We don't want to take your guns...read H.R. 4269

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm.

I agree. But if a person already has a list of firearms, as I do, why make them wait for another? Case in point a few years ago, I had a shotgun blow up in my face. The receiver was damaged and needed to be sent back in. I had to wait the mandated waiting period for a new shotgun. Pissed me off like nobody's business. I shot a 20 gauge until the wait period was over, but if I wanted to use a gun for a crime, I had two gun safes including a self defense shotgun, I could have used. Makes absolutely no sense at all. It would be like having to wait 21 years between buying beers....

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

I am middle of the road in gun control which neither side like but I side with the 2A because I have seen how gradual erosion of rights occurs. Slippery slope.

I am ok with the 10 day wait period for a cool down as it might save someone from heat of the moment attacks. Not ok with the 1 in 30 CA handgun limit.

Background checks are ok with me but the current system is ineffective and inaccurate. Plus it is like a tax on a right. Unlike driving which is a privilege.

That, and if the person has a record, then no gun for them!
Crash, that's rough that you can only buy one handgun every 30 days and that you have to wait an excruciating 10 days, but if you shouldn't have to go through the legal channels, then why should someone with a criminal record?

You did not answer my question.

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

.

Novofish said, "I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm." To that , I added that a background check can weed out those with criminal records and deny them a gun. Does that answer your question?

No.  I already own several guns.  I don't need a new gun to do harm if that is my aim.  Background checks are inconvenient and do not logically support the stated purpose for anyone who already has access to firearms.  Plus they cost money.  Waiting periods are also inconvenient but they just cost time, but again for no logical reason.

If background checks were limited to first time gun owners then fine.  But they arent.

That, and if the person has a record, then no gun for them!
Crash, that's rough that you can only buy one handgun every 30 days and that you have to wait an excruciating 10 days, but if you shouldn't have to go through the legal channels, then why should someone with a criminal record?

You did not answer my question.

Do you have good suggestions for improving the system, because status quo doesn't seem to be working.

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

.

Novofish said, "I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm." To that , I added that a background check can weed out those with criminal records and deny them a gun. Does that answer your question?

No.  I already own several guns.  I don't need a new gun to do harm if that is my aim.  Background checks are inconvenient and do not logically support the stated purpose for anyone who already has access to firearms.  Plus they cost money.  Waiting periods are also inconvenient but they just cost time, but again for no logical reason.

If background checks were limited to first time gun owners then fine.  But they arent.

The only thing I'm sure of is all of this arguing back and forth will definitely change minds one way or another, such that gun control enthusiasts will agree gun control is ridiculous, or gun totin' crazies will decide that restrictive gun control is the only way to go.  Someone will definitively win the argument.

Do you have good suggestions for improving the system, because status quo doesn't seem to be working.

What doesn't work about it?  I don't disagree necessarily, I just want to talk about specifics.

That, and if the person has a record, then no gun for them!
Crash, that's rough that you can only buy one handgun every 30 days and that you have to wait an excruciating 10 days, but if you shouldn't have to go through the legal channels, then why should someone with a criminal record?

You did not answer my question.

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

.

Novofish said, "I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm." To that , I added that a background check can weed out those with criminal records and deny them a gun. Does that answer your question?

No.  I already own several guns.  I don't need a new gun to do harm if that is my aim.  Background checks are inconvenient and do not logically support the stated purpose for anyone who already has access to firearms.  Plus they cost money.  Waiting periods are also inconvenient but they just cost time, but again for no logical reason.

If background checks were limited to first time gun owners then fine.  But they arent.

So I did answer your question, you just didn't like my answer. The problem with gun control in the U.S. is that nobody wants it to affect them. Well, the government can't figure out who the criminals are if we're all exempt from the laws for one reason or another.

Crash, let's suppose that a gun-owner last purchased a handgun 30 days ago, and he has since developed a mental illness that could impair his ability to safely and legally use a gun. A background check during his next gun purchase might catch that mental illness and not only prevent him from buying a new gun, but could also warrant confiscation of any guns he already owns. Or is that too extreme?

The only thing I'm sure of is all of this arguing back and forth will definitely change minds one way or another, such that gun control enthusiasts will agree gun control is ridiculous, or gun totin' crazies will decide that restrictive gun control is the only way to go.  Someone will definitively win the argument.

Or we might just agree on some very specific points and have a rational discussion.  It has happened before.  I'd like to appeal to logic and reason.  So far this thread has been mostly civil.

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm.

I agree. But if a person already has a list of firearms, as I do, why make them wait for another? Case in point a few years ago, I had a shotgun blow up in my face. The receiver was damaged and needed to be sent back in. I had to wait the mandated waiting period for a new shotgun. Pissed me off like nobody's business. I shot a 20 gauge until the wait period was over, but if I wanted to use a gun for a crime, I had two gun safes including a self defense shotgun, I could have used. Makes absolutely no sense at all. It would be like having to wait 21 years between buying beers....

By this logic, the following scenario could play out:
Random Person, owns 1 45cal handgun & wants to perform a workplace rampage ... because this individual already owns a gun, they should be able to walk in & buy at will with no wait?  This could enable them to gain ready access to gun(s) for a wrongful purpose.  I could see this ability to buy as valid if they had to wait a set duration (10, 21, 30 days between gun purchases).

I'm neither for or against, just playing out the scenario in my mind.

So I did answer your question, you just didn't like my answer. The problem with gun control in the U.S. is that nobody wants it to affect them. Well, the government can't figure out who the criminals are if we're all exempt from the laws for one reason or another.

You didn't, but thats ok.

Crash, let's suppose that a gun-owner last purchased a handgun 30 days ago, and he has since developed a mental illness that could impair his ability to safely and legally use a gun. A background check during his next gun purchase might catch that mental illness and not only prevent him from buying a new gun, but could also warrant confiscation of any guns he already owns. Or is that too extreme?

How is a background check going to discover this mental illness?  There are already mechanisms in the law to have guns removed if someone has been involuntarily committed to a mental facility.  If this information is kept in a CLETS type database, then a simple, instant background check would show it.  I don't have a problem with instant background checks for firearms purchases.

If its something that only an interview with a family member or a psychiatrist would reveal, then the scope of the background check would need to be extremely invasive.  That, I have a big problem with.

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm.

I agree. But if a person already has a list of firearms, as I do, why make them wait for another? Case in point a few years ago, I had a shotgun blow up in my face. The receiver was damaged and needed to be sent back in. I had to wait the mandated waiting period for a new shotgun. Pissed me off like nobody's business. I shot a 20 gauge until the wait period was over, but if I wanted to use a gun for a crime, I had two gun safes including a self defense shotgun, I could have used. Makes absolutely no sense at all. It would be like having to wait 21 years between buying beers....

By this logic, the following scenario could play out:
Random Person, owns 1 45cal handgun & wants to perform a workplace rampage ... because this individual already owns a gun, they should be able to walk in & buy at will with no wait?  This could enable them to gain ready access to gun(s) for a wrongful purpose.  I could see this ability to buy as valid if they had to wait a set duration (10, 21, 30 days between gun purchases).

I'm neither for or against, just playing out the scenario in my mind.

Perfect example. The only problem with background checks is that most people who go off the deep end don't have criminal records.

Recurring mass shootings are a problem that nobody wants.
What can we do as sane rational beings to prevent them?
Personally, and most probably against the grain of my peace-loving party mates, I am entertaining open-carry thoughts.
Although it might give rise to a more violent state, I think we are already leaning toward a more desperate time.
In less populated areas, it seems that gun(s) ownership is the norm.
In big cities residents feel "safe" due to police presence.
I think the potential to need personal protection is on the rise - unfortunately.

This is public knowledge now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

How is a background check going to discover this mental illness?  There are already mechanisms in the law to have guns removed if someone has been involuntarily committed to a mental facility.  If this information is kept in a CLETS type database, then a simple, instant background check would show it.  I don't have a problem with instant background checks for firearms purchases.

If its something that only an interview with a family member or a psychiatrist would reveal, then the scope of the background check would need to be extremely invasive.  That, I have a big problem with.

If background checks look for mental illness, then it would catch it. Anyway, most mentally unstable people have been neither voluntarily nor involuntarily committed, so perhaps this is a moot point.

I think FishingForTheCure has a better scenario. Someone who owns one handgun should never have to undergo a background check again, and can therefore stock up for a workplace shooting unchecked?

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm.

I agree. But if a person already has a list of firearms, as I do, why make them wait for another? Case in point a few years ago, I had a shotgun blow up in my face. The receiver was damaged and needed to be sent back in. I had to wait the mandated waiting period for a new shotgun. Pissed me off like nobody's business. I shot a 20 gauge until the wait period was over, but if I wanted to use a gun for a crime, I had two gun safes including a self defense shotgun, I could have used. Makes absolutely no sense at all. It would be like having to wait 21 years between buying beers....

By this logic, the following scenario could play out:
Random Person, owns 1 45cal handgun & wants to perform a workplace rampage ... because this individual already owns a gun, they should be able to walk in & buy at will with no wait?  This could enable them to gain ready access to gun(s) for a wrongful purpose.  I could see this ability to buy as valid if they had to wait a set duration (10, 21, 30 days between gun purchases).

I'm neither for or against, just playing out the scenario in my mind.

is that person going to not rampage at all if he can only use one firearm instead of 1+x?  This seems a bit tenuous but I am not in the mind of a rampaging lunatic so I guess its possible.

Which brings us to another way to lower mass shooting casualties:  widespread concealed carry.  It is true that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.  It probably isn't the only way, but it is the most effective. It is also extremely dangerous for the good guy, but thats a risk that I think a lot of people are willing to accept.