Obviously not anti-gun, but am for private sale backround checks. Talk me out of it.

[dbpep]

Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales. I have sold around 15 guns in the past (one last week, in fact), and was always sure to see the license to make sure they were a resident to comply with the law, but was always a little worried about whether or not the people I was selling to were legally allowed to own the gun. Even turned down a few buyers because it just didn't feel right (if you know what I mean).

My worst nightmare would be selling a firearm to a felon who went on to use that gun to harm innocent people. I realize that can happen either way, but why not have the extra sense of security of knowing that the individual can legally own a firearm? $30 for a background check seems like a bargain for the piece of mind.

I know this will be a very unpopular opinion, so lets skip the "libtard", "you are anti-gun", "anti-2nd", BS attacks and just give me real, honest, thought out reasons why you are against it.

Attacks against me for thinking this way will only show that you don't have the intellect to defend your opinion, so, please, show me the other side of the coin. I am not above admitting I was wrong and changing my mind.

Whatever way people use to make themselves comfortable during a private transfer, they can do it on their own free will right now! The system is already in place for people to run a background check, yet still preserve their privacy. You don't want the government knowing the serial numbers of each gun you own and sell. Once they have a registry they'll want to conduct random inspections of your firearm inventory. Maybe I seem paranoid, but other developed nations have strict gun control, so why is it so hard for people to believe that our government would aim to take all of our guns? Do they not see the type of people running our nation now?

 

[Koda]

Totally agree on the "back-door registration" angle. It's the very reason many law abiding citizens buy only through private parties.

I think there are "free men" out there, however, that should never be allowed to own a firearm.

Whether or not it makes a difference for me is a mute point. It tells me that I did everything I could to make sure my gun doesn't end up in the hands of a criminal (at least directly from me).

heres the real reason for me. Its the fact that there ARE other better ways to do this without a registration scheme. The fact that there ARE other ways that ARENT being used tells me the threat of registration is real or certainly 'they' would propose it but they aren't. If you truly only wanted to reduce crime then why not propose a new law that both sides of the debate would overwhelmingly support. I dont think you would find many pro gun people who would object to a background check law if it didnt include make model and serial number. Nobody here wants to sell a gun to a prohibited person.

its worth noting here that no crime has ever been solved by tracing a gun back to its original owner so why push for a system that has no value to what they are claiming.... because what their next step is to outlaw certain guns type by type until there are none.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Simply, for me, the lying, cheating goverment has no buisness knowing what I possess.

 

[U8395279]

Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales. I have sold around 15 guns in the past (one last week, in fact), and was always sure to see the license to make sure they were a resident to comply with the law, but was always a little worried about whether or not the people I was selling to were legally allowed to own the gun. Even turned down a few buyers because it just didn't feel right (if you know what I mean).

My worst nightmare would be selling a firearm to a felon who went on to use that gun to harm innocent people. I realize that can happen either way, but why not have the extra sense of security of knowing that the individual can legally own a firearm? $30 for a background check seems like a bargain for the piece of mind.

I know this will be a very unpopular opinion, so lets skip the "libtard", "you are anti-gun", "anti-2nd", BS attacks and just give me real, honest, thought out reasons why you are against it.

Attacks against me for thinking this way will only show that you don't have the intellect to defend your opinion, so, please, show me the other side of the coin. I am not above admitting I was wrong and changing my mind.

Well, but there is more in the Oregon Bill than just background checks for private sales. It also expands mental health provisions to the point where simply receiving outpatient mental health treatment can now be used against a person to either deny them buying a gun, or even possessing the guns that they currently have. This is a significant lowering of the current bar, which now requires that a person have been committed to a mental hospital.

From looking at your Avatar, you could potentially suffer from mental issues. Have you ever suffered from depression? Are you perhaps a veteran who suffers from PTSD? If so, some people could consider you to be far too dangerous a person to possess guns.

.

 

[RVTECH]

I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales.

If I saw repeat problems with no BGC gun sales such as VERIFIED criminals being sold them or VERIFIED crimes used with them, or even legal issues or problems during the actual FTF transaction you might have me as a 'dance partner' - but in all my years of buying and selling I have heard of only one problem arising from a FTF - and all I had to go on was the 2nd hand info in the news about it - so as far as I am concerned it's a non-issue.

 

[Solved]

I had to make an account after reading this--so i guess, hello.

You say you're pro-gun. But what does that mean to you? I would challenge you not adhere to labels when defining your position, but to concrete ideas. "I respect the natural rights of all men, so I support the right to keep and bear arms." "I support gun ownership because it's in the constitution and I like guns." Just some meaningful stance, whatever that may be because being pro-gun probably means something a little different to everyone. It might seem frivolous, but clearly defining your stance is an important first step to having a meaningful discussion, but I don't want to dwell on that.

If a man sells a gun and follows all of the appropriate laws--whatever they are, in this case imagine he gets a background check for his party--and the man he sells it to uses it for a crime, is he responsible? He sold him the gun, just because he followed the law doesn't mean he shouldn't feel guilty for arming a dangerous person for compensation. Regardless if the government messed up the background check or the man had no previous crimes, if the man truly cared about keeping guns away from people he didn't trust, he would never sell them.

Everything you do in life is based on trusting the people around you. You drive down the street at 45 mph against another man driving 45 mph only separated by a few feet. There is nothing stopping them from causing a wreck. You buy meat at the store trusting it has been properly packed while the store trusts you're not going to rob them. I can keep going, but I think it's clear. Everything you do with every person has an element of trust involved. All a background check does is give you a government approved reason not to trust someone--although I have more to say about that.

1.
When you sell a gun to a stranger who later commits a crime, you shouldn't feel any better because you got the government stamp of approval.

By that reasoning if you have no reason to trust anyone unless the government said they'll take the blame.
Sure if you don't trust someone, take the appropriate measures to ensure you work with them responsibly, but realize those measures are not the same for you life long friend as it is the guy who responded to your armslist posting. In the end, building trust with your neighborhood will move mountains more than any background check.

One final thing. Think about how you got interested in hunting/shooting/collecting/whatever. Assuming you've bought in a private sale before, somewhere at some point, someone looked at you and trusted you. They put their faith in you by selling their gun to you. UBC's can persuade people on the fence of getting into firearm ownership away from it. Maybe because they saw a therapist when their parents separated 15 years ago and they're afraid of being denied. Maybe they don't want to invest the time and money waiting to buy from a close friend. Maybe people will be less willing to sell to newcomers because they don't want to take the time to go to an ffl. This will lead to the future community of firearm owners being smaller, which means less political power.

2.
Ensuring that people have easy access to guns is important to the future of everyone, not just gun owners.

 

[308]

Didn't read any of the responses...

Criminals don't get guns from private sales - they buy black market guns that have been stolen; end of story.

That is the bottom line. Everyone I have spoken to says the same as you did within the first couple minutes of the convo.

As to the OP, it may have been stated already, but no one has stopped you from requiring a BGC at the time of YOUR private party sales and yet, you chose not to. So, do you need .gov to force you or something? Force yourself for God sakes and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Well, five pages talked you out of it?

 

[mikeybuck]

It just don't make sense.... it is like saying that im pro gun but will vote for Hillary Clinton.... just don't make sense.

 

[U201494]

I'd stop smoking meth if my thought process worked like that.

 

[Slobray]

Well, five pages talked you out of it?

After five pages of great reasons to oppose BGC's and this person hasn't capitulated, I tend to believe that this persons mind was already made up (pro BGC, pro infringement of lawful citizens) when they started this thread and they just wanted to see what kind of uproar they could cause.
I also believe that no matter what we say, this person will never admit

I was wrong and (am) changing my mind.

and that this person has already contacted their legislators and the email/letter/phone call started with

Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales.

thus feleing the fire and trying to doom us all.


As for the "Obviously not anti-gun", I think the below quote answers it

Nobody here knows a damned thing about me other than what I tell them. I could be a member of ISIS (and/or everytown, brady campaign, moms against, etc..) for all you know. (Emphasis mine)

To me it is about taking one further step in doing what we can to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Will it keep criminals from getting guns, no, (emphasis mine)

Then why are you supporting this? To burden law abiding citizens?

but it may prove to some anti-gunners that we are serious about doing what we can in that effort. For me it isn't liability as much as conscience. (emphasis mine)

I think we've already proved that we are seriously "doing what we can" by being law abiding citizens...


Ray


Post Script, I may be wrong about "Phillyfan"'s motives, but if this person can prove me wrong, then I have no problem apologizing. It wouldn't be the first time (and given my reputation) it won't be the last.


Ray

 

[Deebow]

Criminals have an economic reason to steal guns and not buy them. Buying them creates a record that can be traced. They can use the money they have acquired for other things and if they are already committing criminal activity, one more broken law isn't going to matter to them.

None of what is proposed in this bill would have stopped any of the shootings we have seen take places at malls and schools. Adam Lanza stole the guns he used. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check.

As a comparison; having my drivers license number will have the same preventative effect on my committing the crime of DUI as having the serial number on my gun will prevent me from using it to commit a crime.

And on a macro level; I do not need a "by your leave" from the government to dispose of my personal property as I see fit. Any government that can micromanage that is on it's way to the micromanagement of much more that will definitely affect your life.

 

[forefathersrback]

There's only one background check that I believe in.......making sure nothing is in the background before squeezing the trigger!

 

[Spray-n-pray]

Finally , someone gets it. If you think that the O.S.P gets rid of that data, I have a really nice bridge that I want to sell you!

Make no mistake - this IS registration.......

If it were a simple background check of the potential owner, why is the firearm information needed at all?

The minute they include language to STOP requiring serial numbers with the background check we'll talk. That will never happen. As long as OSP keeps collecting serial numbers, this is a gun registration scheme plain and simple. Yes they are SUPPOSED to destroy records after, I believe, 5 years but as OFF states there is no penalty for them NOT complying with this and no evidence they do.

Country to popular belief very new gun sold is registered and every gun sold under a background check is to. Even though under law the State Police are supposed to get rid of that of the information they keep it.

I don't know that it's contrary to popular belief, per ORS 166, the local police receive a copy of your form 4473 for each purchase, and the OSP keeps a log for at least five years, but I don't believe that they actually delete them like they're supposed to.

They keep the records of serial numbers, make no mistake. Years ago, I purchased an AR that I sold to a friend a couple of years later. He ended up moving out of state a little while after that. While he lived elsewhere, he sold that rifle to someone else. A couple years later he moved back to the Northwest. One day, I got a letter in the mail from a police department in Kentucky asking me about the rifle. Somehow the rifle had changed hands a few times and ended up in the hands of a felon. If they don't keep records, then how did they know I was the original purchaser?

 

[wired]

They keep the records of serial numbers, make no mistake. Years ago, I purchased an AR that I sold to a friend a couple of years later. He ended up moving out of state a little while after that. While he lived elsewhere, he sold that rifle to someone else. A couple years later he moved back to the Northwest. One day, I got a letter in the mail from a police department in Kentucky asking me about the rifle. Somehow the rifle had changed hands a few times and ended up in the hands of a felon. If they don't keep records, then how did they know I was the original purchaser?

The ATF does a trace from the original manufacturer to the dealer that sold the firearm originally until it leaves the system. It can be several steps or one. The dealer checks their 4473's and tells the ATF what they want to know. If the dealer goes out of business they send the 4473's into the ATF. If it leaves the system and the buyer sells it to a non dealer its just about impossible if subsequent buyers do not keep records but the first buyer is a given. If the buyer then returns it back into the system by selling it to a licensed dealer it goes back in but its much harder to run a trace.

I had a cop show up at my door once asking about a gun I sold 10 + years before to a guy I worked with because they found just the serial numbered box in a crack house in Tacoma.

me..."Sorry buddy, sold it to a guy I worked with, don't know where he is. Heard he moved to Hawaii"

cop..."Well sir, you havent been much help"...

me... "Get the F___ off my porch"

 

[U8395279]

Criminals have an economic reason to steal guns and not buy them. Buying them creates a record that can be traced. They can use the money they have acquired for other things and if they are already committing criminal activity, one more broken law isn't going to matter to them.

None of what is proposed in this bill would have stopped any of the shootings we have seen take places at malls and schools. Adam Lanza stole the guns he used. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check.

Even the Clackamas Town Center Shooting here in Oregon that is cited so often by our legislators as being an example for the need for UBC, would not have been prevented either. And that is because the shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts burglarized a friend's home, and stole the Bushmaster M4 rifle that he used.


.

 

[U8395279]

After five pages of great reasons to oppose BGC's and this person hasn't capitulated, I tend to believe that this persons mind was already made up (pro BGC, pro infringement of lawful citizens) when they started this thread and they just wanted to see what kind of uproar they could cause.

Well, the most ironic thing that I see here in this discussion is that if he is indeed a Veteran as he states, then he is in a group that our government is really taking a negative viewpoint of lately, when it comes to possessing guns. Especially with so many veterans being treated for PTSD, veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan could easily find themselves becoming targeted if more stringent mental health restrictions become law.

Just recently in Eugene a retired Army Captain who suffered from PTSD was shot and killed by a police marksman while he was standing in his front door doorway. He was depressed and had called a VA counselor, who in turn called the police, and told them that he believed that the veteran was suicidal. The SWAT team approached the home in their armored vehicle, and a marksman in the gun turret took him out when he opened his front door.

Very sparse details have been released about the incident. 48 hours after the shooting, the Eugene Chief of Police admitted that the police officer that did the shooting had still not yet been interviewed by investigators. Supposedly the armored vehicle was somewhere between 100 and 200 ft from the home when the shooting took place. The home had quite a long driveway to the street.

Why the police would so aggressively confront a decorated Veteran, who had been wounded by an IED and suffered from PTSD, and take him out so quickly, I still do not comprehend.

Here is a news story about his funeral:

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32941054-75/story.csp

A memorial that showed up outside his home the next day:




A photo taken of him while serving in Afghanistan:




This was the 2nd Army Veteran suffering from PTSD to be taken out by the Eugene Police in the last 3 years. Although in the other case, the Veteran was in shopping mall parking lot, and wildly shooting in every direction at imaginary insurgents that he thought were all around him. Although tragic, that shooting did seem rather inevitable and unavoidable.

In this new case, though, the veteran never left his house, or threatened to kill anyone else. He did have a rifle in his hands, though, when he appeared at the doorway.

But if a veteran is suffering from PTSD, is it really wise to confront him with a military vehicle?

.

 

[IronMonster]

Well, the most ironic thing that I see here in this discussion is that if he is indeed a Veteran as he states, then he is in a group that our government is really taking a negative viewpoint of lately, when it comes to possessing guns. Especially with so many veterans being treated for PTSD, veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan could easily find themselves becoming targeted if more stringent mental health restrictions become law.

Just recently in Eugene a retired Army Captain who suffered from PTSD was shot and killed by a police marksman while he was standing in his front door doorway. He was depressed and had called a VA counselor, who in turn called the police, and told them that he believed that the veteran was suicidal. The SWAT team approached the home in their armored vehicle, and a marksman in the gun turret took him out when he opened his front door.

Very sparse details have been released about the incident. 48 hours after the shooting, the Eugene Chief of Police admitted that the police officer that did the shooting had still not yet been interviewed by investigators. Supposedly the armored vehicle was somewhere between 100 and 200 ft from the home when the shooting took place. The home had quite a long driveway to the street.

Why the police would so aggressively confront a decorated Veteran, who had been wounded by an IED and suffered from PTSD, and take him out so quickly, I still do not comprehend.

Here is a news story about his funeral:

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32941054-75/story.csp

A memorial that showed up outside his home the next day:

View attachment 228569


A photo taken of him while serving in Afghanistan:

View attachment 228570


This was the 2nd Army Veteran suffering from PTSD to be taken out by the Eugene Police in the last 3 years. Although in the other case, the Veteran was in shopping mall parking lot, and wildly shooting in every direction at imaginary insurgents that he thought were all around him. Although tragic, that shooting did seem rather inevitable and unavoidable.

In this new case, though, the veteran never left his house, or threatened to kill anyone else. He did have a rifle in his hands, though, when he appeared at the doorway.

But if a veteran is suffering from PTSD, is it really wise to confront him with a military vehicle?

.

I get emotional when I read stuff like this, And I dont mean I get teary eyed, I get angry.

All too often it seems like the police are called for help and end up killing the very person they where summoned to assist.

 

[wired]

He did have a rifle in his hands, though, when he appeared at the doorway.


.

You answered your own questions as to why he got shot. Opening the door with a rifle in your hands when the cops are at the door is pretty much instant suicide by cop no matter if you are a veteran or not. Add that to the various methods of resisting arrest that have anded in police shootings that have dominated the news over the last year as to ways you can end your own life if you choose to. Yeah, the guy was a veteran. So are a lot of us but if I go to the door brandishing a rifle when I know the cops are there I pretty much know whats going to happen to me.

 

[IronMonster]

There are plenty of reasons to be holding a gun when the cops show up. There was just an instance here in Seattle not long ago where a guy caught an intruder (or thought there was an intruder I dont remember which) He called the cops, armed himself and waited for them to arrive, and when they did they shot him.

There is no reason to shoot first when there is no sign of aggregation. Simply holding an inanimate object is not intent to do anything.