Are background checks good or bad?

[Redneck with a 40]

Hey trac, how would you feel if someone bought one of your guns at you're garage sale, then proceeded to shoot someone with it the next day? The gun would get traced back to you, which puts you in a world of hurt. Not to mention the guilty conscience I know I would have.

This is the reason I don't sell any guns out of the classified ads, I trade my guns at dealers. This way, if someone want's to buy my former gun, they are going through the background check. Just a personal policy of mine. I've also noticed lately that more and more private sellers at gun show's here are requiring the person to pass the background check, to me, this is a "save your ass" policy on their part, which I can understand.

Case in point, two weeks ago I bought a Universal M-1 Carbine from a private seller, he wanted the background check conducted, I said "no problem".

 

[IA_farmboy]

I don't like background checks because they make the assumption that one is not able to purchase a firearm until proven otherwise. It's making a person ask the government for permission to own a firearm which is in direct violation of a free society. You are assumed a felon (guilty) until proven innocent.

Background checks, like the infamous "no-fly lists", are not infallible. People can erroneously get on some list somewhere that restricts their rights and have little to no means to correct the error.

Because of background checks (and no-fly lists) my identity has more value to a criminal than it should. Criminals now have a motivation to steal my identity to travel at will, and to purchase firearms. Once they have my identity they can also steal my money from the bank without anyone realizing it until the crook has left the country.

Is it a crime to fail a background check? If not then what purpose does it serve? If the person is not able to purchase a firearm because they are a felon then shouldn't the failure of the background check be reported to the police? Also, I doubt they would have got as far as a phone call to the NICS without first lying on their 4473 which I am pretty sure is a felony.

What of a felon that has served their time and feel the need to protect themselves from the criminal element that might be out to cause them harm, or "recruit" them again, in the future? Do they not have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? So some guy or gal did something very stupid years ago. Now has a job, family, and home. That person is now unable to be armed against an intruder, mugging, or rape. I don't think that is right.

Because of background checks many innocent people are inconvenienced because some felon just might be stupid enough to buy a firearm, they shouldn't have to begin with, from a FFL holder. That we disarm felons by default from their right to bear arms we now have created prime targets for criminals.

 

[bumm]

I know the argument AGAINST background checks, and I agree with them. However, I also know the arguments FOR background checks, and I agree with those even more.
I wish life were simple.
Marty

 

[IA_farmboy]

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

If the NICS is open to people to conduct a FTF transaction then what prevents that system from being abused?

Let's say a nosy neighbor comes to introduce themselves as you are moving in. That person didn't like seeing that you brought a gun safe and/or rifle case off your moving truck. Since you were polite enough to give your name the neighbor goes back home and immediately calls the NICS to check up on you.

Another example. Suppose you try to buy a house, get a bank account, or a credit card, or a new job. What keeps them from calling the NICS to check up on you, under false pretenses, and use that information against you?

But you have nothing to worry about do you because you never did anything wrong, correct? That's fine until you, Richard E. Smith, gets confused with a known fugitive, Richard D. Smith. Of course that database is never wrong. Also, that database would never be used for purposes for which it was not intended.

 

[glockman19]

Some people should not own guns. Background checks provide this safeguard. I'm OK whit them. Law abiding, no criminal record, no serious mental health issues, no drug dependencies, multiple DUI's then you're OK to own with me.

 

[American_Pit_Bull]

Hey trac, how would you feel if someone bought one of your guns at you're garage sale, then proceeded to shoot someone with it the next day? The gun would get traced back to you, which puts you in a world of hurt. Not to mention the guilty conscience I know I would have.

It wouldn't put me anywhere close to a "world of hurt". I did nothing illegal. I may get asked a few questions about the interaction, but it would go no further. There is no liability involved.

It would be similar to selling someone a motorcycle or car and them being or causing a fatal accident the next day. It would be terrible, but it would not come back on me.

There are first-time violent felons made everyday... The NICS check cannot eliminate the misuse of firearms.

I view and treat firearms as the tools that they are... Nothing more, nothing less. If someone buys a knife from my yardsale and the next day they take their life with that very knife, I have no guilt... If I wouldn't have sold it to them, someone else would have.

 

[ctdonath]

Background checks operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" premise - an anathema to core American legal principles (or whatever is left of them). With the vast majority of gun purchases being entirely legal, coupled with the ease of getting a gun without a background check, there really is no point. Investigating the law-abiding to search for the criminal is mostly a non-sequitor.

It's kinda like looking under a lamp-post by the street at night for your lost car keys ... when you know full well you dropped them somewhere in a dark alley.

It's kinda like me, obviously aged around 40, being carded for alcohol purchases - on the theory that I might be a teenager making an illegal purchase.

Stop wasting my time!

 

[igor]

Let me make a suggestion on the case of a certain kind of a nutcase, somewhat bent on violence but not that intent or persistant - the fact that such a person couldn't get his/her gun from a gunshop could IMHO heighten the threshold of him/her obtaining the gun to the extent that he/she would leave the whole gun idea. Not much of a case, or...?

 

[rhubarb]

Background checks require that a database be kept on Americans. That's an unreasonable infringement on my rights.

 

[ctdonath]

Not much of a case, or...?

Not much of a case, as it's so rare as to get lost in statistical noise. Yes, some people may be deterred from getting a gun for violent illegal purposes and not bother with alternate weapons or sources ... but then you have to consider how rare that is, and whether that rare event is worth the less rare consequence of someone NEEDING a gun legitimately for defense, but not being able to get one in time.

There are good people dead precisely because a background check was not favorable or timely.

There is no perfect clear-cut division. There will be an unfavorable result no matter what is done. The question is: what risks are we, as society, willing to put up with?

Would you rather err in favor of bad people getting guns, or good people not getting guns? I'd rather the system allow all good people get defensive tools, as all to often bad people will get weapons anyway.

 

[igor]

ctdonath, your argumentation is convincing enough. The rare nutcase scenario won't really fly.

I live in a place where both the background checks and gun registration have been in place for a long time. There seems to be a clear difference to the US society in the nature of the criminal subculture here, and that I argue to make a difference.

The professionally criminal subculture here is to such an extent separate from the society at large, including e.g. the juvenile subculture, that your average juvenile delinquent is definitely not in a practical position to acquire an illegal firearm. Altogether it remains here that only the most professional career criminals are the ones carrying, and they are of the kind that very rarely victimize the average citizen. The violence clearly tends to stay within the subculture.

In this context I remain in favor of the background check system we have. You apply for a permit to acquire for each firearm you intend to buy, usually get processed in a few days and then you can obtain the gun with no further waiting periods or such. What I would do away with is the registration of every individual weapon. It should suffice to just evaluate the person - now the process is repeated every time I want another gun.

Something in our system definitely works in our overall setting, as the "gun violence" statistics here are very low despite the third biggest frequency of gun ownership in the world, right after the US and Yemen. Whether there is something in these practices that would work elsewhere is hard to say.

I won't go into our overall violence and suicide statistics here, though .

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Our background check system does not equate to obtaining a permit to buy a handgun, that is not required here in the U.S, with the exception of a few communist states, i.e California and Illinois. I'll be damned before I ask anyone permission to buy a gun, i.e the police, ain't gonna happen.

 

[igor]

How doesn't a mandatory background check not de facto equal to obtaining a permit?

 

[Zoogster]

Ask the very government the second amendment was created to deter if an individual is allowed to have a firearm? Doesn't that negate the entire purpose of the 2nd? To allow the citizens to resist tyranny if necessary. Wouldn't a tyrant insure anyone they felt was a threat was denied on such a check? You might as well remove the 2nd from the constitution if that is the case.

Furthermore as it pertains to criminals I think it enforces the us vs them never mix with society again mentality that encourages repeat offenders.
So someone does thier time, gets out, lives in a poor area, and cannot afford a decent area due to limited employment options. They and thier family is more likely to get victimized by others than the rest of us based on location, and cannot legal defend themselves against what the thugs in thier area will illegaly have anyways, guns.
Faced with such a situation a prior criminal has more incentive to associate with those who will illegaly provide for thier needs. That association is bound to insure future criminal conduct. So the number that would have gone straight shrinks even further. Plus if they have to commit a crime to provide for a basic need on a regular basis already, then they already at all times have prison time hanging over thier head if caught, and have less deterent from commiting additional crimes.

So the option is not really do you want criminals to have guns or not. As we are shown they will get them anyways. The real option is whether you want to insure they must remain criminals to provide for a basic need, so we can enjoy a naive sense of security, or whether you wish to allow them to legaly provide for a basic human need if they go straight, and be easily traced and linked with a firearm they purchased and have a paper trail connecting them to if they do not.

If they are too dangerous to provide for the basic needs of themselves or family, they should not be on the street. Otherwise they should be citizens equal under the law. Private employers and the private sector can still judge them according to thier past, but under the law I think they should not be released until they are equal.

 

[3 gun]

A background check has never stopped anyone but a law abiding citizen. They are pointless and a step on to the slippery slope of "reasonable" restrictions.

 

[CajunBass]

But you have nothing to worry about do you because you never did anything wrong, correct? That's fine until you, Richard E. Smith, gets confused with a known fugitive, Richard D. Smith. Of course that database is never wrong. Also, that database would never be used for purposes for which it was not intended.

Well of course the database can't be wrong. I once had my automobile insurance canceled because some thoughtful employee at the DMV decided to give me three tickets that someone else got in another state. A state I had never been in, in my life. Wasn't that thoughtful of them? :banghead:

 

[JP from Phoenix]

I think background checks are good but criminals are usually not commiting crimes with legit registered firearms. Its more of a CYA thing for shop owners. i think they should concentrate more on getting illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and not placing the blame on the average law obiding gun owner

 

[Redneck with a 40]

When your're background check comes back approved, the authorities have no discretion in denying you the gun purchase. In a "permit to purchase" system, you apply with the police dept, which has DISCRETION as to whether they approve you, or deny you. I have a very serious objection to this policy. The NICS is not the same thing, not by a long shot.

Same thing with CCW laws, no discretion, you pass the background check, you get the CCW permit, the authorites have no discretion to deny, this is how it should be, and is.

 

[Sistema1927]

Background checks don't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.

Background checks serve to intimidate law abiding citizens and constitute an infringement.

 

[Hypnogator]

Background checks require that a database be kept on Americans. That's an unreasonable infringement on my rights.

Actually, they already are -- and always have been. Criminal records are public records, and are available to anyone who asks. An Internet accessible database would only make them more readily available.

 

[igor]

Redneck, the discretion of the local authority is indeed a difference.

Where I live, the permit system is exactly like that. The background check is part of what should be a thorough consideration of the person's suitability to own a firearm and of the suitability of the firearm type in question (yes, we also have to establish an acceptable need or purpose). Once the checks are done, the local chief of police has discretion whether to grant the permit or not, it's not "shall-issue".

A normal chain of command is available for complaints and local decisions are often overridden on a higher level to the complainant's advantage. This is usually a result of initially insufficient knowledge of the firearm in question.

The national firearms "authority" is publishing a set of clarifications and rules of interpretation on our firearms law this fall to "help" the local cops in the permit work. As was to be expected, this material will come out seriously flawed towards a more restrictive direction. It'll be an interesting autumn...

 

[Kevin108]

Short of a nuclear device or a rocket launcher, I don't think we should need to have the government's permission to buy anything.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Igor, my response to the policy you laid out is....

Why should honest citizen's have to "prove" a need to protect themselves? Why should anyone have to "ask" the police for permission to buy a gun? That is absolute bull-s***. Are the criminals "asking" permission to purchase a gun? I didn't think so.

 

[wjustinen]

Any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is wrong. A well regulated militia is only one reason that government should not be allowed to interfere with this right.

But, hey, I'm just an old Canuck, eh.

 

[BHPshooter]

There is some seriously two-dimensional thinking going on in this thread. Thinking that background checks stop "bad people" from buying guns is equivocal to trying to dam a river by stringing a rope from shore to shore.

It's like saying that since you can't buy a car from a dealership, that you can't buy a car.

People who are determined to get guns will get guns. It doesn't matter if it's legal, illegal, papered, face-to-face, or theft. If they want them, they will get them.

So, since there is no way that we can keep "bad people" from getting guns, why do we make it harder for "good people" to get them? That's all that background checks and paperwork do -- they make it a hassle for the people you don't need to be hassling.

We have nothing to hide, right? What's a background check going to hurt? Besides, it's not like anything but a felony or a violent crime will return a Background Check with a denial, right?

WRONG. Most of the denials that I get (about 80%) are for reasons that would be funny -- if only they weren't. The last guy that I had denied got it because of a speeding ticket that hadn't been taken care of. Repeat: Speeding Ticket.

You guys need to decide if you believe that keeping and bearing arms is a right or a privilege. If you believe that it is a right, then you need to act like it. BS like I just described puts gun ownership squarely in the column marked "privilege at State's discretion." Think about that.

Hey trac, how would you feel if someone bought one of your guns at you're garage sale, then proceeded to shoot someone with it the next day? The gun would get traced back to you, which puts you in a world of hurt. Not to mention the guilty conscience I know I would have.

How is TRAC in any way responsible for the actions of said person? Not only is he completely morally innocent of any wrongs, but in any State with a lick of logic, he wouldn't get a second look.

Guns are inanimate. People are the only moral agents in this play. Period. "But where did Billybob get the gun?" WHO CARES? Totally freakin' irrelevant.