Quote:I am not obsessed with guns.

Yeah you just started a whole thread about it and rave about it constantly ....No obsession 

Quote:I am just one of very few people on this forum that owns guns and have them integral to my life.So I appear to some as " the other". And we know how groups of like treat " the other"....

Nope 

Quote:On consevative forums they treat me like a flaming leftist .

Note nowhere did Zebo even mention political affiliation ......Very interesting 

(July 22, 2022 at 3:04 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Your dogmatic faith in background checks rivals the Jebus freak' s faith that they will party with their invisible friend for eternity.

Where did you get the idea that I have "dogmatic faith" in them? I personally believe that they can be a help, but they are not a panacea.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: A background check only shows PAST behavior. 
It will show you who has been a bad person - and we assume from that they will be bad in the future. Right?

Right. But with your assertion that "law-abiding citizens" should not have to submit to background checks means that you're willing to take someone at their word that they have no violent convictions on their record, which I think is (as noted above) both circular reasoning, and more than a touch naive. People do lie, you know.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: So checking EVERYBODY - (and the vast majority will show up as good to buy guns. Right?) wastes the majority of the law enforcement resource.

Yet you cannot know who is law-abiding without the checking, so the upshot of your opinion is that no one would be able to know if they're selling to a criminal.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: It would be far better to simply make it possible for the average person to be able to access a list of potentially bad people.

Well, let's examine who would compile that list, and on what basis, and how everyone might be able to access this database. You go first, since you're dead-set against government tyranny. Which private authority would you entrust with this sweeping power, and how would you verify that its judgements are accurate? Define "potentially bad" while you're at it? And what if they already own a gun or three?

Background checks have at the very least the benefit of objectivity: a conviction is a fact, not an estimate.

I have said this on this forum a number of times.

Require all felons, crazies and other whack a doodles that should not have guns be required to have an ID that shows such - like NO GUNS - in bold letters.

Require ID checks during ALL sales.

You now have done everything that CAN be done to prevent these people from obtaining a firearm.

Nobody' s rights are injured in the making of this law...

Nope everyone should have a background check period whether they are a felon or not, And no we have not even come close to doing all you can do to stop the wrong people from getting guns.

(July 22, 2022 at 4:55 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 22, 2022 at 4:12 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Wasn't meant to be offending, just pointing out how obsessed you seem to be with guns

I am not obsessed with guns.

I am just one of very few people on this forum that owns guns and have them integral to my life.So I appear to some as " the other". And we know how groups of like treat " the other"....



On consevative forums they treat me like a flaming leftist .

I suspect being a nut in general is inclusive of the other.

I totally fail to understand why you want a device designed to kill people to be integral to your life.
Possibly if you live in an area with dangerous animals you might need one but it wouldn't be "integral to your life" Maybe it's just me failing to understand something very simple!

(July 22, 2022 at 5:24 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: I totally fail to understand why you want a device designed to kill people to be integral to your life.
Possibly if you live in an area with dangerous animals you might need one but it wouldn't be "integral to your life"  Maybe it's just me failing to understand something very simple!

Your failure to understand is not a result of being right.


...

If it weren' t for Americans having guns - we would still be British subjects. 

I for one do not trust a government to have all the power and all the guns.

YMMV

Quote:Your failure to understand is not a result of being right.

Nah there is nothing to understand 

Quote:If it weren' t for Americans having guns - we would still be British subjects. 

Lol yeah because no country left the British empire without the use of guns .....Except for pretty much all of Britians Ex colonies...

Quote:I for one do not trust a government to have all the power and all the guns.

YMMV

Yeah because every other western democracy has become a tyrannical state because of a lack of guns ......Except for all the ones who haven't and remind which nearly tore itself apart in a civil war and currently is the only nation where mass shootings are common.

(July 22, 2022 at 2:37 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 22, 2022 at 2:27 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: How would you know they're law-abiding without checking? That's the entire point of the background check.

In other words, you're assuming your conclusion, i.e. circular reasoning.

Your dogmatic faith in background checks rivals the Jebus freak' s faith that they will party with their invisible friend for eternity.

A background check only shows PAST behavior. 
It will show you who has been a bad person - and we assume from that they will be bad in the future. Right?

So checking EVERYBODY - (and the vast majority will show up as good to buy guns. Right?) wastes the majority of the law enforcement resource.

It would be far better to simply make it possible for the average person to be able to access a list of potentially bad people.

A background check may only show past behavior, but past behavior is often a good indicator of future behavior. Fun fact: a study of mass shootings from 2014 to 2019 found that 2/3 of mass shootings are linked to domestic violence. Bar people with a history of domestic violence from gun ownership, we’ll likely see less gun violence. And add more things to the stuff to check, things like promotion of political extremism on social media profiles or checking the applicant’s medical records, and I suspect things will go further down.

And on that generally accessible list of potentially bad people, who do you think should be expected to maintain it and what do you expect the people who access it to do about it?

(July 22, 2022 at 9:56 am)The L Wrote: Guns are illegal here in the UK and we have less school shootings than in America where it's legal. Go figure.

Actually not all guns are illegal in the UK, just certain categories of them. The difference though between theUS and UK and other sane countries is that in sane countries to own a gun you need to go through a process to show that you are a suitable person to responsibly own a gun, know the necessary safety precautions, taken the necessary safety precautions for storage and safekeeping and have a valid reason to own a gun.

A sane country treats gun ownership like car driving, you have to prove that you can safely do it before being given the necessary permissions and if you engage in behaviours contrary to proper safe usage you lose the privilege of use.

I can't understan why this is so hard to grasp among US gun nuts.

(July 23, 2022 at 4:35 am)GUBU Wrote:

(July 22, 2022 at 9:56 am)The L Wrote: Guns are illegal here in the UK and we have less school shootings than in America where it's legal. Go figure.

Actually not all guns are illegal in the UK, just certain categories of them.  The difference though between theUS and UK and other sane countries is that in sane countries to own a gun you need to go through a process to show that you are a suitable person to responsibly own a gun, know the necessary safety precautions, taken the necessary safety precautions for storage and safekeeping and have a valid reason to own a gun.

A sane country treats gun ownership like car driving, you have to prove that you can safely do it before being given the necessary permissions and if you engage in behaviours contrary to proper safe usage you lose the privilege of use.

I can't understan why this is so hard to grasp among US gun nuts.

(Bold mine)

‘I’m not a gun nut! I’m a firearms enthusiast!’ - Gun nuts everywhere.

NZ manages to combine reasonably strict gun regulations with a fairly high level of gun ownership and an enviably low level of gun violence.

Boru