JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in: An interesting way to sell guns
Edited by OurWildebeest: 11/19/2015 1:50:52 AM
7
A little history. Until 1969, gun sales were largely unregulated. It was common to buy guns at hardware stores. There was no background check and no waiting period. The murder rate in 1969 was 7.3. It had been trending up, coincidental with the hippie movement, greater drug use and the postwar population boom. In 1969, the Gun Control Act established the FFL system and federal background checks. 1970 murder rate - 7.9. 1971 - 8.6 1972 - 9.0 1973 - 9.4 1974 - 9.8 So what is the lesson we took from this? The same as always ... "We need more gun control!!" If we sold guns like we sell hammers, no background check or paperwork, real-world evidence tells us it will not raise (and may possibly lower) the murder rate. But reducing the murder rate isn't the true purpose of gun control, so it doesn't really matter. People who don't bother learning much will continue assuming "more guns more murders," and hardcore activists will continue to parse and spin data. Meanwhile, the real purpose (greater government power) continues rolling along.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I'm definitely not a proponent of banning guns, but I do think background checks need to stay.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Why?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Background checks screen out lots of people who shouldn't own firearms. At the end of the day, the crazies are still going to get weapons, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by OurWildebeest: 11/19/2015 2:33:04 AM
    Well, I understand that is what they are supposed to do. But how come the murder rate rose after we put background checks in place? I am not saying background checks made it rise. There are always many societal factors. For example, the baby boomers at that time were going into their 20s. But background checks didn't make the murder rate go down. So what is the point, in practical, real-world terms?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Gold E Lokz: 11/19/2015 4:47:23 AM
    I'm no expert on the history of this subject, but I think in associating the institution of background checks with an increase in gun violence you are making an error. Even you admitted background checks might not be the cause of increased violence. And to answer your question, background checks should prevent convicted criminals and the insane (or mentally unstable) from legally acquiring firearms. Perhaps background checks could be made more stringent?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by OurWildebeest: 11/19/2015 3:23:20 PM
    Yes, I agree that it is possible or even likely that the increase in murder rate after background checks were implemented was not due to the background checks. The issue is, though, it certainly didn't reduce the murder rate. So why have it? You don't add federal systems, restrictions and regulations because they may not hurt, you add them because you know they help. If you try them and they do not seem to help, you get rid of them. At least in theory, though of course, once a central government manages to extend its power, it is reluctant to give that up. I know background checks seem like common sense at this point, but if the numbers don't bear it out, how long do we believe our preconceptions instead of believing data? "More stringent background checks" is like saying "what didn't work before, only more of it." It is the trap we fall into every time with gun control. When the more stringent stuff also doesn't work, we will try something additional, and so forth. If we try gun control and crime goes up - we need more gun control, it would have worked but there were too many loopholes. If we try gun control and crime goes down - we need more gun control, it is working so let's use more. The murder rate is near a historic low, but the beautiful part about the argument is, "one is too many." Not that most people know it is at a 30-year low anyway, since every murder gets hyped in news coverage as a sign things are spinning out of control. But even if they realized ... Unless the rate drops to zero, it is never low enough to stop screaming about how to solve it. For that matter, if you waved a magic wand and had a 0% murder rate, they would still want gun control, they would just spin it in new ways ("now that there is no murder, you don't need guns for protection anymore"). The thing you need to understand is this. Most people assume the goal is lower crime and murder, and gun control is a way to achieve the goal. But the reality is the opposite. The goal is gun control, and hyping crime and murder is a way to achieve that goal. The true goal is about shifting power to the central government so its wizards of smart can better rule us, protect us from ourselves and tell us how to live and think. Anything that is a speed bump to that mission is demonized. Gun rights are a speed bump.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I see what you're saying, but consider this for a moment: the point of background checks is to prevent potentially dangerous people from legally obtaining firearms, right? If background checks haven't reduced gun violence, would it be logical to conclude that background checks are not stopping said dangerous people from getting weapons? And if it is (logical), then by making background checks more difficult to pass, wouldn't the people who are passing them now be more likely to fail and thus less likely to legally obtain a firearm? Just my train of thought, I could be wrong.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon