• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The house passes gun control bills

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Pipeline 1010 said:
How about some kind of stricter background check that grants someone a license to purchase for a few years? This could be a win for all sides:

1) Gun control advocates get the (stronger and more universal) background checks they want
2) Gun control opponents get a far more efficient system. Once you've got a license, you can now purchase a gun at will with no more checks until license renewal time. Maybe waiting periods could even be reduced.
Click to expand...

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...-target-claim-97-percent-gun-owners-support-/

Almost all polls reflect that Americans want gun control, both sides, and not just gun control advocates.

I would get on board with you idea, but the background check would be deeper and semiannual. During the initial background check or renewal, no gun transfers. And if someone doesn't clear the background check, we need something sane in place to control what firearms that individual already owns while the situation is sorted.

And while I appreciate yourself and pcgeek1 being open minded and common sense about this bill, almost all the House R's did NOT vote for it, and it's an almost guaranteed to die in the Senate. If for whatever reason it makes it past the Senate, Trump has said he will Veto it.

Not only that, let's not forget one of the first Obama things Trump rescinded was this:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/t...obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/

Common Sense gun control is a non-starter for modern day Republicans. They are more than welcome to prove me wrong.
 
Last edited:
ch33zw1z said:
I would get on board with you idea, but the background check would be deeper and semiannual. During the initial background check or renewal, no gun transfers. And if someone doesn't clear the background check, we need something sane in place to control what firearms that individual already owns while the situation is sorted.
Click to expand...

Sure, those are details that need to be worked out and I don't have any precise "my way or the highway" answers or numbers. I'd caution any approach that requires licensing frequently, like every 6 months. That would be an insane tough sell. Whether it is every 6 months or every 3 years, it is better than what we have now and it will make things better.
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
Sure, those are details that need to be worked out and I don't have any precise "my way or the highway" answers or numbers. I'd caution any approach that requires licensing frequently, like every 6 months. That would be an insane tough sell. Whether it is every 6 months or every 3 years, it is better than what we have now and it will make things better.
Click to expand...

Ok, I meant every other year, so biannual I guess instead of semiannual.

Let's see if we can actually get the ball rolling. The NRA and R's will push back against anything at this point, but the younger generation may just get out there an vote for change
 
ch33zw1z said:
Ok, I meant every other year, so biannual I guess instead of semiannual.

Let's see if we can actually get the ball rolling. The NRA and R's will push back against anything at this point, but the younger generation may just get out there an vote for change
Click to expand...

They will push back but I think it is important to communicate that this might actually be a net positive benefit to their ability to painlessly buy guns after being licensed. We/they don't like the repetitive background checks and waiting periods. If you sell this is a "1 and done" type of thing, it could potentially be attractive to them. I think a mistake in partisan politics is to belittle or ignore the other side's fears/wants/needs when we could actually come up with something that is a win for everyone.
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
They will push back but I think it is important to communicate that this might actually be a net positive benefit to their ability to painlessly buy guns after being licensed. We/they don't like the repetitive background checks and waiting periods. If you sell this is a "1 and done" type of thing, it could potentially be attractive to them. I think a mistake in partisan politics is to belittle or ignore the other side's fears/wants/needs when we could actually come up with something that is a win for everyone.
Click to expand...

You're selling vaporware. That's not what the current legislation is about at all.
 
Jhhnn said:
You're selling vaporware. That's not what the current legislation is about at all.
Click to expand...

But it could be, I could get behind allowing people with a license that has gone through a background check to be able to buy firearms without having to go thru a background check every time. As long as that license comes with an expiration date and needs to be renewed along with the needed update to their background.
 
DarthKyrie said:
But it could be, I could get behind allowing people with a license that has gone through a background check to be able to buy firearms without having to go thru a background check every time. As long as that license comes with an expiration date and needs to be renewed along with the needed update to their background.
Click to expand...

What happens to people who fail the recurrent background check who already have guns?

Think it through...
 
Jhhnn said:
You're selling vaporware. That's not what the current legislation is about at all.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what you are getting at. If you read the last couple of pages, the 2 of us were exploring an idea that we clearly communicated is NOT the current legislation and is a result of a mutual feeling that we need to go further than the current legislation.
 
DarthKyrie said:
That is something that needs to be worked out, maybe Pipeline 1010 would like to chime in with a pro 2-A perspective.
Click to expand...

My perspective on this doesn't have much to do with whether I'm pro or against 2A. My moral belief is that if you are ruled mentally/criminally unfit to have a gun, you shouldn't be allowed to possess one even if you purchased it before the mental illness and/or crime. I would believe this whether I like or hate guns.

This law, or any law really could never come close to addressing the issue of removing guns from people who fail background checks. What are you going to do? Send a nice letter to them telling them they must surrender their weapons to an escrow service? Send immediate swat raids with annual followup swat raids? Don't let the "whatabouts" prevent you from supporting what would likely be a beneficial law. It's kind of like asking "how does this law prevent drug criminals from shooting people?" That wouldn't be the purpose of this law and that's OK.
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
My perspective on this doesn't have much to do with whether I'm pro or against 2A. My moral belief is that if you are ruled mentally/criminally unfit to have a gun, you shouldn't be allowed to possess one even if you purchased it before the mental illness and/or crime. I would believe this whether I like or hate guns.

This law, or any law really could never come close to addressing the issue of removing guns from people who fail background checks. What are you going to do? Send a nice letter to them telling them they must surrender their weapons to an escrow service? Send immediate swat raids with annual followup swat raids? Don't let the "whatabouts" prevent you from supporting what would likely be a beneficial law. It's kind of like asking "how does this law prevent drug criminals from shooting people?" That wouldn't be the purpose of this law and that's OK.
Click to expand...

Holy shit!
A pro 2A guy giving useful feedback that doesn’t involve:

If you can’t eliminate all gun deaths why bother
Knives, we need knife regulation
No mention of cars or trucks as a deadly weapon
No diversion about how there aren’t that many gun deaths compared to (insert shithole country) or (insert some other means of death
No discussion of smoking vs gun ownership


I salute you sir and it’s good to have your input
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Holy shit!
A pro 2A guy giving useful feedback that doesn’t involve:

If you can’t eliminate all gun deaths why bother
Knives, we need knife regulation
No mention of cars or trucks as a deadly weapon
No diversion about how there aren’t that many gun deaths compared to (insert shithole country) or (insert some other means of death
No discussion of smoking vs gun ownership


I salute you sir and it’s good to have your input
Click to expand...

I can get behind a law that looks like a win-win for all sides. This is one of them. However, this particular law likely wouldn't result in anything more than a rounding error worth of difference in the annual gun murder numbers. It's OK, I'd still like to see this law passed.

In my opinion, we should be focusing ALL of our efforts on ending the war on drugs and treating addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue. Some researchers estimate over 50% of our gun murders are directly related to the war on drugs and the lucrative/violent black market that this war creates. It would be easy to end the war on drugs and adopt a Portugal style strategy when it comes to drugs. I feel that this is where our low-hanging fruit lies....this is where we can make a huge, measurable, immediate difference in reducing gun violence (and drugs and stuff). This is what we should be shouting from the rooftops. I like the licensing idea, but it should be more of an afterthought than a primary "you like gun murder if you don't like this law" kind of solution.
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
I can get behind a law that looks like a win-win for all sides. This is one of them. However, this particular law likely wouldn't result in anything more than a rounding error worth of difference in the annual gun murder numbers. It's OK, I'd still like to see this law passed.

In my opinion, we should be focusing ALL of our efforts on ending the war on drugs and treating addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue. Some researchers estimate over 50% of our gun murders are directly related to the war on drugs and the lucrative/violent black market that this war creates. It would be easy to end the war on drugs and adopt a Portugal style strategy when it comes to drugs. I feel that this is where our low-hanging fruit lies....this is where we can make a huge, measurable, immediate difference in reducing gun violence (and drugs and stuff). This is what we should be shouting from the rooftops. I like the licensing idea, but it should be more of an afterthought than a primary "you like gun murder if you don't like this law" kind of solution.
Click to expand...

Yes, finally some common sense policy ideas. Have you thought about running for public office? You may just get elected with that kind of message. But then again there is the downside, and that is that you might get elected. I would feel dirty being around most politicians and would feel the need to shower every few hours.
 
So what're we calling it?

NRA-Pre-Check 😛?

Seems like a great idea to introduce additional security while also returning significant convenience to the applicant...
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
How about some kind of stricter background check that grants someone a license to purchase for a few years? This could be a win for all sides:

1) Gun control advocates get the (stronger and more universal) background checks they want
2) Gun control opponents get a far more efficient system. Once you've got a license, you can now purchase a gun at will with no more checks until license renewal time. Maybe waiting periods could even be reduced.
Click to expand...



Good ideas. They could use the stricter background check normally used for concealed weapons permit for the license to purchase. It's typically more thorough than a regular background check. And they could issue an ID card similar to a drivers license (hard to duplicate/fake).

Just read this yesterday. Looks like we have another gun rights group.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bl...ervatives-problems-reaching-urban-communities

If you prefer a non-Fox link.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/01/gun-rights-african-americans-1197153


Also in other related news. They are not sure how 25% of California gun owners got them without a background check.
https://timesofsandiego.com/politic...obtained-firearms-without-a-background-check/
In a state that has some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws, one in four California gun owners own firearms that they somehow managed to buy without undergoing background checks, researchers at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program reports.
Click to expand...
 
That's easy, they bought them from friends, neighbors, family or at garage/yard sales. Keep in mind, also, that not everyone wants the government to know they have firearms.
 
Sgt. York said:
That's easy, they bought them from friends, neighbors, family or at garage/yard sales. Keep in mind, also, that not everyone wants the government to know they have firearms.
Click to expand...

Not everyone wants to pay taxes either but people don't get to pick and choose which laws they will abide by without consequences.
 
Sgt. York said:
That's easy, they bought them from friends, neighbors, family or at garage/yard sales. Keep in mind, also, that not everyone wants the government to know they have firearms.
Click to expand...



From what I know about California gun sale laws these were illegal sales. Private sales are supposed to go through a licensed dealer, right?
 
Sgt. York said:
That's easy, they bought them from friends, neighbors, family or at garage/yard sales. Keep in mind, also, that not everyone wants the government to know they have firearms.
Click to expand...

A license style system like we discussed would accommodate this desire while also increasing the strength of the background checks. Pass a one time (per 2-3 years or so) background check, acquire a license, and purchase as many or as few guns as you want without questions or government records of purchase. We really need to sell this point to 2A people (like me). It really is a net benefit to everybody.
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
How about some kind of stricter background check that grants someone a license to purchase for a few years? This could be a win for all sides:

1) Gun control advocates get the (stronger and more universal) background checks they want
2) Gun control opponents get a far more efficient system. Once you've got a license, you can now purchase a gun at will with no more checks until license renewal time. Maybe waiting periods could even be reduced.
Click to expand...

Gun owners were already promised the background check would be "instant" so the government couldn't defacto deny gun sales via endless delays. And the three business day limit was established to help prevent that as well. There is zero reason the government shouldn't be able to instantly figure out if you have 2A rights or not, just like law enforcement checks for wants and warrants on thousands people they contact each and every day.

And what the hell is a "stronger and more universal" background check? Either I have 2nd amendment rights or I don't. And I shouldn't have to get a licence to enjoy that right. Just leave me alone if I'm not breaking the law or a felon who has lost my 2A rights. So there must be a limit to how long the check can take, and three days is plenty of time.

What "stronger and more universal" background check is going to decrease gun violence without being an unfair burden on the law-abiding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top