The Problem of Universal Background Checks.

[joshs]

Absolutist, as in "Hell No".

Because here's what would happen-and ive got some insight being a current college student in a right to carry state. The University Admin will scour the bill text for a loophole, and they'd make a policy saying that while the university wont post a rule, each professor will have individual discretion on permitting armed students into their classes or not.They all will say no except three ex-military associate professors in the Agriculture Department , and the status quo is preserved; while the rights of law abiding citizens are infringed even more.

Lucky for us, there are people who's primary job is to make sure such "loopholes" do not exist.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Texas has failed to pass campus carry for two sessions in a very gun friendly state - no reason to suspect change and the TSRA doesn't see it happening.

For my counter-factual, the professors have no discretion so that's a red herring. I have some insight being a professor for a zillion years and engaged in the issue quite a bit.

[David Armstrong]

All of the polls on that issue that I've seen were worded in deceitful ways, and many presented data which was not current/accurate.

I would offer that it is a hard sell to argue that every poll on a subject is worded so poorly or deceitfully that the results cannot be considered, particularly when the wording does differ but the results are consistently the same (in favor of UBC) across a spectrum of surveys. Questions like "Would you vote for or against a law that would require background checks for all gun purchases" and "Should background checks be required for all gun purchases" don't seem too terribly deceitful to me.

[joshs]

I would offer that it is a hard sell to argue that every poll on a subject is worded so poorly or deceitfully that the results cannot be considered, particularly when the wording does differ but the results are consistently the same (in favor of UBC) across a spectrum of surveys. Questions like "Would you vote for or against a law that would require background checks for all gun purchases" and "Should background checks be required for all gun purchases" don't seem too terribly deceitful to me.

Those are still deceitful since that isn't what proponents of background checks have actually sought as legislation. In general, they are connected to transfers and not purchases, which creates numerous traps for unwary gun owners. Also, background checks plus lost-or-stolen reporting are being promoted together to create an effective registration scheme. When you mention the "R" word, support for such laws drop dramatically.

I'd also note that NRA reached it's greatest level of membership in history while fighting a bill that was supposedly about background checks.

[JV_]

it is a hard sell to argue that every poll on a subject is worded so poorly or deceitfully that the results cannot be considered

I didn't say that it was every single poll, I said it was all of the ones I've seen, which is a handful.

[cclaxton]

I would offer that it is a hard sell to argue that every poll on a subject is worded so poorly or deceitfully that the results cannot be considered, particularly when the wording does differ but the results are consistently the same (in favor of UBC) across a spectrum of surveys. Questions like "Would you vote for or against a law that would require background checks for all gun purchases" and "Should background checks be required for all gun purchases" don't seem too terribly deceitful to me.

So, what is wrong with the wording of this poll? Just because we want the result to be different doesn't mean the poll is wrong.
Cody
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=1877

24. Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Support 91% 88% 96% 90% 88% 94% 91% 94% 90% Oppose 8 10 4 9 12 5 8 5 5 DK/NA 1 2 - 1 1 2 1 1 5 REGION................... DENSITY............ HAVE KIDS.. NEast MWest South West Urban Suburb Rural <18InPubSch Support 92% 91% 90% 91% 92% 93% 88% 91% 89% Oppose 7 8 8 8 7 6 11 8 10 DK/NA 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS....... Gun Yes No <50K 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ HsHld Support 92% 91% 92% 90% 91% 95% 92% 88% 88% Oppose 7 8 7 10 8 5 8 9 11 DK/NA 1 1 1 - 1 - - 2 1

[joshs]

So, what is wrong with the wording of this poll? Just because we want the result to be different doesn't mean the poll is wrong.
Cody
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=1877

24. Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Support 91% 88% 96% 90% 88% 94% 91% 94% 90% Oppose 8 10 4 9 12 5 8 5 5 DK/NA 1 2 - 1 1 2 1 1 5 REGION................... DENSITY............ HAVE KIDS.. NEast MWest South West Urban Suburb Rural <18InPubSch Support 92% 91% 90% 91% 92% 93% 88% 91% 89% Oppose 7 8 8 8 7 6 11 8 10 DK/NA 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 COLLEGE DEG ANNUAL HSHOLD INC AGE IN YRS....... Gun Yes No <50K 50-100 >100K 18-34 35-54 55+ HsHld Support 92% 91% 92% 90% 91% 95% 92% 88% 88% Oppose 7 8 7 10 8 5 8 9 11 DK/NA 1 1 1 - 1 - - 2 1

For starters it says "buyers," I'm not aware of a single "universal" background check bill that has been limited to buyers.

[David Armstrong]

Those are still deceitful since that isn't what proponents of background checks have actually sought as legislation. In general, they are connected to transfers and not purchases, which creates numerous traps for unwary gun owners. Also, background checks plus lost-or-stolen reporting are being promoted together to create an effective registration scheme. When you mention the "R" word, support for such laws drop dramatically.

I'd also note that NRA reached it's greatest level of membership in history while fighting a bill that was supposedly about background checks.

And I would note that the NRA has also been quite supportive of background checks of various types at various times, and that I'm still waiting for an example of a state where UBC has led to a significant reduction in gun use. As for it being deceitful because that isn't what they really want, sort of irrelevant as the law is generally decided on what is written, not what is wanted.

[David Armstrong]

I didn't say that it was every single poll, I said it was all of the ones I've seen, which is a handful.

Which doesn't change my point. Some polls may be worded poorly, but clearly not all of them are, yet they all tend to reflect similar results.

[David Armstrong]

For starters it says "buyers," I'm not aware of a single "universal" background check bill that has been limited to buyers.

Don't see a problem. the question is asking what it is asking, and apparently it is pretty clear. What gets written in a bill is a different issue. But that goes back to the point some are making...would you oppose a bill requiring UBC for buyers? Most of the public thinks that is not a bad idea. So let's maybe try to compromise a bit, and do something like Glenn suggested. When the other side talks about closing the so-called gun show loophole let's join in and argue to close the gun show loophole...and then we have some standing to argue against the other stuff they might want to add on to the law that has nothing to do with gun shows. That way we get the high ground as opposed to the "no no no don't do anything" label.