pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Another liberal philly.com anti-gun article
#1
Quote:The NRA really stands alone on gun background checks

~~~~~~~~~~snip~~~~~~~~~~

I am not a member - the NRA doesn't represent me or most of my pistol-packing pals. Some of my NRA friends say it doesn't represent them, either, on background checks.

A poll by Frank Luntz, who usually works for Republicans, reported that a majority of current and former NRA members favor background checks. "Majority" understates the case - it was 74 percent.

That's an amazing statistic, but I have one (allow me to invent a word) that's amazinger.

The Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, polled licensed dealers who sell more than 50 guns annually. It reported that 55.4 percent of the surveyed gun dealers support background checks.

That's a greater percentage than Obama got over Mitt Romney, and it comes from the very people who would be most "burdened" (aside from the criminals and the deranged) by background checks.

So gun sellers join gun owners and literally everyone else in wanting more background checks.

Under current federal law, anyone buying a handgun or long gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee in any state must submit to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The issue: Rifles and shotguns can be bought from private individuals without a background check, at gun shows for instance. State laws controlling such sales are a crazy quilt. That is the huge, dangerous loophole Americans want closed.

After years of writing about gun issues, I developed a plan to reduce the risk of gun violence. Neither side will love it all.

* Mandatory instant background check for everyone, for every gun sold.

* One gun purchase a month. This is aimed at slowing the multiple straw purchaser.

* Increase prison time to 10 years for straw purchasers (who buy a gun to pass along to someone who can't pass a background check).

* Lost or stolen guns must be reported, to thwart straw purchasers who may claim the guns they sold illegally were lost or stolen.

* No "assault weapon" ban. It was tried for a decade to little effect, and the Washington Navy Yard maniac used a shotgun. In 2011, the FBI reports, shotgun homicides (356) outnumbered rifle homicides (323). Both were dwarfed by handguns (6,220), the biggest problem.

* Make carrying a gun in a crime a federal offense, 10-year mandatory, added to the sentence for the original crime.

* No clips with more than 15 rounds. If you can't hit a target with 15 chances, you shouldn't be packing. (Limiting ammo negates a "need" to ban "assault rifles.")

* States must report people with mental illnesses to a federal database, as they are required to do. Most lag behind.

* Hollywood should reduce violence - in films, recordings, video games.

* No more "gun-free" zones. They don't stop gunmen; they provide defenseless targets.

Will my plan end all gun crime? Of course not. Will it stop some? You make that call.

Read more

Yeah, why do we need high capacity magazines? It's not like people are getting attacked by 30 bikers or anything? ........oh wait....
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#2
I didn't read the whole article, because I don't care.

However, one thing stood out and that was licensed dealers support background checks on all firearms... Of course they do! They are the ones getting paid to make a phone call. A call to PICS is $2, I believe, and most FFLs start charging at $20 and some go as high as $50. That's free money for some paperwork and a phone call. So of course dealers support background checks on everything.
NRA (Life), GOA, FOAC (Life), NAGR, AMGOA

RocketFoot's Minion since 09-07-2012
Reply
#3
bigdawgbeav;120937 Wrote:I didn't read the whole article, because I don't care.

However, one thing stood out and that was licensed dealers support background checks on all firearms... Of course they do! They are the ones getting paid to make a phone call. A call to PICS is $2, I believe, and most FFLs start charging at $20 and some go as high as $50. That's free money for some paperwork and a phone call. So of course dealers support background checks on everything.

My LGSs charge between $40-50 for a transfer if you bought a gun online from another gun shop. Part of me is torn. I like the idea of a flat, reasonable transfer rate set by the state just like all LTCFs are $20. The other part of me thinks the government shouldn't get involved in businesses' affairs.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#4
Philadelphia Patriot;120940 Wrote:
bigdawgbeav;120937 Wrote:I didn't read the whole article, because I don't care.

However, one thing stood out and that was licensed dealers support background checks on all firearms... Of course they do! They are the ones getting paid to make a phone call. A call to PICS is $2, I believe, and most FFLs start charging at $20 and some go as high as $50. That's free money for some paperwork and a phone call. So of course dealers support background checks on everything.

My LGSs charge between $40-50 for a transfer if you bought a gun online from another gun shop. Part of me is torn. I like the idea of a flat, reasonable transfer rate set by the state just like all LTCFs are $20. The other part of me thinks the government shouldn't get involved in businesses' affairs.

EXACTLY! My FFL is my gunsmith. He charges $20 and I'm OK with that. Some of these places that charge $40-$50 are ridiculous. What burns me is the LGS that sells you a gun and then still charges you the $40 for the call to PICS.

Once again, this is exactly why an FFL would 100% support background checks on all firearm sales. But lets not forget that criminals don't exactly follow the law.
NRA (Life), GOA, FOAC (Life), NAGR, AMGOA

RocketFoot's Minion since 09-07-2012
Reply
#5
Just posted this in the comments of the article:

Quote:Oh goodie! Another anti-gun article from Philly.com... seriously folks?! And on background checks?! How many times do we need to go over this? CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW!! They obtain their guns illegally and don't go through the background check process. And lets talk about dealers that approve of background checks for all sales... OF COURSE THEY DO! You morons need to realize that if you want to privately sell a rifle or shotgun to another private party and HAVE to go through a dealer for the background check, the dealer is gonna make money. FFLs get charged by the state around $5 for a phone call to PICS. But then they charge the person getting the check anywhere from $20-$50, all for some paperwork and a phone call. That's free money! Of course dealers support that. Everyone also needs to remember that the majority of crimes committed with firearms are not done with rifles and shotguns. So how does forcing background checks for private sales effect gun violence? We already know that criminals don't follow the law.

In the above article I do agree with harsher prison sentences. Unfortunately some DA's (read: Seth Williams) don't care. They want the conviction and will bargain just to get it. This means that violent criminals are out on the street faster. And do we even need to discuss "concurrent" sentences? Clean up the corruption in Philly.... there's where the real criminals are! If you are going to increase prison time for firearms violations, make it a mandatory sentence, no bargaining and not concurrent. So lets say you get 2 years for robbery and 10 years for firearms violations. You serve 12 years, plain and simple.

Magazine restrictions are B.S.... The author states "If you can't hit a target with 15 chances, you shouldn't be packing." Then this goes for the police as well. Too often we hear stories of police that fire 67 shots and score 2 hits. Those are "trained" officers. Are 15 rounds going to be enough when a flash mob of 30 people start attacking 1 person, hell no!

Finally, I do also agree with the repeal of "gun free zones". Gun free zones are just beacons of light for criminals flashing out "The folks here are disarmed for your convenience!"

Can't wait to see what replies I get!
NRA (Life), GOA, FOAC (Life), NAGR, AMGOA

RocketFoot's Minion since 09-07-2012
Reply
#6
When Philly criminals start getting real prison time, welfare puts a limitation on children (like... NONE) if you get pregnant while on welfare, PPD leaves law abiding carriers the hell alone AND starts issuing LTCFs to law abiding citizens, the City Council resigns, the Mayor moves to Bolivia, and most of North Philly gets bulldozed into a parking lot with it's useless inhabitants relocated to Camden, then MAYBE... I would consider accepting a magazine limitation. But only with all current mags grandfathered in.

Besides, I am a discriminating shooter (ergo, I do not "spray fire from the hip), and my magazine changes take about two eye blinks... so a restriction wouldn't honestly impact me in th slightest.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#7
There is a huge leap of logic in this article that makes the point of it completely contrived.

Quote:majority of current and former NRA members favor background checks.
Fine. Sounds right.

Quote:55.4 percent of the surveyed gun dealers support background checks.
Again, sounds OK

Now the disconnect
Quote:So gun sellers join gun owners and literally everyone else in wanting more background checks.
(bold mine)
Umm, no. those other polls did not ask if we wanted MORE background checks. That's like saying 80% of Americans think paying taxes is part of their duty as citizens so we can all agree that everyone wants more taxes.
Reply
#8
I'm stuck waiting for someone this morning and saw this so thought I'd drop my thoughts in... boredom makes me wordy... Wink

* Mandatory instant background check for everyone, for every gun sold.

- I'll be honest I'm on the fence with background checks. I don't like them, but the truth is, there are some people that due to a criminal past, or mental illness, legally cannot own guns, so how else do you control that? I know that the issue arises about "shall not be infringed" and the right to personal protection for anyone and everyone, but if we are going to have restrictions on who can purchase or own we have to address it somehow. If we are to have any kind of background check, I think it is a complete waste of resources to have the PICS and NICS system in place the way it currently is. If anything you should be able to apply for a firearms "license" where you pass a background check once that says you are an eligible citizen. Once you have that permit / license you should be good to go to purchase. If you do something that makes you ineligible to own / purchase firearms your permit is revoked.

I know this goes against the ideology that we have the right to bear arms so why should we be checked out and approved to purchase. However, I think if we are going to have a system in place to check if someone is allowed to purchase a firearm, it makes no sense to check each and every single time someone wants to purchase one. Why not go through the check once (if you do decide to exercise your right to bear arms) and have it revoked if and when you do something that our laws say restrict you from that right. A license / permit stating you are eligible that gets revoked if you become ineligible would be a much more efficient system. When you go to purchase, if you've been revoked, it would be like your credit card being declined. I think a permit system gives you the ability to be innocent (after getting your card) until proven guilty (and the card is revoked). Rather than the current system, where it is basically assumed you are guilty and we need to check you out first to clear you to say you are innocent. As if I'm most likely to be in the gun store today to commit a crime.

Case in point, it is legal to transfer a long gun in PA privately. How many of you will simply sell a long gun to someone you do not know off of PAFOA without seeing an LTCF, so you know you are not transferring a gun illegally to a criminal. I know for me personally seeing an LTCF and a valid PA Driver's License gives me some peace of mind and it makes me comfortable.

Criminals are going to skirt the law to buy guns. However, I don't think we should make it easy for them to buy guns legally by not having some sort of eligibility to purchase system in place. I might be convinced otherwise, but it just seems logical to have a system of some kind in place, and I think the existing one sucks and is inefficient. (And by inefficient I don't mean how fast it takes to get approved, but the amount of resources that are required to constantly approve buyers).

* One gun purchase a month. This is aimed at slowing the multiple straw purchaser.

- This is ridiculous. Show me the straw purchaser who is repeatedly buying guns legally and illegally handing them off to someone who is ineligible. I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it's common. More than likely this sort of thing happens on a one time basis, and laws like this don't slow straw purchases in any way to be significant. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't have any statistics on this, but laws like this simply restrict citizens rights. And that is wrong.

* Increase prison time to 10 years for straw purchasers (who buy a gun to pass along to someone who can't pass a background check).

- Ok, whatever. A straw purchase is already illegal, we just want to increase the penalty? Sometimes that's a deterrent, but I'd be more concerned about the recipient of the straw purchase, so why not increase the prison time for the asshole criminal who coerces or convinces someone else to perform a straw purchase for them.

* Lost or stolen guns must be reported, to thwart straw purchasers who may claim the guns they sold illegally were lost or stolen.

- I hate these types of laws. If I don't want to report my property as stolen that is my business. What if guns are removed from my safe unknowingly and I don't notice for a long period of time. Now I'm a criminal. BS.

* No "assault weapon" ban. It was tried for a decade to little effect, and the Washington Navy Yard maniac used a shotgun. In 2011, the FBI reports, shotgun homicides (356) outnumbered rifle homicides (323). Both were dwarfed by handguns (6,220), the biggest problem.

- Yeah ok I agree with this guy. Assault Weapon bans are ineffective. However, suddenly it sounds like we might want to target shotguns. Targeting the type of gun used in crimes is idiotic. It's not the gun, its the person committing the crime that is the problem. (broken record, around here I know).

* Make carrying a gun in a crime a federal offense, 10-year mandatory, added to the sentence for the original crime.

- Uh... hmmm not sure what the exact current laws say, so again we are adding time to sentence. I'm pretty sure there are already a handful of charges you can get nailed with for being in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. I Don't have too much argument against this other than the fact that the prison systems are already over crowded with non-violent offenders, and violent offenders are constantly being released on the streets, so unless we are going to decriminalize some things like drug possession and use what's the point in going there.

* No clips with more than 15 rounds. If you can't hit a target with 15 chances, you shouldn't be packing. (Limiting ammo negates a "need" to ban "assault rifles.")

- 15 round magazines, just means as a law abiding citizen I can't have more than 15 rounds. As a criminal I will just get one of the many 30 or 100 round magazines that will be floating around out there, or I will just bring twice as many 15 round magazines with me to the crime than I would have 30 magazines. (Have you seen how fast I can reload?) Wink Magazine capacity does nothing to stop crimes, it simply restricts citizens rights.

* States must report people with mental illnesses to a federal database, as they are required to do. Most lag behind.

- Go back to my firearm license card I guess. If the state should be reporting you for mental illness, your firearm license to purchase permit should be revoked, or you become ineligible for the time being to obtain one.

* Hollywood should reduce violence - in films, recordings, video games.

- Uh..... OK... yeah, sure right. If you watch violence, play violent video games and can't distinguish the difference between reality and make believe then you should probably be reported to the state for your mental illness.

* No more "gun-free" zones. They don't stop gunmen; they provide defenseless targets.

- About the only thing I can really agree with in this list.
LostCyborg, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.

You wouldn't be able to run as many people over with that car if it didn't drive as far. It should only have a 10 gallon fuel tank.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BREAKING: Anti-Gun CA Senator Leland Yee Charged With Gun Running jahwarrior72 22 2,859 07-07-2015, 09:44 PM
Last Post: jahwarrior72
  Anti-Gun Democrat Lawmaker Blasts Girlfriend’s Car With Shotgun mauser 1 652 05-12-2015, 03:31 PM
Last Post: P89
  Anti's set up fake gun shop Emoticon 1 671 03-19-2015, 09:17 PM
Last Post: streaker69
  Media Mogul Bloomberg Stages Anti-gun Indoctrination Camp for Suggestible Reporters das 1 494 01-18-2015, 12:31 AM
Last Post: spblademaker
  Anti Gun Video Teaches Kids To Steal Their Parents Guns... pinhead1979 13 1,477 12-28-2014, 09:42 AM
Last Post: Camper



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.