I don't know. Am I supposed to come up with a number from the federal budget? The feds have the resources, they just don't use them. If the supposed number of those caught by the system are so small, then it shouldn't be a huge undertaking to investigate and prosecute them.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
It's Time for the FFL Background Checks to Go Away
- Thread starter johnny45
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I don't know. Am I supposed to come up with a number from the federal budget? The feds have the resources, they just don't use them. If the supposed number of those caught by the system are so small, then it shouldn't be a huge undertaking to investigate and prosecute them.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Does anyone else here know people that have been convicted of felonies that you would be fine with owning firearms? I know at least 3 that did something years ago that was non violent but was a felony, now they have no right to protect themselves except with a bat or a knife or a chain saw, etc.......
The cost of the system would be interesting to know. It would seem that at some point the cost of the system may outweigh the benefits.
The system that runs thousands of checks only to come up with 77 instances of where prosecuters thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case (according to the data in the links above) may be approaching that point. A system that results in only 32 convictions or plea agreements (or .045% of the over 71,000 initial denials) may be more costly than beneficial; perhaps even moreso when you consider that most criminals are not going to go through the system regardless of what the law says.
Of course, it would be interesting to know how much is spent on enforcing speed limits too, what with the cost of equipment, salaries, benefits, etc. etc. etc., but that is a topic for another day.
The system that runs thousands of checks only to come up with 77 instances of where prosecuters thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case (according to the data in the links above) may be approaching that point. A system that results in only 32 convictions or plea agreements (or .045% of the over 71,000 initial denials) may be more costly than beneficial; perhaps even moreso when you consider that most criminals are not going to go through the system regardless of what the law says.
Of course, it would be interesting to know how much is spent on enforcing speed limits too, what with the cost of equipment, salaries, benefits, etc. etc. etc., but that is a topic for another day.
Yeah, the "once a criminal, always a criminal" attitude helps creat lifelong criminals in many instances and thus providing job security to the Courts, LEO and Corrections industries. Provide a path to returning to proper persons status to offenders and maybe we can eventually see the over crowded prisons problem vanish.
Ooops, what am I thinking, that would shrink the governments' payroll. Can't have that, now can we?
Once again, you can play the cost vs benefit game for everything. As for enforcing speeding statutes, the possibility of heavy fines keeps most people from hauling butt down suburban roads. The same goes for here. You can't come up with a number because you'll never know how many you've KEPT from trying to purchase handguns in those stores because they'll never try with that system in place.
There are thousands of murder investigations that occur every year that take up significant LE resources with many going unsolved also... you wanna repeal the punishment for murder?
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
I don't believe that for a minute otherwise the police wouldn't be busy trying to bust down old ladies doors and flashbanging them or they would not be busy writing speeding tickets and arresting people for possession of certain drugs.......
You are as bad a spin doctor and fear mongerer as any one in the media or in politics.
Some of them made a mistake and have learned a lesson, but many in prison will return. I work in a prison, not a guard, and I hear them talking with each other, planning how to not get caught the next time. Not planning on how to get a job and contribute to society. Some people are broken and cannot be fixed.
No, I'm a realist who pays attention to how things work in this country today.
If you honestly believe that you will convince the left to lighten what controls are currently in place without paying a hefty penalty for it later you are fooling yourself.
As I stated, I'm against background checks on principle. In a perfect world I'd be 150% for doing away with them. Unfortunately this country is a long way from being perfect.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Very difficult to get a job if you have been in prison and carry that felony name tag with you for the rest of your life. We let them out just to start kicking them down immediately.
Most businesses I know won't hire a felon.
You claim that we all want guns in the hands of criminals because we don't want to submit to a background check to exercise our rights. If that isn't a spin, I don't know what is. You claim that eliminating the check will lead to further infringement of rights. If that isn't fear mongering, I don't know what is. Realism is so often used as an excuse to roll over and/or take away rights. If the Founders were being realistic, they would have never fought for independence.
I don't believe I've yet advocated for the elimination of the background check in this thread, I've just pointed out the flaws, and I'm under no illusions that it will happen anytime soon. That doesn't change the fact that it IS flawed and it IS wrong.
If you stand against back ground checks on principle, but don't advocate for the elimination of background checks, is it fair to say you don't stand by your principle(not suggesting anything about you as a person, only speaking in regards to this topic
)? The country is not perfect, but that doesn't mean we should give up our rights in an effort to obtain perfection when in reality it's unobtainable.
Last edited:
SERparacord
Grandmaster
Those poor convicted felons. it is a shame someone else got them in trouble. 
I didn't say anyone wanted guns in the hands of criminals. I said eliminating background checks will put guns into the hands of criminals. Who's spinning now?
If you cannot accept that the existence of the background check prevents criminals from attempting to purchase weapons you should go talk to the LGS owners who have had criminals crash vehicles through the front of their stores to steal them. Not worth the hassle if all they had to do was walk in the door and buy them.
Once they can walk in and buy them they will be viewed no differently than you and I by the left. They will be just another lunatic who bought a gun and killed someone with it. I don't want them on my team. I have a position to argue from right now. I can tell a leftist moron that no one convicted of a felony can legally buy a gun. I can tell them there is a procedure in place to prevent it and that system does work. I can ***** to the feds if they system creates a problem for law abiding citizens and demand that it be improved. I cannot demand that it be abolished, thereby opening the doors for someone to walk out of prison for murder and into the LGS to buy the gun they'll kill someone with the next day.
If some folks cannot comprehend that I don't know what else can be said. It sucks but that is the reality we live in. Denying it won't change a thing.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
A lot of whom are non violent and never hurt anyone but the State. Now punished for life, yep seems fair.Those poor convicted felons. it is a shame someone else got them in trouble.
