How many mass shootings have been carried out by those who have successfully passed numerous background checks in the acquisitions of the firearms they utilized for such purposes?
Background checks work. How many mass shootings has Australia had since they banned guns decades ago? Just one? How many mass shootings does Japan, Finland or Denmark have?
How many mass shootings does the nation of Mexico have? Background checks do nothing to prevent prohibited individuals from illegally acquiring firearms. Background checks are easily subverted through straw purchases, thus rendering the entire background check process moot. They serve no purpose, and do nothing more than trick the foolish and idiotic public into believing that they are safe, when indeed they are not. Background checks present the perception of safety, rather than actual safety.
I never said they would totally stop mass shootings. But they've been very effective in greatly reducing mass shootings -- and with no loss of freedom or civil rights. Australia is a perfect example. Just one mass shooting since they started their weapons ban decades ago. Their rights weren't reduce at all. They enjoy safety, freedom, and all the rights that Americans have.
Why do you think that's due to background checks? Why do you mention gun bans as part of background checks? One should preclude the other. What guns did Australia ban in 1996, and how many guns do they have now? What percentage of the mass shooters in this country passed background checks to buy their guns? Hint: close to 100%.
Weapons bans have nothing to do with background checks. No, their rights weren't reduced because they never had the right to keep and bear arms. They do not enjoy the rights protected by the Second Amendment that Americans do.
Or to friends for straw purchases. "Dangerous black market". Yeah, those sellers want to chase all of their customers away.
Factually incorrect. Background checks do nothing more than necessitate prohibited individuals bringing in a friend of acquaintance who has no disqualifying record, who will procure the firearm on their behalf, and then turn it over them after the sale and paperwork has been completed.
The united states is not the nation of Australia. Nor is it any other nation on the planet that might be cited. The united states can only be compared to itself in this regard. No cited nation limited its firearm-related restrictions to background checks between private individuals and then called it good enough. Any nation cited by yourself will also demonstrate a history of severely restricting what firearms the public is legally able to own, and forcing legal owners to surrender their firearms or go to prison for refusing. The two standards are not in any way comparable to one another. These nations do not enjoy any concept even remotely related to the constitutional rights of the united states.
No sane person would be against background checks before receiving a voter registration card. But there are many insane and indoctrinated people out there who think it reduces freedom.
If background checks are deemed good enough and appropriate for the legal exercise of one constitutional right, there is not one legal or legitimate reason that the same standard should not apply equally to each and every other constitutional right as well. It is either one standard or the other.
IF I was selling (which as I said would only happen if I was under considerable financial duress) I would sell to a friend or family member who doesn't have a CCW. But most of my friends already have one anyway.
I don't live in Colorado. I'm a fan of the recreational MJ laws there, but assuming what you're saying is true, NOT a fan of the gun laws.
Murder rates, no matter the weapons used, are affected vastly more by factors endemic to the place than the mere availability of weapons. Factors such as religion, poverty, cultural practices, ethnic divisions, racial hatred, starvation, unemployment and other factors all play a part. There are cities in America with vastly more guns per capita, but lower homicide rates, than cities with fewer guns. There are other things at work. http://cureviolence.org/ Is one group with a lot of success at stopping inner city violence. They focus on violence as a behavioral and communicable disease. They work to break the cycle of gang violence, and revenge killings. They are all about human behavior, and they are right. For some reason the politicians in Chicago put a stop to CureViolence working there. They were showing results, and those results did not fit any side's partisan agenda. It was not pro or anti gun but it sure as hell showed the local politicians had been doing the wrong things for a very long time. Do some Google searches about CureViolence and the work they have done in cities. It is eye opening,
Hopefully that will be rectified in the not too distant future. I qualify for a medical MJ card, but have chosen not to get one so I won't get my carry permit yanked. So I take opioids (prescribed) instead, like that makes sense.
You could say the same for any product. Are you guilty if you sell your car to a person who later kills someone in a DUI? Its a ridiculous argument, as felons aren't supposed to be buying firearms the crime is all theirs. There is no point in actually getting into the Constitutional arguments, since clearly this topic was meant to be silly...