Have the background check laws changed how you buy guns?

[Andy54Hawken]

( regarding post #120)
No I can't not be sure someone is legal to own a gun .... Even with a BGC folks get thru.
( I used to work at a FFL)
But Again I must state that I do not think that the amount of folks buying a gun thru a private sale to obtain one illegally is enough to warrant a BGC for every sale...
Andy

 

[Flymph]

I believe it. I bet it stops some people tho.
I'm also not saying we should pay for it at POS or that it is always necessary, such as sales between CCW holders.
I just think it's basically a good idea that needs adjusting.

Sorry for the thread jack

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No thread jack ... We were /are talking about BGC's ....
Its good to discuss ... we have different views ... at the end of the day : "So What?"
We are exchanging views respectfully ... I thought that was what a forum was all about?
Andy

 

[Flymph]

LoL I forgot for a moment we were in a "buying habits" thread, and not a "BGC opinion" thread... which it is sorta both, so I guess we're good!

Yes, respectful dialogue is pivotal, especially when discussing differing views on something. Also, yes, you have your idea and I have mine.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Also, yes, you have your idea and I have mine.

Yeabut ... Mine's right and yours is wrong...
Just kidding ... I think we are mostly on the same page ... Just a different paragraph , so to speak.
Andy

 

[Flymph]

Yeah, I hear that.
It's probably bad that I'm trying to decide who is reading ahead... JK LMAO

I might just like government paperwork a little too much.

 

[etrain16]

Jumping in to the last 10 posts or so of discussion, I'll add my opinion on the topic. I'm with Andy on this one - the BGC for private sales is B.S. to me. Honestly, can you name any other private property, you're legally allowed to own, that requires you to get a background check on a potential buyer before you can sell your personal property? It's my property, my right to do as I please with it.

Now some may say, but someone could use a gun to commit a crime, to kill someone. And that's true, but as Andy has already pointed out, the same could be said for a car, a motorcycle, a knife, a lawn mower, a rope, a kiddie pool, heck, a bottle of weed killer. At some point, we need to stop equating things with actions. If someone does bad things with an object, it is the person that is the problem, not the object. And every time we require guns to be treated differently from other objects, causes a false perception that somehow they are more dangerous than other 'things'.

So I ask this - how about cigarettes? Should there be a BGC on them? Unlike guns, they serve no useful purpose, rather they only serve to kill the people that use them and those around them. Yet we simply tax them and sell them to anyone at all - supposedly over 18 years old, but yeah, I see a lot of kids under 18 smoking, so how effective is that law?

I just get tired of folks that think the government should have any say in what we do with our personal property - and I really don't think guns should be treated differently. No swipe meant to you @Flymph, it's just this has come up many times before and it's very frustrating to me.

 

[Flymph]

No offense taken, I can see how it is frustrating. I just assume it is equally if not more frustrating to crooks, as it is to you, the honest citizen.

I think realestate does, or at least should. Can't be selling homes across the street from a school to a child molester. Cars involve a proper title transfer, I also imply any vehicle. Weed killer, way off topic here, should be heavily restricted anyway (save the salmon).
Cigarettes kill fewer people than cars, and are not an effective means of suicide (unlike cars). I may be out on limb, but cars kill more wreckless people than guns do. I also think that BGC are done by insurance agencies and car lots. I doubt private sales do BGCs, nor do I think they should provided a title transfer is made. A title transfer should be enough for guns to, for that matter.
The world is a dangerous place, not having guns doesn't make it any safer.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

I've never bought used. I know there are deals to be had but the opportunity for shenanigans is great. I'd rather not take that chance on something I may have to bet my life on. YMMV.

Wow! My Mileage Varies!

Not trying to slap you around, Cabo, because YM has a perfect right to V.
I have saved several thousand dollars over the decades, without a problem! I've also been able to buy out of production guns that I wanted to acquire.
I've studied and handled problem guns in order to educate myself about what to look for on various types of firearms, to buy with a reasonable amount of confidence! There is a great deal of literature and film on the subject. Twice, I think, I've had a gunsmith check out a possible purchase. The one that comes to mind, I did buy after the 'smith gave the go ahead! But YMMV!

 

[slimmer13]

You should raise those points. Free would be nice, and private sales between CCW cardholders should be fine without a BGC. Can't have a CCW without being able to own guns, right?

I didn't say the current law was perfect, I just said that a BGC at POS was a good idea to verify the buyer's legitimacy to own a gun.

Sounds good, except the data from numerous sources is crystal clear that guns used in crime are bought off sites like this one, or from gun shows, a tiny minority of the time. Do some research on the subject.

Essentially, these laws do nothing but provide a paper trail for lawfully owned firearms by law abiding citizens.

 

[etrain16]

No offense taken, I can see how it is frustrating. I just assume it is equally if not more frustrating to crooks, as it is to you, the honest citizen.

I think realestate does, or at least should. Can't be selling homes across the street from a school to a child molester. Cars involve a proper title transfer, I also imply any vehicle. Weed killer, way off topic here, should be heavily restricted anyway (save the salmon).
Cigarettes kill fewer people than cars, and are not an effective means of suicide (unlike cars). I may be out on limb, but cars kill more wreckless people than guns do. I also think that BGC are done by insurance agencies and car lots. I doubt private sales do BGCs, nor do I think they should provided a title transfer is made. A title transfer should be enough for guns to, for that matter.
The world is a dangerous place, not having guns doesn't make it any safer.

I have never seen a BGC on a car. Title transfer is not a background check - just a way for the state to get even more money from us. If I sell a car, I pick the buyer, no BGC ever happens. I am only responsible for signing off on the title to the new owner, it is then up to the buyer to make sure they transfer the title - if they don't, they can get in trouble, and I can have something come back on me if they don't do it - that's why a bill of sale would be used to prove I transferred ownership. But after I sell the car, whatever they do with it is up to them - drink and drive, run it off a cliff, take it to Mexico and leave it there (happened with a truck I sold some years back). Point is, I can transfer that property without any kind of BGC. Now would I sell to someone who obviously was wasted or drunk? Of course not. But if all things seem normal, I'm under no obligation to know the complete background on a buyer before I sell my property.

Regarding suicide, my friend killed himself with a rope, no gun needed and was just as effective. Suggesting that guns lead to more suicides has already been debunked. In countries where guns aren't available, suicide rates are even higher than the US. That guns factor in to a lot of suicides here only shows that they are easier to get. But it has been shown that having access to guns doesn't increase suicide rates, suicide rates remain the same regardless of how they carry it out.

So I continue to maintain that private property should be the right of the owner to dispose of as they like, what the buyer does with that property is the responsibility of the buyer. Getting the state involved for registrations, titles, transfers, BGC's, etc. is only a way for them to get more control over us and pick our pockets even further. There is way more of that than we should have already, time to dial it back.

 

[etrain16]

No offense taken, I can see how it is frustrating. I just assume it is equally if not more frustrating to crooks, as it is to you, the honest citizen.

I think realestate does, or at least should. Can't be selling homes across the street from a school to a child molester. Cars involve a proper title transfer, I also imply any vehicle. Weed killer, way off topic here, should be heavily restricted anyway (save the salmon).
Cigarettes kill fewer people than cars, and are not an effective means of suicide (unlike cars). I may be out on limb, but cars kill more wreckless people than guns do. I also think that BGC are done by insurance agencies and car lots. I doubt private sales do BGCs, nor do I think they should provided a title transfer is made. A title transfer should be enough for guns to, for that matter.
The world is a dangerous place, not having guns doesn't make it any safer.

BTW, you are way off on your numbers for deaths. According to the government's own CDC, tobacco is responsible for killing 480,000 people every year - in the US alone! 41,000 deaths are attributed to 2nd hand smoke - that's more than all gun deaths combined, just for 2nd hand smoke!! That's why I find government folks going after guns such B.S. Anyone who cared about saving lives would go after tobacco. That's over 500,000 deaths, per year, due to smoking alone - that's over 15 TIMES the number of deaths from guns - homicides and suicides combined! Yet, any person, 18 or older can buy them anywhere, any time with no consideration for the damage they cause - AND, the government happily collects hundreds of millions in taxes while allowing American citizens to voluntarily kill themselves with tobacco. No, the government isn't interested in saving lives or protecting you and me.

BTW, car crashes account for about 37,000 deaths per year - far, far less than tobacco, and just a bit more than guns.

So, I continue to call BS on any suggestion (again, not aimed at you directly @Flymph) that the government gives a rats azz about saving lives. They care about control and getting our money and that's all gun control and background checks do. Gun control never has been and never will be about saving lives. The more people that learn that, the better. The numbers don't lie. They ignore much bigger killers because the bigger killers get them more money. Everyone should be pretty darn offended by that fact alone.

Just so folks know my numbers aren't pulled out of my backside, here are some links:

CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

FastStats

Road Crash Statistics

 

[DuneHopper]

I am selling 5 large axes at my garage sale they are razor sharp. I can sell them to a drunk guy at the sale if I want to, he could go home and butcher his whole family and maybe the dog too.
OR HE:
Buys a gun at a FFL
A BGC, does not determine intent or evil, but I can as a person see that MR. Drunky is not buying my axes and send him on there way.

SB941 was brought up and passed for one reason only revenge by Senator Prozasnki to get even for his sisters death.
He is from Texas and of all things is a very anti-gun person.
The BGC, here in Oregon was just a paypack for him to make all gun owners pay, it doesn't make sense to all of us because it never was supposed to.

 

[Heywood]

Before the law was enacted I said I would not comply and I do not.
I go so far as to not buy any used guns from people whom insist on following the retarded law. Therefore I suppose it has changed the way I buy but not too much.
You do realize real quick what type of people your friends are.

 

[Alexx1401]

What I choose to do with my gun is indeed my problem ...But why is it my problem when someone does something with their gun? ( Even if I sold / traded it to him)
I can only control my own actions ... not those of someone else.

If I sold Johnny a car and he had or caused a wreck thru his bad driving ... Should I be held accountable?
I see no difference between that and if he misused his "new to him gun"... that I sold him.

Andy

These laws have NOTHING to do with safety or saving lives. As you can see though they manage to sucker even other gun owners with them. I have long said that people who kill or injure someone with a car while drunk should never be able to posses a car again. Notice how NO lawmaker will even think about this? Yet those same law makers will tell you making a law that they can't posses a gun is valid to "save lives". Meanwhile that same guy will kill how many and still get a license to drive and kill over and over. Law makers have no problem with that. This is a bunch of BS that even many gun owners fall for. The liberals have done a good job of the propaganda on this one.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My post you quoted was less about safety ... and more about me or anyone being held accountable for someone else's misdoings ...
Andy

 

[Alexx1401]

My post you quoted was less about safety ... and more about me or anyone being held accountable for someone else's misdoings ...
Andy

I know Andy, it's just that these laws sucker in even gun owners with the "bogus idea" that they are for "safety". That these inane laws actually make us "safer" from criminals. It's total BS but you see here how even gun owners fall for it and support it. The reason places like CA have the gun laws they do is too many gun owners allowed it to happen. They too fell for this idea that more laws would make them safe.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

CHL holders are good guys. thats all im sayin.

 

[DuneHopper]

CHL holders are good guys. thats all im sayin.

I have a CHL, with someone elses name on it, but i'm good right ?

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

I have a CHL, with someone elses name on it, but i'm good right ?

id sell that person a gun.