Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Background checks (poll)

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Background checks (poll)

    I'm against all background checks. How about you?
    Please vote and share.

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p...b03ec92329a8d9

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    I know 36 votes isn't much but I am surprised at the lead that no background checks has.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Well, for instance, I just voted again without an apparent error and the vote count incremented.
    Yeah, they're using a cookie, which means it's basically on the "honor system".

    ETA: Although it's down to 32, so maybe it occasionally checks the list for duplicate IPs or whatever.
    Last edited by marshaul; 11-28-2014 at 12:14 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    I believe it does check. When I created the poll I paid extra for additional cheat protection.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  5. #5
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,728
    Even if a few cheat, they would probably cheat on both sides. IMO the results are still valid for the people who see and respond to the poll. The problem is how broad is the demographics of who is responding.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    I've been trying to spread it around. I'm not just trying to get gun people to vote. I'm going to try and keep it going for a month or so.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    256
    I think Nightmare has it on the right for this one. If an MDA member posted it and "advertised" it to their own groups, we'd see a vastly different outcome. A much wider subset would be needed for more accuracy - and that means getting it out to both PRO and AGAINST gun control groups. Sadly, there's really no sane way to do that, since even most news websites still attract one group or the other.

    To play the Devil's Advocate for a moment: I do have to wonder about not requiring checks on weapons sold by FFL dealers. I mean, the country still goes after bartenders for letting their customers getting too drunk and driving away. Imagine the backlash if an FFL dealer sells to a "known" felon, who then uses it to commit some sort of crime. Now, I'm of the mindset that "sentence served = debt to society PAID"; maybe a possibility would be to merely check if the buyer is a fugitive on felony charges (i.e, wanted and on the run, but not convicted and time served)?



    (Disclaimer: the question posed above is meant for fuel for rational discussion only, and may or may not be indicative of the actual opinion by the author.)

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,728
    Quote Originally Posted by jackrockblc View Post
    I think Nightmare has it on the right for this one. If an MDA member posted it and "advertised" it to their own groups, we'd see a vastly different outcome. A much wider subset would be needed for more accuracy - and that means getting it out to both PRO and AGAINST gun control groups. Sadly, there's really no sane way to do that, since even most news websites still attract one group or the other.

    To play the Devil's Advocate for a moment: I do have to wonder about not requiring checks on weapons sold by FFL dealers. I mean, the country still goes after bartenders for letting their customers getting too drunk and driving away. Imagine the backlash if an FFL dealer sells to a "known" felon, who then uses it to commit some sort of crime. Now, I'm of the mindset that "sentence served = debt to society PAID"; maybe a possibility would be to merely check if the buyer is a fugitive on felony charges (i.e, wanted and on the run, but not convicted and time served)?



    (Disclaimer: the question posed above is meant for fuel for rational discussion only, and may or may not be indicative of the actual opinion by the author.)
    I hate to yell but~~BACKGROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK!

    So they are a waste of time, effort, and money. It is nothing more than a feel good law that benefits FFL holders. I can remember in my youth and sure many others can that guns were sold everywhere, including the local grocer. And we had far less problems than we do today. Criminals will get guns, all they have to do is want them, they will find a way. If they don't find them they will use whatever they can use, golf club, cinder block, knife, vehicle. All gun laws do is make it more difficult for everybody to buy guns legally, they do not affect the criminals at all.

    Plus the 2A does not say "shall not be infringed, except for". If a person can be trusted to be free on the streets they should be trusted with arms. If not they belong back in jail.

    But let me repeat if you did not get it the first time. Background checks do not work!
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I hate to yell but~~BACKGROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK!

    So they are a waste of time, effort, and money. It is nothing more than a feel good law that benefits FFL holders. I can remember in my youth and sure many others can that guns were sold everywhere, including the local grocer. And we had far less problems than we do today. Criminals will get guns, all they have to do is want them, they will find a way. If they don't find them they will use whatever they can use, golf club, cinder block, knife, vehicle. All gun laws do is make it more difficult for everybody to buy guns legally, they do not affect the criminals at all.

    Plus the 2A does not say "shall not be infringed, except for". If a person can be trusted to be free on the streets they should be trusted with arms. If not they belong back in jail.

    But let me repeat if you did not get it the first time. Background checks do not work!
    +1

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,200
    Indeed, it's all well and good to imagine this or that scenario with a "felon" buying guns from a dealer. But the reality is that such laws do precisely nothing to prevent them from simply obtaining weapons illegally on the street.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,560
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Indeed, it's all well and good to imagine this or that scenario with a "felon" buying guns from a dealer. But the reality is that such laws do precisely nothing to prevent them from simply obtaining weapons illegally on the street.
    FIFY

    The location is unimportant AND the way the sentence is structured might make it appear to some that "on the street" was what made it illegal.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-29-2014 at 02:21 PM.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    402
    These people are the reason background checks should be required at the retail level.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	40.2 KB 
ID:	12243

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,200
    "On the street" is a figure of speech, meaning more or less the same as "on the black market" in this context.

    Indeed, the only thing inherently separating most "black" markets is arbitrary law. (Slave markets are the only inherently "black" markets which spring to my mind.) And all the nasty effects associated with black markets are predictable results of direct incentives, which are nearly without exception the product of prohibition itself.

    So (if this is what you're getting at), obviously a gun carries no moral attachment dependent on whether it was purchased from a "white" market, a "black market", "on the street" or out of someone's mother's basement.
    Last edited by marshaul; 11-29-2014 at 02:58 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,547
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    These people are the reason background checks should be required at the retail level.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	40.2 KB 
ID:	12243
    If anything, they are great examples of a background check being ineffective at preventing people with violent (and very illegal) intentions from obtaining a firearm; IIRC, the "mainstream" media reported two of those DID pass background checks (one of the four was too young to have been able to purchase one at the store, the other I don't remember hearing about).
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 11-29-2014 at 03:00 PM. Reason: Clarification
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,560
    You cannot legislate morality, mental health, or gun safety.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,536
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    These people are the reason background checks should be required at the retail level.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	40.2 KB 
ID:	12243
    Good point.

    If we didn't have background checks at the retail level, those guys might have hurt someone.

    Oh, wait...

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,438
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I hate to yell but~~BACKGROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK!
    I'm inclined to agree. As of right now, the poll stands at 68% No, 23% licensed dealer, and 9% all.

    As for the accuracy of the poll, Nightmare posted some good comments.

    Creating a viable poll involves juggling a great many variables. Minimizing the cognitive biases, for example, can be an arduous task. Changing even word in a poll can produce some surprisingly different results. Take these two examples:

    How do you feel about background checks for firearm purchases?

    What do you think about background checks for firearm purchases?

    True, they're essentially the same questions. Those who were wandering near the border between one selection and the other, however, may be influenced by the different terms "think" and "feel." If this weren't the case, the Meyers-Briggs personality assessments wouldn't work. They do work, however, and both "thinking" and "feeling" are at opposite ends of one of its four personality categories.

    I noted you were consistent with the word "should" throughout your questions, and that you used the moderate word "should" instead of a stronger term like "will" or "shall" or "must," or a weaker term like "may." You were also consistent with the absolute at the beginning of the sentence: "No," "Only," and "All."

    In other words, it's a very well-designed poll, even if it's a simple one.

    How the poll is administered, however, introduces all kinds of biases. Are you asking Saturday shoppers at a grocery store which caters to the affluent, as occurred to me when I bought groceries earlier today? If so, the following categories of people will be underrepresented: Those who work on Saturday, the less affluent, those who like to hike on the weekends, and those who're out shooting on this 67.6 deg Fahrenheit 29th day of November!

    Similarly, spreading the word via message forums will not produce an accurate response, as you have no numerically accurate idea of the cross-section of people who are responding.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. OO-RAH!!! Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and other founding documents.

    As for President Trump, he's getting the job done.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    299
    I'd be all for a background check that worked perfectly; i.e., identifies people who will end up initiating violence with the gun they are trying to buy, and never has a false positive and never a false negative.

    Such a thing cannot exist, and you'll note I didn't say "felons" since ANY act can conceivably be made a felony. Since every proposed background check involves banning "felons," even if perfect (no false positives or negatives), I have to oppose them.

    So given all that, I am unalterably opposed to any BG check that is metaphysically possible.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    I did play with the wording of the poll a little bit and settled for what I thought was best. All I can ask is that you guys spread it around. I've been trying to get it picked up and it seems to not be working. I've tweeted the poll with tags for both the anti and pro groups. I even sent it to Shannon Watts.

    I have always been against BC's. It is definitely nothing more than a feel good law. Most people have been brainwashed into thinking that without them we would have mass murder/blood in the streets/children dead everywhere. Kind of like when states consider allowing carry in places that serve alcohol or no permit required for carry. People seem to think that if you allow these things the human race will end. smh.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I did play with the wording of the poll a little bit and settled for what I thought was best. All I can ask is that you guys spread it around. I've been trying to get it picked up and it seems to not be working. I've tweeted the poll with tags for both the anti and pro groups. I even sent it to Shannon Watts.

    ....
    School me, please. Just what good will a poll provide? What good will another poll provide?

    Some folks think that checking off a box is the same as actually doing something about the issue identified in the poll. My experience is that elected office holders both pro and con are more impressed by email, phone calls, or actual snail-mail letters (nobody sends telegrams any more since Wester Union started phoning them in). Keep it short (under 50 words?) and sweet (no name calling or threats - except perhaps to not vote for them), and most importantly tell tell them what you want them to do.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    If anything, they are great examples of a background check being ineffective at preventing people with violent (and very illegal) intentions from obtaining a firearm; IIRC, the "mainstream" media reported two of those DID pass background checks (one of the four was too young to have been able to purchase one at the store, the other I don't remember hearing about).
    But how many purchases have been stopped by background checks? Nothing is absolute, nothing is infallible.

  22. #22
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post

    But let me repeat if you did not get it the first time. Background checks do not work!
    Let me complete the statement for you; Background checks do not work 100% of the time. After all speed limits don't work 100% either, neither do stop signs.

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,728
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    Let me complete the statement for you; Background checks do not work 100% of the time. After all speed limits don't work 100% either, neither do stop signs.
    They don't work anytime, other than adding to the cost of firearms.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    School me, please. Just what good will a poll provide? What good will another poll provide?

    Some folks think that checking off a box is the same as actually doing something about the issue identified in the poll. My experience is that elected office holders both pro and con are more impressed by email, phone calls, or actual snail-mail letters (nobody sends telegrams any more since Wester Union started phoning them in). Keep it short (under 50 words?) and sweet (no name calling or threats - except perhaps to not vote for them), and most importantly tell tell them what you want them to do.

    stay safe.
    In case you have not noticed, individual rights, liberty, freedom or however you want to call it are being placed at the mercy of "public opinion". This is especially prominent with our 2nd Amendment right. The anti-gun political opinion campaigners such as Moms Demand Action, The Brady Campaign and Everytown For Gun Safety (Shannon Watts) are doing a great job. They long ago realized the power of social media and polls/surveys. They have no problem twisting facts or outright lying to get their agenda across. So when they start spouting things like "even 90% of gun owners support universal background checks for every gun sale", people believe it. When they say things like that what do you have to counteract it with? We're not going to change the minds of the organizers themselves but when we can counteract the stuff they are saying the people that follow them see it.

    This battle isn't about influencing elected officials. It s about influencing the people that elect those officials.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    I'd be all for a background check that worked perfectly; i.e., identifies people who will end up initiating violence with the gun they are trying to buy, and never has a false positive and never a false negative.
    Should 100% clairvoyance ever become reality, I'd be all for it too. Tall order convincing myself or anyone, for that matter, that we'd ever do a crime when we know ourselves as well as we do.

    Such a thing cannot exist...
    It can, but it's highly and very exceedingly unlikely, as it the technology won't be foreseably possible for at least another 200 years. Trust me, I'm on the leading, bleeding freakin' edge of technology, and we have barely scratched the surface on predicting future behavior, much less to any degree of certainly.

    Two hundred years.

    ...and you'll note I didn't say "felons" since ANY act can conceivably be made a felony.
    And many felons may never be any sort of threat to society ever again. While prior criminal behavior does reliably indicate a greater potential for future criminal behavior, that statistic applies to the population as a whole. It can NOT be used to indicate the future behavior of any single individual within the population.

    Since every proposed background check involves banning "felons," even if perfect (no false positives or negatives), I have to oppose them.
    If the indicators were perfect, why not use them?

    Like I said: 200 years. Minimum.

    So given all that, I am unalterably opposed to any BG check that is metaphysically possible.
    I'm opposed to it on basic 2nd and 4th Amendment principles. That's enough for me. That and the myriad of principles behind our Constitution and its amendments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I have always been against BC's. It is definitely nothing more than a feel good law. Most people have been brainwashed into thinking that without them we would have mass murder/blood in the streets/children dead everywhere. Kind of like when states consider allowing carry in places that serve alcohol or no permit required for carry. People seem to think that if you allow these things the human race will end. smh.
    Kind of like Mothers Demand Action who attempt to tell supermarkets that "allowing" customers to carry will *somehow* cause daily bloodbaths, even thought customers have been carrying all along.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    School me, please. Just what good will a poll provide? What good will another poll provide?
    It helps educate those who've never encountered it before.

    Some folks think that checking off a box is the same as actually doing something about the issue identified in the poll. My experience is that elected office holders both pro and con are more impressed by email, phone calls, or actual snail-mail letters (nobody sends telegrams any more since Wester Union started phoning them in). Keep it short (under 50 words?) and sweet (no name calling or threats - except perhaps to not vote for them), and most importantly tell tell them what you want them to do.

    stay safe.
    When someone in the know votes in a poll, it reaffirms the issue. It raises the numbers, thereby helping to emphasize what's what to those who aren't in the know. That's the process of education. Yes, it's hugely redundant. It doesn't educate those who are in the know. Only those who aren't. That alone, however, is worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    But how many purchases have been stopped by background checks? Nothing is absolute, nothing is infallible.
    Doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that those who are in the know have had their strength resolved. Perhaps they'll be more likely to write their Congressman or change their vote. Perhaps those are aren't in the know will wake up.

    Statistically speaking, we know for a fact that this is indeed the process. So, please keep up the good work spreading the truth. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40sc View Post
    Let me complete the statement for you; Background checks do not work 100% of the time. After all speed limits don't work 100% either, neither do stop signs.
    True. But they do work some of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    They don't work anytime.
    Not true. Absolutes and a can of beans will give you gas, and little else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    In case you have not noticed, individual rights, liberty, freedom or however you want to call it are being placed at the mercy of "public opinion". This is especially prominent with our 2nd Amendment right. The anti-gun political opinion campaigners such as Moms Demand Action, The Brady Campaign and Everytown For Gun Safety (Shannon Watts) are doing a great job. They long ago realized the power of social media and polls/surveys. They have no problem twisting facts or outright lying to get their agenda across. So when they start spouting things like "even 90% of gun owners support universal background checks for every gun sale", people believe it. When they say things like that what do you have to counteract it with? We're not going to change the minds of the organizers themselves but when we can counteract the stuff they are saying the people that follow them see it.

    This battle isn't about influencing elected officials. It s about influencing the people that elect those officials.
    BINGO! Sleep well, Beau. You earned it.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. OO-RAH!!! Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and other founding documents.

    As for President Trump, he's getting the job done.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •