Are background checks good or bad?

[JKimball]

Some of us take comfort in the idea that convicted felons, illegal aliens, and people who are adjudicated mentally deficient can't walk into any gun store and get a gun. Some of us think anybody should be able to get a gun and it is none of the government's business. Where do you stand?

For the sake of argument, let's assume registration isn't a factor, or in other words that the background check could be done instantly without reference to a particular firearm, and no record kept.

 

[1911 guy]

In a perfect world

Given your parameters, no records kept, I could support a background check. John Doe comes in with I.D., check is passed (not mentally unstable, not violent felon, etc.) and legalities end there. He should be able to buy whatever he wants with no further paperwork.

I'm not sure how to expresss my full thoughts on this since I don't want to do a L&P post here.

 

[SAG0282]

I support background checks. Instant ones.

 

[CajunBass]

Do you really think background checks, instant or otherwise ever stopped anyone who really wanted to, from getting a gun? I've never seen any evidence that criminals have any trouble getting one.

 

[the pistolero]

Some of us take comfort in the idea that convicted felons, illegal aliens, and people who are adjudicated mentally deficient can't walk into any gun store and get a gun.

No doubt we all could take comfort in that, but for the fact that a background check is the wrong way to ensure that those bent on mayhem won't get weapons. I tend to think that if one can't be trusted with a gun, one shouldn't be walking in a free society -- a convicted felon has either paid his debt to society or he has not, and if he hasn't -- if he's still considered to be that much of a danger to society -- then he should still be in prison. And the same goes for the Seung-Hui Chos of the world -- that is, if they're so dangerous, then just what are they doing walking in a free society? The ball was dropped somewhere along the line.
Illegal aliens -- as far as the background check is concerned here, I think it's basically a tacit admission that the .gov is unwilling to secure and protect the borders. I know the political realities of such scare the fire out of those in Washington, but that still doesn't excuse their action on that front -- or lack thereof. A background check might sound good in theory, but I think the action's symptomatic of some huge flaws in the ways the government approaches the problem of violence in our society.

 

[Rufus Pisanus]

A background check might sound good in theory, but I think the action's symptomatic of some huge flaws in the ways the government approaches the problem of violence in our society.

I largely agree but still, while we fix society, I am happy with background checks as long as BOTH sides follow the law and there is no government archiving a la Clinton.

 

[Juna]

I can see both sides of the issue.

I think that while the idea of background checks may seem comforting to most people, the criminals themselves are still getting guns without being subjected to background checks b/c they don't buy their guns in gun shops. It's similar to the "gun free zone" concept in that it sounds comforting to some people that there will be no guns (and presumably no violence committed with guns) in those areas. The problem--as we all know--is that the criminals circumvent the law, and background checks are no exception. There are ways around everything.

I can see the argument for background checks because without them criminals might be able to walk into your local shop and buy firearms to use in crime, which would then implicate the gun shop in that crime, which then hurts an honest shop and all future patrons of that shop if it's shut down by the BATFE. Other than that, I don't think background checks do a whole lot b/c, as I said before, the people they're supposed to flag don't buy their guns anywhere they'd be subjected to a background check, anyway.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I hit the wrong button. My tea isn't finished brewing yet.
I meant to hit the other button for "No I don't support them"
As the pistolero posted: It's the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Old Fuff]

Background checks are another of the anti-gun community's warm & fuzzy concepts that sound good, but are generally ineffective. Why? First of all, if the prohibited person is tripped up by a check they simply walk out of the store, and are free to go on to other methods to obtain a firearm. Second, straw buyers and/or others that obtain and provide firearms for criminals are seldom prosecuted unless a major case is involved.

The Brady's and others love to cite statistics along the lines of; "X-number thousands of felons didn't get a firearm because of our background checks." The truth of the matter is they simply didn't get one on that occasion.

Since we cannot prevent criminals from obtaining arms a better approach would be to make the punishment stiff enough, and absolutely certain, so that most would give up on the idea in the first place. Those that didn't should be locked up for a long, long time as a matter of public safety for the rest of us..

 

[akodo]

a convicted felon has either paid his debt to society or he has not, and if he hasn't -- if he's still considered to be that much of a danger to society -- then he should still be in prison.

First off, lets take a drunk driver who kills an innocent kid on the sidewalk. What prison term is going to equal the debt of killing a child?

Many of our prison terms are based on the fact that NO amount of time can repay what was done. However, destroying 2 lives utterly (by having someone in jail forever and a day) frequently is not the answer.

The time someone serves in jail is NOT how they 'pay off' a debt to society because of their crime.

Further, take a look at our penal system. The criminal actually gets locked up for a sentence of X amount of years, but due to overcrowding, he gets early release...Does this mean his debt is paid and now he can own a gun?

There are 'stages' in our penal system. You are incarcerated, you don't have some basic rights (own guns, free speech, free assembly, etc) but you do have others (due process, freedom of religion) with good behaviour, you can get sent to lesser and lesser security holdings, so the prisoner gets a few more of his rights back along the way (greater freedom but still not full freedom for free speech, free assembly)

The person is then moved to a half-way house, or goes on parole. He is out of jail, but he is still 'in the system' and is not a 'free man' He can be on parole for a long time.

Finally, even after he no longer must report to his parole officer, he is still denied a few basic rights, such as the right to vote and the right to own/posess a firearm.

This denial of firearms rights for life while allowing him to be outside of jail is just as allowable as keeping him in jail for life and denying him firearms that way.


All rights are subject to reasonable contstraint. Free speech does not allow you to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. Of course, most gun laws are more akin to gagging everyone before they walk into the theater on the off chance they might decide to yell FIRE!

I support background checks when all they are is background checks. I expect them to be instant, not a sideways way of applying a 'cool down' period. I expect the background check data to be immediately destroyed, not an underhanded method of keeping track of who has what guns.

Of course, I think if a person HAS in the past yelled 'FIRE' in a theater, they should be ball-gagged and not allowed back into theaters. Just leave the rest of us who have never done anything wrong alone

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You are naive to believe that NICS data is purged as required by law. The government, and the current attorney general in particular, isn't known for their respect of privacy rights.

 

[eliphalet]

You don't have the right question for me to answer.
NO! background checks, but not every one should own guns. Laws are already in place who can and cannot own a firearm.
Crime was less before the 1968 law, it is society that has changed, more gun laws won't help.

 

[2TransAms]

I think that while the idea of background checks may seem comforting to most people, the criminals themselves are still getting guns without being subjected to background checks b/c they don't buy their guns in gun shops.

Exactly,Juna. Well said.
I know for a fact that if I were convicted of a felony and had my guns taken away that I could have "unregistered" guns, a couple hookers and a pile of cocaine in my living room in less than an hour. So the background check for guns means that a felon can't legally buy a gun from Gander Mountain. It does not mean he can't illegally obtain a gun,period.

But without drifting too far OT,if you're not in jail or the loony bin then you should have all your rights restored anyway. Either you can be trusted to coexist in civilized society or you can't. If you're not locked up then you should be able to do what every other free man can do,with no background check.

 

[lacoochee]

f you're not in jail or the loony bin then you should have all your rights restored anyway. Either you can be trusted to coexist in civilized society or you can't.

This is where I am at as well, I would actually go further, I would say that their records should not be accessible to anyone, unless they are charged in another crime. This would do two things, it would make it less likely that they re-offend because they would have access to employment. It would also require the re-toughening of our laws. I suspect the reason that "background" checks were not necessary a hundred years ago (or even really possible), is that had you been convicted of heinous crime (rape, murder, horse thievery) you were generally dead.

 

[Mantua]

You don't have the right question for me to answer.
NO! background checks, but not every one should own guns. Laws are already in place who can and cannot own a firearm.
Crime was less before the 1968 law, it is society that has changed, more gun laws won't help.

Without a background check, how will a seller know if the buyer can or cannot own a firearm? just take his word on it?

 

[Outlaws]

First off, lets take a drunk driver who kills an innocent kid on the sidewalk. What prison term is going to equal the debt of killing a child? A hanging would fill their debt to society nicely IMO. Whats the problem here? This isn't gun related or voting related, why should those rights be turned away if our legal system lets this idiot out.

Many of our prison terms are based on the fact that NO amount of time can repay what was done. However, destroying 2 lives utterly (by having someone in jail forever and a day) frequently is not the answer. No one said it is.

The time someone serves in jail is NOT how they 'pay off' a debt to society because of their crime. If they did the time, thats that. Until we quit handing out the improper time, we can't really say they still owe society. What they owe society was decided and handed out at sentencing. The buck stops right there IMO.

Further, take a look at our penal system. The criminal actually gets locked up for a sentence of X amount of years, but due to overcrowding, he gets early release...Does this mean his debt is paid and now he can own a gun? This over crowding is due to the "Drug War". I ain't getting any further into this one right now.

There are 'stages' in our penal system. You are incarcerated, you don't have some basic rights (own guns, free speech, free assembly, etc) but you do have others (due process, freedom of religion) with good behaviour, you can get sent to lesser and lesser security holdings, so the prisoner gets a few more of his rights back along the way (greater freedom but still not full freedom for free speech, free assembly) But they are still in prison. When you are out you are supposed to be out. Probation is a little different, but once off it, you should be a full citizen again.

The person is then moved to a half-way house, or goes on parole. He is out of jail, but he is still 'in the system' and is not a 'free man' He can be on parole for a long time. And once off, all rights should be returned. Look, if they are not too much of a danger to be locked up, they can't be that bad of a criminal..... Okay, well maybe. But that goes back to our screwed up system.

Finally, even after he no longer must report to his parole officer, he is still denied a few basic rights, such as the right to vote and the right to own/posess a firearm. Because why...he might vote out the idiot who incarcerated him? And again, if he can't be trusted with a gun why is he on the street? Its not like no one has ever killed anyone with a knife or baseball bat.

This denial of firearms rights for life while allowing him to be outside of jail is just as allowable as keeping him in jail for life and denying him firearms that way. No, because like I said, if he is too dangerous to handle a weapon, then what happens when he is drunk at a bar and stomps some guys face in?


All rights are subject to reasonable contstraint. Free speech does not allow you to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. Of course, most gun laws are more akin to gagging everyone before they walk into the theater on the off chance they might decide to yell FIRE! Outside of "all rights", we agree on this one.

I support background checks when all they are is background checks. I expect them to be instant, not a sideways way of applying a 'cool down' period. I expect the background check data to be immediately destroyed, not an underhanded method of keeping track of who has what guns. I think we agree on this one in principle...at least until they fix our legal system.

Of course, I think if a person HAS in the past yelled 'FIRE' in a theater, they should be ball-gagged and not allowed back into theaters. Just leave the rest of us who have never done anything wrong alone Yelling 'Fire' in a theatre should be chargeable with reckless endangerment due to what can happen when people crap their pants. After that whole mess, they won't be yelling 'fire' again for fun.

 

[eliphalet]

Tell a lie long enough and folks will begin to believe it. That is exactly what is happening with back ground checks and other such fallacies of gun control.
It is very sad to me to see such a percentage of my fellow gun owners think/believe as they do.

 

[PTK]

Funny, I always thought that if a criminal wanted a gun they could get one. Why waste even a second of a law abiding citizen's time with a background check?

 

[the pistolero]

First off, lets take a drunk driver who kills an innocent kid on the sidewalk. What prison term is going to equal the debt of killing a child?

It would seem to me the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Besides keeping them in jail, I don't know. I remember hearing in my driver's ed class some years ago that in El Salvador, drunk drivers get put in front of a firing squad. I don't know for sure that it was true, or if they still do it assuming that it was, but every now and then I think that wouldn't be such a bad idea -- especially if said drunk driver kills someone. Maybe it sounds extreme, but the effects of alcohol on one's ability to drive are well-established. Said drunk driver may be sorry for what his actions caused, but that sorrow can't undo his action.

Further, take a look at our penal system. The criminal actually gets locked up for a sentence of X amount of years, but due to overcrowding, he gets early release...Does this mean his debt is paid and now he can own a gun?

What we should be looking at here are some of the factors that work to aggravate the problem of overcrowded prisons. For example, how much of that overcrowding is due to the War On Some Drugs? Not just the people who buy it, but the people who sell it as well? I'll be the first to tell you that I would not be going out to buy a dimebag every week or two if weed were legalized -- that's money better spent on gun stuff for me -- but I have a feeling a cease-fire on the War On Some Drugs would go a long way toward ameliorating the problem of prison overcrowding.

Edit: Dead on the money, Outlaws. Plus 6.02 to the 23rd power.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I support the instant background checks. In my opinion, this keeps people from lying on the form 4473 and obtaining a gun. With the old system, it was pretty much the honor system, and in today's society, they're aren't many people you can trust. So in this regard, I think its a good thing. If the person is attempting to buy a gun and has a felony conviction, they should be arrested on the spot, as this is a crime. I'm willing to bet that before NICS was implemented, they're may have been some criminals buying guns at dealers, which puts them in hot water with the ATF.

From my perspective, I'm perfectly willing to wait 15 minutes on my gun purchase, I know my record is clean.

I do agree that a criminal bent on getting a gun, probably won't go to a gun dealer, because attempting that with the background check is now a felony. Criminals will get guns one way or the other. Maybe I just contradicted myself.

 

[trueblue1776]

I'm torn,

Theoretically I suppose they are good.

Realistically I don't think they stop anybody.

Principally I think they are a violation of individual rights.

Anybody else see it this way?

 

[PTK]

Redneck, it doesn't keep people from lying on 4473s. Ask any gundealer. As for keeping people who shouldn't get a gun from obtaining one? Not a chance. No laws ever stop those intent on doing what they wish.

 

[ConfuseUs]

Theoretically I suppose they are good.

Realistically I don't think they stop anybody.

Principally I think they are a violation of individual rights.

Anybody else see it this way?

Yeah. They work pretty good on paper but the real world is totally different from the theoretical world.

In the real world, the gun markets don't see a decline in criminal demand due to background checks, as opposed to the theoretical world where the freezing of one area of the market necessarily translates into lack of demand from its consumers?

 

[Hypnogator]

Surprisingly, I appear to be in the majority!

Background checks are a way to keep felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent from acquiring firearms merely by lying on a form.

IMHO, the firearms check database should be available for all to check via the Internet, and it should be illegal to sell a firearm F2F to anyone without having first conducted a background check to determine they aren't ineligible. Won't stop all illegal transactions, of course, but it will make irresponsible sellers legally liable.

 

[American_Pit_Bull]

I believe that once non-violent felons have paid their debt to society that they have just as much of a right to defend the lives of their loved ones as any of us.

it should be illegal to sell a firearm F2F to anyone without having first conducted a background check to determine they aren't ineligible.

I am glad that you aren't in the legislative body in my home state. I say treat guns as tools and stop criminalizing inanimate objects.

I am glad that I can sell any of my guns like a free American... I could have a yard sale today and sell them all without permission from the government.