Background checks (poll)

[Beau]

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

http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5474c7e4e4b03ec92329a8d9

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Beau]

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

 

[marshaul]

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.

 

[Beau]

I believe it does check. When I created the poll I paid extra for additional cheat protection.

 

[WalkingWolf]

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.

 

[Beau]

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

 

[jackrockblc]

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.)

 

[WalkingWolf]

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!

 

[OC Freedom]

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

 

[marshaul]

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.

 

[Grapeshot]

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 [strike]on the street[/strike].

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.

 

[XD40sc]

These people are the reason background checks should be required at the retail level.

 

[marshaul]

"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.

 

[Rusty Young Man]

These people are the reason background checks should be required at the retail level.

View attachment 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).

 

[Grapeshot]

You cannot legislate morality, mental health, or gun safety.

 

[DrMark]

These people are the reason background checks should be required at the retail level.

View attachment 12243

Good point.

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

Oh, wait...

 

[since9]

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.

 

[SteveInCO]

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.

 

[Beau]

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.

 

[skidmark]

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.