with the V Tech guy. My point was in response to you addressing what each individual State should do. The current laws that are trying to be implemented, in some States, which I feel should be nationwide as Xong pointed out, are in direct response to some of the latest shootings. I wasn't talking about laws that "prevent crazy people from shooting up schools". I was talking about laws that prevent crazy people from getting guns. There is a clear difference there.A nationwide background check might be such a law that could help. Depending on how much is actually checked up on about the individual buying the gun. If it includes records of mental institutes or something like that, it would help. Also, everyone who registers as a gun owner goes through a yearly update check-up to see if anything new pops up about the person. Just because you're not crazy today doesn't mean you can't be crazy tomorrow. He was before V Tech, which I specifically used that event as my mark because of the DC sniper. But we all know what influenced him... Islam!- Oni

So let's make it a Catch-22 situation: If you want a gun you're crazy and you can't have one. If you don't want a gun you're sane and you can have all you want.

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?

CS replies: More than None. Even just 1 stop is enough to justify it.You also wrote in the post just before: No. but I addressed that issue later in that post, mostly pointing out that would be hard to come up with anything that would make a difference other than increasing the jail time for gun runners and legalizing all drugs.

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?

CS replies: No. Same as spending billions of dollars on space programs. We can afford it. In fact we cannot afford NOT to do it.That place to get your money is from is from the F-35-minded idiots in the Pentagon. And the subsidies to fossil fuel industry....Now you should give your answer to the background check question. How many stops would it take for you to think it was worth it?Secondly, how many do you think it would stop? I say easily in the hundreds.

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.

CS replies: I would agree. But let's get the funding from other parts of the Federal budget. First off I would never characterize "hundreds" as "successful". "Successful"would be in the order of 30,000. But still "hundreds" are worth doing. And I don't think it would cost all that much.