Oregon Register-Guard: Background Checks Work! Expand Them!

Floyd_Prozanski

Facts. Tricky little buggers. Truth be told, they’re easily manipulated. For example, over at Oregon’s registerguard.com, Democratic State Senator Floyd Prozanski asserts that  “According to Oregon State Police data, an average of 180 gun purchases were denied each month over the past three years. In the same period, more than 21,400 lawful transfers occurred monthly. That’s right: Each month 21,400 lawful gun transfers took place with background checks. It works!” Wait. That’s an awful small number of people denied a gun purchase, statistically speaking. Pish-posh says our Floyd . . .

Even though the denials make up less than 1 percent of the lawful transfers, they represent individuals who we do not want to have access, let alone easy access, to guns: murderers, rapists, domestic assaulters and meth addicts. Background checks screen out the bad guys.

Really? How many of those denials were false positives? Well we don’t know, do we? But this much is true: Floyd doesn’t tell us. Nor does he mention how many of these assumedly prohibited persons – murderers, rapists, domestic assaulters and meth addicts – were arrested for attempting to purchase a firearm illegally. Here’s my guess: none.

While it is true that many local law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to follow up every incident, we can all be thankful that nearly 2,000 offenders were denied gun purchases in 2014.

See! It doesn’t matter! The group must include ONE dangerous prohibited person. And if ONE bad guy’s stopped from buying a gun, it’s worth it! Because there’s no way – no way whatsoever – they could have gone on to buy a gun (or steal one) illegally.

John “More Guns Less Crime” Lott has crunched the numbers for the efficacy of background checks generally. Here’s what he found [via AWR Hawkins at breitbart.com]:

Of the 76,142 background checks denials in 2010, many were cleared up after the “initial” denial, 44 were prosecuted, and “only 13 [people] were convicted of illegally trying to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so.” And the 13 who were convicted were people “with relatively trivial records from years earlier that didn’t realize their offense was covered” by a background check when they went to buy a gun: “hardly what one would call dangerous criminals.”

Lott then adds the clincher: “There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.” He points to a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel that specifically concluded Brady Law background checks “did not reduce violent crime, not even a single category of violent crime.”

Huh. Time to wave the bloody shirt then . . .

My sister was murdered by a felon in 1973, and I have owned guns for 45 years. Like the vast majority of Oregonians, including other gun owners, I believe we need to take reasonable steps to limit felons and individuals suffering mental illness from gaining access to guns. SB 941 will help keep guns out of dangerous hands. It will close the remaining loophole in Oregon’s successful background check law.

I wonder if the felon who murdered Senator Floyd’s sister – and we’re sorry for his loss – passed a background check. Wanna bet?

comments

  1. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

    Hmmm, how would the senator feel about background checks on voters – just to make sure they’re legal. Prior restraint, it’s what’s good for America -NOT!.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Lordy, that is wonderful! The same prohibition as on firearm purchases, for the same reason. Why is it not already law?

      1. avatar desertrat says:

        Yeah back ground checks work. They work so well that that there is an abundant lack of criminal prosecutions and formal resolutions as well.

        With some exceptions, those prohibited from owning firearms cannot vote as well, and vice versa. Again, where are the state or federal prosecutions? Why are the results not published?

        Perhaps it time to reverse the claiming trends of ‘nabbed miscreants’ like during the Clinton regime- keep asking your representative, Congress critters, local news(?) media, etc to publish the names and resolutions of those that were caught. I suspect that like back then things will take a different tack as folks keep demanding proof of success.

  2. avatar Noishkel says:

    I’d also point out Oregon has it’s own background check system. So it gets far more background check denials than it should.

  3. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Why don’t we have background checks on people who buy heroine? Meth? Cocaine? Pot? I mean, if they work, by all means, let’s expand them.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      This sooooo much.

      If I was shopping for a gun to shoot at people that get to close to my pot garden in the woods, I doubt I would be purchasing a firearm from a source that would want me to submit to a background check…. The only background they would be checking is the one on the benjamins, to make sure its real money…

    2. avatar fisherheinrick says:

      I ɢᴏᴛ ʜᴏᴏᴋᴇᴅ ᴏɴ ʜᴀᴠɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ʙᴜsɪɴᴇss ᴀʟᴍᴏsᴛ ᴀ ᴅᴇᴄᴀᴅᴇ ᴀɢᴏ ᴡʜᴇɴ I ᴄʀᴇᴀᴛᴇᴅ ᴀɴ ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴄᴏᴜʀsᴇ ᴀɴᴅ ᴍᴀᴅᴇ ᴍʏ ғɪʀsᴛ ••••••••••• $2,500! ••••••••••• ɪɴ ᴏɴᴇ ᴡᴇᴇᴋ, I ʟᴏᴠᴇᴅ ʙᴇɪɴɢ ᴀʙʟᴇ ᴛᴏ sᴛᴀʏ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ ᴍʏ ғᴀᴍɪʟʏ, ᴍᴀᴋᴇ ᴍᴏɴᴇʏ, ʜᴀᴠᴇ ғᴜɴ ᴀɴᴅ ʜᴇʟᴘ ᴏᴛʜᴇʀs.
      Rᴇᴀᴅ Mᴏʀᴇ info ►œ►œ►œ►
      ­T­r­a­c­k-r­e­p­o­r­t.­Ⅽ­O­Ⅿ
      ►œ►œ►œ► ►œ►œ►œ►

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        ^^ SPAM ^^

      2. avatar Martin B says:

        Yes, but being a gay prostitute is SO undignified, but good luck with your lifestyle choice…

  4. Yes background checks do work and have been proven to work. The only problem with them is, only the law abiding will go through the process. Criminals will never “legally” buy a firearm.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Those two statements are contradictory.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        Not really. Standard background checks at gun stores do deter criminals from purchasing them at a legal establishment. Without NICS, criminals would be able to purchase new firearms that are higher quality and lower priced than most of what they’d find on the street. Knowing they wont pass, most don’t even attempt a legal purchase. This is why we’ll never get rid of Brady checks at stores/pawn shops.

        That said, background checks on private sales would do nothing. Sales of illegal guns would continue unabated while law abiding citizens get an additional onus to their sale.

        1. avatar Red in Texas says:

          “Without NICS, criminals would be able to purchase new firearms that are higher quality and lower priced than most of what they’d find on the street.”

          No, the “street price” is cheaper, and much better toys are available for less than a law abiding purchaser would have to spend.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’d want a reference of some kind before I accepted either viewpoint as gospel. My common sense tells me that most criminals’ guns are stolen, which supports my contention that fine firearms would be dirt cheap on the street, but I don’t even know how someone would check, much less claim my view is absolutely correct.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          I think any inquiry into “where criminal guns come from” is a fool’s errand. Are the 1 – 2% figures of gun shows and flea markets credible? Would a criminal go to a gun show (pants hanging down to his knees) wandering around looking for a non-dealer seller willing to sell to him? I kind of doubt it. But, suppose these figures were 10 – 20%; so what? You have to look for every hole in the sieve and see if you can block (or choke-off) every last one of them.
          The supply of guns in the secondary market (non-dealer) is just about exactly identical to the supply of guns in the primary (dealer) market. Somebody buys a gun and then sells it to another person 1-minute / 1-year later. What percentage of the useful life of the gun was worn-out of the used gun in 1-minute / 1-year?

          Given that, reportedly, 39% of criminal guns were acquired by friends/family and 39% on-the-street, I suspect that the up-stream source is roughly the same. Some were stolen, some were bought by a friend/family with a clean record and some were bought by a trafficker’s straw-buyer. Largely the same pool of 1st-illegal-channels.

          Suppose we did something (bought better gun safes, adopted UBC) we would impact one 1st-illegal-channel and redirect the traffic to the remaining illegal-channels.

          Let’s ask ourselves: Why do we see no evidence of smuggling guns IN-to the US? Why do we see no evidence of clandestine factories making guns in the US? Answer: the supply of new/slightly-used industrial-standard guns at competitive prices is enormous. Just about nothing – short of absolute prohibition – could change the current black market. Under absolute prohibition, we would have smuggling and clandestine industry.

          What might reduce guns in criminal hands is vigorous enforcement of felon-in-posession laws. America has no appetite to enforce these laws.

          Moreover, America has almost NO appetite to enforce the laws on transferring a gun to a person known/believed-to-be a prohibited person. Who wants to throw tens of thousands of minority mothers of small children in prison? So long as this is the case, U-BC will have no impact on criminals. It will be used exclusively to intimidate law-abiding gun owners.

  5. avatar mike oregon says:

    Back in’73 Oregon had a through background checks and a 5 day waiting period, if you bought handguns legally.

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      Didn’t they have pistol permits or some such nonsense then? I remember my dad showing me some slip of paper for his revolver when i was a little kid in the 80s. He bought his revolver in the 70’s.

  6. avatar younggun21 says:

    That is the sad fact that keeps coming up. All these politicians want to pass legislation that would have done NOTHING to prevent the specific shootings that spawned their legislation. It literally boggles the mind. Increased background checks after the Sandy Hook shooting? Huh? The maniac stole a gun by murdering the lawful owner. How the heck is a background check supposed to uncover that? Universal background checks after Gabby Giffords? The guy actually PASSED the NICS background check so making it “universal” does nothing. There hasn’t been one piece of legislation that would have done anything to prevent, even the small number of shootings that they were prompted by. It makes no sense.

    1. avatar Blake says:

      Minor point: Loughner was in Sheriff Dupnick’s county. The same sheriff who’s SWAT team murdered Jose Guerena.

      From what I read, there was plenty of warning about Loughner but Dupnik isn’t competent to be doing the job he’s been elected to do.

      Obligatory “Had it been a Republican Sheriff, the press would have been all over them about these two incidents.”

    2. avatar Steve says:

      Remember the Isla Vista shooting/stabbing, and the father that blamed the NRA and “craven” politicians for not passing the AWB, high-cap mag ban, and UBC legislation after Sandy Hook? The same guy whose son was killed by a guy with a handgun sporting a 10-round mag who had a background check?

      Not only do they not care about the facts, they WANT more mass shootings to occur so that they can claim the moral high ground by standing atop the pile of corpses that their policies create.

  7. avatar Gunr says:

    I’m from Oregon, I spoke to the dude, a year or more back at a small meeting in our little town. It was like talking to a stone wall! That’s how a lot of these politicians are! Once they make up their mind there’s no changing it!

    1. avatar UpChuck.Liberals says:

      You are a nothing, not even worthy of a glance. How DARE you try to talk to such an exalted being. We have plenty of these dipshyts in Kommieforniastan and at least one in Washington DC.

  8. avatar ahwatkins says:

    Those of us here in Oregon who have had very little choice but to live with the “R-G” as our daily newspaper have already been convinced (by decades-long experience) that the /soi-disant/ “Register-Guard” is veritably a “Regular Rag.” (I mean, it doesn’t ‘Register’ anything of importance; and it hasn’t Guard-ed anything since the “Register” bought out the “Guard”; so what good is it?)

    Hizzoner “The Honorable” [epithet deleted] Prozanski says, “I believe we need to take reasonable steps to limit felons and individuals suffering mental illness from gaining access to guns. SB 941 will help keep guns out of dangerous hands.”

    MY RESPONSE:
    No. It won’t: Mr. “Dangerous Hands” (a long-lost descendant of Robin Hood) will find other ways to get guns.
    Your bill will only inconvenience law-abiding citizens; it won’t limit any criminals at all — and it will (not entirely un-intentionally!) create a firearms database of weapons that are linked to their most recent owners.

    That spells long-term disaster for a government “by the people.”

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      My parents called it the Red Guard back in the 80’s. It’s sucked as long as I have been alive.

  9. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I used to use the Red Guard as cage liner for my Gerbils as a kid.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      OMG! I hope your gerbils couldn’t read!

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        That there was funny Bob!

  10. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Arguing in favor of background checks is like arguing in favor of climate change. Both have gotta’ be real because they’ve just gotta’ be real . . . Faced with complex issues activists tend to focus on simplistic solutions which best symbolize their values. Whether or not their solutions actually work is not particularly important.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      There’s a vast difference between background checks and climate change: there’s gobs of data showing the latter is real, and there’s just about zip showing the former is.

      A better example would be background checks and space aliens: both are equally fictitious, both depend on desire to believe and not data.

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Actually, the climate, as defined by global temperature averages, is not currently changing, and has not for 17 years. We should be coming up on the 18 year Mark here soon. In short, the whole time we’ve been inundated with this “debate” on man-caused global warming, not only is the evidence that it’s man caused a bit flimsy, but it hasn’t even been happening. Unless the debate goes back more than 18 years, but I don’t recall anything back then.

      2. avatar Hack says:

        So everyone agrees that Pols manipulate gun/crime data to drive an agenda, but the “climate change” data just speak for themselves, and nobody would ever manipulate them?

        In my lifetime (48 years), they’ve screamed “ice age!” then “global warming!” And now “climate change!” Oh, and there are research grants, an entire industry, and national and global politics in the balance. I’m sure they’re telling it like it is this time.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          There have been several cases where the feds have been accused/proven to have manipulated climate data, too, though I don’t understand why, given that “everybody agrees” that climate change is real. Just BTW, I maintain that absolutely ANYTHING pushed as “everybody knows/agrees” is BS. I guess I have to add Omommy’s “It’s settled science” now, as well.

        2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          When even people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, who have careers based on explaining things and expounding on the concussion they see as correct and want you to adopt can’t put forth an actual argument beyond “those guys are super smart and they say so! C’mon guys, this is serious for real!” Then you know something fishy is up.

          Global warming may be real, we may be causing it, and it may kill off humanity, but it won’t be the fault of the ‘deniers,’ it will be the fault of the proponents who have repeatedly failed to make a rational case for it, and have prevented dissenting climate scientists from conducting studies that would have verified (or debunked) the case for global warming.

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    Let’s start by separating background checks from particular guns and just set them up so that someone can be checked by a seller without providing further info to the government.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Absolutely agree! Congress could:
      – make it unlawful to sell, (but NOT LOAN) a gun to a prohibited person AND
      – open access to NICS (to: sporting-goods stores; gun ranges/clubs; notaries public; etc.)
      In so doing, we divert the Un-BC from the FFLs where the Antis will insist on completion of a 4473 form.
      – make a “safe-harbor” for a seller to run a BC (what I’d call an “Un-BC” as distinguished from a U-BC)
      on his prospective buyer. If the buyer comes-up clean in NICS (notwithstanding that NICS is not updated yet),
      then the seller can’t be prosecuted.

      (To LOAN a gun, inadvertently, to a prohibited person must NEVER be conceded. In the rare event that an owner loans a gun to a friend he doesn’t know is a prohibited person there is every reason to believe he sincerely thought the guy was 2A-able. Moreover, tracing the gun to the borrower would never be a problem since the owner would have conceded that he knew the borrower well-enough to know who he is and where he lives.)

      Require the buyer to give a copy of his ID (name, address) to the seller, but NOT require the seller to RETAIN that document. The buyer wouldn’t know if the seller retained the document; therefore, he would have to fear the gun he bought might be traced to him. The seller MIGHT retain it for years just to prove to whom he sold the gun. Or, the seller MIGHT just misplace the document whenever Congress next debates a bill to require such documents to be retained or reported to the ATF.

      We PotG need to think strategically. Are we better off with:
      – more States like Washington? Or,
      – a Un-BC law we could live with quite nicely?

      There is an argument that Washington State’s onerous law is (ironically) better for us. It is SO ONEROUS that it is easier to fight. I think that there is A LOT of merit to this argument. However, it does require that we PotG fight a lot of battles against UBC in various States and in Congress as well. Might we spend our efforts more productively on other campaigns?

      We know the Antis want universal registration and eventual confiscation; these strident Antis will settle for nothing short of this goal. The 4473 form is the path to their goal. Nevertheless, the Antis don’t control the legislative process. The vast mass of un-committed and gun-control-sympathetic voters in the middle hold the balance of power. If we PotG conceded to an “Un-BC” law this mass of un-committed/GC-sympathetic voters would be largely satisfied that “something” had been done to impede criminals’ access to guns. These voters aren’t really committed to the 20-year 4473 retention period; they really aren’t interested in the devil or the details at all!

      Arguably, we MIGHT get the UBC debate off-our-backs for the long-run if we embraced an Un-BC that would cause us little inconvenience at all.

  12. avatar Cockatoo says:

    His sister, Vicki, was killed by her domestic partner during an altercation when she was trying to break up with him. The guy was named Dionicio A. Cruz, and his lawyers got the charges dismissed because he wasn’t properly mirandized. No info on whether or not he passed a background check, but one year later he shot up a few cops that were serving a warrant on an unrelated matter. Looks like he’s still in prison for that. Guy seems like a real piece of work.
    http://projects.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/sevendays/24332157-35/prozanski-state-victims-murder-3508.csp
    http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20000619_0000024.WTX.htm/qx

    1. avatar Martin B says:

      Sounds like the sister was about as bright as the brother.

  13. avatar Roymond says:

    People like this politician either never took a statistics class or flunked it — or faked it without ever understanding the material.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      Actually, I’m sure he did have one and understood it well. That’s the problem with the progs. They never let facts get in the way of their ideology. “Do as I say and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

  14. avatar Bob108 says:

    Unfortunately, this is how far Oregon has fallen. It has turned its back on the Bill of Rights, and it has been on a path of systematically restricting the rights of its citizenry…well, except for those loyal to the progressives. I lived there most of my life, and frankly, I never really knew how bad Oregon really was or how bad it was getting until I moved to Arizona last year. The individual freedoms I have in Arizona are far superior than that of Oregon. Once I manage to sell a rental property I have in Oregon, I plan never to go back even for a visit. It is lost to a tyrannical ideology that seems to have swept aside all effective pockets of free men and women.

  15. avatar Gunr says:

    I just thought of something terrible! What if Oregon and it’s southern neighbor, Komifornia, decided to join together, with her royal highness, Mzzzzz. D. Feinstein becoming Governor!

    1. avatar Jon R. says:

      Oregon is much closer to Washington state than California politically and culturally. I’m more concerned that we’ll start following the example their beginning to set.

  16. avatar MarkPA says:

    I suspect that a substantial number of guns in criminal hands are – more-or-less – the result of straw-buys at FFLs. E.g., there are plenty of girlfriends (with clean records) who will buy for an ardent admirer. What are the chances of getting caught given the low rate of prosecutions?
    How would U-BC’s change the picture? Girlfriends would have to either report the guns they buy as lost/stolen; or, they would have to accept an increased risk of being prosecuted for transferring without submitting her admirer to a U-BC. ATF/police and AUSA/DAs would have to step-up prosecutions of women for straw-buys + not doing U-BCs. Proving failure-to-U-BC is easier than proving she knew/had-reason-to-beleive her admirer was a criminal. So, U-BC should increase prosecutions marginally.
    Net effect? More young women in prisons for unlawful transfers. To imagine the number of unlawful transfers will be reduced you have to believe in the deterrent effect of a new U-BC paperwork law. “What I’d do for love?” Yes, I suppose if a woman would straw-buy then she would also transfer without doing a U-BC.

    I think the response to U-BC laws will be rapid growth in 80% receivers along with parts kits, YouTube videos and a black-market in completed guns free of maker’s marks and serial numbers.
    Heretofore, the 80% receiver market has been – almost exclusively – in AR-10/15 platforms; hardly suitable for most criminal purposes. Watch for widespread availability of 80% revolver or semi-auto frames.
    The 80% market for new platforms will grow inconspicuously; at first. It will be hard for the Antis to get traction on any hobbyist-restriction bill at first. When unmarked guns – eventually – appear at crime scenes the news will create the requisite publicity for the Antis to launch. They might get a bill passed; but, what of it’s enforceability?
    How to prove that a frame/receiver was milled before/after a ban on 80% receivers (or other anti-hobbyist law)? By the time this milestone is reached there will be millions of unmarked guns in the US. Inner-city Vo-Tech machine-shop classes will be over-subscribed. Criminal gangs (the Mafia) will have established small clandestine factories.
    The best Congress could do is to require marking and registration of hobbyist-made receivers. Great! Couldn’t have prayed for a better solution. Hobbyists will make 2 receivers (where, heretofore, they had made just 1). Mark and register one receiver; leave the other unarmed and cached. Assemble the unregulated parts with the marked receiver and maintain marksmanship skills at the range. When confiscation comes, dis-assemble the marked receiver and cache the unregulated parts. Submit, graciously, to the call to turn-in registered “guns”. Where are the rest of the parts? ‘Well, officer, by the time I finished making the receiver and registering it, I lost interest in my project and didn’t buy any of the other parts.’
    Meanwhile, the nation’s inventory of handguns with unmarked frames will have soared and will not be stopped. A felon-in-posession won’t be afraid of an additional charge of possession of an unmarked gun.
    (Or, consider an alternative theory. Suppose possession of an unmarked gun were subject to life-without-hope as a mandatory-minimumum sentence. Further, suppose that were a sufficient deterrent. If so, then, it should also suffice to make felon-in-posession subject to life-without-hope to deter criminal possession of a gun.)

    Once the genie is out-of-the-bottle it’s going to be mighty hard to get her back inside. The GCA of ’86 would be rendered moot.

    1. avatar Martin B says:

      Have the gf do the same time as the perp if she enabled the purchase of a firearm.

  17. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Background checks cut off the legal market to ineligible persons. Ineligible persons then have to resort to deviant behavior to acquire a firearm, increasing their chances of being caught and arrested. Not a popular position, certainly. The background check system should be free and freely available to private individuals such as myself who wish to sell a firearm on the intrastate market. I categorically reject Federal intrusion into intrastate commerce.

  18. avatar Vitsaus says:

    Where are all the “give convicted felons their guns back?” cheerleaders for this article?

    1. avatar foggy says:

      OK, I’ll bite.

      I am in favor of full restoration of civil rights to anyone who has completed his or her court-ordered imprisonment or supervision and who also was only convicted of a non-violent felony, a misdemeanor that would otherwise curtail civil rights (potential 1 year prison sentence, whether you received it or not, I believe), or non-felony “domestic violence”.

      What statist rationale can you present to justify treating people in these situations as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives, Mr. Vitsaus?

  19. avatar Bob says:

    “…let alone easy access, to guns: murderers, rapists, domestic assaulters and meth addicts. Background checks screen out the bad guys.”

    Seriously this is your argument? You have an f’ing list of murderers, rapists, domestic assaulters and meth addicts, and this is what you do with it? So where are all these murderers, rapists, domestic assaulters and meth addicts? Just roaming around doing whatever to whoever? I’ll be sure to fashion that into a salve if one of those “murderers, rapists, domestic assaulters and meth addicts” stabs a family member of mine at the local grocery store.

    I would love to find a connection to people on the “list” and them committing a major felony without a gun, and expose the society safety farce that is the “background check”.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want guns ending up in the hands of dangerous people, but if you know they are that dangerous, then put them in a hole with a bag of quick lime. Either you are dangerous and incarcerated, or your not and you aren’t.

    A dog either has rabies or it doesn’t. You don’t let it run around your family and friends if you think it might.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      This is an interesting line of inquiry: How many prohibited persons are subsequently convicted of homicide or aggravated assault? Of that number, what fraction were subsequently convicted of homicide/aggregated-assault with a gun? Clearly, the latter is a proper subset of the former. We just don’t know what fraction of the whole guns represent.

      If 90% of subsequent convicts of homicide/aggregated-assault then clearly, that’s the target to focus on. Either:
      – increase the penalty on illegal gun use to re-direct the choice-of-weapons to more socially-acceptable choices;
      – increase the impediments for prohibited persons to acquire and retain guns.

      Conversely, if 10% of subsequent convicts of homicide/aggregated-assaults use guns then it’s the violent-behavior, not the guns, that needs to be society’s target.

  20. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Just another anti freedom Democrat. The same kind who reasoned blacks didn’t need guns. This progressive communist would be happy with only the police having firearms. Why do voters support him? Does he support gay marriage and Marijuana intoxication? Does he support sanctuary cities for criminal aliens?

  21. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

    No….background checks don’t work, period! Gun control is simply class warfare and a deceitful subversive
    socialist/collectivist “LBJ/KGB” style people control agenda! Read my own online comment in today’s
    Tuesday, April 21st Ashland Daily Tidings at http://www.dailytidingscom. Enter “background checks” into their
    search engine. As far as anti-gun Bolshevik legislators in Salem, Oregon are concerned, they remain
    traitors to our republic and collectively remain guilty of high treason! My own Wednesday, November 19th,
    2014 Lake County Examiner in Lakeview, Oregon alludes to the dislike, contempt, and resistance I have
    against these political elitists, the depraved Democrat machine in Oregon, the intrusive nanny state, etc!
    Title of letter: “It’s a Republic.” This can be accessed at http://www.lakecountyexam.com. Finally, are you tired
    of the parroted dishonesty, deceit, and controlled news via the establishment press? If so consider
    subscribing to The Roseburg Beacon.

  22. avatar Martin B says:

    Here’s how it works in New Zealand. You want a firearms license, you apply and undergo a Police check into your history, sit a safety exam, and your friends snd neighbors are interviewed as to your mental stability and suitability. Once you have a license, you can buy whatever gun or ammunition you want within that category, the shop only has to see your license. No further checks necessary. If you run into legal difficulty at a later stage, or have a domestic incident, you might have your license and weapons withdrawn, but can apply for their return when things have settled down. But it is inefficient for retailers to have to do a full background check every time a firearms purchase is made. The police do not even keep a register of individual weapons, as that is again inefficient and achieves nothing. Having a record of who is licensed is the only useful thing. A Concealed Carry permit or similar would do the job in the USA. Background checks rarely provide useful information.

  23. avatar SNNNN says:

    “U-BC will have no impact on criminals. It will be used exclusively to intimidate law-abiding gun owners.”

    As an Oregonian watching this assault on my 2nd Amendment in real time I can tell
    you this is EXACTLY the objective. The objective is to set up a gun registry with the
    Oregon State Police….nothing less…nothing more. The law is also a tool to
    criminalize the exercise of a Constitutional right. Please grasp this…a right is
    of NO USE of you cannot USE it….! Imagine the 1st Amendment with all presses
    and paper restricted and/or banned….you may “have” the right but its useless
    because you cannot exercise it unhindered.

  24. What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It
    positively helpful and it has helped me out loads. I hope to
    contribute & assist different customers like
    its aided me. Great job.

  25. Fathers are tough customers. They have a hard time figuring out where they fit and almost never understand how important they are. Luckily, it’s never too late to reconcile and enjoy being your dad’s daughter. I did this after a 10-year estrangement. Smartest move I ever made. Best to you.
    position pour faire un enfant http://www.commenttomberenceinte.ml

  26. I’ve found it a little difficult to find computer parts without having to buy whole computers and tearing them apart myself. . I want to start my own business using the computer parts, but where can I get the computer parts (the small parts)? I have tried my local recycle center and no success.. I’m on the verge of contacting an established computer craftsperson and cosigning to their business. . . Anyone with ideas or advice?.
    comment reussir a tomber enceinte rapidement http://www.commenttomberenceinte.ga

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email