Universal background checks?

[benenglish]

...I'll tell you this number...

People making up SSNs are screwing up whatever database it's going in to, which may be good or bad, depending on your views. Unfortunately, they're also screwing over whoever actually has that SSN. In that video clip, someone from Maryland (where 215-series numbers originate) could have some problems.

If you're very old, you may get away with giving a false SSN with the first three digits in the low 700 range indicating you're not a participant in Social Security but rather in the Railroad Retirement system. (The railroads had a hell of a lobby back when Social Security was first established and they got their own, special, better deal.) Alternatively, you can just give a 900-series number which most people know is either totally bogus or is an immigrant ID number. Either way, those numbers are tougher to verify because they're "non-masterfile" numbers and require special procedures to look up. Many automated verification systems will choke on those numbers. Whether that's good or bad in any given case, I can't predict.

My only point is that if you want to throw a monkey wrench into a records database, at least make an attempt to not hurt an innocent third party.

 

[Lunyfringe]

My only point is that if you want to throw a monkey wrench into a records database, at least make an attempt to not hurt an innocent third party.

I figure that number is probably flagged (if someone is doing their job) since this was a major motion picture... kinda like giving Wrigley field as your home address. An example would a doctor's office... they have no authority to have your SSN (unless you're on medicare) and many lack even basic safeguards to secure it. One insisted her computer wouldn't work without it and I told her to just put all zeros. That satisfied the program, and it obviously was not doing any check.

But I suppose someone could be doing a crappy job, and someone could suffer from "the Jenny effect"... many telephone companies are too stupid to NOT assign 867-5309 to unsuspecting customers.

 

[Jigo23]

Played you hand well until that statement.

ETA: What’s your favorite Michael Jackson song.

Troll on little man...buh-bye

 

[Ole Cowboy]

How does the app know if the SSAN is valid to the person filling in the info?

Sorry, but you can buy full identities good enough to get a biometric passport pretty cheap and pretty easy.

I was replying to this:

"With that stated, I could support an anonymous app or 800 number to be used for any reason. Enter the persons name and get a red light: green light confirmation #. You don’t need to give a reason for the check and you can choose to keep the conf # or not. Want to hire a baby sitter: use the app. Want to vote for someone: use the app. Want to sell a car: use the app. Want to date my daughter: use the app. Want to sell a gun: use the app.

That’s a true Universal Background Check"

And what I was addressing was there were not enough data points to be able to execute a background check for a gun purchase. In addition you need a reason, not all is equal.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Just a simple question. Would/do you support universal background checks?

There needs to be options for "Hell no" and "F no".

This is a line in the sand issue for me and should be for all gun owners. First and foremost, as others have noted more eloquently than I could, a UBC ultimately cannot be enforced without a federal universal registry. You won't hear the anti's say so, but I strongly believe this is their true motive for pushing and lying about UBC's so hard.

Second, this is a perfect example of a solution in search of a problem. I'm not aware of a single firearm that was used in any of these recent mass shootings that was obtained through a private seller without a background check. In every single one that I am aware of the shooter either passed the NICS background check himself, used a straw purchaser to pass the NICS check, or stole the weapons from his parents. I don't know the statistics on how many day-to-day crimes (i.e. not mass shootings) are committed with firearms acquired through private sales - I think somebody earlier in the thread addressed this. I've googled it a number of times but for some reason can never really find hard numbers. I suspect the answer is "very few", particularly when you take into account that these types of criminals (which are disproportionately gang/drug cartel members) likely just steal whatever weapons they need and wouldn't submit to a private sale background check anyway. A UBC would do essentially nothing to stop this. NOTHING.

For that matter, it's arguable that the current NICS system really does anything, but that's another discussion.

Third, a federal law mandating UBC's in all states has serious constitutional problems. Not that we care much about the constitution these days, but the fed's aren't supposed to be getting involved in transactions between residents of the same state. I'm not exactly sure how the current NICS system gets away with it, though I assume it's under the guise of interstate commerce which at least has a grain of truth to it for most (but not all) gun sales. But there is no way a private transaction between two Texas residents should be the business of anybody beyond the state of Texas.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Maybe this wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion IF private sellers were more cautious and conscientious about who they sell their guns to? NONE of us should want guns falling into the wrong hands, yet many are only worried about getting the cash in hand without doing due diligence on who they are selling their guns to.
Personally, my standards for selling my guns are actually higher than that set forth by state and federal law. I run my own background checks using s/w that I pay for out of my own pocket. If I have any doubts whatsoever about the character and judgement of a potential buyer, I simply don’t sell to that person. My guns, my rules.

Do what you want but do we have any evidence that any meaningful amount of crimes are being committed with guns acquired by otherwise ineligible parties through private sales? I've looked and cannot find any, and you'd think the anti's would be shouting it from the rooftops if it were so.

Also, if you sell enough guns that you've gone so far as to support your own software system to run background checks, you might well be a de facto dealer. Just saying.

 

[benenglish]

I figure that number is probably flagged...

I agree that the one in the movie probably isn't a problem. I was addressing the more common case of people just making up SSNs at random.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I was replying to this:

"With that stated, I could support an anonymous app or 800 number to be used for any reason. Enter the persons name and get a red light: green light confirmation #. You don’t need to give a reason for the check and you can choose to keep the conf # or not. Want to hire a baby sitter: use the app. Want to vote for someone: use the app. Want to sell a car: use the app. Want to date my daughter: use the app. Want to sell a gun: use the app.

That’s a true Universal Background Check"

And what I was addressing was there were not enough data points to be able to execute a background check for a gun purchase. In addition you need a reason, not all is equal.

Sorry I misunderstood. I’m still not a fan of an app doing anything. Even if it’s biometric based. The check is only as good as the data in the system.

You have to be able to accept that good people will be denied and bad people will be approved in any background check.

And that’s the crux of it; even if the database included 100% of the population and it was 100% correct, it’s just like the stock market: past performance isn’t an indicator of future results.

 

[napalmsloth]

We already have background checks for buying from dealers. Private sales are a private matter the government has no business in.

 

[Kar98]

There are a lot of things I would in theory support or at least not be against, if I didn't know damn well it wouldn't end there and even if there were universal background checks and licenses to own and all "assault weapons" banned, they'd still moan "can we puhleeeeeese have some reeeeeeeeeaaaaaasonable gun control waaaaah" and act as if anybody could still just go and get a Tommy gun at ACE hardware. With the preliminary end result that you can't even have a potato peeler anymore, like in Englishstan.

So... still: no. not one further step.

 

[napalmsloth]

I agree. We’ve givin up too much already. We need to stand firm and start regaining things we have lost.

 

[sidebite252]

Just a simple question. Would/do you support universal background checks?

I think eventually we’re all gonna have to deal with it whether we support it or not. It’s coming simple because a large majority wants it.

 

[Charlie]

Actual "gun control" will never come to be! Regardless of laws passed. Not in our lifetimes anyway.

 

[AustinN4]

Gun control means keeping them in the center ring during rapid fire.

 

[Charlie]

I think eventually we’re all gonna have to deal with it whether we support it or not. It’s coming simple because a large majority wants it.

I like your thinking! Deal with it .............. in our own way!

 

[Charlie]

Then we'll have to have knife control! (like the UK!) And screwdriver and ice pick control will come later ....... etc., etc.

 

[Kar98]

Then we'll have to have knife control! (like the UK!) And screwdriver and ice pick control will come later ....... etc., etc.

 

[Vaquero]

There's a Gonzalez flag for a reason.

 

[Charlie]

Damn, I forgot about potato peelers!

 

[motorcarman]