You're Wrong, We Need To Evaluate People Who Want To Purchase Firearms

ZeusAres42

Before I speak I first just want to say that I lean somewhere in the middle with regard to the Gun Debate. With that being said, it's true what you said. Another thing I have heard people say in the response to enacting laws like this is that people will just get guns illegally anyway; this is as ludicrous as saying that why bother giving medicine to people as they're gonna die eventually anyway?

Nonetheless, there does exist responsible, law-abiding responsible individuals that are do not rest on any extreme side of this debate. Despite the coverage of idiotic pro-advocate extremist groups on either side.

MayCaesar

Who is "we"? Are you going to process it personally? You likely want to outsource it to a legalised and enforced monopoly called "the government", that does not have anyone's interests in mind but its own CEOs'.

"I" do not want to process anything; let people decide, as far as I am concerned. I am not a "we", I am an "I".

People should stop believing that "government" and "we" is synonymous, and realise that there is no "we", there is only a collection of "I"-s, and one government.

CYDdharta

Anyone CAN purchase firearms, and there isn't a single law that would prevent that.  It is ALREADY ILLEGAL for a convicted felon or someone with a history of drug abuse or serious mental illness to buy a firearm.  The fact that such people as still able to obtain firearms undermines any further attempts to empower the government for such purposes.

ZeusAres42

CYDdharta said:

Anyone CAN purchase firearms, and there isn't a single law that would prevent that.  It is ALREADY ILLEGAL for a convicted felon or someone with a history of drug abuse or serious mental illness to buy a firearm.  The fact that such people as still able to obtain firearms undermines any further attempts to empower the government for such purposes.

What exactly are you concluding here?

Thomasius

@MayCaesar
Re: A government isn't selfish by necessity, as these things are matters of how we structure and implement governing power, not to say a totally uncorrupt system can arise but this point of yours is still a fallacy nonetheless.
Since you claim to be an absolute individualist, do you recognize that the lack of order will easily allow power vacuums and vast instability?

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: So the government also shouldn't be empowered to pursue anti-murder laws since people still murder?
The purpose of a law is to, while knowing it may happen to some degree, prevent an undesired action as much as humanly possible.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: So the government also shouldn't be empowered to pursue anti-murder laws since people still murder?
The purpose of a law is to, while knowing it may happen to some degree, prevent an undesired action as much as humanly possible.

But that's already the law, so what's the point you're trying to make?

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: The point is explained in my response. Just because a law doesn't stop all crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued, as is the nature of your argument. You need a better defense of your position.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: The point is explained in my response. Just because a law doesn't stop all crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued, as is the nature of your argument. You need a better defense of your position.

No, you haven't made your case.  What law/laws/programs, specifically, would keep "anyone can purchase firearms, that means anyone with histories of criminality, malevolent agendas and/or mental health issues can easily acquire firearms for all sorts of grave intents and purposes" that isn't already on the books?

Plaffelvohfen

@Thomasius

Background checks? Why? Let all the crazies have guns, that'll give people a good reason to get even more guns and more opportunities to actually use them properly...   

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: My argument isn't necessarily predicated upon the particulars of U.S. federal or stare laws, but rather as a principle based upon objectivity. If we are to allow guns in society, there must be policies to block those with undesired traits or backgrounds from acquiring them to prevent people with deficiencies from causing harm to broader society. That's just basic logic. If you desire to debate me, bring to me a logical case for why we shouldn't pursue an in-depth vetting process for gun purchasers.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I don't have to visit exact laws and empirical data in relation to individual nations or territories to arrive to my conclusion.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: My argument isn't necessarily predicated upon the particulars of U.S. federal or stare laws, but rather as a principle based upon objectivity. If we are to allow guns in society, there must be policies to block those with undesired traits or backgrounds from acquiring them to prevent people with deficiencies from causing harm to broader society. That's just basic logic. If you desire to debate me, bring to me a logical case for why we shouldn't pursue an in-depth vetting process for gun purchasers.

WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE AN IN-DEPTH VETTING PROCESS???  IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR FELONS AND THOSE JUDGED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT TO POSSESS FIREARMS.  You're trying to reinvent the wheel.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: I don't have to visit exact laws and empirical data in relation to individual nations or territories to arrive to my conclusion.

True, you don't.  You also don't need to post a cogent argument, either.  And you haven't.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I have posted a cogent argument. If we allow guns in society, we need to prevent those who'd, for whatever reason or cause, bring about harm to others in society with said guns via law enforcement. This is a very strengthened argument and you still have yet to propose a logical, objective counterattack to this position.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: So, tell me, why, in fact, should we not use law enforcement to filter out who should or shouldn't be allowed access to firearms? What's your logical refutation to me?

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I missed your first point so I'll address it now. In essence, your argument is that, in the United States, it is already illegal for felons or those mentally incompetent to possess firearms, but it still happens and major gun crimes like mass shootings still happen regardless, so there is no point in pursuing further governmental efforts to enforce such vetting processes.
To address your point as appropriately as possible, let's go through a logical thought process. Is the premise of a vetting process flawed to begin with? No, because, as mentioned before, it is illogical to allow just anyone to possess a gun as you would easily allow for tainted individuals to harm others in society. Should we not pursue this vetting process because there are lawbreakers? No, because the existence of lawbreakers is not sufficient to justify the abandonment of a law. A law is a preventative measure, not a measure that stops a particular crime at all instances 100.00% of the time. So, since we've established that, objectively, both the foundations and pursuit of a firearm vetting process are perfectly logical, this must mean that the reason that the United State is still seeing related gun crimes at such a massive scale is not because the law or its enforcement innately is flawed, but rather we can infer that instead there must be flaws within how the United States, as an individual sovereign nation, is exactly managing the situation at hand, which can mean one or a combination of potential issues like legal loopholes, loopholes within individual states, underfunding of related institutions, potential risks with various private venues, so on and so forth.  

MayCaesar

@Thomasius

If there are no power systems in place, then there can be no power vacuum. The assumption that the government is the only entity that can guarantee stability in this regard is unfounded.

The government is selfish because any organisation is. The natural tendency of any organisation is to expand as much as it can and take as much control over the world around it as it can. And since the government is the only entity that does not compete with any other entity, it is the one that can realise its selfish dreams the best.

John_C_87

Thomasius said:

It is illogical to state we shouldn't process who can or can't have a gun because if anyone can purchase firearms, that means anyone with histories of criminality, malevolent agendas and/or mental health issues can easily acquire firearms for all sorts of grave intents and purposes.

Criminal record? Do you mean like any-one who has voted for a woman President, Ever? Or, are we just talking about the less complex, easy and cheap to prove crimes only? We screen all people to own a gun and allow those who wish to bear the weight of lethal force to do so, without prejudice. We the people are an institution held in liberty by union of united State, not always the most popular state created by democracy only.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
A law is a preventative measure, not a measure that stops a particular crime at all instances 100.00% of the time. So, since we've established that, objectively, both the foundations and pursuit of a firearm vetting process are perfectly logical, this must mean that the reason that the United State is still seeing related gun crimes at such a massive scale is not because the law or its enforcement innately is flawed, but rather we can infer that instead there must be flaws within how the United States, as an individual sovereign nation, is exactly managing the situation at hand, which can mean one or a combination of potential issues like legal loopholes, loopholes within individual states, underfunding of related institutions, potential risks with various private venues, so on and so forth.  

Are gun crimes being committed on a "massive scale"?  You've already admitted that you're not trying to stop 100% of gun crimes, so what are you trying to get to?  If you just want a reduction in murders, they dropped 6.3% between 2017 and 2018.  So what is your target?

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

So you're against background checks??

John_C_87

@CYDdharta ;
Are gun crimes being committed on a "massive scale"?
Yes, by the creation of Ex Post Facto law changing the state of evidence of death as murder from bullet to gun massive scale gun crimes occur, faster then they can be regulated by law. An unconstitutional united state is created as no compensation is offered on personal property. A fine instead is to take compensations place. To own a fire-arm as private armory is a duty providing a state of independence between Armed Service to American Constitution, President or Presadera of these United states of America...

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Well, the goal of any law should be to prevent wrongdoing 100 % of the time, but it's just not likely a possible feat. A law should serve to diminish an undesired action as much as its enforcement can possibly achieve. Also, it's not just murder, but any crime in which a firearm is involved, which can involve burglary, robbery, et cetera. So, in short, the goal of a legal firearm vetting process should be to diminish the capacity for those who would harm society with guns from being able to attain them as much as can be achieved by enforcement. Do you agree with this in principle? If no, why?

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

So you're against background checks??

No; as I've already stated a number of times in this thread, we already have background checks.

Plaffelvohfen

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

So you're against background checks??

No; as I've already stated a number of times in this thread, we already have background checks.

That's only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers... The gun shows and private sales exemptions are still problematic...

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Well, the goal of any law should be to prevent wrongdoing 100 % of the time, but it's just not likely a possible feat. A law should serve to diminish an undesired action as much as its enforcement can possibly achieve. Also, it's not just murder, but any crime in which a firearm is involved, which can involve burglary, robbery, et cetera. So, in short, the goal of a legal firearm vetting process should be to diminish the capacity for those who would harm society with guns from being able to attain them as much as can be achieved by enforcement. Do you agree with this in principle? If no, why?

The violent crime rate dropped 4% in the last year.

What are your realistic goals; and what,specifically, are the law/laws/programs that you believe would achieve those goals?

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

That's only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers... The gun shows and private sales exemptions are still problematic...

There is no way to stop private sales.  The vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed firearms dealers.  According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 ("Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

Who's asking for a stop to private sales? I never did... 

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

Who's asking for a stop to private sales? I never did... 

You did, you just don't realize it.  In your words, you find them problematic.

Plaffelvohfen said:

That's only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers... The gun shows and private sales exemptions are still problematic...

The only gun sales at gun shows in which background check are NOT preformed are those that no licensed gun dealers are involved in, AKA private sales.  An example is a guy brings his Model 12 Winchester shotgun to a gun show looking to upgrade it.  Dealers aren't all that interested in it, but another gun show attendee is interested and offers the shotgun owner a good price on it.

That's the gun show "loophole".

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

Saying they are problematic in no way means I want to stop them... I'm saying that they should be subject to federal background check requirements too, that's all. 

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

Saying they are problematic in no way means I want to stop them... I'm saying that they should be subject to federal background check requirements too, that's all. 

NICS is only available to federally licensed dealers and law enforcement.  So apparently you don't want to stop private sales, you just want people to have to go through federally licensed dealers and/or law enforcement to sell a firearm.  IOW, you want to stop private sales of firearms.

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

Reading problems I see... Care to explain how requiring private sellers/buyers to be subjected to federal background checks equates to stopping all private sales? 

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: If we're to ensure that those with criminalistic backgrounds, malevolent agendas and/or mental illness can't acquire firearms, that means we need to make sure that gun sellers abide strictly by these codes, undergo background checks and do psychological evaluations of individuals who seek to purchase firearms. That seems at least the start of what would spawn from such a policy.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

Reading problems I see... Care to explain how requiring private sellers/buyers to be subjected to federal background checks equates to stopping all private sales? 

Logic comprehension problems I see.  Do you consider gun sales made through federally licensed gun dealers to be private sales?

Plaffelvohfen

@CYDdharta

No

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: If we're to ensure that those with criminalistic backgrounds, malevolent agendas and/or mental illness can't acquire firearms, that means we need to make sure that gun sellers abide strictly by these codes, undergo background checks and do psychological evaluations of individuals who seek to purchase firearms. That seems at least the start of what would spawn from such a policy.

Malevolent agendas??  You mean thought crimes? 

The platitudes are nice, but I asked you SPECIFICALLY what are the law/laws/programs that you believe would achieve those goals?

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I'm still wanting you to propose your logical, objective principle as to why we shouldn't pursue vetting processes in these matters. The most I've seen to have gotten out of you thus far is the claim that since lawbreakers exist, the law itself shouldn't exist. I hope there is more to your line of reasoning than that.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No

Well, if you force all gun sales to go through federally licensed gun dealers, and as you have admitted sales through gun dealers are NOT private, then you're trying to stop private gun sales.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: I'm still wanting you to propose your logical, objective principle as to why we shouldn't pursue vetting processes in these matters. The most I've seen to have gotten out of you thus far is the claim that since lawbreakers exist, the law itself shouldn't exist. I hope there is more to your line of reasoning than that.

It's working just fine the way it is.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: When I state malevolent agendas, I mean that it is clear that one holds great hostility towards an individual or group for whatever reason. Now, of course, this may be hard to prove or evaluate depending on the circumstance but it certainly is one worth discerning. In terms of policy specifics, I can't go too deep into exact policy because I'm not proficient enough in understanding all the intricacies of all the elements that go into things like psychology, the processes involved with checking people's backgrounds, so on and so on. I can submit what I want to happen on a broad basis because that is evident to me within my spectrum of understanding, but I don't know enough to detail all the means to go about lining out exact policy points. I'm simply not going to talk on where my expertise doesn't lie.

Plaffelvohfen

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No

Well, if you force all gun sales to go through federally licensed gun dealers, and as you have admitted sales through gun dealers are NOT private, then you're trying to stop private gun sales.

LOL Sure.... Seriously now, requiring that private sales to go through background checks is "stopping them"? You're funny...

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: "It's working fine just the way it is" is too vague of an argument to suffice for an actual opposition counterposition. I want you to tell me what your objective philosophy is on this matter. Why exactly do you oppose a vetting process? Go into detail about your views.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No

Well, if you force all gun sales to go through federally licensed gun dealers, and as you have admitted sales through gun dealers are NOT private, then you're trying to stop private gun sales.

LOL Sure.... Seriously now, requiring that private sales to go through background checks is "stopping them"? You're funny...

It's most certainly stopping PRIVATE SALES.

Plaffelvohfen

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No

Well, if you force all gun sales to go through federally licensed gun dealers, and as you have admitted sales through gun dealers are NOT private, then you're trying to stop private gun sales.

LOL Sure.... Seriously now, requiring that private sales to go through background checks is "stopping them"? You're funny...

It's most certainly stopping PRIVATE SALES.

How????

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: When I state malevolent agendas, I mean that it is clear that one holds great hostility towards an individual or group for whatever reason. Now, of course, this may be hard to prove or evaluate depending on the circumstance but it certainly is one worth discerning. In terms of policy specifics, I can't go too deep into exact policy because I'm not proficient enough in understanding all the intricacies of all the elements that go into things like psychology, the processes involved with checking people's backgrounds, so on and so on. I can submit what I want to happen on a broad basis because that is evident to me within my spectrum of understanding, but I don't know enough to detail all the means to go about lining out exact policy points. I'm simply not going to talk on where my expertise doesn't lie.

If an individual or group threatens my safety and security, I'd hold great hostility towards.  Should I be disallowed the means to defend myself?

As for the rest, fair enough; but without specifics, there's really no way to debate for or against your proposal as it lacks substance.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: "It's working fine just the way it is" is too vague of an argument to suffice for an actual opposition counterposition. I want you to tell me what your objective philosophy is on this matter. Why exactly do you oppose a vetting process? Go into detail about your views.

I don't totally oppose a vetting process.  We already have a vetting process, and it works well enough

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No

Well, if you force all gun sales to go through federally licensed gun dealers, and as you have admitted sales through gun dealers are NOT private, then you're trying to stop private gun sales.

LOL Sure.... Seriously now, requiring that private sales to go through background checks is "stopping them"? You're funny...

It's most certainly stopping PRIVATE SALES.

How????

Your "private sales" would no longer be private sales as they'd have to go through a licensed gun dealer.  You have already admitted sales through gun dealers are not private sales.

Some years ago, i heard of an idea to open NICS to everyone that I thought had some merit.  If I remember correctly, it went something like this;

Person A wants to buy a gun from Person B.

Person A enters his/her personal information into NICS and gets an authorization number.

Person A gives the authorization number to Person B.

Person B enters the authorization number into NICS to see if the sale is either approved or disapproved.

If the sale is approved, Person B sells Person A the gun.

Records of the NICS transaction are deleted after 48 hours.

As I said, that was years ago.  It was in an article I read online somewhere. I haven't heard anything about it since then and I may have forgotten some of the details.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Well, we can debate general ideas while not knowing all the underlying details because we can examine things from a more surface level and still take away logical conclusions. For example, just because I don't know all the specifics about the logging industry doesn't mean I can't arrive to the conclusion that we shouldn't cut down all the trees in the world. To your second point, if you don't entirely oppose a vetting process, what is it you've found contention with to begin with?

Plaffelvohfen

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

No

Well, if you force all gun sales to go through federally licensed gun dealers, and as you have admitted sales through gun dealers are NOT private, then you're trying to stop private gun sales.

LOL Sure.... Seriously now, requiring that private sales to go through background checks is "stopping them"? You're funny...

It's most certainly stopping PRIVATE SALES.

How????

Your "private sales" would no longer be private sales as they'd have to go through a licensed gun dealer.  You have already admitted sales through gun dealers are not private sales.

Some years ago, i heard of an idea to open NICS to everyone that I thought had some merit.  If I remember correctly, it went something like this;

Person A wants to buy a gun from Person B.

Person A enters his/her personal information into NICS and gets an authorization number.

Person A gives the authorization number to Person B.

Person B enters the authorization number into NICS to see if the sale is either approved or disapproved.

If the sale is approved, Person B sells Person A the gun.

Records of the NICS transaction are deleted after 48 hours.

As I said, that was years ago.  It was in an article I read online somewhere. I haven't heard anything about it since then and I may have forgotten some of the details.

There, wasn't that hard, right? There are solutions to make background checks more universal than they are now... A little bit of will is all it takes...

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
To your second point, if you don't entirely oppose a vetting process, what is it you've found contention with to begin with?

The purpose of your OP seems to be that no vetting is performed and that something needs to be done about it.  I was pointing out that a vetting process already exists and is used in a majority of sales, thus noting really needs to be done to satisfy the OP.