If they are willing to sell to felons, they are willing to ignore this law. Why do you continue to ignore the DOJ's opinion on UBCs?
To get around the privacy issue, how about a two part system. The first part is the gun buyer goes to a website (or phone number or phone app), and requests authorization. Then the gun buyer enters the authorization number into the phone/website/phone app, and a name will pop up with approval or disapproval. That said, it still won't do a thing to stop the great majority of criminals from getting guns. All it will do is CYA for private gun sellers.
This is very similar to the process Tom Coburn offered that the Democrats shot down. They know this. This isn't aimed at catching felons
I remember seeing that. I had written down this scheme on either this forum or another about a year before his suggestion. IMHO, it's a good compromise. Some know it, some don't. We know UBC's only real result will be a slight harassment for gun owners (one more hurdle to jump over), but I'm willing to go along with extended NICS as a compromise that will only be slight harassment, instead of a backdoor to gun registration.
"Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process" https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt More on DOJ suggestions for gun control: https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/prevention/pages/programs-strategies.aspx
He's the Deputy Director. His job description doesn't include researching and writing in-depth reports. He's a manager. Managers take responsibility for the work of their staff. My CEO signs the financial reports. Did he do the accounting?
You think opinion is research? Is this a standard attitude amongst pro-gunners? Refer to some research relevant to the thread's topic?
Researchers have also found that, after adjusting for population, states that require background checks on all handgun sales experience less than half as many mass shooting incidents (52% fewer) as states without that background check requirement.18 States with background checks have 63% fewer mass shootings by individuals who are prohibited from possessing guns and 64% fewer mass shootings involving domestic violence.19 States with comprehensive background check laws also experience 48% less gun trafficking, 38% fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17% fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults, per capita.20 States with universal background check requirements also have 53% fewer firearm suicides and 31% fewer overall suicides per capita than states without these laws.21 http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
Giffords isn't an unbiased source on gun control. Edit: If you'll note, none of the footnotes referenced in the body of the report are accessible. They also cite the hugely flawed Connecticut and Missouri studies. Edit: refreshing the page allows access to the notes.
But the fact that it's on her site makes it a less than trustworthy reference. I wouldn't insult you in an argument posting an article from an NRA website.....
FFLs don’t process BCs from a police station, why should any citizen have to do that and not have direct access themselves?
