Are background checks necessary?
- Thread starter monotonous_iterancy
- Start date
- Status
mljdeckard
Member
My CJ courses say they are a lot higher.
at the end of the day....does it honestly make a difference if he purchased his guns legally or illegally?
as for reporting, what do we report? and who do we report it to?
are all people on certain medications to be reported?
are all people with depression to be reported?
if one doctor thinks you shouldnt have a gun should it be reported? two doctors? three doctors?
Cho was a senior....which means he most likely knew how to use google......if he didnt use guns, he could have just as easily found out how to make pipebombs and use those.....would that have been any better?
beatledog7
Member
I agree that a person who commits a crime is voluntarily surrendering his gun and voting rights, but it's also true that once released a truly determined recidivistic criminal who wants a gun will be able to find a way to obtain a gun.
Background checks are irrelevant to such a person.
The only assurance we have against the above scenario is continued incarceration.
Background checks are irrelevant to such a person.
The only assurance we have against the above scenario is continued incarceration.
inclinebench
Member
Cho was given an examination by a two-bit local "mental health agency" and deemed A-OK, despite the misgivings by his teachers and other students at Va. Tech. New River Valley Mental Health Associates missed the train in a big way on that kid.
Andrew Leigh
Member
They are also unacceptable for us but we are where we are.
JohnBT
Member
"and deemed A-OK"
It's still not against the law to be withdrawn, depressed and strange, especially if you're a college student. The law requires that a person be an "imminent danger to oneself or others."
It's real easy to be a Monday morning quarterback when you weren't there. If he was an imminent danger, why didn't they admit him for inpatient treatment?
"A doctor who saw him at the hospital found him suffering from the normal stresses of college life and recommended outpatient treatment."
The shooting was 16 months later. A danger, but hardly an imminent danger. Imminent means pending, looming, etc. Not something a year later.
Mental health workers have a thankless job.
John
It's still not against the law to be withdrawn, depressed and strange, especially if you're a college student. The law requires that a person be an "imminent danger to oneself or others."
It's real easy to be a Monday morning quarterback when you weren't there. If he was an imminent danger, why didn't they admit him for inpatient treatment?
"A doctor who saw him at the hospital found him suffering from the normal stresses of college life and recommended outpatient treatment."
The shooting was 16 months later. A danger, but hardly an imminent danger. Imminent means pending, looming, etc. Not something a year later.
Mental health workers have a thankless job.
John
jcwit
member
Really folks, I think we've all seen those who should have no firearm, whether you wish to call it a right or not.
I really believe the solution to this problem is way past most of our pay grades. And its for sure I do not have the solution.
I really believe the solution to this problem is way past most of our pay grades. And its for sure I do not have the solution.
splattergun
Member
I'm having a lot of difficulty picturing a bank robber BUYING a gun, then walking across the street to STEAL money. O Lord, save us from such emotional, fearful nonsense.
What did bank robbers do to obtain pistols before NICS? Commonly, they stole them or bought it cheap from another thief, as they still do. NCIS does little, if anything, to stop DISHONEST or UNSTABLE people from obtaining weapons, as mentioned in several other posts of this thread. It only inconveniences honest people trying to purchase legal merchandise in an honest way.
Sport45
Member
Mandating background checks for private sales would require registering every gun in existence. Otherwise, how would they know if you didn't already have whatever you have when they check.
They'd have better luck trying prohibition again.
They'd have better luck trying prohibition again.
AlexanderA
Member
This doesn't make sense logically. You could just give non-licensee sellers access to NICS, and they would simply get a "proceed" or "don't proceed" answer, without revealing the potential buyer's whole criminal history. That way, everybody's privacy rights would be protected, while screening out prohibited individuals. Also, this would not burden private sellers with FFL transfer fees.
Under what authority would government regulate the private transfer of a constitutionally protected right? This seems onerous, ineffective, and unconstitutional on it's face. It also sets a downright frightening precedent for the rest of the bill of rights.
PedalBiker
Member
So why do you give them access to automobiles and all the wonderful chemicals at Home Depot? In Denver there was a lady who was sprayed with gasoline from an insecticide sprayer and set on fire.
Do we do background checks for Raid or Decon or gasoline? Do you know that rat poison is no longer warfarin, but a nerve poison that is substantially more toxic? I need to prove my age to buy spray paint, but not rat poison.
Why are we giving such dangerous people access to these horrible chemicals?
PedalBiker
Member
I would suspect that there are some people who are unaware of their prohibited status who may be discouraged from purchasing guns by the NICS system.
On the whole I believe these same people are not really a risk to society if they did purchase.
Waiting periods may frustrate some borderline passionate crimes that might not have otherwise happened.
Overall, however, the burden to society of the NICS system is probably not worth the cost. On the other hand neither is NFL football, so as an entertainment system it's probably fairly cheap for the masses who love it.
And frankly, gun control overall is really nothing more than sick entertainment for the ones who support it. Remember, burning witches was also pretty popular even though it had no tangible benefits. Human nature is, after all, predictable.
gc70
Member
PedalBiker said:
Exactly how does that work? They do not try to buy guns because they do not know that they are prohibited?
PedalBiker
Member
Easy. They go to the gun store, find out they are prohibited and cease any further attempts to purchase since they now know they are not allowed under the law.
gc70
Member
Sorry, PedalBiker, but you can only have it one way or the other. Either not knowing prohibited status discourages attempted purchases or it does not.
JohnBT
Member
Maybe they cease any further attempts at a gun store, but that's no more than an inconvenience.
Depends on how many of us would sell a stranger a gun that we knew they were prohibited by law from owning. I know some people would, and I understand why, but I think most people would not. No solution is going to reduce the chance of bad things happening 100%, but we can do things to help reduce harm without infringing on the rights of honest citizens.
Hypnogator
Member
Agreed. Requiring background checks, readily conducted via Internet, on all firearms transfers won't stop all prohibited persons from acquiring firearms, but it will stop some of them. The Gov't doesn't need to know the particular firearm that is about to be transferred, other than, perhaps "Long Gun" or "Handgun." Moreover, such a law could indemnify the seller against liability should the firearm subsequently be misused.
Just my $0.02 worth.
This is an important thing to note, given that some of the more extreme anti's want to make defacto bans by suing us if someone else steals our stuff. Or by suing the manufacturer for making a dangerous/defective product.
larryh1108
Member
In CT, for a F2F handgun sale, you have to call a 800 to get an approval#. If the buyer has a Pistol Permit for carry, then you have to give them your (sellers) permit# and the permit# of the buyer. They verify both names and if all checks out they give you an approval# which has to be included on the state issued form that has to be filled out and signed by both parties. The seller and buyer each get a copy, a copy is mailed to the police dept of the city the buyer lives in and another copy is mailed to the state. It must be mailed in 30 days or less. If the buyer does not have a pistol permit for carry he can apply for a permit to buy and keep at his home or business but not carry.
Now, when I sold one F2F, I put the paperwork aside to mail in and forgot about it. 32 days later I got a letter from the state stating they did not receive their copy of the purchase and I had 7 days to mail it to them or they would revoke my permit. If the sale fell thru then I would have to mail it to them stating the sale did not go thru.
Registration? Sure sounds like it to me but I am not willing to forego the process and have something happen down the road. I purchased the pistol years ago when I lived in another state, as are most of my guns, but if I sell anything in CT I will fill out all required documents. Sure, I could do a F2F with no paperwork since the state doesn't know I own it by why would I? It's not worth it especially for a buyer I don't know.
Now, when I sold one F2F, I put the paperwork aside to mail in and forgot about it. 32 days later I got a letter from the state stating they did not receive their copy of the purchase and I had 7 days to mail it to them or they would revoke my permit. If the sale fell thru then I would have to mail it to them stating the sale did not go thru.
Registration? Sure sounds like it to me but I am not willing to forego the process and have something happen down the road. I purchased the pistol years ago when I lived in another state, as are most of my guns, but if I sell anything in CT I will fill out all required documents. Sure, I could do a F2F with no paperwork since the state doesn't know I own it by why would I? It's not worth it especially for a buyer I don't know.
Sport45
Member
AlexanderA said:
If the gun isn't registered somehow there is no way to tell if a background check was done when it was transferred. Using the honor system (if I'm reading you correctly) is just like any other law. Only the honorable will comply.
1911 guy
Member
Against. People who know they aren't supposed to have guns (prohibited persons) simply go off-road and get them. Steal them, buy from the trunk of a car, etc. All checks do is inconvenience the law-abiding.
If I thought background checks would actually prevent maniacs and fools from getting guns, I'd be more than willing to re-think my position. But it won't, so I won't.
If I thought background checks would actually prevent maniacs and fools from getting guns, I'd be more than willing to re-think my position. But it won't, so I won't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
